The year sci-fi struck back

The sci-fi genre, like any, has seen quite a few ups and downs. From the early, cheesy B-movies of the 40s and 50s, to the rise of the space opera in Star Wars, to the fusion with horror in the Alien quadrilogy starting in 1979. Now, 30 years later, at the end of the first decade of the 2000s, the film release gods aligned the stars for a spectacular slate of sci-fi films spread across 2009. There were also the Star Wars prequels and two Terminator sequels, which raked in the millions but weren't so satisfying to series fans on many levels. What the sci-fi genre needed was something different, something innovative, something willing to push the conventions of what sci-fi could accomplish as a genre. And thanks to four very different films, that's exactly what happened.

First was JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot, blasting off into theaters in mid-May, and taking in just over $250 million domestically. Add to that the hugely positive response from critics and audiences alike, Abrams reboot became more than just 2009's Iron Man 0f sorts. Boasting snappy editing, and young, fresh-faced cast (with best-in-show honors going to Zachary Quinto as Spock), slick special effects, and quite a few genuinely emotional moments amid the flashing lasers, the film stands as a great achievement not only because it breathed new life into a franchise long on life support, but was also totally accessible to those who have never seen an episode of "Star Trek" before. The humor wasn't always executed sharply, and the final act wasn't as thrilling due to a ho-hum villain, but overall this hip, modern, reboot of the classic franchise deserved every penny and rave it got. Even after seeing it three times, it's still a blast.

Bottom Line: The movie that showed us that not only is sci-fi cool again, but that in the right hands, any franchise can bounce back.

Then we have the midsummer psychological thriller Moon, starring Sam Rockwell. What makes this one different from all of the others? It's *gasp* totally an art house movie. Sci-fi has for decades now been associated the big, the flashy, and the expensive. So for Moon to rank as one of the year's best films, and star the most criminally overlooked performance of the year from Mr. Rockwell, is something special, even if it didn't light up the box office. Duncan Jones' debut feature is an elegant psychological thriller, starring Rockwell and, really, ONLY Rockwell (in dual roles, no less) as an astronaut on contract to oversee a mining station on the moon. In his two roles, Rockwell shines, never leaving the audience begging for something more. It's truly a one man show and Rockwell takes command of it, and the results are excellent. The film itself has a few problems, mostly from hinting at trying to take on something grander, but never actually going there. On the whole, however, Moon stands as a stellar achievement, bolstered by impressive debut direction and Clint Mansell's haunting score.

Bottom Line: The film that showed us that sci-fi could not only work in "art house" territory, but also be driven by performances instead of spectacle.

August isn't exactly the high point of the summer movie season, but along with Inglorious Basterds, August brought us a genuine sci-fi wonder: Neill Blompkamp's District 9. The best part of the film was its premise: aliens have landed on earth not as bringers of peace or destruction, but as lost refugees. Add to the fact that the mothership was stranded over Johannesburg, and not a traditional city like New York, and the parallel's to apartheid, and what you get is a non-stop thrill ride, centered around a surprising performance from unknown Sharlto Copely. Even more impressive is the seamless way in which the effects blend in with the environments, and this is in a film shot for only $30 million. The use of faux documentary and security tape footage throughout helps up the intrigue, and despite the villains being too easily swayed to doing nasty things, the overall result is a charge of energy packed with gritty thrills and a heart-wrenching story.

Bottom Line: The movie that showed us that there are still unique sci-fi ideas out there.

Last is Avatar, which I've already talked about in my review, and still need to see a second time to settle my thoughts on the screenplay and acting (the same is true for Nine). The true star, as I've said, are the special effects, and they are indeed special. The best part of Avatar is simply getting to experience the creatures and vistas all generated from nothing, and how real they feel. The myriad creatures that inhabit Cameron's world are impressive and there were even times when I wished the film had simply been nothing more than a full faux documentary about Pandora. Where Cameron's world comes alive is when the least is said; the epic battle, the soaring flight sequences are all evidence of this. Like a sci-fi equivalent of Moulin Rouge!, sometimes it's not the story you tell, but simply how you tell it, that can make it great.

Bottom Line: The movie that showed us what special effects were capable of, and that motion capture can actually look realistic.

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" and "Star Trek" - REVIEW(s)

So, I actually did manage to see both of my other "must-sees" from the first half of May, and despite forewarning about one of them, neither ended up being a disappointment, although one is certainly miles ahead of the other:

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - This whole "origins" story arc has become something of a staple in superhero franchises, spurred by the critical and commercial successes of "Spiderman" (2002) and "Batman Begins" (2005). Now, after three massively successful films, the X-Men series returns to the roots of one of its iconic characters: John Logan AKA Wolverine. Of course, some series will do it better than others, and while "Wolverine" is definitely on the lesser end of the spectrum of origin stories, it's surprisingly far from the train-wreck that people have been labeling it as; it is in no way the next "Catwoman". Really, the film only suffers from a handful of problems, but unfortunately, they're problems that cover the entire story, or even beyond. The first is the pacing. At just and hour and 45 minutes, and with so much ground to cover, "Wolverine" hits the ground sprinting, and never really takes time to slow down. While there is a pretty cool time-montage showing Logan (Hugh Jackman) and Victor (Liev Schreiber) fighting through the American Revolution, the Civil War, both World Wars, and Vietnam, the first stage of the prologue, which actually has dialogue and "emotional trauma" is played at the same speed. This results in a setup that has young Logan say a few words to his dad before going to sleep, hearing a ruckus, finding his "father" dead, and sprouting his claws for the first time...all in barely 2 or 3 minutes. After an incident in Vietnam where Victor decapitates a commanding officer, the brothers are put before a firing squad which does little except "tickle" them. They are then introduced to Maj. William Stryker (Danny Huston, taking over the Brian Cox role from the original trilogy), who says he's "putting together a special team of people with special powers". That team consists of Logan, Victor, electricity-controlling Bolt (Dominic Monaghan from "Lost" and "Lord of the Rings"), fast talking swordsman Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds), teleporter John Wraith (wil. i. am), Agent Zero (Daniel Henney), and Fred Dukes, AKA the blob (Kevin Durand). The mercenaries bust up a Nigerian...diamond mining ring? in order to secure a not so subtle I'm-sure-that-will-come-back-later plot point. After witnessing a massacre of innocent civilians, Wolverine quits, moves to Canada with his girlfriend Kayla (Lynn Collins) and works as a lumberjack...until Stryker shows up again. Things obviously take a turn for the worse when Kayla winds up dead, and Wolverine realizes that someone (I wonder who!?) is killing off the old members of the team (umm...Watchmen rip-off, anyone?). All of this happens in what feels like 30 minutes. That's a lot of stuff, considering the amount of time the supporting players receive. And here we come to problem number 2: character juggling. Yes, this is Wolverine's story, but honestly, why bother to throw in some of these cool characters if they're never going to be heard from again, or at least only shown in a limited capacity. Wade Wilson basically gets one blade-tastic action scene and then...GONE. Bolt uses his electro powers three times...GONE. Kayla shares a handful of really quick moments with Logan, and then she's GONE, which makes her death not as impactful as it should be (you'll probably just think "well that sucks", and move on). Even fan-favorite Gambit (Taylor Kitsch), who appears much later, only gets about two real scenes in the movie, one of which is completely pointless (why did he have to disrupt Wolverine and Victor/Sabretooth's New Orleans street fight???). On the other end of the spectrum is Stryker, who, instead of appearing too frequently, appears too often and too conveniently (at times it feels like that one Seinfeld episode where George seemed to pop up wherever Jerry was). So after all of this ranting, what could problem number 3 be? This is the trickiest one, and would have still been present even if the script hadn't felt so hopped-up on speed: William Stryker. No, not the character himself, but rather, the script's choice to focus on this part of Wolverine's early life. Since even most casual views (me included) know that Stryker shows up in a later part of the X-Men saga, it renders his part as an antagonist slightly limp: he can't die, and neither can Wolverine (well...duh) or Sabretooth. So while the dozens of fight scenes are actually well executed, there's never any true suspense; they are exciting enough, but not to the point where they inspire a sense of triumph or dismay in their outcomes. That said, the movie isn't a total waste. Fight scenes, though generally quite short, are usually well executed despite their lack of surprises in terms of victors, and the special effects, some of which seemed slightly wonky in the trailers, are actually solid throughout the film. Acting-wise, there are no bad performances; everyone clearly trying hard, even when they have so little to work with. Kitsch's Gambit hints at enough personality that make him deserving of a return where he might have a better showcase for his character, Reynolds nails the fast-talking Wade in his barely-10-lines of dialogue, and Schreiber has enough wicked charisma as Sabretooth to (mostly) cover-up some of his embarrassingly cliched lines ("look what the cat dragged in"...seriously?); they suggest that in better hands, these pseudo-cameos could have become a memorable supporting ensemble. Director Gavin Hood, more known for character driven films, does a solid job with establishing a darker tone, even when his efforts are undercut by the script and/or studio meddling. Sets look lived in, as opposed to overly polished, from in the research facility where Wolverine's bones become coated in adamantium, to the streets and alleys of New Orleans where Gambit resides. But at the end of the day, this is Jackman's show, and this is perhaps the movie's greatest strength. He has the looks and charisma to pull off this role even in the worst of circumstances, and as the film's only real lead, holds the often-rushed plot together, which is pretty impressive. So, at the end of it all, how does the film stack up? Well, it's no masterpiece, and I certainly wouldn't rush out to tell people to see it as soon as they can, but, as I've said before, it's no trainwreck. There are no head-bangingly awful moments, mostly thanks to the efforts of the cast, and I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't entertained, or that I was bored. So really, Wolverine isn't so much a bad or terrible movie, as it is an average one that fails to deliver the on the level of Spiderman or Batman, but still manages to provide a decent movie-going experience. It's just that, in the comic-book movie canon, it's simply not one of the memorable entries.

Grade: C+

Star Trek - Despite any hints of an origin story, J.J. Abrams' reboot of the classic sci-fi TV series, shares that much in common with "Wolverine", but the similarities end quite shortly. The opening alone settles that, as a Federation star ship comes under attack by a massive Romulan vessel comandeered by Capt. Nero (Eric Bana). So, if that previous sentence made you think that I'm a "Star Trek" fan who knows the ins and outs of its universe, you'd be wrong. Before walking into the theater, I only had a loose idea of what the Federation is, and I'd never heard of this "Romulan" race, (same goes for the Vulcans). But that's part of what makes Abrams film such a roaring triumph; there is plenty to appeal to die-hard fans, but more than enough to bring in countless new fans. It's the first Star Trek movie for, well, anyone who loves a good time at the movies. There's not too much more I can talk about plot wise, because it's probably best if you go in knowing as little as possible, so I'll just stick to the other aspects. Re-casting the iconic roles of the original USS Enterprise crew had to be a daunting task, but everyone succeeds with flying colors. Chris Pine is fun as the rebellious, impulse-driven James T. Kirk, and is foiled perfectly by Zachary Quinto's Spock, a half Vulcan, half human who is constantly torn between his logic-filled upbringing and the emotions buried deep beneath the surface. Rounding out the delightful cast are Karl Urban as wise-cracking doctor Leonard McCoy, John Cho as sword-wielding pilot Hikaru Sulu, Anton Yelchin as Russian math wunderkind Pavel Chekov, Simon Pegg as Scotty, and Zoe Saldana as feisty Uhura. Quinto still turns in the most memorable performance, but thankfully, there are no weaklinks, and I can't wait to set sail with this cast again in the near future. Story-wise, what I CAN say, is that the structure is beautifully handled. The opening scenes with young Spock and young Kirk perfectly establish their adult personalities, and set up for their inevitable head-butting early on. Unlike in Wolverine, where events just kept happening, quiet scenes are actually allowed to breathe and grow, giving the film greater heft. What finally completes Abrams' space odyssey are the visuals, and they're glorious. Starships, exploding supernovas, space monsters, lasers, gun blasts, and set design are all gorgeously rendered. Much like Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings", the vision is very complete, and wonderfully detailed. This alternate future wasn't just thrown together casually; the crew put in a lot of work, and it shows. But even with all of its great effects and sets, Abrams never forgets story, character, or even humor, which is more than I can say for another recent set of sci-fi epics (I'm looking at you, "Star Wars"). I know that this is a totally cheesy way to end a review of this movie, but...I can't resist: I hope Abrams, the cast, and this film all live long and prosper. They wholly deserve it.

Grade: A-

Number of 2009 films seen: 14

7 new "Star Trek" stills

Early review of "Star Trek" from the Sydney premiere

Source: Nukedthefridge.com

Some minor spoilers may be present.

I've never been to a premier before, but last night's World Premier of ‘Star Trek’ was simply amazing on every level. As I think everyone wants to hear about the film and not the red carpet, I'll get right to my impressions of ‘Star Trek.’

I will be there again on opening day. I consider myself an open-minded fan and I loved it, and the more I reflect on it the more I like it. As a fan many of my observations inevitably revolve around comparing the old and the new, and how long-time Trekkies might react to that. I'll try to keep it to a minimum and rate the film on its merits but it really does need mentioning: this is a worthy retelling of the original voyages of the starship Enterprise.

After an intense opening action sequence the title appears – the crowd goes absolutely mental (the first of many such occasions). Star Trek is back, bigger and bolder than ever before and chasing new audiences (no prior knowledge of the franchise is necessary) while keeping the old one happy. How they've done this is a neat bit of story-telling involving sci-fi staples that certainly isn't virgin territory for Star Trek, but is used here to satisfy everyone and – shockingly – it works a treat, thanks chiefly to the legendary Leonard Nimoy. He takes the lead with a grandfatherly ease in every scene.

The film primarily follows the paths of two men – Kirk and Spock – chronicling their childhood trials and growth into adulthood where much more dire trials await. What struck me most was how successfully such well-known characters are introduced in a fashion almost alien to how we classically perceive them, and then over the course of the film gradually become the crew we know and love.

Watching the introductions, the relationships, the conversations between these people is the film’s greatest strength. It offers up not just a healthy dose of geeky pleasure for fans, but many moments of genuine humour that everyone enjoyed. I lost track of the number of times the audience laughed in delight or cheered when a very well-known character or phrase first appeared. While some liberties have been taken (Simon Pegg's Scotty is a good example) most gags are appropriate and true to the characters. Many of these are so ingrained in pop culture by this stage that most non-fans will be in on the joke or the wink to the Trekkies. It really is absolutely marvelous, I can’t stress that enough.

Without going into the minutiae of each role (which I would love to do) fans shouldn’t be worried about the cast. I admit to having misgivings during the screening, but they were all soundly laid to rest by the time the credits rolled and the crowd erupted (J.J. got a standing ovation and took a bow, which was nice.) What I came to realize was that of course these characters are different – we’re watching them become the icons which were refined over decades – and the final payoff, seeing these eerily familiar characters with fresh young faces, is a joy to behold for this fan.

Those worried the new film would be an action-fest should have breathed a sigh of relief by now. The action scenes are amazing, frantic and chaotic (and loud) but they in no way overshadowed the cast. Critics of “shaky-cam” may have some gripes. It doesn’t faze me to be honest. It is here I have to introduce one of my few complaints of the evening though – my seat sucked. The screen was so large, and my position so close, that during some scenes of space combat it was impossible to absorb everything at once.

Both starship battles and fisticuffs are quite unlike anything that's been in a Trek movie before. The film-makers took the Trek canvas and created sequences that belong there, with many truly tense moments such as Sulu and Kirk battling Romulans for control of a drilling rig high in a planet’s atmosphere.

It’s difficult to dissect the plot – I was often so wrapped up in simply watching the characters evolve that I relegated the villain Nero’s actions to a subplot. Unfortunately, I felt that Nero was a fairly weak and barely-there baddy. He is a man clearly driven by deep grief and hatred, and although his motivations are revealed it feels all too brief to have any punch. Perhaps I will review my opinion after a later screening, but I can’t help but wonder if all the good stuff was relegated to the prequel tie-in comic “Countdown” (for a movie which boasts "Forget everything you knew" it seems odd to create supplementary material which actually assists in the telling of the story).

Sound effects were brilliant (did I mention how loud the film was) and readily recall the atmosphere of the original series. A new theme is introduced, which is to be expected, but much like other elements of the film many instances of the soundtrack take their cues from and reflect on Alexander Courage’s original theme.

(Attention! My final words may contain unacceptable spoilers for some!)

The film ends with a classic kind of strength and that definitive Star Trek aura. Everything is present and accounted for: the crew, the Enterprise blasting off into warp, the “These are the voyages…” monologue which here is blessed with the perfect choice for its delivery – and no, I’m not telling. Go watch it.

2nd Quarter Preview: April, May June

With the first fourth of the year already behind us, we're finally starting to move away from start-of-the-new-year schlock, and into late spring/early summer, which means one thing: big budget action flicks. However, while the likes of "Star Trek" and "Wolverine" are just about certain to storm the box office, this list isn't populated entirely by typical big budget summer fare, and the number one choice is going to surprise most people, because I've only posted one or two things about my #1 most anticipated film of early summer. Without further adieu, the 12 to keep an eye over the course of April, May, and June....

12. Cheri (June 26th - Limited) - Think that summer movies are filled with too many explosions and not enough witty banter and pretty dresses? Then "Cheri", starring Michelle Pfeiffer and Kathy Bates, might just be your cup of (very sophisticated) tea. Set in 1920s Paris, the plot centers on Cheri (Rupert Friend...that's right..."Cheri" is a man), the son of a courtesan, must deal with the end of his relationship with an older woman (Pfeiffer) who educated him in the ways of love. Even if the movie sucks, it will still be worth a look for those of us who can't fathom how Michelle Pfeiffer still looks sexier than most "hot" 20 year old starlets (I'll take Madame Pfeiffer over that Lady Gaga wench any day, thank you very much).

Anticipation Meter: 6/10

11. The Brothers Bloom (May 15th/29th?? - Limited) - The twice delayed "Brothers Bloom" has finally secured a solid release date...so the marketing says. Let's hope that's a good thing, because I've been curious to see Rian Johnston's crime/spy/thriller/comedy for a while now. Adrian Brody and Mark Ruffallo play the titular brothers, who team up with their explosives expert (Rinko Kikuchi from "Babel") and a New Jersey heiress (Rachel Weisz) for one last con. Plot details have been (thankfully) kept relatively under wraps, despite the repeated delays, which is good, because "Bloom"'s plot seems like the sort of well-executed spy-farce packed with plot twists and double crosses (just like the delightful "Duplicity"). It will also be interesting to see Weisz, Brody, and especially Kikuchi (who irritated me to no end in "Babel") try their hands at comedy. Hopefully the casting risk pays off...

Anticipation Meter: 6.5/10

10. Angels and Demons (May 15th - Nationwide) - After the debacle that was "The Da Vinci Code", this prequel-turned-sequel has to be a step up...right? With Tom Hanks' hair looking considerably less awful (it's still an eye sore, however) and a plot more suited for a summer blockbuster (running around! assassins! car chases! explosions!), "Angels and Demons" has the potentially to transfer to the big screen much more smoothly than its predecessor, because it doesn't rely on a bunch of (mostly fake) facts to create the suspense/plot twists. Oh, and a quick message to the Vatican from one Catholic to another: regardless of whether you boycott this movie, people (yes, Catholics too...and probably lots of them) will still see this movie, so stop bitching about it, and go back to preaching the gospel and helping people. Also, will someone in the Vatican (anyone will do...most of you guys in there are superbly educated) please get the pope up to speed on condoms? Thanks.

Anticipation Meter: 6.5/10

09. Up (May 29th - Nationwide) - Perhaps the marketing team for "Up!" should be fired. With all the fantastic reports from test screenings, it seems odd that the trailers feel so...limp. The humor doesn't stick, and animation aside, it looks like a giant step below "Ratatouille" and "WALL-E" in terms of sophistication. Even the one or two clips released online aren't terribly impressive (one is downright "blah"). Is it just a case of bad trailers and seeing clips out of context, or does Pixar have another "Cars" on their hands?

Anticipation Meter: 6.5/10

08. The Soloist (April 24th - Nationwide) - Another delayed project from 08, this one is particularly note worthy for being a former Oscar hopeful. Directed by "Atonement"'s Joe Wright, "The Soloist" tells the true story of LA reporter Steve Lopez (Robert Downey Jr.) who stumbles upon a blind cello prodigy (Jamie Foxx). Lopez decides to write a story about the prodigy, and tries to help him achieve his dream of playing at the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles. Thrown into the mix is Catherine Keener, playing yet another semi-likeable bitch (you're awesome Ms. Keener, but it's getting old), this time in the form of Lopez's co-worker. The trailer screams "schmaltz", so here's hoping that someone as skilled as Wright can make the story moving, without resorting to shameless heartstring-tugging. It should also be interesting to hear Wright collaborator Dario Marianelli's score; music for modern day stories isn't exactly his forte, so I'm interested to hear what he comes up with.

Anticipation Meter: 6.5/10

07. Terminator: Salvation (May 21st - Nationwide) - It's awkward to admit, but I've never seen any of the Terminator movies completely, though I do know a solid amount about the plot details. However, judging by the trailer, "Terminator: Salvation" has plenty of unresolved plot threads from the Terminator saga that will engage series fans, while also offering a basic overarching plot to draw in neophytes (humans vs. robots, apocalyptic setting, fate of mankind at stake, etc...). While the cast boasts Christian Bale as John Connor, the person I'm most interested to see is the as-yet-unrevealed Serena, apparently something of a villain, played by the always delightful Helena Bonham Carter.

Anticipation Meter: 7/10


06. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (June 29th - Nationwide) - Just like with "Angels and Demons", I wasn't terribly fond of the predecessor to "Revenge of the Fallen". The first Transformers movie felt largely inert, with annoying attempts at comedy, and a surprisingly sluggish, action-free set up (though the big finale, ridiculous though it may be, was pretty spectacular). Hopefully, with all of Michael Bay's "characters" (I use that term very, very lightly) set up, he get stop trying to be a serious filmmaker and get right to the good stuff: big-ass robots beating the hell out of each other. With the addition of a slew of new Transfomers (both good and bad) ranging from a speedy tiger-like contraption, to a stadium-sized one who makes all others look like flies, "Transformers 2" has all the potential to be the biggest, loudest, dumbest, and certainly most explosion-filled sequel of the year. If done right, it will be the perfect summer action flick: a fun and exciting spectacle that allows you to check your brain at the door and enjoy the ride.

Anticipation Meter: 7/10


05. Star Trek (May 8th - Nationwide) - I've never been much of a "Star Trek" follower either, and for the longest time I didn't give a damn about JJ Abrams' reboot of the classic sci-fi show. And then that 2nd trailer came out. I've been excited ever since. With special effects slick enough to give "Transformers 2" a run for its money, and stunning worlds and action sequences, "Star Trek" seems to have done the impossible: updated a campy TV classic into a modern, relevant sci-fi epic.

Anticipation Meter: 7.5/10


04. State of Play (April 17th - Nationwide) - It's no easy task having to condense a complicated TV miniseries into a 2 hour movie, but judging from the trailers, director Kevin Macdonald and crew may have done just that. When a young Washington DC clerk/assistant is shot in a dark alley, it sets off an investigation not only from the police, but by a very determined reporter as well (Russell Crowe). Turns out, the young woman was having an affair with Crowe's former friend, a current senator (Ben Affleck) who's been investigating a suspicious company. As the case is dragged on further, Crowe and his fellow reporter (Rachel McAdams) start to hunt for the truth, even when the police, and their own boss (Helen Mirren) tell them that they should keep their noses out. All of it leads to "something" that's infinitely more complex and connected than anyone ever suspected. Hollywood has been in short supply of political thrillers that manage to be intense without relying on a car chase every five minutes, and "State of Play" might just be the movie to fill that void. With its stellar cast and gripping source material, it could be a nice late-spring surprise (the fact that it's being released around the same time as 2005's well-executed "The Interpreter" seems like a good sign as well).

Anticipation Meter: 8/10



.03 Wolverine (May 1st - Nationwide) - The comic book movie has enjoyed something of a renaissance this decade. First it was the success of the Spiderman franchise, and then Christopher Nolan's brilliant, brooding reinvention of Batman. On the flip side, there were the X-Men movies, which, while successful, never really got to the same level as the previous two series. The first two were incredibly fun, yes, but at times too cheeky, and overstuffed with characters, many of whom were teenage brats. By the time Brett Ratner's "X-Men 3" rolled out in 2006, the franchise seemed a bit stale. In a surprisingly smart move, 20th Century Fox decided to drop the cast of regulars (save for Hugh Jackman of course) to focus on the origin story of the quintessential X-men mutant: Wolverine. Jackman, though about a foot too tall, is still the perfect fit for Wolverine, and with a movie entirely dedicated to his character's story, he should have more room to shine. The reports that Jackman and director Gavin Hood wanted to make the film more dark and less family friendly are also encouraging, just as long as Hood and crew don't completely leave out the sense of fun (judging by some of Liev Schreiber's one liners, it would seem that the humor is intact). But if you're afraid of suffering from seeing too much Wolverine, there will be plenty of other fun characters to make things go "boom". There's Schreiber's Sabretooth, who becomes Wolverine's arch nemesis, John Wraith (Wil. i. am) who can become invisible, Emma Frost (Tahya Tozzi) who has control over ice, Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds), who's something of a gravity defying, twin blade whirling ninja, and Gambit (Taylor Kitsch), who has the power to charge inanimate objects with energy, which can turn even playing cards into deadly weapons. So while this may be Wolverine's story, don't expect Jackman to hog the screen the whole time; he'll have plenty of on-screen company to keep things interesting.

Anticipation Meter: 8/10



02. Away We Go (May 29th - Limited) - The cheap, "Juno"-riffic poster aside, Sam Mendes' immediate follow-up to the so-so "Revolutionary Road" is a dark drama/comedy for adults, that, even if it's only half as good as its trailer, will still be a winner. Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph) are going nowhere in their lives until Verona suddenly becomes pregnant. Seeing no point in sticking around their dilapidated house, the couple sets out across America to try and find a suitable place to start their family, while encountering family members and friends along the way. The cast alone is enough of a reason to see it (Krasinski, Rudolph, Catherine O'Hara, Jeff Daniels, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and queen-of-the-scene-stealers Allison Janney), but the fact that it's written by Dave Eggers (who wrote the tragic, yet sometimes painfully funny A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius) and his wife is an added plus. The man has a way with dialogue, and with Mendes behind the camera, we could have something really special on our hands.

Anticipation Meter: 9/10



01. The Limits of Control (May 1st - Limited) - "Away We Go" may have the funniest trailer of the year so far, but nothing comes close to matching "The Limits of Control"'s trailer in terms of sheer intrigue. Part independent drama, part bizarre espionage tale, it's hard to elaborate on the plot, because the trailer gives so little away, all while making you think, "I HAVE to see this movie!!" Though Isaach De Bankole, as the guitar playing main character, may not be a household name even among art-house theater goers, there's plenty of other big names to round out the ensemble: Bill Murray, John Hurt, Gael Garcia Bernal, "The Visitor"'s overlooked Hiam Abbass, and Tilda Swinton, sporting some costumes 10 times more bizarre than anything she's ever worn on the red carpet. Perhaps what makes the film so intriguing, stellar cast aside, is that it is a small film that still looks very polished, but without looking like it has compromised any of its individuality. And these days, that's hard to come by, which is why even seeing the trailer for films like "The Limits of Control" is enough to make you realize that, yes, there is still room in Hollywood for creativity to grow freely.

Anticipation: 9/10

TV spots for "Terminator: Salvation" and "Star Trek"

TV spot #4 for "Star Trek"

2 new poster for "Star Trek"

Awesome TV spot for "Star Trek"

Epic new trailer for JJ Abrams' "Star Trek"

Football meets Hollywood: 2009 Superbowl TV spots