AppMini

He needs to step out of his clinical box to become an all-timer. Inception is identical to The Dark Knight Trilogy in tone, structure and pacing. Make something with more warmth and humor.To his credit, he's in a much better position than Peter Jackson, who failed completely to capitalize on his post-LOTR hype.

I usually dislike criticisms that amount to nothing more than "this guy sucks", but... I'm sorry. This guy sucks. He and his buddies Orci and Kurtzman are sabotaging thoughtful screenwriting in blockbuster cinema.

By now, we're used to the Spielberg one-two punch of a summer blockbuster followed by a prestige film for the holidays. Sometimes it works spectacularly (Jurassic Park and Schindler's List) and sometimes it fizzles (Lost World and Amistad). Sometimes the themes of the films blend together despite the vast differences in premises, budget and audience appeal (War of the Worlds and Munich are equally harrowing ruminations on post-9/11 anxieties) Last year's double-bill was different, mainly because the crowdpleaser (Tintin) and the prestige film (War Horse) were scheduled within the same week in December. However, I personally suspect Spielberg had a much different dichotomy of passion for this particular set. He clearly had much more passion for Tintin than he ever did for Jurassic Park or War of the Worlds, and it showed in the fact he spent 30 years trying to make it. On the other hand, War Horse had one of the quickest turnovers I can think out of any Spielberg film -- he finds out about the novel/play in 2009, cast announced in 2010, finished film out in 2011 -- which makes me feel he doesn't have the same level of passion for this material that he did for the life stories of Oskar Schindler or even Frank Abagnale Jr. Don't get me wrong, it is superb from a pure filmmaking standpoint. Everyone delivers a fine performance, the cinematography is gorgeous, the war sequences are intense and harrowing despite the lack of gore, and unlike many, I had zero issues with the level of unabashed sentiment on display. The fatal flaw is Richard Curtis' screenplay which, I'm sorry to say, fails miserably at sustaining an engaging narrative structure. There are some great scenes in the beginning and ending, but I found myself zoning out too much during the middle portions where the horse traveled from one doomed owner to another. I honestly feel Spielberg just wanted a relatively simple project to thaw off some live-action filmmaking rust after working with mo-cap and a CGI-heavy Indiana Jones installment. He obviously loved the novel/play and identifies with the themes, but he doesn't explore them with the verve that defines classics such as Schindler's List or Private Ryan. I expect his next film Lincoln to be much better. B-

Madagascar 3 Plaza del Caribe Ponce, P.R. 9:35PM, 6/9/2012 Audience Report - 100% full. Lines stretched out very far. The overall atmosphere was comparable to DH2 and The Avengers. You should NEVER underestimate the international popularity of these kid-centric franchises. Trailers - Only a trailer (more like a preview scene) of Brave. No Wreck-It Ralph to my disappointment. Review These last few years, DreamWorks has silenced the skeptics with triumphs like Kung Fu Panda and it's sequel, How To Train Your Dragon and (most shockingly of all) Puss-in-Boots. Their philosophy has improved tremendously in terms of animation quality, sophisticated wit and meaningful storytelling. But would these improvements carry over to Madagascar 3 of all things? Yes, they do. Well, at least the animation and the wit. These characters were never built to tug at our hearts the way most Pixar ensembles do. But they don't need to, because they have enough style for the miles of this globetrotting adventure. The animation was one aspect that put me off from watching the first two installments. Yet here, my mind was blown away by the detail bursting from every rendered frame and by the sophistication and careful timing of each crafted setpiece. This is yet another compelling argument for CGI's ability to convey zany slapstick as authentically as Bugs Bunny and co. did in the Golden Age. The approach to humor was another thing that put me off from watching the previous films; obviously, I can't make a fair comparison between this and the other films, but I did sit through Shrek the Third and I can safely say this is a vastly superior threequel. The story isn't remarkable, but it efficiently nails it's bullet points of conflict and pathos. The humor is carried mostly by the charisma of it's animal cast (and the sensational villain played by McDormand) rather than by attention-seeking references to whatever was culturally hip during production. The most glaring example of the latter arrives via that We No Speak Americano song we'd all rather forget, but other than that, it's cool. If DreamWorks can make me enjoy a Madagascar film, who knows what they'll accomplish in the future? B+

I just hate his current partnership with Burton/Carter of making the same gothic movies over and over and over again. I liked him as Rango.

After Phantom Menace, Lucas was perfectly eager to pack in more crowd-pleasing material in his next prequel: Fetts, Christopher Lee, less Jar Jar, more Mace Windu, the origin of the Clone Wars, Yoda with a fricking lightsaber. Too bad none of that fanservice added up to an engaging or satisfying adventure. The separate elements (music, CGI, art direction, action set-pieces, most of the actors) are truly fantastic -- yet somehow, the cinematic whole made from these elements is very hollow and passionless. Maybe it's the deadening saturation of CGI, or the sloppy editing, or the fact that the biggest setpieces involve faceless clones and robots, or maybe it's the romance. I don't know. I'll always love the Star Wars universe and all the amazing things that can be done with it through various media. And I'll always respect George Lucas for conceiving and bringing that universe to ours. But this film was not a particularly good way to present that universe. It has aged much worse than TPM and ROTS. C

Shyamalan has no hope. He could've retired after The Happening and still be respected as a modern-day Ed Wood who stood loyal to his wholly-original cinematic convictions... but, well, he went and made Airbender. After Earth marketing will milk Will Smith for all he's worth.Wolfgang Peterson can easily return at any time, I don't see anything embarrassing about Poseidon. Likewise with Zemeckis and his mo-cap experiments.Someone mentioned Joel Schumacher which I think is an interesting question. I honestly believe he has one more great film in him before retirement (Trespass clearly wasn't it).I'm curious about Andrew Stanton after the box office/press fiasco that was John Carter. He can easily go back to making acclaimed Pixar films but the shadow of Carter will still loom over him. Such a shame, his heart was in the right place and the finished product was perfectly watchable.

Batman Forever (The best Batman movie before Nolan... oh yes, I went there!)Last Action HeroTerminator 3 (x100 better than Salvation)Indiana Jones 4 (you can bash Lucas' ideas all you want, but don't tell me that Harrison Ford didn't turn in a pitch-perfect performance)2012SignsThe TerminalMr. Magorium's Wonder EmporiumThe Game Plan

TRAILERS: -Madagascar 3 -Ice Age 4 -Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (Meh. Call me when the trailer for Spielberg/DDL's film hits.) -G.I. Joe: Retaliation ( :lol: :lol: ) -Brave -The Dark Knight Rises REVIEW: Films that reportedly cost $300M to produce aren't supposed to be underdogs, yet that's how Men in Black 3 feels to me. No one expected anything worthwhile from this franchise after a dud sequel, a ten-year hiatus and widespread reports of a messy production with an unfinished script... and then you factor in Sonnenfeld's uneven filmography, Tommy Lee Jones being 65 years old, and Will Smith retreating to familiar ground after making in-roads to serious acting. But sometimes it's good to take a break from ambitious pursuits. Sometimes it's good to bring seniority to the table. And sometimes -- as a little film called Jaws already proved in 1975 -- filming without a script can actually work out in the end. No, MIB3 is not as good as the film that codified the summer blockbuster, but it is more enjoyable and respectable than many franchise sequels that followed in the 37 years since. They might've filmed without a full screenplay, but not without a strong narrative throughline. This adds an unexpected emotional resonance to the storyline without weighing down the popcorn thrills and laughs. Will Smith and Jones are as good as ever, but Josh Brolin is the standout. Boris is a much stronger villain than whats-her-cup-size from the previous sequel. The action setpieces are fairly engaging and possess a crafty awareness of the surrounding environments rather than going for unsophisticated chaos. This is an excellent way for the troubled franchise to go out (at least until the inevitable reboot). B+