If the first two big sequels of the summer movie season are any indication, things are not looking good for the latest entries in the Pirates, Die Hard, and Rush Hour franchises as both Spider-Man 3 and Shrek the Third have disappointed with substance but taken the box office crowns each and every week. Things may look up though, for first entries into many franchises like the Michael Bay-directed Transformers and The Simpsons Movie, but with a nosedive in quality here in the first month of the season, one can only hope reprieve is at hand for us all.

Shrek the Third is just not a funny movie; it’s an animated comedy about an ogre who doesn’t want to be king and sets out to find the next heir, thereby shunning his job on to a young boy, Arthur (Justin Timberlake). Although after rolling in the allies during the COPS sequence in Shrek 2, there were high hopes that Mike Meyers and company would be able to top themselves in every respect, unfortunately this did not happen, so instead of another Wayne’s World, we’re left with Wayne‘s World 2, and we’re not happy about it.

The entire cast returns to reprise their voice rolls this time around which finds the aforementioned Shrek (Mike Meyers) seeking out Arthur to become rightful king of Far Far Away. Dastardly Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) has other plans as he organizes all the fairy tale villains to siege the kingdom and crown himself king after the death of Princess Fiona’s (Cameron Diaz) father.

Unlike the second film, the pop-culture jokes have been toned way back, with only a few shout-outs to Foot Locker and other small chains instead of the massively funny montage scene from the second film. Even the slapstick humor that set up the series in the original Shrek has been toned back, there’s very little social commentary, all in all it feels as though the series has lost that spunk, that fire that made it so popular with kids and adults alike in its previous two installments.

Sure, there are still a few moments where you’ll find yourself laughing, the Gingerbread Man’s life flashing before his eyes is priceless, but the fairy tale characters that played such an important role lampooning themselves and the Disney-treatment they’ve gotten over the last 60 years is sadly missing from this installment in the series.

So yet another third installment and yet another disappointment, it’s almost feeling like studios should go right to number four after two as three just might be a tad unlucky. Even for true fans of the series, Shrek the Third comes out smelling like an un-showered ogre.

Warning this review contains plot spoilers.

Almost like a loosely written comedy, the writers and producers of Spider-Man 3 choose to include as much material as possible gathered from the comic books, throw it at the wall, and see what stuck with the audience. All we are treated to in the end is an entertaining, albeit unfocused comic book film which tries to cram too much into its 145 minute runtime and doesn’t leave you feeling with the sense of conclusion you were hoping for.

If one was to gather any indication of a film’s quality from its first trailer we should have seen this coming, Spidey 3‘s initial teaser was a jumbled, underwhelming mess that certainly didn’t promote the biggest adventure for the web-slinger on the big screen.

It isn’t that Spider-Man 3 is a bad film; it just tries to do too much. In the span of two-and-a-half-hours we see the origin story for Sandman, the Venom symbiote crash to Earth and “infect” Peter Parker, a love triangle between Parker, Mary Jane and Gwen Stacy, Harry Osborne go from bad, to good, pretending to be good but still bad, then good again, Eddie Brock becoming Venom, and it just goes on and on. In an industry where many time critics complain about a lack of plot, this film goes into the opposite spectrum and tries to give too much to the fans.

Sure there will be fanboys all around who are practically drooling for another chance to see the black-suited Spider-Man toll around New York, or Venom appear on the big screen, but there was so much that could have been excised from the final cut of Sam Raimi’s picture that there’s almost two movie’s worth of material here. Even with all the plot thrown in here the Sandman character feels completely unnecessary, and his inclusion seems more as a way to take the focus away from Venom and Harry’s follow-in-your-father’s-footsteps-brooding.

It was nice to see how the black suit affected Parker, but his over-the-top emo look (ripped straight from an AFI concert) was a bit over the top, and his “jazz” routine near the end of the film’s second act is more of a distraction than really relating to anything pertinent.

The best part of the film is actually the short cameo by cult-actor Bruce Campbell, this time as a French maître d’ who steals each and every scene he’s in.

Spider-Man 3 is going to make a lot of people happy, it’s an entertaining film that puts the web-crawler on the big screen to finish up an initial trilogy, but like the original Star Wars trilogy, the third installment ends up being the big disappointment after a spectacular second chapter. After it’s all said and done, you’ll see the film again and again because its pure Hollywood popcorn, but you won’t come away from the movie like you did the first and second installments with a huge anticipation of the next chapter in the back of your mind. After Spider-Man 3’s credits wrap, you can honestly say, you don’t mind if they make another one or not.

Death of Seasons from director Chance White and writer/star Delfo Baroni busts in from the independent scene clearly wearing its influences on its sleeve but also proposing an interesting, new spin on the conventional psychological thriller that mixes parts of the genre’s best techniques and staples together to produce a film worthy of your time and money.

Produced on less than $10,000, Seasons never really shows its low-budget roots and cleverly uses real-world sets to mask these budget limitations, employing the use of both handheld and still cameras the view into this world is intricately paved out by White’s vision, especially the use of long range zoom in shots and long cuts. One particular cut has the film’s two protagonists walking the sidewalk of a residential street, never missing a beat the tit-for-tat dialog continues until either a very obvious cut is employed or a misplaced stylistic device seems to detract from the very impressive camera work. Seasons is easily one of the best independent films from a technological and stylistic standpoint with the aforementioned camera work combined with concise editing, and great lighting effects.

From the very beginning the filming and editing seems to employ a very Se7en-like Fincher cut with quick, distorted jump cuts, muted color palette, and image flashes akin to Tyler Durden appearance in the first act of another Fincher masterpiece, Fight Club. The film seems to channel many different films including Clerks with its liquid dialog, philosophical debate in the oddest of places (a Tarantino like conversation in a corner café), and pairing of two main characters who seem to have nothing in common but play off each other so well.

The script is generally tight and, as mentioned previously, Baroni’s dialog, while choppy at times, has the flow of some of the industries’ most respected linguists. The film isn’t completely linear, and as it goes on it becomes a bit harder to determine if things are indeed jumping from event to event, or are truly running in a straight line. The character’s clothing indicates that former rather than the latter. Generally this isn’t completely distracting, but it could be better established on how this should be interpreted by the viewer.

The story itself centers around two individuals who are dealing with the trials and tribulations of life in different ways. Aaron is torn between the physical desires of his human being and the spiritual requirements of his religion as he tries to find a happy balance with each side pulling him further off-center. Gabriel’s story is harder to pin down as the American Psycho-like ending may leave more questions than answers but after listening to the commentary provided and reading deeper into the film’s meanings one can see into the mind of the disposed character.

There’s an odd “musical” number in the film’s second act which doesn’t seem to fit in with the rest of the film, even after the ending is revealed. In fact, the second act in general seems to drag on a bit and slows down the film’s taut, brisk first act which brings the viewer into the world of Gabe (Baroni) and Aaron (Justice Leak). The third act picks up once again as the narrative comes to a head, although the big reveal ending does come off slightly confusing as the viewer searches for motives to Gabriel’s actions they might not have picked up on earlier in the film.

The film’s cynical commentary and religion vs. atheism arguments resonate well as social commentaries, whether intended or not, on the nature of the world we live in. Most of this is embodied in the conversations Gabe has with his cantankerous, blind neighbor Mr. Harper (Kermit Rolison) who’s less than bright outlook on life certainly highlights the dark comedy aspect of the film.

Death of Seasons excels as a film that never lets the low-budget, independent stigma bring it down. The excellent direction by White and wonderful writing and portrayal of Gabe by Baroni only solidify the film’s ascension to the top of the indie scene. With some tightening of the script in a few places, and some smoothing of a few rough spots of dialog it wouldn’t surprise me to see Death of Seasons on a theater marquee in the very near future.

For more information on Death of Seasons, check out the official website right here.

Grindhouse, the double-bill experiment from cult directors Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino, is a hard movie to review because each film has its own unique style and its own premise, and largely varying degree of quality. Planet Terror, from Rodriguez, and Death Proof, from Tarantino, are spliced together with purposely distressed film, scratches, missing reels, and fake movie trailers connecting the two like an old school, double feature. Unfortunately, none of those in the film’s target demographic could even tell you what a Grindhouse was, let alone try to comprehend what a double-bill would be.

Planet Terror is the better half of Grindhouse, there’s no doubt about that, Robert Rodriguez’s zombie adaptation is fresh, action filled, humorous, and brimming to the top with style and enough substance to keep the audience entertained through its brisk 90 minute runtime. The characters have enough dimension to keep you enticed in their actions, and the missing reel gag only seems to further solidify them as some of the coolest you’ll see on the big screen this year even though, by all other standards, they are 2D replicas of archetypes we’ve seen on the big screen thousands of times.

Still they feel fresh, almost as though the stigma of knowing that Grindhouse, and the films contained within are suppose to be hollow, action-filled romps where enormous amounts of gore fill the screen and movie-making caution is thrown to the wind.

The story focuses on a group of survivors, lead by the mysterious El Wray (Freddy Rodriquez) who can do more with two butterfly knives than most can do with a fully automatic machine gun. The most memorable action sequences in the double-bill take place in Planet Terror, notably Rose McGowan as the gun-legged go-go dancer who lays waste to a group of zombies near the end of the film from the back of a bike and later rocket jumping over a wall. Outlandish? Most definitely. Fun? Most certainly.

With characters like the aforementioned El Wray, devilish Doc Block (Josh Brolin), and Bruce Willis as a corrupt, and changing, Army officer you’d be hard pressed to not find something to smile and awe about in Planet Terror. There might not be something for everyone here, but you’d have to really hate movies in general to not find something to laugh, gasp, or cringe at in this explosive exposition.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for Tarantino’s contribution to the film which comes off as a long, boring, talking-head theater filled with nonsensical dialog that does little to forward the story, and without focusing on the main attraction (Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike) the audience is left amazingly bored.

Death Proof feels like part of a Tarantino movie, but without the snappy dialog and intertwining action sequences to fill up the slow parts. Whereas Pulp Fiction gave us a long conversation at Jack Rabbit Slim’s but rewarded us with good dialog and the knowledge that Uma Thurman was about to get a six-inch needle in the chest. In Death Proof we get four twentysomething girls talking for what feels like hours, like we are caught in a bad dream where teenage girls rule the world and we can’t get off the phone with them.

When the action finally starts up, we’re left with one car chase, as spectacular as it is, it feels almost forced, to the point where when the words “The End” appear on the screen the audience is left dumbstruck with confused looks, almost as though they’ve just witnessed something utterly perplexing there isn’t words to describe it in the English language. The feeling is a wave of disappointment filling over you as you realize that the genius who brought us such masterpieces as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction also gave us this in a Grindhouse format that was suppose to blow our socks off.

Something can be said about the quality of the film when several of the audience members were calling for more fake trailers from director’s Eli Roth, Rob Zombie, and Edgar Wright just so they didn’t have to listen to more talking in Death Proof.

Grindhouse‘s varying degree of quality is a real shame because both directors are versatile, talent individuals who should have made double-bill the very best film of the year. Instead, Rodriguez once again impresses and Tarantino uncharacteristically disappoints and we’re left to wonder what could have been. What if both films were released separately? What if Tarantino had added more action? And will we ever get to see the contents of those missing reels? One can only hope the inevitable superstar DVD release will answer more than a few of these lingering questions.

Planet Terror Rating: B+
Death Proof Rating: D

There’s a lot to like about TMNT, but maybe not all the right things. First and foremost those of us who are in our early 20’s and grew up with the original cartoon and spent endless quarters in the arcades hammering on the old Konami cabinet will find a lot to like about the new film as seeing the mutant turtles on the big screen again is enough to satisfy.

For newcomers to the series, TMNT offers an ample introduction to the turtles, their master, and their fallen foe, The Shredder, who is reduced to nothing more than a two line explanation. In fact, that’s the reason many fans of the franchise will be disappointed with this 2007 update, many of the elements we remember have been taken out and a new, cliché-riddled storyline has been put in place concerning monsters from another dimension and an immortal business man with unknown intentions.

While a majority of the film focuses on the turtles and the fallout from the Shredder’s death (being a sequel to the live action films of the early 1990’s) one can consider this a reintroduction to the characters and a way to get them back on the big screen and set up sequels, this update is lacking in many things we would have expected to see. After abolishing Krang and the Technodrome from the live action films and putting a laughable third installment out, the fans of the franchise can only hope that Mirage and the film’s license holders come back to the comics, and even the recent cartoon series which provides a reasonable update to the characters as well.

With that said, TMNT is an enjoyable way to spent 87 minutes at the theater if you aren’t expecting brilliant storytelling and an endless supply of jokes. Few and far between does the humor resonate with the audience and, as mentioned before, the story could have been a little more relevant to long time fans of the series that would have killed to see a Shredder vs. Splinter match up on the big screen again.

What TMNT does very well is animation and the designers at IMAGI should be commended in as many ways possible for bringing the unique style they have devised to the big screen with the flair and technical prowess the studio has. One particular action scene has Raphael and Leonardo squaring off on the rooftop in the rain. As the camera moves around and eventually ends up peering up from the ground, the real beauty of the movie is shown.

For being as anticipated as it was TMNT does disappoint in some respects, but when you look at it as the first part of a new silver-screen legacy for the mutated turtles you can see where the creators were going and how they might be able to really turn on the nostalgia with some very ambiguous lines towards the end of the film. Could the Shredder or Krang be back the next time around? If they want to keep the fans enticed in this rebirth, they had better plan on it.

Zodiac, the story of the Zodiac killer and his spree in the late 1960’s thru early 1970’s is a pervasive look into the mind and mind games of a serial killer wonderfully presented on the big screen by David Fincher. It’s hard to say if many are seeing the film based purely on memories of the horrific events in northern California or for the marketing machine pushing the film from the director of Se7en. In either case, the audience is treated to a visually stunning masterpiece of cinematography and storytelling that once again raises the bar for each.

The film immediately hooks you with its pre-credit sequence about the attempted murder of two victims and maintains that hook relying on Fincher’s dark visual style and the compelling story of the police’s pursuit of apprehending the self-named Zodiac which eventually morphs into the quest of a former San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), to finally discover the identity of the Zodiac killer and come face to face with him.

Gyllenhaal’s performance is excellent, perfecting the portrayal of the debating Graysmith who becomes involved in Zodiac case little by little by overhearing meetings at the Chronicle which eventually turns into his own private investigation into the elusive killer’s identity ultimately coming to a conclusion that has since been disproved by partial DNA evidence.

Those familiar with Fincher’s work, especially that of Panic Room and Se7en, will see many similarities in his style here but some amazing new camera work as well. The opening shot of the film is a long cut out of the passenger window of a car as it passes down a rural residential street is just one of the many ways Fincher visually wows the audience during the film. Several times during the movie I leaned over to those I was seeing the film with and simply said, “that’s cool.” Very few directors can get that sort of reaction to their choice of camera shots, but Fincher routinely manages to push the bar higher and higher.

Another strong point about the film is its authenticity accurately portraying early 1970’s fashion and live style right down to the retro Paramount and Warner Bros. logos opening the production up.

Focusing back on the cast of characters, Robert Downey, Jr. makes yet another strong project decision by inheriting and owning the role of Chronicle writer Paul Avery, whose presence fades as the film goes on, but is never forgotten. His snarky comments and alcoholic breakdown near the film’s turning point are definitely one of the most memorable aspects of the entire movie. Mark Ruffalo, sporting some bad 70’s hair, also stamps your memory with his portrayal of Zodiac lead investigator David Toschi who becomes disenfranchised over his many years working on it.

The only complaint about the film is its running time which normally feels like a brisk two hours and 40 minutes, but at times can seem to drag here and there with bits that could have been trimmed and still preserve the overall integrity of the narrative. Other than that, Zodiac is easily the best movie released this year and its strong cast, compelling story, and rock-solid direction are all the more reason to see this film.

Royal Faceoff, and independent picture from director Stu Pepper, is an intriguing picture with a unique, but odd story that sets a young girl, trying to change the world for the better, to London to challenge the crowned Queen of England to remove her image from all currency in the former British colonies and commonwealths. The premise is both good and bad for the film as its unique plot allows for some interesting story dynamics we’ve never seen before in a film, but the sheer odd-ball nature of it makes it almost impossible to take the film seriously at times because the suspension of disbelief is so great there’s nothing real to grab on to.

The film opens up with one of the most cheese-tacular opening songs of all time relaying the events of the film (a version also closes up the movie providing an ending summation), but as you progress through the movie its hard to determine if the production is progressing with tongue planted firmly in the co-screenwriter’s cheeks or if most of the film was written with a straight face. There are some points in the film where the actors really overstep and try to hard to create some artificial humor, which makes you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons.

The storyline itself could be interpreted two ways, as either a satire of the American tendency to overstep our international bounds and make unneeded changes to countries we have no business meddling with, or a simple feel good family-type comedy one is likely to find on ABC Family on a Friday night. The film works out far better with the former rather than the latter. There are also some curious subplots about Diana and her family being direct descendents of the infamous traitor Benedict Arnold and the Queen’s love letters to former President Truman. Added into the whole, these subplots don’t seem to gel entirely with the rest of the production.

Pepper and co-writer Michael Sausville’s scripted dialog ranges from witty in parts to downright groan inducing in others, especially when the lead character’s parents are interacting with her, the quick cuts and dialog play host to some inconsistencies and have a “home-movie” feel to them at times making themselves more obvious than they need to be. Coupled that with two very awkward montages, one of Diana, in a bikini, listening to her boyfriend play on his guitar and the other as an introduction montage to London in which we are treated to still pictures of the roofs of buildings, and you can see how the movie can feel awkward at times.

It’s a shame because Pepper’s direction is spot on in some instances with some great perspective shots and use of existing sets. You can tell the film was done with a minimal budget (especially since London looks conspicuously like southern Florida), but this doesn’t really detract from the film. What do distract the viewer is the Gandhi-inspired flashbacks where both Diana and her dad, curiously, share the same visions but more than one of them go on for far too long to the point where it looks like the film is being padded out, and the fact that this is a very dialog heavy film with no action shots to break anything up and give the viewer some reprieve throughout its nearly two hour runtime.

I certainly don’t want it to sound like I hated this film, far from it; it’s a curious, but interesting movie that has great ambitions but maybe not the script and budget to back up those ideas to their full potential. As mentioned before, examining it as a satire of the American culture, even if it was never intended to be held in such light, opens up a realm of possibilities for the feature. As a family-centric piece about a young girl whose class assignment gets a little out of hand, it’s an adequate vehicle for young girls as an inspirational piece. The film isn’t for everyone, and ambition might have been bigger than execution here, but Pepper has a keen eye and seems adept at working with a minimal budget, so here’s looking forward to the next from him and his team.

Another week, another remake, and another review pointing out the obvious, Hollywood has run out of ideas and have now run the barrel so dry for even retread material that they have made it all the way to the 1980’s for their remakes. It should be an undocumented rule that if a studio executive is old enough to remember the original hitting theaters, there shouldn’t be a remake in his lifetime. Unfortunately, this rule may never be observed.

The Hitcher is this week’s flashback, the story of a troubled man who hitches a ride with two teenagers on their way to spring break in Lake Havasu (something Arizona residents know not to do). After a violent encounter the title character, assuming the name John Ryder, proceeds to set up the two up in a series of events leading the New Mexico Police to assume they have murdered and killed their way across the state.

This gruesome adaptation of Robert Harmon’s 1986 original written by Eric Red doesn’t seem to really go anywhere during its 83 minute runtime and I found myself mourning over the destruction of the Olds 442 car the couple was driving than I do their impending deaths. The biggest disappointment is the utter lack of any type of character development. Sean Bean’s turn as the violent rider is a great casting choice, there’s just no dimension to the character. Why is he doing this? What are his sinister motives for seemingly hacking and slashing people apart whilst driving through the desert? There seems to be no motivation or anyway to identify why he is doing this. Jason had the fornicating camp counselors to hate, Freddy the parents who burned and murdered him, The Hitcher just seems to be having a bad day.

Other than Bean’s inspiring casting is the eye candy that is Sophia Bush who spends the entire film nearly half naked holding a gun two times to big for her until she unloads a shotgun in the film’s final scene. Her beau (Zachary Knighton) seems to be just along for the ride and to offer another lead character to follow, but anyone who’s seen a horror movie before can guess his fate from the very beginning.

It isn’t that I don’t like remakes of old horror movies, quite the contrary, Dawn of the Dead is a prime example of how to modernize a classic with not only a fresh coat of paint but also reworking the interior mechanics to fit into today’s society. The Hitcher feels like someone spray painted over the top of what would pass as a good horror movie in the late 70’s early 80’s without any regard for making the film actually work in today’s society.

From the very beginning when we see a rabbit decapitated crossing a busy highway you just know the film is going to be gruesome because it can. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, even decent movies are this way (Hostel, for example), but what they have is the pedigree of the director and his or her style coming along for the ride. Music video director Dave Meyers show his pedigree by creating a one-off visual palette that seems to be over as fast as it starts and has no lasting effects on the audience.

Everyone in Hollywood needs to just try a little bit harder, especially on films still being shown regularly on late night cable channels.