Writer David Goyer confirms 'Man of Steel' to have Batman's 'realistic' feel

"What Christopher Nolan and I have done with Superman is trying to bring the same naturalistic approach that we adopted for the Batman trilogy. We always had a naturalistic approach, we want out stories to be rooted in reality, like they could happen in the same world we live in."

Back to Work!

R.D.J recovers, and returns to the sets of IronMan 3!

New Body Armor For Tony Starks?

 

This Day in Theaters: Oct. 4, 1996

That Thing You Do! (1996)

Apparently this movie came and went when it was released in 1996 barely out grossing its $26 million budget. In fact I had not even heard about this movie til I saw it on TV sometime around 2006 and I thought it was an HBO made for TV movie. But I found myself somewhat into the rise of the Wonders from a local rock band in Erie, PA to the hottest act in the country. The film takes place in the 60s when the music industry was dominated by singles and the music industry was morphing into what we know it as today. You come a long for the ride as this group of kids as learn how awesome it is to have a hit single, but at the same time, how hard it is keep on top of the charts, keep relationships, keep the band together, and keep their sanity. All this while under the tutelage of a record exec played by Tom Hanks who may or may not have the bands best intentions as his top priority. 

Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly:

"That Thing You Do! is neitheroverly sentimental nor overly cynical. It looks at the inventionof our pop-rock mythology, and the bands that fed it until theywere consumed by it, just as you'd expect Tom Hanks to: with open eyes (and a raised eyebrow)."

Also positive was  Richard Harrington of the Washington Post:

"Though Hanks doesn't serve up much context, he's solid with details, and the Wonders' performances ring truer than most. (The actors, none of whom actually plays, reportedly rehearsed a full month before shooting to look authentic). The outfits, the settings and the music all reflect the times, and Hanks is to be commended for not surrounding the faux-hit at the heart of the film with genuine baby boomer classics."

They actually released the movie's title song as a retro single

With almost universal praise it was tough to find a negative review from a respected film critic. I think many of these glowing reviews were caught up in the nostalgia of the film seeing as all of them grew up during the time frame the movie takes place in. While I did enjoy the movie it always felt like it was lacking something. The story was interesting and fresh and the characters were all enjoyable but the it seemed to drag on for a lot loner than its two hour run time (I would suggest skipping the extended cut since it really drags on). You get a decent grasp of what it was like in the music business back then as well as some good laughs a long the way but for some reason this one didn't do it for me. I'd say about 50% of everybody I talk movies with haven't seen this one and it probably has to do with the fact that it is a good movie just for the sheer fact that it isn't a bad one; if that makes sense. So would I recommend it? Yeah, why the hell not? But don't bother searching this one out unless you're a huge fan of OK-ness.

IMDb Score: 6.7

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 92%

This Day in Theaters: Oct. 3, 2003

Out of Time (2003)

Out of Time is a 2003 crime thriller that went under the radar and that is surely a shame. It tells the story of a small town south Florida police chief, played by Denzel Washington, who gets caught up in a murder and fraud investigation involving his current girlfriend after an explosion at her house. His soon to be ex-wife, played by Eva Mendes, happens to be a homicide detective in Miami who is assigned to the case; she wants to believe he didn't do it and seems to think so but the evidence points otherwise. For the next 90 minutes Denzel must stay one step ahead of the investigators while independently trying to find the truth about what really happened at his girlfriends house that night. Its a great ride that is filled with some action, suspense, and some really good twist and turns that really keeps you engaged. I came across this movie for the first time on TV a few years ago and I couldn't change the channel. But how did others feel?

Mick LaSalle of the San Fransisco  Chronicle seems to agree:

"'Out of Time' is a shrewd thriller that takes the time-honored plot about an innocent man wrongfully accused and gives it a film-noir twist. Here, our hero is not exactly innocent. He's a little bit dirty, guilty not of murder but of another crime anyone might have committed under the same circumstances. He's also not accused of anything right away. He just sees where the damaging evidence is pointing and knows that he has only hours to solve the crime and clear himself." 

USA Today's Claudia Puig doesn't:

"Out of Time is out of interesting new ideas. It's the old story of an innocent man looking guilty of crimes merely because he got mixed up with the wrong gal."

Who let that guy ruin the beautiful people's shot

Aha! The old this has been done before so this movie isn't very good. There are only so many ideas rolling around Hollywood so practically every movie is either a rehash of old ideas or an amalgamation of multiple ones. What I love about "Out of Time" is that it knows this sort of story has been done before but it goes for broke in making sure it gives us an awesome ride. There is not much I can say about this movie but that it is a fun 100 minutes that delivers on expectations fully. Sure there are some scenes that seem a bit clunky and some of the minor players aren't up to Denzel's level when it comes to their thespian skills but it is nowhere near enough to ruin the film. If you like action and crime thrillers check this one out. If you like fast paced films that can keep you guessing check this one out. If you are a fan of having fun watching a flick rent this one today!

IMDb Score: 6.5

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 65%

This Day in Theaters: Oct. 2, 1992

The Mighty Ducks (1992)

The Mighty Ducks, now known simply as the Ducks, are an NHL team that formed in 1993 and 14 years later reached the promise land of lifting the Stanley Cup. This film tells of their humbling beginning in 1992 as a suburban Minneapolis rag tag pond hockey team that is down on their luck. They don't have much money and no one seems to have faith in them; they don't even have a coach. Then through the assistance of a DUI and a judge Charlie Sheen's brother takes charge of the team with the goal of turning them around and keeping his job at a successful law firm. Will they get themselves together and win while learning some lessons about themselves along the way?

Desson Howe of the Washingtop Post:

"There's such a paucity of movies for preteen audiences, Walt Disney's "The Mighty Ducks" will attract the young and under-entertained by sheer default -- not to mention TV advertising. 

Those not yet wise to formulaic pablum are likely to enjoy this ice hockey kiddie ensemble comedy. But their older escorts might want to bring a novel and a flashlight, or a Walkman or portable television with earphones. They'll need something to get through this alive."

Roger Ebert gets right to the point:
"'The Mighty Ducks' is the kind of movie that might have been written by a computer program. It tells a story that has been told time and time and time again, about the misfit coach who is handed a team of kids who are losers, and turns them into winners while redeeming himself. Even the usual supporting characters are here: The opposing coach who persecuted the hero when he was a kid; the kid who has a divorced mother that the hero falls in love with; the tough rebel kid who only needs to channel his anger."

Just 15 years later these guy will be NHL Champions!

Not much more I can say that these two haven't already touched on. The movie is very paint by numbers without nearly any deviance outside the lines. Each kid on the teams seems to ripped right out of another children's sport movie; accept the Mighty Ducks have two fat kids and two black kids instead of the usual allotment of one each. The only real redeeming things I found in this movie were the hockey scenes. As someone who grew up in the South and didn't see too much hockey in person, let alone pee-wee hockey, it was pretty cool watching the kids skate around even though you knew the outcome of each game as soon as it started. My friends and I would even take out our baseball bats and a ball and run around an play hockey in the driveway after we would watch the VHS. But other than that, there really was no satisfaction watching this one. They ended up making two more sequels to this film, "D:2" and "D:3", which follow the team to an international competition and then on to prep school with some new additions along the way. I happen to find those much more enjoyable but this is where it all began. If you haven't seen this one you aren't missing much so only put it on if you have kids; then promptly leave the room until the sequels come in the mail.

IMDb Score: 6.1

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 12%

This Day in Theaters: Oct. 1, 1993

Cool Runnings (1993)

 

Quick! What was the 15th highest grossing movie of 1993? That's right it was Cool Runnings at just over $154 million. If you're thinking wow you're not alone, I had the same reaction. But then I really though about it and it seems more plausible; in fact it is surprising it didn't make more. The movie is about a group of three Jamaican sprinters who fail to qualify for the summer Olympics and upon meeting a former bobsledding champion (John Candy), who inexplicably lives in Jamaica, convince him to be their coach in order to achieve there dream of representing their country in 1988 no matter which Olympics it is. To round out the foursome we get a real life Jamaican stereotype and with their new coach they embark on a long improbably journey. Along the way they hit some of the normal snags in underdog stories such as needing money to train, parental disapproval, a bullying rival, and some past daemons but we get some decent laughs in as well as some insight into the world of bobsledding. Top it all of this was based on a true story, though with some dramatic license taken. 

Richard Harrington of the Washington Post:

"The drama of events -- the struggle, the persistence, the payoff -- are served up as lighthearted comedy. There's surprisingly little emphasis on the visceral sport of bobsledding, though you do get enough front-of-sled camera POV to appreciate the courage (or madness) needed to compete here. But the focus is clearly on the human element, on the unbeatable spirit that seems to culminate in Olympic competition. To their credit, the filmmakers didn't defy history and turn the Jamaican bobsled team into medal winners. In truth, it was the world's heart they won."

James Berardinelli  of Reel Views thought of the film differently:

"A bobsledding team from Jamaica? Well, as the old cliche puts it, truth is stranger than fiction. Except that Cool Runnings tries to fictionalize the truth, forcing the story into the familiar "overachieving underdog" mold. A film that could have presented a fresh look at an unusual sport proves instead to be entirely mediocre and forgettable. 

...

It's hard to knock a movie as inoffensive as Cool Runnings -- a family film that should be approached with appropriate expectations. This lackluster production is well-suited for the television viewer with a short attention span who likes to make occasional trips to the kitchen for a bite to eat. Perhaps that's the best way to watch Cool Runnings -- sprawled out on the couch instead of sitting in a theater. After all, in a season when pictures like this flare up then fade quickly, it shouldn't be a long wait for the video."

In Jamaica bobsled drives you!

I see where the Reel Views review is coming from: watching this movie as an adult is probably best done while doing something else. It isn't going to keep you enthralled and while it contains a few laughs it won't satisfy your day as much as a sports comedy like "Major League". But the reason I am surprised this film didn't make more is that is a great movie for kids and decent enough for parents to enjoy as well. I remember seeing this movie with my Aunt in the theaters growing up and I loved it; all my friends loved it too. I even saw it more than once in theaters and I am sure if my Aunt wasn't entertained she wouldn't have recommended my parents take me; and since my friends did as well I figured it would've grossed a bit more cash. Don't get me wrong, it isn't as entertaining for the parents as a Pixar film, but it does its job. Would I recommend it to any of my peers today? Lets just put it this way: if you haven't seen it don't bother going out of the way but if it comes on TV check it out for a bit and see if it satisfies. But if you have, say a seven year old, I am quite confident they will enjoy themselves and you won't have to worry about being bored out of your mind.

IMDb score: 6.7

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 74%