Editor’s Note: Spoilers have been CGI’d into this article. Please be warned.

There are two types of people in the world: those that were eagerly awaiting Michael Bay’s third film in the Transformers franchise and those that were eagerly awaiting being able to shit on another one of his movies. There are few directors who have such a divisive line between love and hate among audiences. Uwe Boll is probably 95% hated, Spielberg probably 95% loved, and guys like Tarantino somewhere around 70% loved. Bay seems to be 50/50. Half the people absolutely embrace his sexy, patriotic slow-motion explosion escapades while the other half think he couldn’t craft a story on how to get out of a brown paper bag that wasn’t tedious, over-long, and poorly written.

Luckily for everyone, Film School Rejects has two Roberts, each from different Bay camps. So below find 10 Things from Transformers: Dark of the Moon that Robert Fure liked and 10 Things Rob Hunter didn’t.

10 Things Fure Liked

10. John Malkovich & Ken Jeong

New additions to the franchise, each with only a few moments of comedic screen time, both Jeong and Malkovich own every second they’re coming at you in hilarious 3D. While I feel the humor doesn’t always fit the franchise, these two were funny enough that I don’t give a damn.

9. Lazorbeak

I’m not the biggest fan of the animal inspired Transformers, but Lazorbeak was pretty awesome – even more so when he turned into a child-sized robot assassin. I’d pay to see an entire movie just about that.

8. It’s a War

Some people who have seen the film are shocked at the amount of deaths in the film – from people being vaporized to big name Transformers heading to the great dump in the sky. But don’t be too sad, because I’m pretty sure with enough energon, spark, and scrap metal, just about anyone can be brought back. But anyway, the deaths show the ‘realities’ of a giant robot space war.

7. Rosie Huntington-Whitely

After re-watching Megan Fox in Transformers 2, I come to the realization (or confirmation) that she is an utterly horrible actress. I’m glad to see her go and equally glad to see that her replacement was not only hotter, but actually a better actress than her predecessor. She’s not going to win any acting awards, but she fits the role just fine.

6. Alan Tudyk as Dutch.

Not enough good things could ever be said about Alan Tudyk, and his turn as the secret-assassin-super-bad-ass Dutch is both comedic (is he gay, is he not? Michael Bay is not subtle) and awesome. I’d like to see this character again.

5. Human Ass Kicking

Throughout much of the movie, humans are on their own against the evil Decepticons and surprisingly they hold their own. It’s always good to know little old humans can shoot just about anything to death.

4. Squirrel Suit Action

The commandos jumping out of airplanes in those insane glider-suits was really when the film put the pedal down to the ground and held it there. The actual suit sequence was breath-taking and thrilling and all kinds of awesome.

3. Shockwave Design

Shockwave is probably the best designed Transformer in the whole series. He looked imposing and badass and perfect.

2. Bad Ass Action

Even the people who hate this movie admit that the action is over-the-top exciting. It’s awesome and epic and violent and oh so good.

1. Seamless Merging of CGI & Practical Effects

No matter what your personal feelings on Michael Bay or the franchise, you’ve got to admit these are Oscar worthy effects. The robots and everything look amazing, but the most impressive bit is how the CGI and Practical Effects meld so seamlessly. A giant CGI robot swings his fist and a real car flips over and explodes. It’s a tremendous achievement.

So there you go, 10 things Fure liked which could really be boiled down to: bad-ass robots embroiled in excellently rendered explosive non-stop action.

10 Things Hunter Didn’t Like

10. Sam Witwicky Is Still Here

It’s the robots that audiences want to see, not Sam, and he isn’t even needed for the film’s “story” to work. Scantily clad hotties? Okay. Kick ass soldiers? Sure. But Sam Witwicky whining, complaining, bitching, moaning, and screaming? No thanks.

9. Absence Of Megan Fox Kills the Love Story

No matter what you think about Megan Fox, her character in the first two films is a hell of a lot more interesting than Whitely’s. Mikaela was rough and tumble and legitimately sexy, but more than that she was an active participant in the action. The relationship occasionally teased unbelievability (who’s going to forget a phone sex date with Megan Fox?), but as it spanned across the two films you came to accept and believe the two of them together. This new blow-up doll has no history of any kind, she’s worthless as a character, she’s playing games with Sam by accepting $200k cars from another man who clearly has a McChubby for her, she traipses around in heels for all of the action scenes… we just don’t care about her and therefore aren’t moved by Sam’s determination to enter war torn Chicago to search for her.

8. Ken Jeong Thinks He’s Filming A Different Movie, And Other Unnecessary Comic Relief Characters

I like Ken Jeong’s shtick on Community, and don’t mind him in general, but what the hell is he doing here? Besides the same thing he does in every role I mean. I understand a world with giant robots isn’t worried about realism, but his behavior is played purely for broad laughs and it doesn’t fit (and it’s not funny either). Then there’s John Turturro who plays crazy and offers nothing to the story, John Malkovich and Alan Tudyk who don “comedic” accents in lieu of plot relevance, and those annoying little shits Wheelie and Brains. All of these bastards could have been cut from the excessive running time for a better, tighter action movie.

7. Hard To Care For ‘Carly’ When Bay Only Shows Her As An Object

Rosey Huntington-Whitely’s Carly is introduced with a shot of her ass and thighs as she ascends the stairs. (I’m not complaining.) She’s then shown in direct comparison to the sensual and fragile curves of a collectible car. Later she’s shown in a profile shot sitting across from a well-groomed, long-haired dog of superior breeding. Mikaela was a character… Carly is a personality-less sex doll.

6. ‘Optimus Prime’ Is a Boring, Pansy-Ass, Asshole Robot

God this guy is a tool. He’s an asshole who thinks it’s okay to teach humanity a lesson by letting thousands of people in Chicago die just to prove a point that could have been made a hundred different ways. He’s a whiny bitch who spends thirty minutes of screen time hanging from tangled cables and later pleads for his life when getting his metallic ass handed to him by Sentinel Prime. And when he’s not whining or being a dick he’s spitting out generic platitudes. Douche.

5. Great Question Tyrese, Why Do the Decepticons Get All the Coolest Shit?

Seriously. They can fly, they can burrow underground, they can take human form (in part two). And why are there a seemingly endless number of the evil bastards but only like eight Autobots?

4. How Many Times Can ‘Bumblebee’ Show Up Out Of Nowhere To Catch A Falling Human?

He’s done it previously in parts one and two, but he repeats the feat two or three times here. Main characters falling? Bumblebee enters from stage left in slow motion to catch them safely before disappearing again.

3. Of All the Buildings In Chicago They Choose the One That’s Been Split In Half?

The NEST team needs a clear shot at one of four space pillars, a pillar they see clearly from the ground and elsewhere multiple times, so they decide to ascend the ONE building in Chicago that’s already cracked in half and leaning heavily to the side. Not surprisingly it then becomes a death trap as further explosions and gravity proceed to tip the top half over. There’s absolutely no reason for them to have been in that building in the first place other than to set up a thirty minute action set piece. A point proven definitively when the pillar is eventually shot by Optimus… from down on the ground.

2. A Competent Script Remains the Biggest Challenge And Results In a Myriad Of Questions

Why can’t Sam find a job when everyone else involved in saving the world previously has been well taken care of? How does that giant snake-like Decepticon move around undetected beneath the surface without leaving a trail of messed up water pipes, electrical/phone cables, building foundations, etc? Why does the robot who loses the eye react like it actually hurts and proceed to stumble around like an idiot? Why exactly are animals giving enough of a shit about robots to actually bow down to one? If that spy-watch is a Decepticon why isn’t it detected by anyone? Why Chicago (aside from the tax breaks given to the Decepticons by the human conspirators)? Why the hell would Megatron stop Sentinel Prime from killing Optimus? And one more from Jack Giroux… why is Megatron wearing a cape for most of the film? Does he think it hides the fact he’s a gigantic robot or is it to just keep the sun out of his eyes?

1. Bay Thinks Longer Is Better, But Everyone Knows Girth Trumps Length

Two hours and thirty seven minutes. That’s how long this goddamn movie is, and while a good seven minutes of that is credits there’s still roughly a half hour or so that could have been saved for the special edition DVD/Blu-ray.

So that’s what FSR’s two Roberts think… what about you?

Editor’s Note: This article contains words that often arrange themselves into SPOILERS and should not be read by anyone.

Cole Abiaus was a bit too kind in his full review of Super 8 and glossed over the disaster that is the film’s third act, but it’s still worth a read for everything he got right, so check it out here. As a response to the review and to start a discussion on some of the film’s secrets, Robert Fure and Rob Hunter have compiled the list below of the things they liked and the things they didn’t. Give it a read and then let us know what you thought of the movie below.

Things We Liked

4. The Kids

The movie has already been compared to The Goonies and The Monster Squad in regard to its portrayal of a tight group of friends embroiled in an adventure, but this is the first to really capture kids that I knew. The gleefully destructive Cary, the creative but shy Charles, the big but in many ways weakest Martin, the unnecessary fifth wheel Preston… I knew these kids and I miss them, and much of Super 8 brings a smile to my face as it beautifully captures those perfect few years of my childhood. [Hunter]

3. They Party Like It’s 1979 Because It Is

There really isn’t much of a reason to set the film in 1979 other than the Pee-Wee’s Secret Word NOSTALGIA, which has been mentioned in 99.9% of all reviews of this film. By setting it in the past, it automatically appeals to your memories of “Hey, I remember when things weren’t like they were today!” And you know what – it might be a sucker move, but it worked. In a real world full of cell phones, apps, computers, CCTVs, and a billion other digital headaches, it’s not too terrible to be reminded of pay phones and playing outside. [Fure]

2. Joe And Alice

As he does with the usual suspects above, Joe forms a believable relationship with Alice that truly feels like an honest first crush. Both have home issues that the actors (Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning) imbue with real emotion, but they really come alive in each other’s presence. They’re also the two best characters individually. Strong, fleshed out, and given real depth, these two could lead an entire film with or without an alien plot-line. [Hunter]

1. The Case

The end credits feature Charles’s full super 8 zombie movie, The Case, and it’s great fun. And Abrams deserves credit for not tossing in a lens flare or two. [Hunter]

Things We Didn’t Like

8. Lens Flares

We know complaining about lens flares in a J.J. Abrams film is like complaining about extended dialogue scenes in a Quentin Tarantino movie or stupidity in a Michael Bay flick, but goddamn they are everywhere. Sometimes even when there’s nothing in the scene to cast light. [Fure/Hunter]

7. Curler Girl’s Death

Joe descends into the lair to rescue Alice and discovers she isn’t the only one left alive when a young woman in curlers pops up with a funny line. Then she’s killed and no one seems to give a shit. There’s a good chance she was someone’s mom too, but she exists solely for a laugh and a thrill. [Hunter]

6. Alien Is Not A Sympathetic Character

The alien kills innocent people, so why exactly should we give a flying fuck whether or not he makes it home alive? Sure Nelec the Army dude is an ass and deserved to die, but the sheriff and the lady in the curlers weren’t threatening the creature at all which makes the alien a murdering bastard. [Hunter]

5. Train Crash

First, why would a smart guy opt for this method of rescue? It seems bound to fail and supremely reckless, not to mention he most likely murdered a couple of train operators. Second – why would a smart guy think a small pick-up truck could derail a train and not be disintegrated. Because, you know, the truck would be disintegrated by that impact. Third – this isn’t Star Trek, what was this train made of, gunpowder and dynamite? With so many explosions, why didn’t at least one kid have his internal organs turned to pudding? [Fure]

4. Town As War Zone

What exactly was the deal with this whole scene? Tanks, rocket launchers, machine guns all firing uncontrollably because of the alien’s activity (presumably), but no one thought to take the key out of the ignition? Or stop loading tank shells and magazines? And why were they even there with those weapons when they should have already known they’d be useless against the creature? The whole scene is loud, messy, and unnecessary. [Hunter]

3. Alien’s Dick Move

After touching Joe, the alien knows his pain and of his recent loss, but still takes the kids last memento of his mother to make a useless part of his ship when he could have taken another Oldsmobile, a wrist watch, or any of the one hundred thousand other pieces of metal laying around. [Fure]

2. Sometimes Bad Things Happen To Good Aliens

Really? The heartfelt end speech can be summed up with a platitude straight out of a self-help book? The emotional conclusion here isn’t earned by the kid or the alien. Especially the alien. Because he’s still a dick. [Hunter]

1. Louis Dainard’s Unforgivable Crime

Was calling off work. The beginning makes it seem so heavy — its as if he dropped a girder on the mother, smashing her into bloody bits, but all he really did was call off work? Why would that make two families hate each other? Would the Sheriff still hate him if he had a cold that day? [Fure]

What did you like or dislike about Super 8?

This week, the two daydream the ultimate reboot – an entire era of filmmaking brought back to life through the lens of modern directors. What styles should we bring back and homage? It is a good idea to let nostalgia drive us artistically? Will people in 30 years be harkening back to the Abramsian style?

‪Landon: ‬ ‪So Super 8 comes out this weekend, which will bring us all back to our late 70s/early 80s childhood pastimes of chasing mysterious creatures in midwest steel towns. But more importantly, it brings back memories of imaginative, magical Spielbergian cinema from that era. Since nostalgia, especially cinematic nostalgia, is such a powerful force, I thought it’d be interesting to talk about what other filmic eras we’d like to see loyally reproduced onscreen, and who we think might be best at doing the job.‬

So Cole, what cinematic era would you most like to see back on the big screen?

Cole: ‬ ‪If I can simplify it by choosing a decade, it would be the 1950s‬.

The 1890s is a close second choice, since movies were mostly about falling cats, moons with faces on them, and Thomas Edison smashing lightbulbs on people’s necks.

Landon: ‬ ‪I personally think the 50s could’ve used plenty more falling cats‬. Why that decade?

Cole: ‬ ‪One simple reason – variety.‬ We were on the cusp of a major change in movies, heading toward the modern era of the 60s, and while the styles of the past were still in vogue, some directors were already playing around.

Billy Wilder especially.

Hitchcock definitely. Just look at what he did with Vertigo.

Landon: ‬ ‪And the 50s themselves were experiencing major changes too with widescreen and a greater push for color movies to compete with TV‬.

Cole: ‬ ‪Exactly. Just take a look at the top grossing films for 1956. Ten Commandments, Giant, The King and I, Crosby in High Society.‬ The epic, the modern drama, the thoughtful musical, and the yesteryear comedy all living together happily on one list.

‪Landon: ‬ ‪Is that something you think we’re missing now? I mean, yes, the 2000s have been very sequel-heavy, but we spoke a few weeks ago about the sheer variety of films being offered this summer.‬

Cole: ‬ ‪Which I definitely appreciate, but there’s less variety than there was during that time. Plus, I’m a sucker for those 50s style flicks – something we don’t get at all anymore unless it’s a “tongue-in-cheek send-up” like Down With Love or something.‬

‪Plus, there were levels of film. Actual B-movies. What we have now are bad A-movies or The Asylum.‬

Landon: ‬ ‪And 3D!‬

Cole: ‬ ‪If only that would come back.‬

What era are you wishing to see reinvigorated?

Landon: ‬ ‪Before I start, I just wanted to point out that it’s interesting you brought up Giant and Vertigo, which are both dramas on a huge scale. And that seems to be something about 50s Hollywood cinema that didn’t exist in any other decade: big stories with bigger emotions. In fact, mainstream drama hardly exists at all anymore‬.

Cole: ‬ ‪It’s been replaced by a need to cater to a world market.

Landon: ‬ ‪Indeed. So the era I’ve chosen is the late 30s/early 40s. There are a lot of great movies that came out at this time, but I wanted to specifically focus on the screwball romantic comedy: films by Howard Hawks, Leo McCarey, George Cukor, Ernst Lubitsch, etc.‬

‬Those movies have an enduring magic to them that has been long lost in the mostly cynical and pandering romantic comedies that we’ve seen the past few years‬.

Cole: ‬ ‪So you want a replacement for one of the major black holes of our genre life now.‬

Landon: ‬ Yup. It’s not so much nostalgia as it is a craft people have forgotten‬.

Cole: ‬ ‪It’s a solid idea. I’d rather watch To Be or Not To Be than Kevin James Falls Down Until He Gets the Girl.‬
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪I think that example sums it up perfectly; people would rather write “fat guy falls down” than take the time and effort to really craft great verbal humor‬.

‪Cole: ‬ ‪And it’s not even necessarily good slapstick either. But I think that speaks to why nostalgia ends up on screen in the first place.‬ Abrams would have been 13 in 1979 (the year Super 8 is set). He was a teen during the Spielberg era. That goes for the romantic comedies of the 60s-70s being influenced by Cukor, Lubitsch and the others.

Landon: ‬ ‪I’d add to that that the inherent problem of nostalgia-motivated cinema is that it, like nostalgia itself, works through selective memory. We lament the bad movies of today when compared to the great movies of the past, but in reality there were probably many bad movies in the 30s/40s and 50s (even in the genres or variety of genres we want to see back on screen)‬.

Super 8 basically builds off of what, 2 movies? E.T. and Close Encounters? In order to make that homage, one has to forget 1941, which incidentally was released in the year the film is set.

Cole: ‬ ‪But shouldn’t that mean nostalgia-based filmmaking is the best kind? It completely ignores the worst in movies while celebrating the best.‬ Why aren’t we covered in it? – He asked during a summer where every movie ever is set in the past.

Landon: ‬ ‪I agree with you. Selective memory, in this case, is beneficial, because we only preserve the best of the best.‬ That being said, while there are plenty of movies set in the past, what would be the roadblocks in seeing the past movies we’ve chosen on the screen again? And who, if anybody, could do it?
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Aside from re-releasing the actual films of the past, there are definitely a few names that can handle the past.‬

‪As for romantic comedies, Rob Reiner seemed influenced by the best, and even though he’s made some serious crap lately, you don’t just forget how to tap into Ernst Lubitsch.‬
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪I agree, it’s easy to forget how solid his earlier films were.‬

‪To piggyback off that, I’d like to see him collaborate with Aaron Sorkin again, but for a romantic comedy, because Sorkin more than any other screenwriter has the closest equivalent to Howard Hawks-style banter down‬. And Reiner as a director can bring the pathos Sorkin’s material alone often lacks.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Haha. I was going to suggest Sorkin for the breakneck dialogue and witty banter.‬ The truth is, we can suggest a few directors to tap into the world of the 40s romantic comedy or the 1950s spread of movies, but it’s writers that are in shorter supply.

‪Landon: ‬ ‪I for one struggle to think who could handle great, big drama‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Spielberg.‬

And Lawrence Kasdan isn’t dead.
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪So since Abrams did a Spielberg homage, Spielberg should do a Hitchcock homage‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪There’s no law against filmmakers of the past saving our future.‬ No matter what, it’ll be better than DJ Caruso’s mess.

Landon: ‬ ‪Nobody does the past quite like the people who actually worked then‬. As far as modern drama goes though, indie filmmakers like Derek Cianfrance seem to be the best available, but that’s more small-scale Cassavetes than George Stevens.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Definitely.‬

I feel like we’re failing here a little bit, and I have to assume that’s part of nostalgia too. How are we supposed to replace Frank Capra with some whipper snapper?

‪Landon: ‬ ‪It’s true. Maybe we should just be happy with the movies we have from back then and hope that new things we haven’t seen before continue to come out in the future‬.

Even when successful homages are made, it’s never quite the same thing‬
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪True, which is why sometimes nostalgia comes from unexpected places.‬ People said 500 Days of Summer was indie quirk hipsterism, but it reminded me more of a classic romantic comedy/drama than anything in the past five years.

‪Landon: ‬ ‪It reminded me of Annie Hall. Yet Woody Allen still makes movies, and occasionally makes pretty good ones.‬

Noastalgia and homage can be fun and can make for a good movie, but it’s probably better to build off the past then simply to recreate it.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪So we’ve come to the conclusion that nostalgia is good, but influence is better, and falling cats are the best.‬

‪Landon: ‬ ‪It’s safe to say no matter what we do, nothing will approach the genius of “People Boarding a Train.”‬

‪Cole: ‬ ‪Expect a remake announcement within the hour.‬

Join the discussion by leaving your two cents below and check out more Talking Heads every Friday

Suggest a topic for next week by leaving it in the comments

This week, the pair questions what separates the wheat from the shit when it comes to reboots, prequels and movies capitalizing on name recognition in order to get ahead in the marketing game.

What makes a prequel great? How can a reboot really succeed?

Landon: So we’ve been inundated by remakes, reboots, reimagining, retreads, redos – whatever the spin doctors want to call it – lately. While most of these franchise reboots feel like blatant cash grabs, occasionally there are inspired films that come out of it.

My question to you is, in terms of reboots, what qualities separate the wheat from the chaff?

Cole: I imagine that Spin Doctors reference is a subtle tie-in between their song “Pocket Full of Kryptonite” and the new Superman reboot.

Landon: Oddly enough, I think it’s what the former band members actually do for a living now.

Cole: Everyone has to sell out eventually.

As for the question of reboots, I don’t even think we have an accurate, direct definition of the term yet. Is it simply taking an anchor (like a brand or character) and filling the same world with new actors, directors and writers? Is there a real difference between a reboot or a remake?

Landon: I think that’s part of the problem, as lines seem to blur between the terms. Something like Star Trek, Casino Royale, or Batman Begins is clearly a reboot, but X-Men First Class and Rise of the Planet of the Apes are prequels and a means to boot franchises all their own…

Then we have something like the sequel to Ghost Rider, which is ostensibly something of a “redo.” Or something.

Cole: So instead of getting lost in the phrase, let’s just look at some general rules for telling stories about the people we already know.

The obvious key is to keep what’s lovable about the characters or the world and expand on it without evolving it to death.

Landon: So in that way, “starting over” with properties like Christopher Nolan’s Batman work and a prequel like X-Men: First Class would qualify, as they take the same basic formula and characters but explore different aspects of the story’s universe.

Cole: Exactly.

So, that means two things: 1) The character and universe have to be interesting enough to play around with some more and 2) The tweaking either has to stay faithful to the core elements or be so radical that it ignores all of them.

Like Temple of Doom. We fell in love with Indiana Jones in the first movie, and we get to see a bit darker version of his past in the second.

Landon: So what, then, differentiates a good sequel from a good franchise relaunch? Because those rules apply to both.

Cole: A third rule I’ll propose is that the prequel version needs to show a profoundly different universe than we’ve seen before.

In Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, they shifted from shiny latex-clad modern times to the gritty leather-straight-off-the-animal-clad days of the ancient past. That’s a change within the world itself. In Batman Begins, we saw a Gotham that didn’t look or feel like Burton’s comic book pop up world or the more recent-at-the-time cartoonish abominations of production design from Batman and Robin.

Landon: I’d like to piggyback off of that by saying the best franchise reboots respond to changes in audience taste that have occurred since the last entry. They show a willingness to adapt.

Like Casino Royale switching to a grittier, Bourne-inspired Bond.

Cole: They take into consideration not only the character, but the new audience as well.

Landon: This I think distinguishes genuine inspiration in altering an old property versus a cash grab, and it’s also why audiences become suspect of quick relaunches in a way they don’t with quick sequels: new assessments of a universe implicitly requires time

Cole: Put that in the “Do Not” pile. You can’t truly “reimagine” something within 5 months of the last story launching.

Landon: It’s not a universal rule, but it seems to characterize the best of the bunch. That’s why movies that straddle the line between sequel and relaunch – like the new Pirates movie – seem so indecisive. It wants to change the story by getting rid of Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightley, but do little more to establish itself as a new approach.

Cole: So maybe the lack of definition really is important – just not for us. It matters for storytellers that can get stuck in the middle between the freedom to revamp and the albatross of the old.

Landon: Exactly. The negotiated sweet spot between the new and the old necessary for a reboot to work is difficult to figure out.

Cole: On the other hand, the “No-no” list also includes swinging too far to one side. Paranormal Activity 2 was a prequel, but it was almost exactly the same movie. Which, if Hangover 2 criticism can be believed, can also be applied to movies that aren’t revamps or reboots.

Landon: Are there any examples that swing too far in the opposite direction? Movies that stray too far from the original?

Cole: In a way, yes.

Phantom Menace comes to mind. That particular universe is incredibly expansive, but we hang out with an annoying kid before a race. How is that at all like the other Star Wars films?

Which raises the next rule: Make sure that your characters are interesting enough to warrant exploring their background.

Landon: It’s like that Patton Oswalt stand-up routine. To speculate on how Darth Vader was as a kid might make for an interesting conversation, but it’s not what people really want in a movie.

As in, an understanding of what people really want to see, not just what might be hypothetically interesting.

Cole: Right. It ends up being like staring at Jon Voight’s ballsack.

Landon: Which is only interesting hypothetically.

Cole: What are some truly outstanding re-visitations (to add yet another phrase to the mix) that we can learn from?

I’ll take Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas as a given.

Landon: I’ll take it that “resoundingly bad” counts by reminding you about the Nightmare on Elm Street remake for one specific reason: reboots should feel like a big deal instead of yet another dig for gold.

What angers me most about bad reboots is that they’ve become so routine that they don’t feel like the “event” that they should. It should feel like a really big deal that we are seeing a new version of a classic or familiar character on the big screen.

Cole: So we’re promised a silver platter with trumpets and fanfare for icons, but we end up with shitty fast food on a ripped piece of cardboard.

That’s a gastronomical metaphor for people who don’t understand the core or soul of the character, and go wildly off target.

Landon: I often eat gourmet dinners while people are blaring brass instruments close by.

Cole: That’s what the plot to Transformers: Dark of the Moon is.

Ultimately, the core of the characters is the most important thing. It’s also the most difficult, but not understanding what makes the characters work is the first step on the wrong path toward revamping, booting, visiting, imagining, prequeling or anything else that’s probably now listed under Urban Dictionary as a sex act.

Landon: I think we can both agree that, 11 years on, there’s still a lot to be learned from Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows.

Cole: This entire topic was just a ruse so you could reference that film, wasn’t it?

Landon: That movie died so that other movie franchises could live.

Join the discussion by leaving your two cents below and check out more Talking Heads every Friday

Suggest a topic for next week by leaving it in the comments

This week, the pair rewatches the trailer for The Smurfs in an attempt to figure out why something that harmless needs to be modernized. Weren’t they cute and lovable before? Does a movie like that really need to fake appeal to a snarky teenage audience or should children and their parents be enough?

Who is responsible for Smurfette flashing her panties at everyone and who on the production thought pop culture references would buoy a terrible film?

In shorter terms, why can’t certain film productions get childhood icons right?

‪Cole: ‬ ‪So a trailer for The Smurfs hit the internet and left behind a trail of blue slime. It looks soulless and moronic, but it raises a greater issue: why do some productions get childhood characters of the past right and others fail so miserably?‬

I’ve never had any ill will toward The Smurfs until now.

‪Landon: ‬ ‪It depends on what audience the movie tries to appeal to – people who watched the original as children and people who are currently children. When trying to appeal to both, it’s a smurfing ridiculous failure‬.

‪It’s hard to make something that feels both like an authentic object of nostalgia and something that’s contemporary‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Alright. First of all, I propose a moratorium on using “smurf” as a verb.

Second of all, why is that? Is there a real need to modernize The Smurfs?

‪Landon: ‬ ‪Well, that’s what’s so strange about it. The idea is to try to appeal to both old and new audiences to make more money, but in “modernizing” these products they potentially date them all the more, which I would guess probably hurts long-term appeal of the movie as a product‬. Especially in cheeky (cheap) pop culture referencing.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Well, even on a simpler level, whoever decided to make the Smurfs “hip” really doomed the entire thing.‬ There’s nothing hip about the Smurfs, and there’s no need to force them to be Fonzie.

He’s still hip right?
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪The numerous Henry Winkler posters on my wall give a resounding “yes.”‬

The Smurfs trailer reminded me of a moment in Space Jam where there’s a very brief Pulp Fiction spoof…
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Yeah?‬
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪It was a moment that tried to speak to “hip” older audiences, but in a really direct, superficial way that spoke nothing to the story and didn’t deliver an actual joke beyond Porky Pig being dressed like Jules‬.

When seeing that film as an 11-year-old, I very much did not get the joke, which was a rather topical one since Space Jam came out two years after Pulp Fiction.

Attention producers: This is not your target audience.

‪Cole: ‬ ‪So the joke was a lazy one to begin with.‬

‪Landon: ‬ ‪Now, numerous Looney Tunes shorts from the 40s are still beloved, while Space Jam from 1996 seems horribly dated‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Plus, it seems like the cardinal sin there is thinking that a movie that can be squarely aimed at children, 20-somethings and parents alike should try to get that disaffected 16-year-old market.‬

You’re exactly right. Some things don’t need to be “updated.” They need to be what they are: classics for a reason. You don’t become an icon by being anything less than universal.

Landon: ‬ ‪Well, the interesting thing is, Warner Bros cartoons referenced pop culture all the time, but they didn’t do so in this cheap post-modern way where the reference substitutes for the joke. That’s why they’re timeless even if there’s a James Cagney impersonation in them‬.

So it’s not only being universal, but it’s not mistaking where the substance of the thing is.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪That’s a matter of making the reference, but exaggerating it so severely that it becomes (please forgive me) a cartoon.‬
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪Forgiven. Now we’re even for my “smurf” verb usage‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Deal.

There’s no telling if The Smurfs will actually surprise everyone with quality, but from the trailers, it looks like there’s been a profound misunderstanding of what’s entertaining and why. That all seems reflected in the fact that they got the voice of Katy Perry – the last thing people go to her concerts for.
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪Well, the “counterargument” will be that it makes a ton of money, like the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies which did the same thing. But I think to their detriment these studios are giving away the potential long-term value of these movies. These kids aren’t going to grow up and still like them.‬

Whereas Pixar cartoons, which appeal to multiple audiences through substance and story (besides Cars), endure.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪To be fair, writing strong characters and challenging stories is tough!‬

Landon: ‬ ‪My tiny violin is playing sad music for the poor studio heads‬.

But seriously, in trying to appeal to these multiple audiences, they’re alienating all of them. And by your Katy Perry example, it’s the laziest and most superficial understanding of what appeals to contemporary audiences.

Nothing wrong with a cartoon being a cartoon. Or with Papa Smurf giving The Shocker.

Cole: Katy Perry = Popular = Good. Therefore, Katy Perry in our movie = Good.

Landon: And I have no idea what to do with “Funky Cold Medina.” What do I do with “Funky Cold Medina”?

Cole: You know exactly what to do.

You have a giant dance number inexplicably shoved into the end of your movie to wake the sleeping children up. But what you said about box office is what matters most here. I don’t buy for a second that doing a Smurfs movie was about creative freedom or artistic expression. No one does, and that’s okay. But the studio does itself a disservice by trying to make $80m net instead of $180m net.

‪By trying to make something cool out of something tragically uncool, they’re missing out on money (like you said, long term) that could be made with a much better movie.‬ Here’s an example where better art actually is better commerce.

Landon: ‬ ‪And to continue from that, it’s puzzling that one would take an existing property that was familiar with a certain audience in a certain context and remove it fully from that context‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪The biggest question of all.‬ Why invest in something if you’re simply going to strip away everything about it and replace it with creepy sex jokes about a cartoon girl-thing that’s three apples tall?

‪Landon: ‬ ‪In a way, it’s unfair to compare The Smurfs to Looney Tunes, though, because The Smurfs was only culturally “80s” in retrospect – nothing about the show in its day referenced pop culture or was post-modern‬. And they made the movie into Hop with blue people.

Cole: ‬ ‪The key here seems to be people like Raja Gosnell, whose first directing job was taking everything beloved about Home Alone and turning it into Home Alone 3, wanting to appear current.‬ It’s the cinematic version of the high school chess team champion putting on sunglasses and trying real, real hard to “be cool.”

You can’t try to be cool. You either are or you aren’t. The Smurfs aren’t, and there’s no reason to overvalue coolness when it comes to them. There’s a built-in appeal that gets erased by believing that “being cool” is better than whatever The Smurfs are.
‪

Landon: To that point, Tom Shone wrote an article on Slate this week that we both enjoyed about “the past” represented in summer movies like Super 8, Cowboys & Aliens, and Captain America. Those movies are all trying to bank off a very specific type of nostalgia. So it’s so puzzling to see a nostalgic property that’s severed from anything resembling its original appeal.‬

And that, I’m afraid, is severely not cool.

‪Cole: ‬ ‪But Gargamel is pretty Fonzie-esque.‬

‪Landon: ‬ ‪Well, Hank Azaria can do anything‬.

Join the discussion by leaving your two cents below and check out more Talking Heads every Friday

Suggest a topic for next week by leaving it in the comments

This week, the pair try to avoid being pretentious at all costs while discussion The Tree of Life, dismissive reactions to art we don’t understand or like, and the nature of randomness in creation.

What is art? And what does Hitler have to do with it?

Cole: ‬ ‪So the reaction at Cannes to Tree of Life was unsurprisingly mixed, but more than a few people reached deep down in their bag of bad words and pulled out the A-word. Some actually dared to say that the movie wasn’t art.

Instead of making you define art right off the bat, I’ll simply ask you: why do you think that sometimes people have such a violent reaction to things they don’t like?‬

‪Landon: ‬ ‪I think it’s difficult for people to find value in something that they don’t find meaning in, so a lazy critique is then to denounce the idea that the movie could have any value for somebody else coming away with a different interpretation‬.

I’d say that the opposite critique, however, is just as lazy – saying people who didn’t like the film”just don’t get it.”
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪So we have two sides of the same coin: It’s not art vs You just don’t get it.‬

Neither of which advances the conversation about movies.

Landon: ‬ ‪As the both shut down rather than consider any other possible opinion‬. Which, oddly enough, defeats the subjective experience that is supposed to define art.

Cole: ‬ ‪Since we know that calling Tree of Life (or any movie) non-art is absurd, the real question is why people are calling it that – and it seems to be because it’s “random.” Can something seemingly random be art?‬

Landon: ‬ ‪Absolutely. In fact, I think “randomness” defines a great deal of great art from the paintings of Jackson Pollock to the films of John Cassavetes, because they try to build off the notion that there are things that are best expressed without calculation‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪That there’s something natural that can happen when we shut off our minds and just let our bodies create.‬
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪It’s art that allows you to say something without knowing ahead of time exactly what that is or how you’re going to say it. Though I understand if that gives people the impression that such art has “nothing to say.”‬ Random art is always an experiment. And that experiment can fail.

‪Cole: ‬ ‪That’s the most important distinction, and it’s one I don’t quite understand‬, especially when the benefit of the doubt is given to the artist. There’s no denying that some people have an emotional response to Pollack or Cassavettes, but when something is random, how can you even tell if it succeeded or failed?

If the artist doesn’t have a goal in mind, how can you tell if he/she reached it? If the goal is simply to be random, isn’t it a self-fulfilling one? If so, why does some random art “work” while some “doesn’t work.”

Landon: ‬ ‪In a way I think all of these examples of art are ones in which the reach consistently exceeds the grasp of the artist in that they’re trying to do something beyond cognition. So in a sense, no art of this sort “succeeds” wholly in doing so, because it’s built so much on the particular experience in which one engages in it (one Pollock painting would look different if he chose to do it on a Monday or a Tuesday, same with an improvised scene by Cassavetes). The value, then, might be the process of trying to reach for the stars more so than the result, even though both have value.‬

But now thinking back on it, for the sake of this particular debate, whether the art itself fails is a less important question than why some people don’t accept that type of art in cinema to the extent of calling it worthless.‬ And I’d like to hear what you think about that.

Cole: ‬ ‪It stems from what you just said about going beyond cognition. Even that phrase sounds stuffy and academic.‬ We like art that challenges us, but doesn’t exceed us. So when someone makes something complete abstract (usually because it’s supposed to be an act of “pure creation”), it becomes ungraspable (no, you just don’t get it), and art that’s not understandable is art that doesn’t work for people.

In that sense, it’s scary because people who don’t get anything from it might fear that they SHOULD be getting something from it, and that they’re somehow flawed for not. That’s why you see people react strongly to it either to denounce it or claim that it was sheer genius and that they totally, definitely “got it.”

On the other hand, there’s the Emperor’s New Clothes effect that comes with this type of art, fine wine, and paintings done by elephants. We want to believe we can touch Heaven, but oftentimes we can’t tell the Two Buck Chuck from the Chateau Mouton-Rothschild Jeroboam, which means a filmmaker can easily mimic something profound without having to create anything profound, and an audience might still lap it up.

Please make me stop talking now.
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪So how do we know if the piece of art, or the artist him/herself, is genuine or sincere?‬

Cole: ‬ ‪Ask him if he can sympathize with Hitler.‬
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪Haha, so THAT’S why Malick is such a recluse‬.

But that has a lot to do with the “pretentious” debate which I think is what’s at the center of what we’re talking about. It’s a dog-chasing-tail kind of debate because in all art that has these types of ambitions, the artist possesses some pretense‬. They have to.

‪‪And I don’t necessarily mean that in an insincere sense, but in the fact that the artist assumes something can be accomplished through the medium in which they work‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪To pick up a camera is to presume.‬

Landon: ‬ ‪Exactly‬ My favorite thing about abstract art is that it’s not abstract at all, it simply reveals things for what they are. Pollock’s paintings are paint on a canvas, not a false representation of reality.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪But “pretentious” is its own genre. The “poignant film” has so many of its own tropes that it’s 1) easily identifiable and 2) easily mockable.‬
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪I would say that’s true‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪I think what people, including (oftentimes) me, react so strongly to is when someone presumes to make something profound and deeply humane.‬ Filmmakers don’t necessarily have the ease of medium that comes with paint on canvas – they have to represent something. The “it’s just people and things on a screen” argument wears thin when you have to spend 2 hours looking at it.

That’s why no one has ever seen the entirety of Sleep, not even Andy Warhol. Maybe his mother, but you know how they are.

Landon: ‬ ‪And I do think filmmakers who try to achieve something more transcendent with their work, like Malick or Bela Tarr for example, should be held to a different (i.e., higher) standard. Because you’re right; there has developed some repeated aesthetic codes for what constitutes art cinema. But art cinema, in of itself, is not automatically profound.‬
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪That’s what makes it exciting and scary and challenging.‬

And perhaps why people tend to bristle when those tropes are repeated. If art cinema is supposed to be pure expression or something new or something beyond cognition, it seems like a naked Emperor walking around the town square when it features the elements every other arthouse director uses.
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪But that’s a far better criticism than saying it’s not art‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Which leads us to another, more honest critique phrase: I’ve seen it done before, and I’ve seen it done better.‬

At least it leaves the door open for conversation, and that’s the bottom line. Speaking of conversations, you and I never plan these out at all (something that the readers must realize while scratching their heads). How did we do as an act of pure, transcendent expression? Is this column art in its most raw sense?

‪Landon: ‬ ‪I would tell you, but it’s impossible to express how I feel about it in words‬. Just know that I’m doing an interpretive dance at the moment.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪I’ve been releasing bodily fluids onto a canvas this entire time.‬

Oddly enough, they chaotically came together to make the Face of God. Do you think that means the world’s going to end tomorrow?
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪If it doesn’t, I have some real groveling to do at my job on Monday‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Same here, and I still don’t get what art has to do with Hitler‬, except that he was bad at it. Which, and I know we’re trying to wrap up here, leads me to one last point about “poignant art.” I personally judge art partially by technical skill, and with a lot of “poignant art,” it’s difficult to assess the level of technical skill.

As a simple caveman, that frightens and confuses me.
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪I guess I judge a lot of art by what it attempts to do rather than what it accomplishes, and I think art that divides people can never be a bad thing, even if they have a hard time having a conversation about it‬.
‪

Cole: ‬ ‪Either way, I can’t wait to see Tree of Life and call it “good, but not great.”‬
‪

Landon: ‬ ‪That’s so punk rock.‬

Join the discussion by leaving your two cents below and check out more Talking Heads every Friday

Suggest a topic for next week by leaving it in the comments

Jaws didn’t mean to do it, but Summer has become the biggest business in movie-making. This summer, we’re getting a new batch of movies that the studios are hoping to be gigantic, but thankfully for us, they fit into 6 handy categories.

Rob Hunter and Cole Abaius have worked tirelessly (except for five or ten naps) in order to break these movies down and present them to you. What will you be watching this summer? What excites you the most? What do you have the highest hopes for?

These films all have the potential to bust blocks, but will it be your block they’re busting?

Here they are, the six types of films coming out in the following months.

SUPERHEROES

Thor

The god of thunder is banished to Earth where he must learn to find the hero within in order to defeat his evil brother Loki. And Natalie Portman plays a hot scientist. Of the four comic book superhero films hitting the big screen this summer, this is probably the one with the biggest question mark hanging over it. Thor has seen the lightest film/TV exposure over the years of the bunch, and this is part of the reason.

That’s a lot of cheese to overcome, and an untested lead actor, a seemingly odd choice of director, and some plastic-looking costumes haven’t helped. But Marvel is banking on director Kenneth Branagh’s big-budget adventure to bring Thor into the mainstream. Early reviews have just started streaming in, and the general consensus so far seems to be that “it’s okay!” Thor is the first superhero flick of this very busy summer and expectations vary wildly, but as the only one starring Portman I’m pulling for it to succeed. Right?  -RH

X-Men: First Class

How superhero-y is X-Men: First Class? It’s so damned superhero-y that they’ve included, like, a dozen superheroes. Sure, some of them are new to their powers, but the deck is officially stacked. While some movies are content to shove hundreds of heroes into the CGI background, this film puts them front and center in the ensemble.

Will it matter, though? It’s been 8 years since we got a great X-Men entry, and that one came out in April. Yet, hope springs (or summers) eternal because it’s another shot at getting some of our favorite comic book characters right. Putting one of them in lingerie for the entire run-time is a bold start, but it’s going to take more than just seeing them jump out of planes to prove the movie’s worth. Of course, there’s another question here. There are a ton of superheroes, yes, but if none of them are Wolverine, will that hurt it? -CA

Green Lantern

An alien crash lands on Earth and bestows jewelry upon Ryan Reynolds granting him great power and even greater responsibility. This is the lone DC entry in this summer’s clash of the comic book heroes, and it’s hoping to break the curse (of quality) that has held back big-screen success for their characters not named Bat or Super.

Public awareness of the Green Lantern is about on par with where Iron Man was before Robert Downey Jr. blasted his way to blockbuster status, and with a charismatic lead in Ryan Reynolds there’s a chance this film can do the same. The troubles it faces are numerous though including an iffy-looking CGI suit, a good portion of the story taking place off Earth, and a tone that appears to be trying too hard to ape Iron Man. But is that really a bad thing? If it can find the right balance between action and humor, DC will have a hit on their hands, but will that mean Reynolds can finally stop worrying about Deadpool? -RH

Captain America: The First Avenger

A weakling signs up for the military during the lead-up to WWII, but is turned away because he looks half-chicken. Literally. He looks like he’s got Avian Bone Syndrome. Fortunately, they inject him some stuff to make him bigger (take notes, pee wee baseball players!) and he becomes an unlean, mean, fighting machine.

The good Captain has appeared in three live-action films already (if you count the hilarious Turkish rip-off 3 Dev Adam (and I always do)), but this is clearly the biggest attempt yet. The original 1940s serial changed everything about the character, and the 1990 attempt suffered from being made in 1990 without any budget to speak of. It’s great to see Steve Rogers finally get his due in the superhero world, but it’s also refreshing to see a superhero use a gun. Super strength? Sure. Magic shield? Fantastic. But nothing beats filling a Nazi full of lead. -CA

ANIMATED

Kung Fu Panda 2

The roly poly Po is enjoying his role as Dragon Warrior when a new villain enters his life threatening to conquer China and destroy the ancient Chinese secret of Kung-fu. The original Kung Fu Panda sits as Dreamworks’ most successful animated venture… outside of the Shrek franchise and How To Train Your Dragon, so a sequel was inevitable. All of the voice talents from the original are back again aside from Ian McShane, but his villainous replacement (Gary Oldman) should be more than up to the task. The only real competition this summer is Pixar’s Cars 2 which opens a full month later, and it will be interesting to see which comes out on top, especially as Disney/Pixar is already way ahead in the marketing game. The original Cars, though derided by many, out-grossed the first Kung Fu Panda by just $30 million. What are the odds that Po and friends (including a crocodile voiced by Jean-Claude Van Damme) can roundhouse kick those Nascartoons into 2nd place this time? -RH

Cars 2

As you can see from the previous entry, this Summer sees zero non-sequel animated films, unless you count Green Lantern. Pixar is curiously going back to a barrel that didn’t have much water in it to begin with to take their mulligan on animated cars.

At this point, it’s hard to imagine the year without a Pixar film tucked safely away right in the middle, and it’s that animated addiction that will most likely mean big dollar signs here, but what’s most promising is that this doesn’t seem to be a lazy second shot at all. It looks more like Pixar is setting out to prove that these characters can be better than they were before – they even had the guts to include Mater again. Who knows, they might even add in Jar Jar Binks just to raise the difficulty level. At any rate, the Pixar legacy lives on as the studio has firmly cemented itself alongside melting ice cream and bug spray as a central part of Summer. -CA

BLOCKBUSTER SEQUELS

Pirates Of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Jack Sparrow and his crew set sail on a search for the fabled Fountain of Youth but that bastard Blackbeard is on the same quest. The trilogy’s box office take would imply otherwise, but I’d argue that most folks recognized the severe drop in quality from the first film through to the turd. Gore Verbinski’s original is still a fun and wildly entertaining action film, but the subsequent sequels replaced the wit and personality with excess everything else including Jack Sparrow.

The latest sequel sees Rob Marshall taking over for Verbinski, but the franchise is also losing the only reason I kept watching… Keira Knightley. (Orlando Bloom is also gone but no one really cares.) Penelope Cruz is meant to replace Knightley, but that’s just silly. Will audiences still care about a Verbinski/Knightley-less Pirates movie? -RH

Transformers: Dark Of the Moon

This movie doesn’t belong in the blockbuster sequel section. It belongs in the blockblownupsobadthatitsmamawouldntrecognizeit sequel section. Sadly, that wasn’t in our budget. There’s already early buzz for the action scenes coming from the few select outlets that got to see some of the sequences, but context-less action isn’t exactly the concern is it?

Bay started the new trend of apologizing for former sins in order to ward off a wave of cynicism about a current project, but it doesn’t change the fact that he’s hired a supermodel to act and still plans on powdering every hearing aid in the theater with sound alone. On the plus side, there are bound to be a ton of giant fucking robots – but how will Bay outBay himself here? -CA

Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows Part 2

The Harry Potter phenomenon is coming to an end as Harry and friends finally go head to head with Voldemort for the last time. There really hasn’t been anything like this series before, and it will be some time before another gets even close to matching it. Seven blockbuster films have led up to this, the eighth and final cinematic adventure based on JK Rowling’s bestselling novels.

While the films have varied in quality over the years there’s no denying that recent installments have offered some spectacular action and effects, and they’ve even managed more than a little emotion and drama. Part one of the two-part finale was fantastic but featured a bit of a lull as the characters went camping, but by all accounts the second half ups the action exponentially. Will the all around immense nature of this finale make it a real contender to be this summer’s biggest blockbuster? -RH

We realize that you’re probably sitting at home right now, chewing your own nails off and wondering what movies are coming out this month. Maybe you’re even wondering why no one on the entire internet has said anything about them. Strange, we know.

How will you know what to watch this month?

Fortunately, Rob Hunter and Cole Abaius spent the entire month of March, taking naps, playing tether-ball, and researching movies at the last minute to keep you informed about what’s coming out in April.

You watch movies, so this guide’s for you.

April 1

Source Code

Who did it? Directed by Duncan Jones; Written by Ben Ripley; Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, and Jeffrey Wright

What is it? Groundhog Day with more terrorists and fewer laughs

Why should we care? Jones’s first film was the excellent, low-key Moon, and everyone is looking to his follow-up to see if he can avoid the so-called sophomore slump. He’s staying in the same genre of science fiction, but whereas Moon is a quiet one-man show, this is a bigger, action-filled film with one man and two lovely ladies. The story sees a US soldier trying to stop an impending terrorist attack by “jumping” into the body of someone who died in an attack that’s already happened…the hope being he can identify the terrorist, return to the present, and stop the upcoming bombing. But what if he can stop the attack that already occurred? -RH

Super

Who did it? Written and Directed by James Gunn; Starring Rainn Wilson, Ellen Page, Liv Tyler, and Kevin Bacon

What is it? A guy gets fed up and tells crime to be quiet in the least polite way possible

Why should we care? James Gunn has slithered out of the Troma model and written some mainstream stuff, but he’s never been given the change to make a truly Gunn-ian movie (it’s a thing). Here’s that chance. It’s pure, unfiltered dark comedy that looks a little messy and brilliant all at the same time. It also promises an obsessively horny Ellen Page, a crazed Kevin Bacon, and a lot of violence. So, as you can tell, it’s perfect for that Spring brunch you’ve been planning with Nana. -CA

Insidious

Who did it? Directed by James Wan; Written by Leigh Whannell; Starring Rose Byrne, Patrick Wilson, and Darth Maul

What is it? Poltergeist with the volume turned all the way to eleven

Why should we care? Wan and Whannell made a big splash with Saw, but their follow-ups (Dead Silence and Death Sentence) have been fairly mediocre affairs. This creepy, jump-filled flick should change that pattern with its story of a young family being harassed by paranormal events. The catch here is that the problem isn’t a haunted house. It’s a haunted son. You could say his nocturnal emissions are keeping them up at night. You probably shouldn’t say that, but you could. The movie is a blood-free, PG-13 rated affair, and while I have issues with the third act and the use of volume and musical score to artificially scare audiences (as with Sam Raimi’s Drag Me To Hell), the movie still has enough truly frightening visuals and scenes to warrant a trip to the theater. -RH

Hop

Who did it? Directed by Tim Hill; Written by Brian Lynch; Starring James Marsden, Kaley Cuoco and the vocal talents of Russell Brand and Hugh Laurie

What is it? An animated rabbit makes troubles for a live-action man, and it’s not Roger Rabbit

Why should we care? It’s about time that Easter got its due. The Easter Bunny is no Santa Claus, mostly because he’s actually small enough to fit into a chimney without the use of magic. This looks like a completely harmless children’s flick with the rock and roll sensibilities (performed at a safe, low volume) shoved into the Easter Bunny to make him hip. Will it work? Who knows. Even if it does, the Easter Bunny still won’t be nearly as cool as Hanukkah Harry. -CA

Rubber

Who did it? Directed and Written by Quentin Dupieux; Starring Stephen Spinella, Wings Hauser, Robert, and you, the viewer

What is it? The most absurdly entertaining film of the year. (And my personal favorite of all the movies I saw in 2010.)

Why should we care? As much as I love this movie, and I do so with the heat of a thousand horny Chihuahuas, I would not fault anyone for disliking it. The story of a telepathic, serial killing tire named Robert is clearly not for everyone. I get that. But if you have an open mind and an appreciation for absurd yet incredibly smart commentary on films and audiences alike, then  I highly recommend you give this oddball movie a chance. If there’s a chance you’ll see this then don’t even watch the trailer…just know that it’s funny, self-aware, filled with exploding heads, and features an extremely catchy electronic score. -RH

Even more April goodness awaits you…