PIXAR knows what's "UP"

Fifteen minutes into Monsters vs. Aliens, the latest from DreamWorks, I remembered why I have no love for the animated flicks created by this studio. Neat visuals and nifty 3D, maybe, but when it gets right down the essentials of a great movie - the story - DreamWorks animated films just don't have it.

In Monsters vs. Aliens, soon-to-be married Susan (Reese Witherspoon) gets hit by a meteorite on her wedding day, grows fifty feet and gets carted off to a secret military unit that covers up monster conspiraces. There, she meets three other monsters (voiced by Hugh Laurie, Will Arnett and Seth Rogen) and is recruited by her military handler (Keifer Sutherland) to save the world when Dwight Schrute evil alien Galaxar (Rainn Wilson) invades. Insert standard jokes here.

What Monsters vs. Aliens doesn't do is put story first. Sure, Susan and the monsters go through a short "growing" phase where they realize they're capable/special/perfect just the way they are. The movie might be get away with that thread of a character arc if it were charmingly funny. Sadly, that's not the case either. In an hour and forty I may have chuckled once or twice, but that's less in thanks to the dialogue itself and more thanks to the voice actors behind the animation. You see, it's more interesting when you remember it's Brit Hugh Laurie throwing out a surprised OMG, blob-like Seth Rogen hitting on a mound of Jell-O or Stephen Colbert acting like a wickedly self-centered American President (damn you, South Carolina; you spoiled our chance!). In the end, though, a top-notch celebrity cast can only carry the film so far. In the end, you'll leave having watched an empty, uninspired film.

On the other hand, let's consider the two-minute trailer for PIXAR's UP the played before Monsters vs. Aliens. Narry a high-profile celebrity voice in sight (Ed Asner voices our main character), and the UP trailer has more going for it in two minutes than Monster vs. Aliens did the entire film. Charming visuals of a man's house lifting thanks to thousands of colorful balloons; a quirky relationship between an old man and cute kid; a mimicking jungle bird and a special dog collar that promises clever dialogue and delivery had me smiling in anticipation.

Like many of Pixar's films, it won't have to be in 3D to be special, whereas Monsters vs. Aliens was most certainly flat without the special effects. Even though Pixar is jumping on the 3D wagon that seems so popular of animated films nowadays (UP will release in both 2D and 3D), it doesn't matter -- you'll get the great story either way. Pixar's also rereleasing Toy Story and Toy Story 2 in 3D for a limited release in October to buzz up the release of Toy Story 3 in 2010. Rather than roll my eyes at an attempt at obvious marketing and money-grubbing, more than ten years later after Toy Story's original release and I'm SQUEE-ing at the thought. Monsters vs. Aliens won't be on anyone's radar in ten years.

But will DreamWorks even feel the need to shake up its animated studio? With MvA's $58 million box office weekend, is their celebrity-high, story-low formula in need of "fixing"?

Sad to say, probably not. Which means I'll know to skip the next DreamWorks animation and save my money for the next Pixar. Look for UP to open the Cannes Film Festival in May--the first animated film ever to do so--then open in wide release a week later May 29.

And check out the trailer below.

SYFY: The way of the future

As most of us know, the Sci Fi Channel is planning to rebrand, launching as SyFy on July 7. And the Internet backlash has not been pretty -- most commentators picking on the perceived silliness (Siffy? See-fee?) of the new name, and more viewers annoyed that the channel that has already forgone some of its traditional programming to air wrestling is trying too hard to appeal to the mainstream. After all, mainstream hasn't really embraced science fiction, so why change?

But here's why the rebrand could mark a positive change for ALL television. See my previous post below, but it's not looking good for other networks to support the serialized drama. Shows like Dollhouse, LOST and Fringe are mainstream versions of science fiction and fantasy plots. LOST is already rerunning on the channel and other shows with the right mash-up for sci-fi and mainstream could find a home on this revamped network. Even ABC's critically-acclaimed, fan-adored and still cancelled Pushing Daisies would have had the right balance of paranormal or mainstream to have seen a home with this new SyFy. It's clear these kinds of shows aren't doing well on the big networks, and if they can't survive on ABC and FOX, what chance do they have elsewhere?

SyFy can fill this niche. Even though it's a network with smaller viewership, its plan to introduce new programming is already more sophisticated than the method used by other networks. Rather putting out pilots and hoping they stick, the still-titled Sci Fi network is rolling out three miniseries that, should they see nice ratings, develop into longer-running series. This is the formula that worked for Battlestar Galactica, which saw its four-year run end last week. Viewers are scared to get attached to serialized pilots these days (NBC's Kings, anyone?) knowing that if they're the only ones watching every week, they won't be watching at all--and most likely left in the dark when the story is abruptly canned.

So these three mini-series, then, Sci Fi/SyFy has in the works are the network's attempt to create original, unique series without running the risk of leaving viewers in the dark. The three miniseries -- one based on Alice and Wonderland, another on the comic book hero The Phantom and the third, Riverworld, on the set of Philip Jose Farmer novels -- will be complete, full-arc fantasy stories that shouldn't leave people frustrated if the plan to go full series doesn't happen.

Maybe traditional sci-fi/fantasy television they're not, but no matter how badly Sci-Fi geeks want to hold on, the medium is becoming more mainstream. (Nerds are in, didn't you hear?)

Wrestling aside, at least Sci Fi can recognize the transformation. A little mainstream sci-fi is better than none at all, right?

Bad Robot and Paramount: Death of the Serialized Drama?

On March 16, Variety.com reported JJ Abrams (LOST, Cloverfield) and his company Bad Robot have a deal with Paramount to direct film based on a Wired magazine feature about diamond theives. Yesterday, Entertainment Weekly and Variety reported Abrams' deal with the studio now extends through 2013, since joining in 2006.

What will this mean for fans of the serialized television drama? With Star Trek set to launch just around the corner on May 8, Abrams is on the verge of becoming a hugley bankable film director if Trek follows through on its buzz. (Based on this trailer, it will.)

But with budget cuts and show cancellations at every network, is the serialized drama in danger without one its more successful creators? Although Abrams isn't the first or the last guy to develop serialized shows, his move to focus on film, should that be the case, might create a gap in the industry. With Battlestar Galactica over, Whedon's Dollhouse low in the ratings and LOST ending next season, will networks take risks on less proven creators with epic visions?

WILD THINGS: Watch the Trailer

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE:



Is it just me, or does the Wild Thing kind of sound like Batman?

LOST: "He's Our You"

*SPOILER WARNING*

Last night's episode of LOST, "He's Our You," gave us a look at the details of Sayid's life pre- and post-island, and how he came on Ajira flight 316 to return. Before we get to that holy-shit of a cliffhanger, let's consider a few more implications of exactly what went down in last night's episode.

When Jin found Sayid handcuffed and roaming the jungle in 1977's Dharma-infiltrated island, Sawyer took the upperhand in a relationship that had, since season one, been a little tense. (Remember Sayid torturing an innocent Saywer with a nasty bamboo-shoots-up-the-fingernails-trick to get Shannon's inhalers back?) This time, we saw Sawyer overseeing Sayid's comeuppance at the hands of Dharma-torturer, Oldham. As Sawyer put it, "He's our you." Sayid's been tortured and tortured others plenty of times; but this would be the first time Sawyer had a hand in overseeing it for someone else, and he wasn't too happy about it. Where he might have entertained the idea of revenge against Sayid in season one, that's the last thing on Sawyer's mind now.

But what do Sayid's confessions mean for the future of the Dharma initiative? After Sayid's creepy revelation, "You're all going to die, you know" and even creepier drug-induced laugh, Sayid let slip details about the Dharma hatches, including to yet-to-be-built Swan, and hinted at the Purge. Oh yeah, he also blurted out he was from the future, too. Oops.

Again, though, what does this mean for the Dharma future? One can't help but also draw parallels from Sayid's current position to Ben's position in season two. Captured, thought to be an Hostile and keeping way more devious secrets than any one man should know about the island. Perhaps the "He's Not You" line doesn't refer to Sayid's parallels to the Dharma torturer, but to Ben. Sayid is to the Dharma initiative to what Ben is to the original castaways; he's our you.

So let's get to that ending, shall we? Locked up in the communications station, Sayid meets a young Ben Linus and after seeing him abused at his father's hands ("I had a harsh father, too," says Sayid) discovers his purpose. After young Ben helps Sayid escape, they run into the jungle together in search of Richard. Sayid has promised to take Ben back with him to be with the Others/Hostiles. Instead of keeping Ben on his path, though, Sayid makes a big decision and shoots young Ben point-blank in the chest with Jin's gun. End.

Never mind the balls LOST has to shoot a kid on-screen ... Did Sayid just change the future? Is Ben even dead, and if so, was this supposed to happen? Will the island's magic rise and heal him, and has he been a phantom-y ghost, a la Christian Shepherd, for as long as we've known him? Or did Sayid just give a big middle finger to the time-space continuum and make such a monumental glitch we might have seen Jacob spawned? (With the Losties back on the island, with potential for lots of timeline screw-ups, I maintain that Jacob may be the result, Big-Bang style, of someone's island missteps.)

Moreso ... does Ben remember Sayid shooting him as a child? He looked pretty shocked to see Sayid on the plane with his bounty hunter captor (a Widmore hire, most likely). Could he have guessed Ajira 316 would have been the castaways' portal to 1977? Was he trying to get there, too?

Back to drawing board, folks, because we might have just changed the game. Now that Sayid's decided his purpose, what's left for the rest of the Losties, stuck in limbo on the island? And, finally, what did you think of Ben's funky hat?

Moe, Larry, Curly hit the film scene

Nyuck-nyuck-nyuck. Variety.com reported yesterday that MGM Studios is zeroing in on a cast for the Farelly brothers' on-screen adaptation of The Three Stooges. With Sean Penn set to play Larry and Jim Carrey to gain 30+ pounds to play Curly, if all goes according to the brothers' plan, Benecio del Toro will sign on to play Moe. When the news first broke about the film, it was originally planned to open against the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes adaptation.
Although I guess it's not too much of a surprise that, with all the other adaptations and remakes abound in the last few years, the studios would tap the Stooges for more comedy material. And although I was originally disappointed to hear the news of an adaptation of the Stooges shorts, I can't help but be impressed by the casting (Penn is a chameleon, del Toro certainly looks the part, and Carrey is a talented physcial comedian), the Farelly brothers' script gives this movie an edge above another screenwriters' treatment of the comic greats.

So, what say you? Are you excited about the film, or would the Howard brothers and Larry Fine been better off with a biopic instead of a comedic adaptation? Why, soitently!

Something funny: I Love You, Man; Observe and Report

Something funny is happening in Hollywood. Judd Apatow-style comedies are all the rage. Fresh off the success of summer fare like Superbad, Knocked Up and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, this spring sees the opening of two such films, although neither happen to be Apatow-helmed. Opening this weekend was I Love You, Man from Paramount, starring Paul Rudd and Jason Segel. Seth Rogen’s newest flick, Observe and Report, opens April 10.

Although both comedies find similarities in their Apatow predecessors, only one truly embraces the funny-yet-sweet lightheartedness of earlier movies. I Love You, Man is about dorky but lovable Peter Klaven (Rudd) who is about to get married. As demonstrated by his consideration to make a batch of root beer floats with chocolate straws for his fiancé (Rashida Jones) and her friends, Peter has always been a girlfriend guy and doesn’t have any male friends. After overhearing the women worry about the freakishness of this particular behavior, he starts going on “man dates” to find a best man.

This is where the film hits its stride, by exploring male friendship—or the favorite new term, “bromance.” While not overly clever, easy laughs stem from Peter’s extreme awkwardness during these so-called dates and his desperation for new friend Sydney (Segel) to like him. Whereas a lot of jokes are lined up to parallel Peter’s man dates to heterosexual female-male dating, or to question the intimacy two men can safely share – no joke seems to come at the expense of homosexuality. Instead, the movie’s relationships only seem to highlight the realism of any relationship having “intimate” qualities, whether they be male-female or male-male. A true bromance, if you will.

Observe and Report, on the other hand, relies less on legitimate social constructions for humor and goes straight for the gay, fat and drug humor. Ronnie Barnhardt (Rogen) is a delusional mall cop who believes his life’s struggle for recognition comes in the form of a flasher who has been targeting women in the mall parking lot. The opening sequence is, while not graphic or necessarily vulgar, pulls enough laughs for the audience to think this film could balance the sweetness and gratuity—the likes of Superbad. But then enters Rogen, who plays Ronnie not as a down-on-his-dreams security guard desperately in love with the cosmetics counter bitch, Brandi (Anna Faris) but as a stalker with a streak of crazy. And here is where Observe and Report fails—with no real redeeming quality in Ronnie.

Instead of pulling in jokes based on his rivalry with a real detective (Ray Liotta) or his desperation to be worth something, the movie falls into a stream of over-the-top, cringeworthy violence, heavy drug use and approximately three minutes of male-frontal nudity. Nothing terribly wrong with that (discounting that male nudity, maybe) if you find these things funny. But Observe and Report relies purely on shock value to get the laughs, not with any wit or charm.

Observe and Report will divide the comedy camp, I’m sure, whereas I Love You, Man is truthful enough to get laughs from everyone. Whereas Observe and Report won’t do much to extend Rogen’s career, I'm pleased to announce we are entering the time of Paul Rudd.