J.j.Abrams Tagged Articles at Cinematical

It's not like my love of British comedian Ricky Gervais is a secret around these parts. No worries, though I'll be keeping my inner fangirl at bay, and you don't need to worry about this turning into a 'gush-fest'. The first trailer for The Invention of Lying has debuted over at Yahoo! Movies UK and we have our first glimpse at the story of an alternate universe where human beings have never learned the art of deception. Gervais plays a man working in the film industry who becomes the inventor of lying, and quickly uses his newfound skill for romantic and financial gain.

Gervais seems to have no trouble inspiring praise from his peers, and the cast list for Lying is proof of that comedy clout. Just some the names in the Lying cast are; Jonah Hill, Louis C.K., John Hodgman, Tina Fey, Christopher Guest, Jeffrey Tambor, and Jason Bateman. Gervais has even gotten his first advance review for Lying from J.J. Abrams, who said, "The Invention of Lying' is as funny as it is biting, wholly original, and surprisingly moving. Is there such thing as an important comedy? Turns out there is, and this is it." It's an unlikely source of praise, but after watching the trailer, I guess the big question is: could Abrams be right? The Invention of Lying arrives in theaters on September 25th, 2009.

After the jump: Gervais' working class 'dramedy', Cemetery Junction, goes into preproduction and Gervais stalks the paparazzi...

Warning: This is going to get a little 'spoilery', so if you haven't seen Terminator Salvation you might want to bookmark this baby for later.

It was the moment we were all waiting for this summer season: the resurrection of Terminator. The trailers were looking good, there was a Nolan in charge of rewrites, and for god's sake we even had Batman as John Connor -- how could this go wrong? Well, if you happened to catch the movie over the weekend you know just how wrong it was. It's time to play Monday-morning quarterback in the aftermath of one of this summer's biggest letdowns, and so let's try to answer one question: whose fault was it?

McG
There might be plenty of votes for McG as the culprit. He doesn't have the greatest track record for quality films, but I thought he pulled off a much better movie than expected. The cut-happy editing of Charlie's Angels was long gone and he had some great action set pieces, but that doesn't mean he made a good film. All of his trademark flaws were on display: uneven pacing, character motivations are glossed over or not even addressed; not to mention some stunning gaps in logic -- mainly: can someone explain to me why a techno-overlord like Skynet would build a machine that they can't control?

After the jump; find out who else earned the last three nominations...

Is there really much enthusiasm for a religious thriller this weekend? I realize that The Da Vinci Code made eleventy billion dollars worldwide despite widespread critical negativity, and that legions of fans support Dan Brown, Tom Hanks, and Ron Howard, but I'm not feeling the love for Angels & Demons, which opens on Friday.

I admit I'm biased. I managed to finish The Da Vinci Code, which was one of the most turgid, tortured, self-important works of fiction I've ever read, and don't have much regard for the movie version. I can understand why so many people went to see it, with the unbeatable combination of sensational subject matter, the promise of a thriller, and Tom Hanks' mullet. Yet how many came away satisfied, and demanding a sequel?

Early critical reaction to Angels & Demons has been tepid (54% at Rotten Tomatoes), but that didn't dissuade people before, so that probably won't be a factor. Our ace prognosticator Matt Bradshaw predicted that Angels & Demons would top the box office this weekend with $60 million, with J.J. Abrams' Star Trek dropping to the #2 spot after last weekend's $79.2 million haul. But could Star Trek retain its #1 position? The Movie Blog agrees with me on two points -- disappointment with The Da Vinci Code and lack of buzz for the sequel -- and also suggests that Star Trek's quality, excellent word of mouth, and expected repeat business could make the difference.

What do you think?

Cartoonist/writer Alison Bechdel is credited with coming up with something called "Bechdel's Law" as a gauge for whether she'd be interested in seeing a movie. (See our Cinematical Seven on Bechdel Law) It first appeared in a 1985 installment of her long-running strip, Dykes to Watch Out For, and it goes like this:

1. The movie has to have at least two women in it.
2. Who talk to each other.
3. About something other than a man.

Sadly, if you were to restrict your film-going to films that comply with Bechdel's Law, you'd find yourself avoiding about 99 percent of Hollywood movies, including those that are ostensibly produced for the female audience.

And the new Star Trek? Oh, that's right out.

Like most of America, I love J.J. Abrams' Star Trek reboot. It's exciting, funny, smart, and the special effects are awesome. But it's a serious sausage fest. If Star Trek were a treehouse, it might not actually have a sign on the door that says "He-Man Woman Haters Club," but there would definitely be free cootie shots available in the sick bay.

How nice it would have been if this brand-new Trek for a brand-new generation reflected some of the strides that women have made in society (if not motion pictures) since the series began in 1966. But the Enterprise's lone named female crew member, Lt. Uhura, is nothing more than The Girl, to be ogled in her miniskirt -- and, at one point, in her underwear -- and lusted after by both Kirk and Spock, if only to make it clear that these new Starfleet men aren't nearly as slash-ficcy as their predecessors.

Tooling around online I came across this pretty awesome time traveling t-shirt that basically crams the most important things we've achieved as a species into one giant cheat sheet. Something like this could come in handy if, say, you were accidentally sent back in time and desperately needed the necessary tools to help build a civilization (and survive, no less). Unfortunately, since time travel does not exist at the time of this t-shirt's creation, one feature it does not include is instructions on how to return to whenever it was you came from.

But it's cool, because this fantastic t-shirt -- courtesy of TopatoCo.com -- is also useful in the event of an apocalypse. All you Marty McFly's out there may not like the fact that no future sports scores were printed on the shirt, but, hey, if you go back far enough you could go down as the inventor of some pretty monumental things (like flight, radar ... and, well, t-shirts). According to TopatoCo, the shirt also comes with a special bonus feature: "this shirt also doubles as an "holy cow if this shirt somehow got sent back in time EVERYTHING WOULD BE CHANGED" item. This one garment - YOUR SHIRT - can/definitely will/might have already change(d) the entire course of human history. Wear it with pride!" (Additionally, this shirt could be used as a plot point in the next J.J. Abrams movie, so get it now before every fanboy from here to Vulcan Tatooine is wearing one.)

The shirt runs $18 plus shipping and you can purchase it over here. Click below to enlarge image.

Now that J.J. Abrams has reinvented, and especially, reinvigorated Star Trek for an all new generation of fake-pointy-eared fans, it would be unfair to let the filmmaker simply take time off to garden or crochet, much less celebrate the film's projected $72 million opening weekend. Especially since there are just so many other franchises and film series that deserve – or perhaps more accurately – need his golden touch. As such, we've thoughtfully assembled a short list of franchises that Abrams could and should take over, tackle, and reboot. And while we tailored our selections to suit the filmmaker's writing and directing strengths, we encourage you to leave your comments and suggestions which films and franchises you think might be better suited to Abrams' cinematic style.

In no particular order:

Few genre properties bring out someone's inner geek – much less in actual fans of the show itself - more easily than Star Trek. Whether you love it or loathe it, everyone seems to have an opinion or a perspective, and almost everyone has an emotional entry point for the long-running series: a parent's welcoming knee or cold shoulder, the dingy carpet of a rec room or the negligent boyfriend next to you, a shelf full of spinoff novels or their indecipherable prose, an unwieldy stack of VHS tapes or the interminable hours suffering through commercials. It seems that no one could possibly be unfamiliar with Trek, no matter how they tried; but it was the unenviable task of writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to digest some 40 years of characters, stories and mythologies, and tell a story that behaved as if no one but them had ever seen all that material.

The result of their labor is Star Trek, a spectacular opus, space opera, mythmaking science fiction story that condenses the sum total of its source of inspiration and reintroduces the series' mythology to viewers both old and new. Cinematical sat down with the duo at the recent Los Angeles press day for the film to discuss the process of reviving and reinventing the franchise for a completely new generation of moviegoers, much less potential Trek fans. In addition to indulging this critic's own passion for Kirk and company, Orci and Kurtzman talked about their ongoing creative collaboration with director-producer J.J. Abrams, discussed their own directorial ambitions, and dished a few details about their forthcoming follow-up to 2007's Transformers, Revenge of the Fallen.

Not many movie-going summers have had the good sense or fortune to formally kick themselves off with the likes of Hugh Jackman and his razor-sharp jazz hands, but as these are the times in which we live in, it's a clear indication that we're in for about eighteen weeks of spectacular spectaculars worth gulping down popcorn and guzzling down pop* with.

Eugene's already shone the spotlight on a fair amount of smaller titles worth your while, so our staff tried to keep the focus on that which we haven't seen, those spectacles for which we're most excited and least likely to text during. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls: sit down and shut up, because these are the seven movies that we're fairly f**kin' pumped for.

(*Okay, I pretty much never call soda that, but you get the idea.)

The Internets are abuzz today with talk of the super-secret-surprise Star Trek screening that took place last night in Austin. As demonstrated in the roundup we provided earlier, the response has been overwhelmingly positive -- ecstatic, even.

And why shouldn't it be?

As recounted at the Trek Movie blog, the Alamo Drafthouse was filled with Star Trek fans who'd come believing they were going to see a print of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan on the big screen, to be followed by 10 minutes of footage from J.J. Abrams' new reboot. New Star Trek writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman and producer Damon Lindelof introduced Khan, but the film seemed to malfunction after only a few minutes. As everyone's scrambling to fix it, in walks Leonard Nimoy, holding a film canister and asking if everyone wouldn't rather just watch the entire new Star Trek film instead. The audience explodes in a simultaneous nerdgasm.

Given those circumstances, how could the response fail to be deliriously enthusiastic? Even non-Trekkers such as myself hear it and think: Wow, that sounds really cool. And while I don't doubt that the new Star Trek probably is good, I think we shouldn't put too much stock in these early reports from a screening that was designed to elicit positive reaction. The real surprise here would be if they'd done all that -- the bait-and-switch, the surprise Nimoy appearance, the unspooling of the film a month early -- and the audience had said, "Meh." That would have been noteworthy. But giddy enthusiasm after an event whose sole purpose was to produce giddy enthusiasm? Not exactly earth-shattering.

Folks in the United States were a little bummed to hear that Star Trek was going to premiere in Australia, today, roughly one month before it was set to hit theaters. Opinions changed, however, when last night Paramount surprised an Austin, Texas audience with the first screening of J.J. Abrams new Trek reboot. Based on the general good buzz, I'm sure this Austin screening will be one of many held around the country in advance of the film's official release, so while we await more word, here's what folks are saying right now:

"But other than a few conveniences, I think Abrams pulled it off. STAR TREK isn't just a successful reboot, but a genuinely fun and exciting science fiction action adventure. My biggest complaint is that it feels like they just got started up when the film ended. I want more! I want to see the further adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and his crew aboard the USS Enterprise." - Quint, AICN

"If there is one thing Star Trek always got right in the old days - and we're talking The Original Series and the first two films, of which I'm a big fan - it was a commitment to character and story above all else. This movie has that same commitment, but it is muted by an intense sensory experience. This may be a small problem for some fans, but I can assure you that when you get that first gorgeous shot of the USS Enterprise or you are thrust into the midst of a wild space battle, you won't mind one bit." - Neil Miller, Film School Rejects

"First of all, this is a fantastic movie. It's pacing is rapid-fire, the action is larger-than-life and raises blood pressure with ease, and the characters come to life in a very cool way. Overall, it's an exciting flick that is shot beautifully - featuring a cast that carries all the weight necessarily to create some enduring figures to root for. A near-perfect Summer tentpole blockbuster." -- Cole Abaius, FSR



More after the jump ...