Review: ‘Battleship’ a ‘hit’ or a ‘miss’?

The movie “Battleship” has taken quite a bit of flak in the months leading up to its release based on the fact it’s a film inspired by a board game. There’s been jokes about what phrases from the game might end up as dialogue in the film (such as, “You sunk my battleship!”) and about what other board game-to-film projects we’ll be seeing in the future (coming next summer to a theater near you, a film about a family of explorers who find themselves trapped in a deadly jungle and facing down the most frightening terror they’ve ever experienced: a pack of hungry, hungry hippos …).

So, despite some of the initial skepticism from filmgoers and critics, is the final movie based on Hasbro’s classic naval combat game a “hit” or a “miss”? It has the same kind of feel as Michael Bay’s “Transformers” films, except with a naval twist — and whether that’s a good thing or not depends a lot on how you feel about the “Transformers” movies.

The film follows Lieutenant Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), who is pressured by his older brother Commander Stone Hopper (Alexander Skarsgård) to join the Navy and do something constructive with his life. Alex has a difficult time staying out of trouble, and after getting into a fight on the day of an international naval exercise off the coast of Hawaii, he is informed by Admiral Shane (whose daughter he is dating) he likely will find himself kicked out of the Navy when they return from the exercise.

Fate intervenes, and an alien invasion forces Alex to take command of a U.S. Navy destroyer. Alex and his team must figure out how to destroy the alien forces and prevent them from sending a message back to their home planet. Alex’s ship is trapped inside a force field created by the aliens, preventing him from receiving any backup from other naval vessels outside the field.

The film has received a mixed reaction from audiences and critics. Rotten Tomatoes reviewer David Nusair calls it “epically bad in virtually every way imaginable,” while Scott Nash says, “I never thought I’d be saying this about this movie, but I enjoyed it. … It was … kind of fun in a big, loud, brainless summer blockbuster kind of way. It’s certainly better than the ‘Transformers’ movies.”

I must confess (don’t judge me!) that I did enjoy the film. I liked watching the battles at sea, and I thought the Navy ships were utilized well in the film. I also liked that film makers included a character who was a disabled military veteran. Lieutenant Colonel Mick Canales (played by real-life veteran and amputee Gregory D. Gadson) lost both his legs and is having a hard time coping with his injury, both physically and emotionally. However, he regains his will to fight, and he gets to play a key role in stopping the alien invasion. I thought it was a nice way to recognize the service of soldiers and the struggle they have after returning from combat. Sometimes society doesn’t always pay as much attention to veterans, especially disabled veterans, as it should.

The film did have some weaknesses, though. At times, the references to the original game are a bit too obvious, and I think (spoiler alert!) Alexander Skarsgård’s character was killed off too soon. I also wish Liam Neeson would have been given more screen time as Admiral Shane (end spoiler!).

“Battleship” may not be a deep or thought-provoking film, but like “Transformers,” it’s a CGI roller coaster ride. Granted, it’s not a rousing epic like some of the best recent summer blockbusters (J.J. Abrams’ 2009 “Star Trek” reboot, last summer’s “X-Men: First Class”); however, it’s still fun, and I found it to be an entertaining way to spend an afternoon.

Review: Second season of BBC ‘Sherlock’ a suspenseful, smartly-written masterpiece

The greatest actors don’t just pretend to be a character — they actually become that character, so perfectly embodying a fictional persona that their performance transcends mere acting. And that’s exactly the kind of performance given by British actor Benedict Cumberbatch in the BBC’s smartly-written, modern update of the famous Sherlock Holmes detective stories.

Cumberbatch truly is Sherlock Holmes, and he was a delight to watch in the first season of the BBC’s “Sherlock.” And the good news for fans is, the second season of the show (which just finished airing on PBS) also is excellent.

“Sherlock” takes author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s detective and transplants him to modern-day London. Cumberbatch’s Holmes serves as a “consulting detective,” aided by his friend Dr. John Watson (Martin Freeman), who also blogs about Holmes’ adventures. The second season of the show updates several of Doyle’s most famous detective tales, having Holmes cross paths with the elusive femme fatale Irene Adler, investigate the “hounds of Baskerville,” and puzzle over Moriarty’s “final problem.”

However, the show doesn’t just take these classic stories and set them in the present day; script writers actually completely re-imagine the tales, taking cues from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original writings and coming up with entirely new mysteries (in other words, even if you’ve read the original Sherlock Holmes stories, you won’t necessarily be able to predict how the episodes will turn out).

In episode one, “A Scandal in Belgravia,” the British government is trying to gain control of compromising photos and other secrets Irene Adler has stored on her cell phone. In episode two, “The Hounds of Baskerville,” Holmes and Watson help a young man who claims to have been attacked by a gigantic hound. Though it is rumored a monstrous dog escaped from the Baskerville military research base, which may or may not be creating mutated creatures, what is actually going on may be something even stranger and more sinister. In the final episode, “The Reichenbach Fall,” Moriarty commits what is called “the crime of the century” and simultaneously breaks into the case where the Crown Jewels are kept, the vault at the Bank of England and the Pentonville Prison, and then mysteriously just allows himself to be caught. The episode culminates with a showdown between Holmes and Moriarty high atop a building: a confrontation neither one of them will walk away from unscathed.

I know it’s cliché to use the phrase “a part an actor was born to play,” but I truly think Cumberbatch was born to play Sherlock Holmes. He captures Holmes’ quirks and eccentricities and makes us care about the character, despite his flaws. He’s brilliant, but he has trouble interacting with people on a personal level.

We do get to see some rare moments of vulnerability from Holmes this season. Though Holmes is notorious for his lack of people skills and isn’t one to admit to having emotions (at one point, Watson even refers to him as “Spock”), he is troubled by his inability to stop Moriarty. Holmes may not have a lot of friends, but he truly does care about the friends he does have (Watson, Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson), and he fears what Moriarty may do to them. Holmes may be at times a frustratingly over-confident narcissist, but he wouldn’t hesitate to sacrifice his life to save his friends — a choice Moriarty may indeed call upon him to make.

Martin Freeman as Dr. John Watson is a great foil for Cumberbatch’s Holmes. By now, Watson has learned how to hold his own against Holmes, and he is (for the most part) used to Holmes’ eccentricities. Though their friendship is a bit dysfunctional, they truly have begun to work as a team, and they’ve recognized they work much better together than they do apart.

Cumberbatch and Freeman are joined by a fantastic supporting cast, including Rupert Graves as Lestrade, Mark Gatiss as Sherlock’s brother Mycroft Holmes, and Lara Pulver as Irene Adler. I also love the show’s creative special effects. Instead of showing us the screen on a phone when a character receives a text message, the words from the message pop up in the air next to the character. Another great, and similar, use of this technique is Holmes’ brainstorming session during the “Hounds of Baskerville” episode. We get a chance to peek inside Holmes’ mind (which is, of course, constantly running at 100 miles an hour). Words and pictures flash onto the screen and then quickly disappear as Holmes sorts through his theories and ideas. It’s a great way to display Holmes’ thought process.

My only complaint about the show is that the seasons only have three episodes each, which isn’t nearly enough for such a clever, well-written and well-acted show. The ending of season two leaves several questions unanswered, but the BBC has announced it will be shooting a third season.

Season two recently finished airing in the United States on PBS, but if you missed it, you can watch it for a limited time for free at the Masterpiece Theatre website.

Movie review: ‘Dark Shadows’

When I walked into the theater to see “Dark Shadows,” I wasn’t quite sure what to expect.

The film, which is directed by Tim Burton and stars Johnny Depp, is a remake of a 1960s gothic soap opera featuring vampires, werewolves, zombies and ghosts. The original show was serious in tone (think “Downton Abbey” with a touch of the supernatural), but the trailer for the film was more campy and silly (a fact that didn’t seem to sit too well with some fans of the TV series).

Somewhat surprisingly, the final film is actually a blend of the two styles, with some campy, “That ‘70s Show” type of humor, and also some moments of serious gothic drama.

The film follows the tale of the wealthy Collins family who move from England to America in the 1700s, constructing a grand mansion called Collinwood Manor. When young Barnabas Collins (played by Johnny Depp) rejects the love of a maid named Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), not realizing she’s actually a witch, Angelique vows to have revenge on the Collins family. She kills Barnabas’ parents and fiancée, and then turns Barnabas into a vampire and buries him alive.

Fast-forward to 1972, when Barnabas is inadvertently freed from his coffin by some construction workers. He returns to Collinwood Manor, only to discover the Collins family, headed by matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer), has since fallen into ruin, and Angelique Bouchard is now the town’s most beloved citizen. His return helps to rally the rather dysfunctional Collins family into making a comeback, and he also manages to catch the eye of the family’s governess, who bears an uncanny resemblance to Barnabas’ long-lost fiancée. Naturally, Angelique is not pleased with this turn of events, and the film concludes with a showdown between the Collins family and the witch.

The best part of the film is Johnny Depp, who is both tragic and charming as the vampire Barnabas Collins. Although several of Depp’s most recent characters (such as Willy Wonka and the Mad Hatter from “Alice in Wonderland”) have been rather eccentric, over-the-top portrayals, his turn as Barnabas is more of an understated performance. Barnabas Collins is a genteel nobleman thrust into an unfamiliar era, and he struggles to adapt to a world he knows nothing about. It’s like sticking a character from a Jane Austen novel inside an episode of “That ‘70s Show.” Depp makes Barnabas very sweet and likable, and he truly draws you into his performance.

Other standouts in the cast include Eva Green, who is obviously having a great deal of fun as the scheming witch Angelique; Helena Bonham Carter as the Collins’ psychiatrist, who has more problems than the family she’s trying to help; and Bella Heathcote as the lonely governess Victoria Winters. There’s also some cameos from cast members from the original TV show, and a humorous appearance by Alice Cooper at the family’s grand ball.

The main issue critics seem to have with the film is that Burton perhaps tries too hard to make the film both a gothic drama and a comedy, and to please a general audience and fans of the original show. One moment there will be something funny (such as Barnabas encountering a car or a lava lamp for the first time), and then the next there will be something very serious (such as Victoria’s story about how her parents rejected her and sent her away to be locked up in a mental hospital). There’s not always a smooth transition between the two. I also thought Jonny Lee Miller was under-used as Roger Collins, Elizabeth’s brother, as was Jackie Earle Haley as Willie Loomis, the manor’s caretaker.

So, the bottom line is, did I walk out of the theater feeling as excited by “Dark Shadows” as I was by “The Avengers” last weekend? The answer is no. Yet even though “Dark Shadows” isn’t quite dazzling, I still found it to be charming, quirky and fun. It’s worth seeing, especially if you’re a long-time fan of Johnny Depp.

‘Hulk smash box office’: Thoughts on the success of ‘The Avengers’ and what it means for Hollywood

If you’d asked me at the beginning of the year what film I thought would become the biggest hit this summer, ironically, I wouldn’t neccessarily have picked “The Avengers.” Although it was the film I was personally most looking forward to, much of the buzz seemed to be surrounding Christopher Nolan’s final Batman film, “The Dark Knight Rises.”

Then, a few months out from “The Avengers’” early May release date, something happened. The hype started building, and “The Avengers” started becoming the most talked-about summer movie. Entertainment industry insiders began to predict it would have a big opening weekend, but I’m not sure even they anticipated just how big it was going to be. Not only did “The Avengers” destroy all other films at the box office last weekend, it scored the highest opening weekend ever, to the tune of $207.4 million. That’s not even counting the funds the film has made overseas.

It’s an impressive accomplishment, and I believe it’s a well-deserved one for director Joss Whedon. It’s also a success that is going to shake up Hollywood. I hope the success of “The Avengers” makes a DC Comics superhero mash-up possible (with characters like Batman, Superman, etc.), but I’m also afraid studios are going to start scrambling to replicate “The Avengers’” success and start throwing all kinds of characters together just for the heck of it.

The reason “The Avengers” works so well is that Marvel has been working on, and hinting at, this project for years. They’ve been building up to this movie through other superhero films, teasing us with Nick Fury’s appearance in the first “Iron Man” film, the appearance of Thor’s hammer at the end of the “Iron Man” sequel, etc. Fans have had a long time to speculate and build excitement. Many of the individual superhero films, such as “Thor” and “Captain America: The First Avenger,” were well received at the box office, and audiences were clearly eager to see these characters again. “The Avengers” also was something completely different from anything we’ve seen before. No one’s ever attempted a mash-up like this, and the novelty helped increase the hype.

I’m pretty sure other Hollywood studios are going to try to capitalize on “The Avengers’” success, and we might see a phenomenon similar to the explosion of vampire/werewolf stories in the wake of the “Twilight” series. However, just throwing random characters together isn’t going to be enough; these projects will have to be well thought out with strong character development, like “The Avengers” was. Hollywood hasn’t quite seemed to learn yet it’s a bad idea to just try to milk a trend for all it’s worth.

While I’ve always been a “Team Marvel” girl myself, one mash-up I would like to see is a DC Comics “Justice League” film, with an Avengers-style round-up of famous DC superheroes like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and the Green Lantern. However, this project might have a tougher time getting off the ground than “The Avengers” did. Several of the past DC superhero projects were considered flops: the recent “Green Lantern” film (2011) wasn’t a box office success, and NBC axed a proposed Wonder Woman TV show not long ago.

While Christopher Nolan’s Batman series has been critically and commercially successful, I’m not sure the dark and introspective tone he’s used for his series would fit in well with a Justice League film that involved other superheroes. It also will be tough to create a project that captures the same excitement “The Avengers” did without making it appear this film is just a copy of “The Avengers,” except with DC superheroes. Still, I think it’s definitely a project worth pursuing, and if Warner Bros.’s 2013 Superman reboot, “Man of Steel,” is a success, it could serve to kick-start this project.

The success of “The Avengers” also is a nice career boost for Joss Whedon. I’ve been a long-time fan of Whedon’s work, and I’m glad he’s finally getting wide recognition for his creativity. Hopefully “The Avengers” means we’ll be seeing Whedon at the helm of other blockbuster movies in the near future.

Disney already has announced a sequel for “The Avengers,” which I think is great news. My only concern is Disney will try to meddle too much with the project. I think Joss Whedon’s directing and script writing, and fantastic blend of action and humor, were a major part of why “The Avengers” was such a success, and it would be dangerous to try to mess with this formula. The temptation will be to just make the sequel bigger and busier, but the studio shouldn’t lose sight of what made the first movie so great: the interactions between the characters. Joss Whedon understands the importance of keeping characters at the heart of a story, and hopefully he’ll be given free rein to brainstorm ideas for the sequel.

I’d like to see the sequel delve even deeper into the characters’ backgrounds. The unlikely friendship between Tony Stark and Bruce Banner; the relationship between Black Widow and Hawkeye and their history together; and Captain America’s struggle to adjust to modern life and all the friends he left behind — those are all plot points I’d like to see the sequel explore. I’ve also heard some fans theorizing Agent Phil Coulson may not really be dead, and maybe S.H.I.E.L.D. simply faked his death in order to give the Avengers the push they needed to unite. If so, how would the Avengers feel about that? Would they feel used? They came together in the first movie because they believed in the cause, but many of them don’t truly trust S.H.I.E.L.D.

So far, Hawkeye and Black Widow are the only Avengers team members without their own film franchises, and I haven’t heard any plans (yet) for solo films involving those two characters. What I’d actually like to see is a joint Hawkeye/Black Widow film — I thought Jeremy Renner and Scarlett Johansson had interesting chemistry, and I’d like to see a film that deals with their back story and how they came to be a part of S.H.I.E.L.D.

So, what do you think? Are there other character mash-ups you’d like to see on film? What do you hope to see in “The Avengers” sequel?

Review: ‘The Avengers’ is one epic ride

After months of hype and media coverage, and years of build-up in previous Marvel superhero films, “The Avengers” is finally here. And it’s one heck of an epic ride. The film was absolutely worth the wait, and director Joss Whedon’s combination of non-stop action, humor and heart adds up to what is arguably one of the best superhero movies ever made.

The film features an impressive line-up of superheroes, including Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and Hulk. Although I enjoyed all the individual films featuring these characters leading up to “The Avengers,” the superheroes are even better together. Here, they are forced to team up to take on Loki, Thor’s vengeful brother, who has stolen the “Tesseract” (the glowing blue energy cube used by HYDRA Nazis in last summer’s “Captain America: The First Avenger”). Loki plans to unleash an army and take over the Earth, and also get revenge on his brother for denying him the throne of Asgard.

However, while the Avengers are called to work together, they’re a rather dysfunctional team, with conflicting sets of values and egos. They don’t always see eye to eye (at one point, Iron Man and Thor get involved in what amounts to a super-powered smackdown, and Captain America is forced to break up the fight), and they don’t completely trust each other. There’s plenty of verbal barbs passed back and forth (Iron Man refers to Thor once as “Shakespeare in the Park” and also tells Captain America that everything good about him came from a “lab bottle”). And no one knows when or where Bruce Banner will lose his temper and turn into the uncontrollable Hulk.

This isn’t exactly the stuff “dream teams” are made of, and Whedon doesn’t shy away from showing the superheroes’ flaws, in addition to their strengths. But what makes “The Avengers” great is that even though the superheroes aren’t perfect, they are eventually able to work past their differences and learn how to function as a team. Their strengths and weaknesses balance each other out, and they realize they’re better as a team than they could ever be apart.

Whedon devotes time to the struggles and back stories of each character, and he takes advantage of his talented team of actors. I couldn’t think of a more perfect cast to play these roles: from Robert Downey Jr. as the snarky daredevil Iron Man; to Chris Hemsworth as the noble, proud Thor; Chris Evans as the earnest and self-sacrificing Captain America; Scarlett Johansson as the tough, take-no-prisoners agent Black Widow; and Jeremy Renner as the cool yet conflicted Hawkeye. Mark Ruffalo takes over nicely as the Hulk, reflecting the pain and emotional torture that comes from knowing just how much destruction he could unleash, and how he can’t always manage to control it. Actors Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Clark Gregg (Agent Phil Coulson) and Stellan Skarsgård (Professor Erik Selvig) round out the supporting cast.

Whedon also chose wisely when he selected Loki to be the film’s primary villain. To me, Loki is the best villain out of all the Marvel superhero films; Tom Hiddleston plays him with an eerie elegance, and his hypnotically calming voice belies the madness he has fallen into due to his all-consuming desire for revenge. His performance commands your attention, and he more than holds his own against the cast of superheroes.

There are several great action set pieces, particularly the final Avengers vs. Loki showdown on the streets of New York City, and Joss Whedon also has infused the film with his trademark humor. The film has plenty of great one-liners, many of them courtesy of Robert Downey Jr.’s smart-alecky Iron Man (when Loki boasts he’s brought an army to ravage New York, Iron Man doesn’t miss a beat, firing back, “We have a Hulk.”) And one of the best moments of the movie is Hulk’s response to a tirade from Loki about how he is above all the meaningless masses and deserves to be treated as a god — a moment that drew a round of rousing applause from the audience when I went to see it in the theater.

“The Avengers” was the film I was most looking forward to this summer, and I wasn’t disappointed. Joss Whedon does almost everything right, and the film is likely to please both fanboys and fangirls, and a general audience. I’ve been to see it twice this weekend, and I loved it just as much the second time.

“The Avengers” is a great way to kick off the summer, and while it’s the first blockbuster out of the gate this summer movie season, I have a feeling it’s also going to be the one to beat.

Catching fire: Thoughts on themes in the ‘Hunger Games’

I finally finished reading “The Hunger Games” series this weekend, and what a ride it was. It’s been a long time since I’ve read a series of books that excited me as much as this one has, and I think it deserves the hype it’s been getting. The narrative pulls you in right from the first several chapters, and once I started the series, I couldn’t put it down.

The three-book young adult series has clearly resonated with readers: “The Hunger Games,” “Catching Fire” and “Mockingjay” all have become bestsellers, and the film based on the first novel in the series has taken in more than $350 million in the United States and has broken box office records.

Yet what exactly is it about the Hunger Games that has attracted this much interest, and why have people seemed to find the books so relevant?

Although the books are thought-provoking and smartly written, they aren’t always easy to read. The narrative is rather dark and gritty at times, even for adult readers. The story takes place in a civilization called Panem, a post-apocalyptic society in North America that’s divided into 13 districts. Years ago, the districts of Panem tried to rebel against the oppressive government but were brutally crushed (the 13th district was even obliterated). As punishment for the rebellion, the government started the “Hunger Games,” a televised gladiator-style competition where teenagers are forced to fight to the death.

The names of all 12- to 18-year-olds are placed in a lottery, and each year, two names are drawn from each district (one boy and one girl) to compete as “tributes” in the Hunger Games. The tributes are trained and then placed in an arena with weapons and a limited number of supplies. The last one standing wins.

It’s a rather disturbing and brutal concept, and while author Suzanne Collins doesn’t cheapen the violence and write just for shock value, she doesn’t try to whitewash the content, either. That’s why it’s all the more sickening to watch how the citizens who live in Panem’s prosperous “Capitol” are sheltered from the violence and poverty plaguing the Districts, turning a blind eye to the suffering.

Through her novels, Collins forces her readers to take a hard look at several serious topics, such as politics, social injustice and entertainment, and her narrative serves as a sort of warning about what could happen to our culture in the future if we aren’t vigilant.

Some of the major themes in “The Hunger Games” include poverty, and how it’s easy to forget the “have-nots” when all our own needs are cared for; government control, and the question of how much freedom we’re willing to sacrifice in order to feel secure; and the idea of civic duty, and the responsibility we have to stand up for injustice we see occurring in our communities.

There’s probably a critique on our culture’s obsession with reality television to be found within the pages of Collins’ series, as well. Although there’s nothing on television as brutal or violent as the horrific “Hunger Games,” a lot of reality shows do encourage contestants to do whatever they can to get ahead, no matter who they have to push out of their way (it could be argued that the hit series “Survivor” is a watered-down version of the Hunger Games, the only difference being that contestants don’t actually try to kill each other).

Reality talent competitions frequently humiliate contestants who can’t sing, dance, etc., as well as they think they can. We as the audience laugh at the contestants’ misfortunes, even though sometimes the coverage may boarder on the insensitive or even cruel. Does this make us as bad as the people of Panem’s Capitol? Or is Collins’ point a little subtler? The people at the Capitol are so far removed from the brutality of the Hunger Games and the struggles of the Districts that maybe they cease to view the games as reality — it’s just slickly-produced entertainment. That’s almost the way we view reality television; we consume so much entertainment that what we watch starts to lose its impact, and the line between what’s real and what’s manufactured (which, truthfully, is probably most of “reality” television) becomes blurred.

The book includes plenty of political food for thought, as well. Cinema365, a blog I follow on WordPress.com, brings up a good point in that the Hunger Games could be used as a metaphor by both sides of the political spectrum. Activist groups like the Tea Party might identify with the Districts of Panem, viewing Panem’s controlling Capitol as a symbol of the United States’ slow movement towards more government oversight and socialism. Conversely, the “Occupy” protesters might also identify with the repressed Districts, and they might see the Capitol as a symbol for the privileged “1 percent” who are living the good life while the rest of the “99 percent” struggle to get by. Or, one could even make the argument the Capitol is a symbol of the United States itself; is our nation too comfortable, content to take our freedom and prosperity for granted, while people living in third world countries are suffering from poverty, violence and starvation? It’s definitely a question we should consider.

I don’t think Collins is trying to argue for one side or the other (especially since she started her series before the Tea Party and Occupy movements began to gain in popularity). I also don’t think she wants to let us off that easily by taking a particular stance. “The Hunger Games” is intended to make us stop and think, and I believe that’s exactly what these novels have done for our culture. The series is definitely worth a read, and I hope it continues encouraging people to take a closer look at tough topics and make sure we don’t become a “Panem” further down the road.

Have product placements in films become a necessary evil?

The Dutch beer brewer Heineken created quite a stir recently after the announcement a deal had been made with the company for a product placement in the upcoming James Bond film “Skyfall.” The backlash from fans has been rather heated, and many do not seem very pleased about the switch from Bond’s traditional drink of choice: martinis “shaken, not stirred.”

One could make the argument there’s nothing wrong with showing Bond drinking a beer. After all, even Bond probably wouldn’t drink only martinis all the time, and a bottle of Heineken might even make sense as a stylistic choice, fitting in well with Daniel Craig’s grittier Bond.

I think the real issue at heart here is the fact that having Bond drinking a Heineken isn’t necessarily a stylistic choice. It’s a paid advertisement, and it once again brings up the issue of product placement in film making. Is product placement a necessary evil in the face of rising film costs, or is it merely a frustrating marketing ploy companies should think twice about using?

Product placement has become a pet peeve of many filmgoers. We’ve all seen bad product placements in movies and TV shows: a close-up of a company’s logo during a scene (such as an “Apple” logo on a laptop computer), when seeing that logo really has nothing to do with the plot, or a too-obvious slow pan shot of a particular product. Such product placements often are irritating to viewers; they’ve already paid for an expensive movie ticket, and they don’t want to feel as though they’re watching an advertisement instead of a film. Product placements can interrupt the plot and detract from a film’s narrative power.

However, some product placements may become unavoidable in the future. As budgets for major blockbusters head north of $200 million, companies have to scramble to make up that money with ticket sales. Product placements, though not popular with audiences, may help to supplement expensive budgets.

Heineken’s “Skyfall” product placement deal reportedly brought in $45 million to the Bond film franchise, and according to U.K. news organization “The Guardian,” Daniel Craig has stated the partnership was a necessary part of making the movie.

“We have relationships with a number of companies so that we can make this movie,” he said. “The simple fact is that, without them, we couldn’t do it. It’s unfortunate, but that’s how it is. This movie costs a lot of money to make, it costs nearly as much again, if not more, to promote, so we go where we can.”

Personally, I would rather not have product placements in films, but Craig does make a valid point. I would much rather have a Bond film with a product placement than no Bond film at all.

I think that if product placements must be done, they should at least be done as subtly as possible. Don’t linger too long on a product logo, and by no means should an actor ever utter dialogue that sounds too much like a voice-over on a commercial: “Wow, I love this brand-new Mustang convertible I just bought! Can you believe how much horsepower this car has? And it gets great gas mileage too!” (Sadly, I have heard of examples of dialogue that bad.) Or, I’d almost rather see a traditional 30-second commercial for a product tacked on to the beginning of a film after the regular previews, than see a product placement within the film itself.

What do you think about the product placement trend in Hollywood? Do you think it will become a necessary part of film making in order to supplement budgets, or should film companies find other ways to cut costs so they don’t have to make deals with advertisers?

CBS’ Americanized ‘Sherlock Holmes’ TV show too big a risk?

When the BBC decided to re-imagine the classic “Sherlock Holmes” detective stories and set them in modern-day London, it was undeniably a big risk. It’s always a little dangerous when you deviate significantly from the source material while adapting a well-known literary work. However, it’s a risk that ultimately paid off, and the BBC show, called “Sherlock,” now has become many fans’ favorite portrayal of the famous detective. The second season of the show already has aired in the United Kingdom, and it will air here in the United States on PBS in May.

The U.S. television network CBS has apparently taken note of “Sherlock’s” success and is now working on its own Sherlock Holmes TV show called “Elementary.” The show is set in modern-day New York City and will star Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock Holmes. In another departure from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories, Holmes’ assistant and best friend Dr. Watson will be a female character, played by Lucy Liu. In this version of the story, Holmes is a former Scotland Yard consultant who travels to New York City to enter rehab, and Watson is an ex-surgeon who has lost her license and is now helping Holmes to stay sober. Holmes has been consulting for the NYPD, so he and Watson most likely will team up to solve cases.

I must admit my initial reaction to CBS’ announcement was not a very enthusiastic one. I love BBC’s “Sherlock,” but I’m not sure “Elementary” can capture the same magic. I’m a little skeptical CBS can make a modernized and Americanized version of Sherlock Holmes work.

The Sherlock Holmes saga has always been quintessentially British, and the city of London plays just as significant a role in the stories as Holmes and Watson do. Even though BBC’s “Sherlock” changed quite a few details and updated the story to modern times, the show still is set in London. New York City has a very different vibe than London, and a modern Sherlock Holmes story set in New York may be too much of a departure from the source material for fans to swallow.

Shows that work in one setting can’t always be successfully transplanted to another. For example, “White Collar,” a smartly-written crime drama about former “white collar” con artist Neal Caffrey, is set in New York City. The location helps set the tone of the series, and “White Collar” just wouldn’t be the same if it were set in, say, Dallas, Texas, or Portland, Oregon. This doesn’t mean you can’t make a good crime drama set in Dallas or Portland; you’d just have to come up with a different story that utilized the unique cultural features of those two cities.

I’m afraid CBS is just trying to capitalize on the success of the BBC’s show and will turn this into “CSI: Sherlock.” There’s nothing wrong with the CSI series of shows; I just don’t think the Sherlock Holmes story would work as a typical procedural crime drama.

According to the U.K. news organization “The Guardian,” CBS reportedly asked the BBC if they could remake “Sherlock,” and the BBC turned them down.

“They approached to reversion our show, we said no and they just decided to make one anyway,” said Steven Moffat, who is the co-creator of “Sherlock” and also known for his involvement with the popular British sci-fi show “Doctor Who.” “So I’ll just leave you to speculate on what I think about that.”

That said, CBS’ “Elementary” does have a good cast. I like Jonny Lee Miller as an actor and really enjoyed his performance as Mr. Knightley in the recent BBC adaptation of Jane Austen’s “Emma.” Lucy Liu has appeared on the TNT law enforcement drama “Southland.” Although I don’t necessarily have a problem with portraying Watson as a female character, I hope CBS is not going to turn her into a too-obvious love interest for Holmes.

I’m willing to give this show a chance, just to see what it’s like. I was skeptical of “Sherlock” before I saw the first episode, but now it’s one of my favorite TV series. However, I have a feeling CBS’ “Sherlock Holmes” experiment isn’t going to be as successful as the BBC’s was.

Summer 2012 Movie Preview

With the release date for “The Avengers” now less than a month away, the summer blockbuster season is almost here. There were quite a few good movies I really enjoyed last summer, with “X-Men: First Class” topping my list, and this summer’s slate of films looks very promising, as well. There’s a few films that are almost guaranteed hits (“The Avengers” and “The Dark Knight Rises”), and a few gambles (“The Amazing Spider-Man” and “The Bourne Legacy”).

“The Avengers” — May 4

This is the film I’m most looking forward to this summer. It’s pretty much the superhero movie to end all superhero movies, throwing together an epic team that includes Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America and Thor. Although a film of this scale with such a large number of superheroes hasn’t been attempted before, it has a strong cast, and each trailer Marvel has released has just made me more excited about the movie. This is definitely one I plan to catch on opening night. Click here to view a trailer.

“Battleship” — May 18

This is one of the summer’s riskier films. It’s a sci-fi/ naval adventure inspired by the board game “Battleship” and stars Taylor Kitsch (who appeared in Disney’s “John Carter”), Liam Neeson and Rihanna in her first film role. The premise could be interesting if the film makers can pull it off, but audiences may be a little skeptical. Click here to view a trailer.

“Snow White and the Huntsman” — June 1

This is the second of 2012’s dueling “Snow White” films. There seemed to be a somewhat lackluster response to “Mirror Mirror” when it was released in March, which means “Snow White and the Huntsman” likely will be “the fairest of them all” at the box office. The story takes more of an epic fantasy, “Lord of the Rings” spin on the Snow White legend, and judging by the trailers, it looks like Charlize Theron is going to give a dynamic performance as the evil queen. Click here to view a trailer.

“Prometheus” — June 8

Director Ridley Scott has been keeping the plot of this film very tightly under wraps, and this movie may or may not tie into his 1979 sci-fi classic “Alien.” The trailers certainly hint there will be a connection, and each trailer that is released answers a few questions and raises some new ones. The film has a strong cast, including Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron and Idris Elba. It looks like this will be a fairly intense movie that will keep fans on the edges of their seats until the very last moment, much like “Alien.” Click here to view a trailer.

“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” — June 22

Arguably the most creative film concept this summer, “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” is a fun historical/horror mash-up. In this film (which is based on a novel by Seth Grahame-Smith), the famous president is re-imagined as a vampire hunter who goes on a quest to fight vampires who are plotting to take over the United States. The movie stars Benjamin Walker as the vampire-slaying president, and Dominic Cooper as repentant vampire Henry Sturges. Click here to view a trailer.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” — July 3

Initially I was a little surprised when I heard Marvel was working on a “Spider-Man” reboot. Sam Raimi’s recent trilogy of films, starring Tobey Maguire, seemed to be well-received (the third film had a more mixed reaction, but I personally enjoyed it). Although it seems a little soon to be rebooting the franchise, I was pretty impressed with the trailer for this new film, which stars Andrew Garfield (“The Social Network”) and Emma Stone (“The Help”). It looks like they are taking the story in an interesting new direction. My only fear is that it may be tough for this film to compete with the superhero juggernauts it’s sandwiched in between — “The Avengers” and “The Dark Knight Rises.” Click here to view a trailer.

“The Dark Knight Rises” — July 20

If there’s one film that could rival “The Avengers” for most anticipated movie this summer, it would probably be “The Dark Knight Rises.” It’s a follow-up to director Christopher Nolan’s 2008 hit, “The Dark Knight,” which featured an incredibly haunting and unsettling performance by Heath Ledger as the Joker. In his series of Batman films, Nolan has given us a darker and more serious interpretation of Gotham’s famous vigilante, and there’s no guarantee he will give the superhero a happy ending in this final chapter. The villains Batman is facing this time around include Bane, played by Tom Hardy, and Catwoman, played by Anne Hathaway. Click here to view a trailer.

“The Bourne Legacy” — Aug. 3

This film may be one of the bigger gambles this summer, but I have a feeling Universal Pictures is going to pull it off. It’s always risky when you continue a franchise without the lead actor who made it famous (Matt Damon will not be returning as the character Jason Bourne). However, I think Universal has approached this smartly. They haven’t recast “Bourne”; instead, Jeremy Renner will be playing a new character who is somehow connected to the Bourne conspiracy. Renner gave a nice performance in last year’s “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol,” and he proved he can handle an action-packed spy flick. He also has a solid supporting cast, including Rachel Weisz and Edward Norton, to back him up. Click here to view a trailer.

Other films hitting theaters this summer include (click on the titles to view trailers for the films): “Dark Shadows” (May 11); “Men in Black III” (May 25); Pixar’s “Brave” (June 22); “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” (June 29); and “Total Recall” (Aug. 3).

Which films are you most looking forward to seeing this summer?

Preview: Tim Burton’s ‘Dark Shadows’

Think of it as “Downton Abbey” with a touch of the supernatural — the gothic soap opera “Dark Shadows,” which featured vampires, ghosts, zombies and werewolves, gained a cult following after it aired on ABC in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The show followed the wealthy Collins family of Collinsport, Maine, who were troubled by strange and unfortunate events.

One of the show’s main characters was Barnabas Collins, whose tragic history formed one of the most well-known plot lines of the show. After he rejected the love of the witch Angelique Bouchard, she killed him, and he subsequently was resurrected as a vampire.

Although the series ended more about 40 years ago, the show now is being turned into a feature film by Tim Burton. The film stars Johnny Depp as the vampire Barnabas Collins; Eva Green as Angelique Bouchard; Michelle Pfeiffer as Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, the family matriarch; Jonny Lee Miller as Roger Collins, Elizabeth’s brother; and Chloë Grace Moretz as Carolyn Stoddard, Elizabeth’s teenage daughter. Helena Bonham Carter and Christopher Lee also will be making appearances in the film, and several members of the cast from the original TV show reportedly will have cameos.

According to the Internet Movie Database, the new movie picks up after Angelique buries Barnabas alive, and he is inadvertently freed from his tomb two centuries later, plunged into the shock of emerging — unprepared — in 1972. He returns to his family’s once magnificent manor, only to find the estate has fallen into ruin.

Although I haven’t seen any episodes of the original TV show, I initially was pretty excited about the film’s concept. However, after seeing the first trailer, I was admittedly a little less so.

The original TV show was fairly serious in tone, and I was hoping the film would be somewhat similar: a quirky, gothic drama with a touch of witty humor (I was envisioning Michelle Pfeiffer’s family matriarch as the supernatural counterpart of Downton Abbey’s “Dowager Countess,” a character played by Maggie Smith).

The preview had a lot more campy humor than I was anticipating, and the goofy 70s music was a little bit of a turn-off. Still, I’m definitely not giving up on the movie yet. A trailer is not always an indicator of how good a film will be. For example, the trailer for “Hugo” didn’t immediately grab my attention, but when I actually sat down to watch the movie, I was blown away by how magical and enchanting the film was.

“Dark Shadows” has a strong cast; Johnny Depp is one of my favorite actors, and I think Jonny Lee Miller (who played Mr. Knightley in the recent BBC adaptation of Jane Austen’s “Emma”) and Eva Green (who appeared in “Casino Royale” opposite Daniel Craig) will perform nicely in their roles. One of the film’s screenwriters also is Seth Grahame-Smith, who penned the popular books “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” and “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.”

According to the website Screen Rant, Smith said “the Dark Shadows movie actually has ‘a very straightforward, dour, gothic feeling’ at times, but is overall meant to be more of a whimsical viewing experience.” He said film makers wanted to create a movie that captured the essence of the original show but also appealed to a wide, mainstream movie audience.

The film is slated for release on May 11. For more information about the movie and to view the trailer, visit http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1077368.