As a man in my 20s, there are plenty of folks in my age range who approach me regarding Twilight and ask, “…who in the world likes this crap?” It’s a definitively generational craze, and it’s astonishing to think that some experts believe New Moon could sell as many tickets as Iron Man, when 85% of the population above the age of 25 just simply doesn’t get it. However, after watching it last night, it now clicks. Please note that I have not read the books nor do I know what happens later in the series; I am judging solely the first movie on its own merit. I surmise that the Twilight series is an extended metaphor where a vampire’s lust for human blood, which is always affiliated symbolically with sex throughout the history of fiction, represents a teenager’s rush of hormones and physical desires, yet the outcome of giving in to this lust is an eternal life of damnation and become a violent machine prone to frenzy at a moment’s notice. It’s a film in which sex, metaphorically speaking, is the villain.

Let’s examine the basic plot of the love story, shall we? We follow an angsty teen girl (Kristen Stewart, reigning queen of angst) who moves to a new town and has no friends. Certainly feelings of isolation resonate with any teenager, so the new town setting merely adds to the weight of this feeling. She has a very intense lab partner named Edward (Robert Pattinson, whose stare is so intense it borders on self-parody) who is alluring to her. She begins to have feelings for him, and she believes she is starting to dream about him. In one moment, he literally saves her life, which merely intensifies her feelings that he is special and her life is more rich with him in it. There’s one problem– he’s flighty, continually backing off if she gets too close to him or if her fragrance blows in his general direction. He admits that he has a great desire to touch her, but he knows that by doing so, it will send him into an uncontrollable frenzy, which would result in either her death or a drastic life change for the worse. They talk about their passionate love for the ages, they remain in close proximity, and he even tries kissing her a couple of times… but for the most part, while physical desire exists between the two of them, they know that restraining themselves is for the best.

Before I continue, let me say that I didn’t hate the movie, not by a longshot. While the characters are rather one-note and the special effects are of the quality of a made-for-SciFi Channel film, Catherine Hardwicke establishes a familiar high school setting, and keeps all of the non-vampiric elements of the film quite naturalistic. I was at times more entertained by the regular teens Mike (Michael Welch) and Jessica (Anna Kendricks) than I was the Cullens. There’s a scene in which Mike very sweetly asks Bella to prom, and I was so put off by the awkwardness of Edward up to that point, I wondered why there was only a Team Edward and Team Jacob, no Team Mike. Taylor Lautner is a very easygoing Jacob, and he shares a natural chemistry with Stewart. When it comes to Stewart and Pattinson, their performances fluctuate to put it nicely: at the beginning, Stewart’s performance fits the bill, but as Bella begins to express more passion, her monotone delivery doesn’t properly convey the idea. Pattinson, on the other hand, is laughable when he first steps on the screen, but as the film progresses, I became more used to his stylistic portrayal, and certainly he expresses that deep longing more convincingly than Stewart does.

The deep longing is the core of the film– the fight against the lust they have in order to maintain the purity of the love they feel. Examine the scene in which Edward is in Bella’s room, and he tries to kiss her. They share a couple of slow kisses, then start getting more passionate, and he lies on top of her in the bed. It’s a highly sex-charged moment, the culmination of all of their feelings and desires leading to this snowball effect in the bedroom. However, unlike in most films, where the consummation of their love would be cheered, here Edward jumps off of Bella quickly. He acknowledges that it was difficult for him to do that. She agrees, making the parallel between the lust for blood and the lust for sex crystal clear. How many bedroom scenes between teenagers who both have expressed a desire for the other result in a montage of them talking? I imagine this is a large reason why parents don’t object to purchasing the series or its paraphernalia for their children, yet children don’t find it outright square– it refuses to hide the fact that teenagers do lust for one another, while still expressing that the “safe” decision is restraint.

The author, Stephenie Meyer, doesn’t seem to be saying that there is any problem with feeling lust– it’d be a lie to attempt to say teenagers don’t. The dialogue in the film is chock full of statements of intense longing. “I hate you for making me want you so much,” Edward tells Bella at one point in the film. He’s a hero who not only has intense lust, but deep pangs of guilt, since he knows his urges conflict with his morals. He also could have had any girl, as Jessica says at the beginning, but he’s been keeping away, waiting for the right girl. He tells her, “You don’t know how long I’ve waited for you.” The reality is that most teens do put a value on lust, and aren’t interested in passing their special experience off to the first interested party. Usually the boys are seen as the sole instigators of lust in movies such as this (and sure enough, there is a stereotypical gang of drunk, rape-happy townies at one point), but the smart thing that Meyer does is acknowledge the desires of a teenage girl– typically a taboo in Hollywood. She provides temptation without being a floozy, since she feels she’s been waiting for a guy like him as well. “I don’t have the strength to stay away from you anymore,” he tells her. “Then don’t,” she replies, in a line that normally would lead to a bedroom montage of embraces and undressing. In fact, in most films, a movie where a guy and girl know that they love each other would approve of consummation to some degree, cheering for it. Here, even teens happily in love find that it’s better to wait.

They go through the film, continuing to moon over one another and fall deeper in love, even full well knowing physical intimacy will never come into the equation. “And so the lion fell in love with the lamb,” Edward says heavyhandedly. “What a stupid lamb,” Bella responds. “What a sick, masochistic lion,” Edward counters. Some would argue against the effectiveness of a pro-chastity message in a film where the characters understand that not giving in is a sick, dangerous, and at times unsatisfying game. The teenage girls which make up the fanbase of the series certainly share Bella’s lustful feelings for Robert Pattinson, and would undoubtedly cheer if they consummated their love. The fact of the matter remains that teenage girls do have newfound physical desires, and there would be no way to effectively promote waiting to satisfy them while denying that girls have these feelings without repelling the core audience. To deny that young people feel this way at all is simply ignorant, and any type of promoted agenda in politics or art that try to use this point come across as out of touch. Strangely enough, it’s because teenagers find truth in these ridiculous melodramatic characters and the feelings and urges they’re having that makes them such big fans… and consequently, Meyer’s subtle agenda acknowledging that it’s okay to have desire as long as you don’t give in slips into the subconscious of impressionable readers and viewers everywhere.

Once again, this is based solely on one movie– I have no idea which direction the series is headed. One of my favorite moments in the film is when Edward and Jacob exchange words for the first time, hinting at the massive conflict that is bound to occur. Hardwicke sets this up effectively as being an epic rivalry for the ages, so when they inevitably butt heads, there’s going to be a real weight to the battle. However, the real battle is still the desire between Edward and Bella, and how that desire will affect their relationship. Bella still wants Edward to give in, so that she can live forever damned but at least be able to satisfy her desire. Edward refuses to do so, proper gentleman that he is. The final words of the film aren’t about Edward vs. Jacob, they’re about this conflict, as Bella narrates, “No one will surrender tonight, but I won’t give in. I know what I want.” The series could have Bella succumb in the very next chapter for all I know, but it doesn’t change that Meyer began her series by rooting her characters in firm moral dilemma. The villains give into every urge, and the hero and his family shows restraint. The effectiveness of the propaganda is certainly up for debate, but I would postulate that it’s more effective to not patronize teenagers and acknowledge that their pubescent raging hormones will feel strong desires, strong emotions… strong everything, because when you’re a teenager, life is a melodrama. No teen will turn down a request for intimate action by stating, “No thanks, Edward waited, so can we.” But if you look, the pro-chastity message is plain as day. Meyer (herself a devout Mormon) has tapped into something that teenagers relate to and appreciate, and the moral conflict of finding love while fighting lust is the heart of the matter. I mean, Doctor Cullen only uses his vampirism on another human when necessary, and when he does, he emerges with another “child.” Is this really a coincidence?

* credit goes to the good people of Pass The Popcorn for contributing to many talking points in this article *

I liked GI Joe. Okay, it’s not Citizen Kane. It’s not even The Mummy. But who says it has to be? I found it to be a fun, brainless summer action film in the tradition of many fun, brainless summer action films that came before it. Yet in a time when film critics are already seemingly becoming obsolete, their response to this summer’s blockbusters make them look all the more out of touch with what the average moviegoer. GI Joe looks to be on track for a $55-60 million opening weekend, and received a “B+” Cinemascore from audiences– and an “A-” from those under 18 who saw it. This is in stark contrast to the 39% on Rottentomatoes.com and the 32 on Metacritic.com, numbers that plummeted lower as more film critics saw it and provided snarky, above-it-all commentary about the film’s noisy, brainless demeanor. Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal went one step farther, publishing a non-review on Friday morning trashing the film. Audiences ignored him, and the other critics, per usual.

Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures, decided to not let critics see GI Joe in advance, saying, “After the chasm we experienced with `Transformers 2′ between the response of audiences and critics, we chose to forgo opening-day print and broadcast reviews as a strategy to promote `G.I. Joe.’ We want audiences to define this film.” Smart move, Rob– GI Joe received the second-biggest opening weekend for a non-sequel in August ever. Now a movie swamped with negative advance buzz and critical thrashing still has a shot at making a profit. The only losers here are the critics so willing to trash the movie, in particular Mr. Morgenstern, who dedicated a surprisingly large amount of article space for his elitist, holier-than-thou non-review. I found it to be so odious, I shall provide the article in its entirety with side commentary.

Morgenstern: “The folks at Paramount wouldn’t screen “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” for critics—they must love the movie so much they want to keep it to themselves. But why do I have to see it to review it? People debate the merits of movies they haven’t seen all the time—especially on the message boards of the Web, where vast numbers of fanboys, apprentice ­fanatics and professional grousers turn an endless supply of baseless ­assumptions into groundless ­conclusions.”

Translation: “I’m mad that I didn’t get a free ticket. I’m also mad that the Internet is where people turn to find out about movie buzz, and not to Pulitzer-Prize winning film critics in The Wall Street Journal.” How does this paragraph hasten the death of film criticism? By insulting those who write on the Internet– the wave of the future for film criticism– and by condemning a film and those who’ve seen it… WITHOUT HAVING SEEN IT HIMSELF!

Morgenstern: “At first I felt shut out, but then I realized I was missing the point of a double blessing. Paramount has spared me the pain of sitting through another military-toy epic (the recent “Transformers” sequel having been a near-death experience), and the studio has set me free to reach my own conclusions—not quite groundless but close—on the basis of the “G.I. Joe” trailer.”

Translation: “The last hit movie Paramount put out was too low for my elitist sensibilities, so I’d rather spitball COMPLETELY groundless conclusions out of anger.” How does this paragraph hasten the death of film criticism? By portraying film critics as angry, out-of-touch old farts who are more than eager to trash a film before stepping into a theater. Note to Mr. Morgenstern: don’t pretend watching a trailer helps one reach sound conclusions about a film. Often trailers don’t represent the best parts of a film, or sometimes even the correct genre.

Morgenstern: “The first thing that happens in the trailer involves the Eiffel Tower, which is hit by a missile and makes a splash by falling into the Seine. I don’t like movies that trash the Eiffel Tower, although I loved “The Lavender Hill Mob,” in which Alec Guinness’s mild-mannered bank clerk smuggles gold bars out of England by turning them into Eiffel Tower paperweights.”

Translation: “Since I’m better than you, let me reference an old film you probably don’t remember that has nothing to do with the current film at hand, but makes me look smarter.” How does this paragraph hasten the death of film criticism? By showing that critics are more than happy to stick in a mindset of “I wish things were as good as they were in the old days,” rather than being forward-minded and look for merits in current films.

Morgenstern: “The second thing involves an ­actor intoning, voice-over: “We have never faced a threat like this. A team is being assembled. They’re the best operatives in the world. When all else fails, we don’t.” Even apart from the actor pronouncing “assembled” as “assimbled,” the speech suggests a sound clip from an early rehearsal of a junior-high-school pageant. I don’t like movies with bad actors reading dumb lines.”

Translation: “Because I didn’t like the way one vowel was pronounced and Paramount didn’t show me their movie for free, I will dismiss Dennis Quaid as a bad actor, and these lines as being dumb.” How does this paragraph hasten the death of film criticism? By showing how critics can be needlessly nitpicky and spin wild conclusions out of the most trivial of details. Dennis Quaid is an Academy Award nominated actor, and he is perfect for the role of General Hawk. The dialogue may be dumb, but it fits perfectly into the genre of the film, and the film itself is fun because of lines like these.

Morgenstern: “Most of all, I don’t like vast industrial productions based on toys I never played with as a kid (although the first “Transformers” was actually good fun). When I wrote a review suggesting that the sequel would hasten the end of civilization, a reader emailed me to say, “I have more than 700 Transformer toys and you don’t know . . . ” That’s as far as I read, since what I did know is that he was right. I am no more qualified to judge the details of these toy-based monstrosities than a toy critic—there are toy critics, aren’t there?—would be qualified to review “Casablanca.” (Though a battery-powered Rick puffing real smoke might be collectible.)”

Translation: “Because I missed the boat on these crazes, I’m going to act like the kid who is ‘too cool for school’ when it comes to movies based on these toys. I also think I’m better than the young people who play with these toys and see these movies.” How does this paragraph hasten the death of film criticism? These young people who play with these toys are the people who buy the tickets and are thus the people who the studios make the films for. If you can’t approach a movie based on toys and expect nothing more than a fun, gadget-filled romp, and instead you feel a film like this can “hasten the end of civilization,” then you’re expecting too much. Even if you hate these types of films, as a critic, try to put yourself into the shoes of the target audience. Don’t simply dismiss a film and everyone who sees/enjoys it, otherwise YOU will be the one who looks like they missed the boat.

Morgenstern: “Nonetheless, I insist on my right to say that “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” will also hasten the end of civilization and may well be as dreadful as it’s said to be by countless online blatherers who, exactly like me, haven’t seen a single frame of it on a big screen. These days, not seeing is believing.”

Translation: “I don’t know how the Internet works, but it has a lot of power, and I am jealous.” The Internet buzz turned quite positive once test screenings started occurring, and online critics such as Harry Knowles and Devin Faraci, kings of the “fanboys,” deemed the film to be fun. Of course, that point is moot when one considers that Joe Morgenstern isn’t an online blatherer– he’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic. He is supposed to help an audience decipher whether a film is worth seeing. That requires two things: 1) The critic should see the film. 2) The critic should write for all readers, not simply for other Pulitzer Prize-winning critics. If critics like Joe Morgenstern continue to write for each other, without thinking about the people seeing the movie, then the precedent Paramount set here by not screening potential blockbusters will spread quickly. Yes, in the past, movies that aren’t screened often are of a lower quality– but shouldn’t one see a movie before deciding if it’s bad? And shouldn’t one not be so peeved at the prospect of having to *gasp!* pay for a movie ticket that he dedicates six paragraphs to his anger?

In the end, his review no more hastens the end of film criticism than Transformers 2 hastens the end of civilization. But film criticism is dying a much faster death than civilization, and between film critics and Transformers 2, it seems most of civilized America would be glad to side with Optimus Prime.

It isn’t news that Tarantino is becoming increasingly out of touch. The Grindhouse project he and Robert Rodriguez helmed was a disaster at the box office. Tarantino’s installment for the project, Death Proof, was an incoherent rambling mess of unlikable characters, inane dialogue, and racial stereotyping. His newest film, Inglourious Basterds, clocked in at two hours and forty minutes at Cannes Film Festivals, where it received mixed reviews (which I wrote about here). He didn’t learn from this, actually adding film to the theatrical release cut, which will be at least one minute longer than it was at Cannes. Now, he has unleashed a viral marketing ploy of questionable taste at best: a fake movie trailer for the film being screened at the climax of Inglourious Basterds. It’s the story of a noble, handsome young Nazi, who will become the hero of his country in the Nazi propaganda film, “Nation’s Pride.” It even mentions Goebbels. Are they so desperate to drum up publicity that they think that offending people with a Nazi viral ad is a good idea?

This may seem like another Tarantino assassination piece. I don’t intend it to be so– I actually thought the last trailer for Basterds was skillfully cut and made the film appear exciting. However, if the Weinstein Company believes a Nazi ad that shouts out Goebbels can help their company’s desperate financial problems (they need this film to be a hit– very very badly), they are sorely mistaken. Why did Apple even choose to go along with this… what kind of money could the Weinsteins have offered Apple? It’s not even an offensive advertisement. It’s the concept that offends me more than anything else. Movies about scalping Nazis? No problem. Pro-Nazi ad campaigns that have zero references to the Nazi-scalping film it’s trying to promote? It has very little upside, and a whoooooole lot of potential to confuse and/or make people mad. All it elicits from me is an eye roll– another misguided attempt by Tarantino to spread his own cinematic nerdiness into the national filmgoer’s subconscious. No one really cared about grindhouse horror films, no one really cared about double features, it’s questionable that people care now about a nearly-3-hour Dirty Dozen Nazi scalping epic, and certainly very few people are going to get amped for a film because of a Nazi movie trailer they saw online.

If that trailer makes you want to see Inglourious Basterds even more, feel free to leave comments below disagreeing with me. All it inspires in me is the sorrow and the pity.

Let’s say Michael Bay has already made the first Transformers. It was the colossal hit that it was, and a sequel was greenlit immediately. Instead of beginning to storyboard action sequences without any regard for the parts in between, let’s hypothesize Michael Bay pulled some creative writers into a room to bat some ideas around. Here are five ways in which an alien robot movie could have been made inventive, thoughtful, and simply better.

1. Don’t treat the existence of an alien robot race so flippantly. If we’re already at the point as a cynical society where all military men accept the fact that their co-soldiers are robots the size of buildings without the blink of an eye, then why even make a movie about something so ordinary? The mere existence of this race of aliens is astounding, much less fighting alongside them. Don’t you think they would ask far, far more questions to these aliens?

2. Explore the positive effects the Transformers are having on our society from behind the scenes. One of the most interesting lines in the sequel is when the government man enters and chews out Optimus Prime for only sharing their positive technologies with the government and not their weapons. Several months have passed since the first Transformers, yes? What type of technological advances has the human race made since the first film with the help of these robot aliens? The fight scenes are important in a movie like this, but so are the scenes where we discover how those who aren’t in the middle of the war might be impacted by the arrival of these aliens, even those who are completely unaware of their existence.

3. Don’t ignore the Youtube factor. Remember the movie Cloverfield? When that first trailer hit the Internet, everyone would pause the trailer, go through it frame-by-frame, and insist they see the leg, claw, or face of a monster in the most imperceptible places? Now take a look at those Youtube videos in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, where the conspirators have footage from Shanghai. First of all, there is no chance that there is only one fuzzy video when an entire city is nearly demolished in robot combat, certainly not in today’s society. Furthermore, if an entire country loses their minds over trying to find a monster in a movie trailer, there would be a nearly unquenchable thirst for the truth from the government about these alien robots from a large number of the public. How would the government deal with this? Simply saying “It’s not true” when there have been countless Transformers missions since the first film, and thus countless opportunities for anyone to whip out their cell phone and document irrefutable evidence of their existence.

4. Give the robots character development. This is really the jewel in the crown of how Michael Bay dropped the ball. One of the biggest problems with the film is that most of the robots are indistinguishable from one another, and the few Transformers who do have a unique visual style are fairly one-note. It seems that the writers forget that these are not robots– these are aliens. They have personalities, friendships, desires, fears, and histories, which we know very little about. Even pushing personalities aside for a moment, how about weaponry? In most action films, when there is a posse of fighters, each have their own unique weapon specialty, training, and capacity. Aside from Optimus Prime’s sword, which we’ve only seen but we know very little about, the robots seem to all have a variety of guns, swords, and fist-fighting training. Some of this was lightly touched upon—there is a doctor transformer, for example. But how does he know how to fix the Transformers more than the others? Is there a Transformers medical school? Did these Transformers have families back on Cybertron? Were there ever any female or child Transformers, or was it always simply a race of all men created by a cube? Why spend all the time showing the human characters when you have a brand-new race with personalities and histories that could be explored? Aliens are capable of being 3-dimensional characters as well.

5. Make humanity smarter. If there is a special type of gun that can take out a Decepticon that the government is in possession of, why in the world didn’t they put that type of gun surrounding Megatron? If humanity knows from the first film that the Decepticons are expert hackers, why would a government worker explain in detail where Megatron and the Allspark chunk are located? If new small Transformers were created by the sliver of the Allspark, why wouldn’t Shia have called the government and asked them to hide it, or better yet, why didn’t the government find out why Bumblebee blasted the Witwicky house to smithereens? If entire cities have been devastated by these alien robots, an entire Middle Eastern village from the last film had them fighting in plain sight, a college campus is run through by several of them, and they climb on top of the pyramids in the middle of the day, how in the world is the government still covering up their existence? Do the filmmakers think no one owns cameras in the Middle East? Did they think there are no tourists with big cameras visiting the pyramid? This film is a classic case of where humanity acts as simpleminded as possible in order to propel the plot forward without any complications. Sometimes, a less complicated plot that is more fully explored through the inherent complications within can make for a smarter, more engaging movie without sacrificing any of the action.

Some will respond to this article thinking, “Why over-think a film like this? It’s just Transformers, we just want to see alien robots fighting one another.” Others still will think about smart films packed with special effects and action sequences, like last year’s Iron Man, Hellboy 2, and The Dark Knight. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen still was diverting entertainment in its own way—but last year pushed Hollywood towards a smarter, more developed action extravaganza, and here’s hoping this film is merely a roadbump in society’s path towards higher expectations. Better yet, here’s hoping Michael Bay decides to make the inevitable Transformers 3 action-packed and intelligent—after all, smart action flicks make box office bank too.

Read this article and others like it here.

The source material? Fellini’s “8 1/2,” one of the most creative and interesting films ever made. The music? Maury Yeston, writing the best material he ever would in his distinguished life. The director? Rob Marshall, who took an unfilmable musical in “Chicago” and turned it into one of the best movie musicals ever made. The cast? SIX Oscar winners. Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, and Sophia Loren (throw Kate Hudson in as an Oscar nominee while you’re at it). The final product? What looks destined to be an Academy Award worthy film. If the trailer is any indication, it won’t disappoint.

I would embed the trailer, but you need to see it in full Quicktime glory. Click here to watch it, then come back and leave your thoughts in the comments section.

Until a good comedy comes out into theaters, the biggest laughs I’ve gotten recently came from the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where Wanda Sykes absolutely KILLED. She ripped into Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin like they were fellow presenters at a Friar’s Club Roast, and Barack Obama was the roastee himself, where she mocked his basketball skills and his frequent shirtless photos taken by the media. Her warm-up comic was no slouch either– the President himself. Unlike other presidents who’ve done one-liners at the Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama came off as very self-deprecating and mocked fellow politicians without seeming elitist.

See the entire thing via Youtube by clicking below.

According to an article in The Collider, Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds will clock in at two hours and forty minutes, making it the longest film at the upcoming Cannes Film Festival. If it truly was going to be a “Dirty Dozen type epic,” the way Tarantino has been claiming, then the length wouldn’t bother me. But we know that’s not how this is going to turn out. If we have learned anything from Tarantino’s last three outings, his ego seems to be preventing him from being able to edit his films, preferring to bask in his love for long stretches of dialogue and pastiche than to keep the audience’s interest piqued. From everything that’s been said about Inglourious Basterds, it appears to be one part self-referential passive filmmaking and one part ultra-gory on-screen violence and scalpings. Does that sound like the perfect way to spend one hundred and sixty minutes to you?

We know that Tarantino loves to shock. From the ear removal in Reservoir Dogs to the needle scene in Pulp Fiction to the eyeball-gouging in Kill Bill to the excruciating boredom in Death Proof, Tarantino films can be full of unpleasant violence. It’s never stunning or surprising violence, however. He builds up to the violence, slowly letting you realize what is about to happen, and then making sure you see the gruesomeness on the screen (Uma Thurman lies at foot level, you see the foot slowly enter the door, you see Uma with the knife, and instead of showing the man’s reaction, you get to watch Uma slice the man’s Achilles tendon in two. Thanks Quentin!). Certainly there’s a market for very violent films, but usually they last no longer than ninety minutes. After all, there’s only so much on-screen brutality most people can take, right? Not in Quentin’s mind. According to fellow gore fetishist and co-star of Inglourious Basterds, Eli Roth, describes with relish the type of violence we’ll see in this film to Larry Carroll of MTV.com:

“”There are a lot of scalpings,” Roth grinned wickedly. “He’s not going to skimp on the scalping, let me tell you. Quentin based what the Basterds do on what the Apache Indians did. They would do what’s known now as the Apache Resistance, where they would capture people and horribly mutilate them, scalp them, torture them, cut them up and leave one person alive. Then, [the survivor] would go back to the cavalry and describe what happened — and the psychological warfare got so strong that if the cavalry came across a bunch of Apache Indians, they would just take their guns and shoot themselves in the heads and shoot each other in the heads because of the horror of what had been described to them. … This is what the Jews are doing to the Nazis. We get these Nazis and we scalp them, and we beat them to death with a baseball bat.”"

Okay, so the maker of Hostel is happy that this time the victims deserve it and the torturers are the heroes. That goes without saying. It also goes without saying that many folks would be excited by that description. Even as someone who prefers that on-screen torture have a point and not simply be used to be “cool,” I can say that Tarantino has filmed some incredibly cool violence. In Kill Bill Volume 1, the fight against the Crazy 88 is beautifully choreographed and masterfully shot, and the indoor slugfest in Volume 2 between Uma Thurman and Daryl Hannah is visceral and intense. So, it’s a war epic with a lot of atypical warriors engaging in cool fight scenes with violent results for the better part of one hundred and sixty minutes. Right?

Wrong. We know Tarantino better by now. He needs to try to stamp his “trademark Tarantino dialogue” all over this film. In Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, he struck a pretty happy medium between indulgence and character building. Kill Bill Volume 1 had about 10 minutes or so of superfluous “Tarantino dialogue.” Volume 2 had about 20 minutes of it. Death Proof had about 120 minutes of it– a campy homage to B-grade horror films, and it has one violent death scene and one 5-minute car chase. The rest was “trademark Tarantino dialogue.” As a result, it was one of the worst films of the past decade (no exaggeration)– boring, pretentious, self-referential, casually racist, and interminable. Phil Hoad at The Guardian had this to say about Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds script:

“Inglourious Basterds… contains plenty of rambling writing and fawning cine-geek homage. But for something that’s supposed to be a love letter to bristling, second world war men-on-a-mission capers, it’s weirdly passive – and a terrible star vehicle for Brad Pitt, who hardly sees any action. It gets caught up in a long plotline involving a film screening, almost as if Tarantino is turning in on his own obsessions. It feels self-referential, throughout, picking at the performance urge. There are allusions to French New Wave… Near the end, Pitt’s character comments: “I’m a slave to appearances.” It’s been a long time since Tarantino has written anything so candid.”

So a film that is one-half torture porn, one-half self-referential pastiche and rambling dialogue, and 100% Tarantino. Despite the eclectic cast, the interesting trailer (although Brad Pitt seems to be having a little too much fun with his hillbilly accent and stilted dialogue), and the draw that a new Tarantino flick has on a film buff who has enjoyed his past work– I maintain that Jackie Brown is his best work, and one of my favorite films of the 1990s– the run time of two hours and forty minutes should be enough to make even an honest Tarantino fan raise an eyebrow. Other filmmakers given big budgets to make sweeping epic films recently have stumbled in terms of editing: see David Fincher’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and (sorry, everyone) Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. I hope that someday soon, big-name directors realize that just because their budget is large and their vision is epic, it doesn’t necessitate that a film must run over two and a half hours. While we in the audience want as much bang for our buck as possible, if we’re checking our watches, you have failed to properly engage us. More film is not necessarily more quality. I hope that Tarantino knows this and keeps us on the edge of our seats non-stop the entire run time. But I wouldn’t bet my scalp on it.

Wondering what you’re gonna wanna see this summer? I’ve got some recommendations. Twenty of them, to be precise. I’ve ranked them, included links to trailers, and provided the dates for you to mark on your film calendars. Despite what other critics may think, a good summer blockbuster can be even more satisfying than your typical winter Oscar bait. Action flicks? Got ‘em. Comedies? Got ‘em. Cute CGI animals? …they may have only made the Honorable Mentions list, but yeah, I have those too. Here are my twenty picks to keep you smiling this summer, ranked one to twenty.

1. Star Trek (May

I can’t underline enough how huge this film is going to be. From the conceptualization to the ad campaign, it’s brilliant. The hardcore Trek fan base is excited because of the talent involved, the respect to the original series, and the awesome-looking trailer. The people who think Trek is nerdy ALSO want to see it, because of the new blood, the interesting angle on the old material, and the awesome-looking trailer. The advance reviews have been outstanding. I wouldn’t be surprised if this became the biggest hit of the summer.

2. Terminator: Salvation (May 21)

All credit due to director McG, who was roundly mocked when he was chosen to helm the sequel no one wanted to see, Terminator 4. He put together a terrific cast and has put together a trailer that has everyone excited. Christian Bale, who caught some flak for his profanity-laced outburst earlier, is still a legitimate hybrid of respected actor and action star with enormous drawing power.

3. Up (May 29)

It’s Pixar. Their last two films have been two of their best. They seem mostly unconcerned with making commercial films. This is one about an old man who makes his house fly away with balloons. The 3D in the trailer looked terrific too—if there’s ONE group of people I trust with 3D technology, it’s Pixar.

4. Bruno (July 10)

No one satirizes America’s ignorance more scathingly than Sacha Baron Cohen. The red-band trailer for this one, filmed in the same faux-documentary style as the hilarious Borat, seems tailor-made to fan flames. Even if the film doesn’t work as well as Borat did, I would still place money that no film will provide more laughs per minute than Bruno.

5. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (July 15)

J.K. Rowling’s fifth and sixth books were lesser entries in the Harry Potter oeuvre. David Yates did such a fantastic job directing the film adaptation of the fifth book (the most successful of the Harry Potter films), he has been handed the reins for the duration of the series. This means that every new Harry Potter flick is a must-see. This is one of the very few series of films that get increasingly more interesting with each new entry.

6. Moon (June 12)

This is probably rated too high on this list, and there are many more mainstream films to follow. However, the trailer is far too intriguing, the buzz far too loud, and the concept far too fascinating. The potential for this film to be better than merely a good summer flick is too great to risk underrating it on this list. I urge anyone not familiar with this trailer to check it out.

7. Public Enemies (July 1)

Michael Mann. A John Dillinger biopic. Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. What more do you need to know? (The trailer is great too.)

8. Funny People (July 31)

Apatow is two-for-two in delivering heartfelt, raunchy films. Adam Sandler CAN act (see: Punch Drunk Love), and Seth Rogen is coming off of his best acting to date. Another great cast, another balance of drama and R-rated comedy… this could make three-for-three. With the ambitious, potential tear-jerking concept he’s tackling, Apatow’s new one could either be his Terms of Endearment… or it could be his most boring to date.

9. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (June 24)

Okay, so the script for the first one wasn’t so super. However, no one makes stuff blow up better than Michael Bay. Watching the trailer for this film in an IMAX theater is like traveling to action geek paradise. No matter what the reviews say, no matter how much corny dialogue is spouted, I can guarantee the special effects will have you holding your head in awe.

10. The Hangover (June 5)

Todd Phillips has been responsible for two big summer hits before (Road Trip, Old School). Here, he has taken three outstanding supporting comedian types and created what looks to be a typical slice of Phillipsian irreverence. Bradley Cooper you know as the villain in Wedding Crashers. Ed Helms you know as Andy Bernard from The Office. Zach Galifianakis you may not know yet, but if the advance buzz on this flick is right, you’ll know him by summer’s end—he apparently steals the show.

11. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (May 1)

This would have been higher, but the lukewarm response to the unfortunately leaked workprint has knocked it down a few notches. Still, most of the responses from those who have seen an official screening of the finished film have been positive. I still love the cast, and while comic nerds (such as myself) may complain about changed details from their favorite characters’ stories, I will forgive it as long as the story, thrills, and special effects work.

12. (500) Days of Summer (July 17)

Rarely do I get excited about romantic comedies that come out during the summer. This one seems more like an indie flick than your usual tripe. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are charming actors with tons of indie cred, and the trailer suggests a strong unconventional script, making this a romcom that even (gasp!) hard-hearted movie critics could get pumped for.

13. Land of the Lost (June 5)

It’s hard to make a film adaptation of a silly old TV show—Will Ferrell knows that firsthand after the awful Bewitched film. However, Brad Silberling has shown he can balance top-notch special effects with absurd comedy with the Lemony Snicket film, and the comedic talents of Ferrell, Danny McBride, and Jorma Taccone seem like just the type of people who could face sci-fi peril and make us laugh at the same time.

14. Year One (June 19)

I’ve been told by a few people this looks like an SNL sketch put on film. I told them I didn’t care. The trailer makes me laugh out loud the whole time—a rare feat. Jack Black and Michael Cera seem like such an odd couple that it could work perfectly. Packed with cameos, and directed by the great Harold Ramis, this should be the perfect brainless comedy for a hot summer day.

15. Whatever Works (June 19)

I know nothing about the plot to this film. I don’t really intend to read too many reviews of it (though the few notices I’ve glanced over have been positive). All I know is one of the great comedic minds of all time, Woody Allen, has written and directed a film starring one of the greatest TV comedy minds of all time, Larry David. I’m one of the few people who still gets jazzed for every new Allen film, and this one is no exception.

16. GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra (August 7)

The Mummy, starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz, struck the perfect blend of madcap action and tongue-in-cheek one-liners. Stephen Sommers, the man responsible for The Mummy, is now the captain of the ship for GI Joe. He’s assembled a terrific bunch of actors, and the Super Bowl TV commercial for it showed a certain amount of silly action to have me crossing my fingers that Sommers has delivered another guilty pleasure action flick.

17. Julie & Julia (August 7)

Meryl Streep and Amy Adams are two actresses that at this point in their career can do no wrong. In fact, their mere presence in this film means it will almost certainly be talked about come awards season. Both are gifted comediennes, and this should be a quality outing.

18. Taking Woodstock (August 14)

An Ang Lee biopic starring Comedy Central’s Demetri Martin? I certainly had my doubts, but the trailer looks great, and Martin has that fresh-faced innocence that should fit this film perfectly.

19. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (July 1)

So I shouldn’t be excited about this after the second, but the trailers for these films get me every time. Don’t worry about the timeline (all these mammals before dinosaurs exist?), and go have a good time watching that lovable Sprat in his never-ending quest to capture that damned acorn.

20. Drag Me To Hell (May 29)

I don’t go to many horror movies in theaters—they’re too loud, and they frequently don’t create actual scares, they merely startle you with the loudest noise possible. However, Sam Raimi is responsible for some of the funniest, goriest, and most imaginative horror films in recent years with the Evil Dead trilogy. The trailer looks pretty twisted. This may be worth a peek.

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

Angels and Demons (May 15)

The DaVinci Code was a horrible film, suspenseless and drab. They’re back again, this time with a more action-oriented plot and a better haircut for Tom Hanks. Could this be, at bare minimum, an improvement?

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (May 22)

The first one is harmless fun. This one looks like similar plotless broad comedy. It will almost certainly be a huge hit.

The Taking of Pelham 123 (June 12)

I’ve never been a big fan of these Tony Scott films, with his shaky washed-out visual style and his frenetic ultra-serious tone. Still, you can never ignore Denzel, and Travolta does have fun playing psycho killers.

G-Force (July 24)

I included this for my girlfriend, who has a soft spot for cute animals in films. This film will make anyone who enjoys cute animals OD on cuteness.

The Goods: The Don Ready Story (August 14)

Directed by the co-creator of Chappelle’s Show, and starring the always-funny Jeremy Piven, this film has a good premise and great potential to be a sleeper comedy hit.

Inglourious Basterds (August 21)

I have friends who will KILL me for not putting this on my list. Four years ago, I would have. Regardless, Tarantino’s last film was so aggressively awful (Death Proof… ugh), and the trailer looks so campy, I have trouble raising my expectations at all. Brad Pitt is delivering those lines as if he should be doing air quotation marks.

World’s Greatest Dad (August 21)

I haven’t enjoyed a Robin Williams comedy in a while. A long while. However, there’s a lot of positive buzz about this pitch-black comedy directed by Bobcat Goldthwait (!!!), and the premise—when his son commits suicide, Williams writes a fake suicide note which becomes a national sensation—seems promising.

“The movie’s most disturbing aspect, of which the filmmakers could not have been unaware, is the physical resemblance between Mr. Elba and Ms. Larter to O. J. and Nicole Brown Simpson. It lends “Obsessed” a distasteful taint of exploitation.”- Stephen Holden, NY Times, 04/25/09

Actually, I was totally unaware that Idris Elba looked anything at all like OJ Simpson.

How in the world did this make it into a newspaper of the caliber of the NY Times Arts Section? Even if Holden truly believes that Elba looks like Simpson, which is ignorant at best and “they all look alike” racism at worst, I am appalled that the editor didn’t do something like, say, look at pictures of Elba and Simpson side by side before running that closing statement. What point is Holden trying to make? Does Elba wear an OJ jersey in the film? Does he drive a white Bronco? Does he have a friend named Kato? Where could he possibly have made the connection between Elba and Simpson, except that both have been on TV with blonde white women? I’d be surprised if they don’t get a multitude of emails and letters about this.

I’m looking forward to Holden’s review of the upcoming remake of The Taking of Pelham 123, where he notes Denzel Washington’s uncanny resemblance to Barack Obama.

As the slow period before the big summer movies draws to a close, and most TV shows begin entering their final few episodes, it seems an appropriate time for me to share my thoughts on this season of TV. I don’t watch an enormous variety of TV shows– between movies and theater, it’s hard to find the time– but that having been said, here are my thoughts.

Best New TV Show: Eastbound and Down

Remember how I said I hated Observe and Report? These are the same people responsible, giving me 3-dimensional characters, an anti-hero you still reluctantly root for, and a supporting cast of hilarious actors who all get the tone. With all-star directors like David Gordon Green and Adam McKay lending a hand, Jody Hill, Ben Best, and Danny McBride have given HBO a mini-classic– a six-episode season of blissfully uncomfortable comedy, resulting in a pitch-perfect conclusion. HBO has announced an eight-episode second season that will wrap everything up. I can’t wait– this is the best new comedy on TV since the first season of Fight of the Conchords June 2007.

Best Character on TV: (tie) John Locke and Ben Linus, Lost

For three seasons running, they win the award. Lost is probably my favorite show on TV, and whenever I get caught up in some of the nonsensical things that go on in that show, Locke and Ben bring me back. Terry O’Quinn and Michael Emerson have simply been in the zone– they just GET IT. Every turn of phrase, every decision as an actor that they’ve made for the past three years have never failed to be spot on. I could probably say that Locke has been the best character on TV for five years running. All of the stuff with Jack, Kate, Sawyer, and everyone else are simply the human elements that carry the plot forward. Locke and Ben get into the spiritual and mysterious sides of the island, the sides that you can tell the writers have loved most since Day 1. Out of the Top 25 Lost moments of all time (sounds like a good idea for a future article), I can guarantee at least 15 belong to Ben or Locke or both.

Best Addition to a TV Show: (tie) Charles Miner and Holly Flax, The Office

Last season of the Office hit a major speedbump. At times it was like a silly soap opera– Michael and Jan issues, Dwight, Angela and Andy love triangle, and Jim and Pam dating. The minor characters got very little shine, and the comedic potential of these relationships were rarely exploited to the fullest (“The Dinner Party” was one of two shining moments in the season), instead giving way to making the characters broader and less sympathetic.

However, the season finale introduced a brilliant comic device, Holly Flax, the replacement HR rep who was beautiful and (bizarrely enough) uncannily like Michael. Portrayed by Academy Award nominee Amy Ryan, she never played the character for laughs, which is how the series is when it works best– more grounded, toeing the line between believable and outrageous. She injected serious life into the show at season’s beginning. Now, nearing season’s end, Idris Elba’s character Charles Miner has shaken the cast dynamic to its core. No longer is Michael forgiven for his terrible boss tactics– he’s out the door. No longer is Jim excused for his lazy behavior and pranks– he’s now on Miner’s bad side and having to work hard to save his job. No longer is Andy simply pathetic– he’s now back to sucking up to his superiors and feuding/bonding with Dwight, the two things Andy is best at. Finally, a character who would run a REAL WORLD business has come to Dunder Mifflin, and the entire company doesn’t know how to respond. Another terrific turn by The Office team, a turn that has saved the show from its downward spiral.

Best Subtraction from a TV Show: Stella, How I Met Your Mother

How I Met Your Mother has been constantly trying over the past two seasons to live up to the magic created at the beginning. Due to its hard work putting on celebs and creating big character changes, it’s been able to rise up in the ratings enough that it hopefully doesn’t require any more gimmicks to survive on CBS. And thank the Lord, they got rid of the worst gimmick of all, Stella. Stella’s introduction into Ted’s life was fantastic, but after that, the show draaaaaagged. Another lame conflict with Stella, and, even worse, they clipped Barney’s wings and made him fall in love with Robin. Although they quickly realized that Barney needed to stay as bawdy and despicable as ever, the Stella plotline sunk downward and took the show with it. Finally, Stella went back to her daughter’s father, and the show has since been working its way back into the realm of the funny.

Best Reality TV Show: American Idol

Yep. It’s still Idol. At this point, it’s like comfort food. You know how the judges will react, you know they’re emotionally manipulating you into liking certain people, but you don’t care because it’s so much fun. Woe betide the show if Simon Cowell actually leaves after next season like he’s hinted.

Best Reality TV Moment: The After The Final Rose special for ABC’s The Bachelor

Who would’ve thought the nicest guy in Bachelor history, Jason Mesnick, with his adorable son Ty and genial persona, would propose to Melissa at 9:55 PM on my TV screen, and at 10:05 PM tell host Chris Harrison that months have passed and he can’t stop thinking about runner-up Molly… so he will be dumping Melissa and asking out Molly in the next hour? You always think The Bachelor is dead, but it keeps finding ways to top itself. Well done, Bachelor. Well done.

Best Underrated TV Show: The Big Bang Theory

It’s a very simple premise: some nerds live in an apartment across from a hot girl. But what distinctive and unique characters this show has, and how smart and funny the writing is. It’s never going to be an emotionally deep show, but it will always be the equivalent of cotton candy– light, free of substance, but a very satisfying quick eat.

TV Show that Fell Off The Hardest: Heroes

Season 1 of Heroes was engaging, pulpy, suspenseful and terrific. Season 2 was boring and suspenseless, but introduces some interesting characters, giving me hope for Season 3. Too bad that despite the introduction of some cool villains, it took forever to get going, was filled with even more logic problems than before, and was never able to suck me in. I gave up halfway through the season, and have never really regretted it. That’s the sign that a show that has truly fallen off– you don’t even wish it was back to being good, you’re just glad it’s gone.

Season Finale to Look Forward To the Most? Lost

Although I’m very curious to see how Michael inevitably regains his job at Dunder Mifflin, the number of things I’m curious about on Lost far outweigh that. I could list the things I want the answers to here in this post, but I don’t have the time. That’s the beauty of Lost– it gives you enough to satisfy you on a weekly basis, but never fails to leave you wanting more. Parts of Season 3 left me wanting… but this season has kicked along at a rapid pace, heading towards what is sure to be an explosive finale.