HollywoodChicago.com: The Everything Entertainment Destination

Film Review: Don’t Buy Ticket For ‘Journey 2: The Mysterious Island’

adam@hollywoodchicago.com (Adam Fendelman) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:57:07 -0500

CHICAGO – If you hear an unusual sound this weekend, it may be Jules Verne, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Jonathan Swift spinning in their graves. The writers who have become an essential part of any growing person’s library have now been associated with a piece of 3D junk that insults the intelligence of everyone who sees it. “Journey 2: The Mysterious Island” is not a trip worth taking.

Rating: 1.0/5.0

I know what some of you are already thinking. I’m being too hard on it. It’s a kid’s movie. It’s 3D fun and if it introduces some great authors to another generation than this cynical critic is being predictably belligerent. I wish I could agree. I would love to support a “dumbed down” version of classic fiction that might get young viewers doing something that seems increasingly uncommon – cracking a book. But does it have to be this far down? And this dumb? There’s a way to make a movie like “The Mysterious Island” that appeals to people who know the work of Verne and those more excited by seeing The Rock or Vanessa Hudgens. But “Journey 2” insults them all with horrendous writing, cheap effects, and silly storytelling. It turns brilliance into nonsense.

Read Brian Tallerico’s full review of “Journey 2: The Mysterious Island” in our reviews section.

Sean (Josh Hutcherson) still remembers the crazy journey he took with his dad in “Journey to the Center of the Earth” but pop is missing in action (it’s hard to say what Brendan Fraser had to do that was better but maybe he finally came to his senses in terms of paycheck roles after “Furry Vengeance”) leaving stepdad Hank (Dwayne Johnson) to struggle with the troubled teen, who really wants nothing to do with him. As the film opens, Sean has just received a message that he believes is from a Vernian (someone who, like Sean, believes that the works of Jules Verne were non-fiction). Hank helps him translate the message, which reveals that the location of the legendary mysterious island of Verne’s book has been found. Time for an adventure!

Before you can say, “Doesn’t this kid have to go to school,” the pair are off to Palau, where they hire a helicopter piloted by the aggressively annoying Gabato (Luis Guzman) and his gorgeous daughter Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens). The quartet fly into a hurricane and crash land on the legendary island, where they find Sean’s grandfather Alexander (Michael Caine). Before they can get accustomed to the tricks of the island, they discover it’s sinking, and so the whole movie becomes an escape mission. Go to the island, get off the island, try to do something interesting on the journey.

Continue reading for Brian Tallerico’s full “Journey 2: The Mysterious Island” review.

“Journey 2: The Mysterious Island” stars Dwayne Johnson, Josh Hutcherson, Luis Guzman, Vanessa Hudgens, and Michael Caine. It was directed by Brad Peyton and hits theaters on February 10th, 2012. It is rated PG.

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island
Photo credit: Sony Pictures

Film Review: Rachel McAdams, Channing Tatum Don’t Stick to ‘The Vow’

adam@hollywoodchicago.com (Adam Fendelman) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:33:24 -0500

CHICAGO – “The Vow” was “inspired by true events.” The end credits even showed the real couple of those events. Given the actual film, it’s likely that inspiration came in the form of “making stuff up,” as Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum were opposite to any reality in this illogical, strangely cold romance.

Rating: 2.5/5.0

Set in a Chicago that only an outsider can understand, “The Vow” uses a plot device – random, selective amnesia – that today is only used in a soap opera. No matter how this condition is presented, it is almost impossible to rationally believe it, because everything that’s forgotten is conveniently tied to a recent marriage of a lovey-dovey couple. Suddenly the whole audience become brain surgeons, making the diagnosis that suspending disbelief is impossible.

The film begins with the intoned narration of Leo (Channing Tatum), describing the precious story of his true love Paige (Rachel McAdams). After meeting in a parking lot, they have a montage of courtship, which ends up in marriage at Chicago’s Art Institute. All is perfect, which always forebodes an ill wind. While Leo and Paige are making out in a parked car on a snowy street in the winter, a city truck plows into them, crashing Paige through the windshield and into the emergency room.

Leo is fine, but Paige is languishing in intensive care. She is put into an induced coma to relieve brain trauma, and when she awakens doesn’t recognize her own husband. She has severe memory loss, so severe that she doesn’t know she’s a trained sculptor, doesn’t remember where she lives and can’t remember any of the life with her husband. The last memory she has is of life with her parents (Sam Neill and Jessica Lange) in a wealthy suburb, going to law school and being engaged to someone else (Scott Speedman). It is now up to Leo to win her back again.

“The Vow” opens everywhere on February 10th. Featuring Rachel McAdams, Channing Tatum, Jessica Lange, Sam Neill, Scott Speedman and Wendy Crewson. Screenplay by Jason Katims, Abby Kohn, Marc Silverstein and Michael Sucsy. Directed by Michael Sucsy. Rated “PG-13”

Continue reading for Patrick McDonald’s full review of “The Vow”

Channing Tatum (Leo) and Rachel McAdams (Paige) Meet Cute in ‘The Vow’
Photo credit: Kerry Hayes for Screen Gems

Continue reading for Patrick McDonald’s full review of “The Vow”

Film Review: Denzel Washington Lives in Boring ‘Safe House’

adam@hollywoodchicago.com (Adam Fendelman) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:40:41 -0500

CHICAGO – “Safe House” is so overly familiar that you not only will think that you’ve seen it before and know exactly where it’s going before it gets there, but you will also barely remember having seen it once it’s over. It’s cinematic fast food – relatively streamlined but also not difficult to make for anyone involved, generally bad for you, and totally forgettable. It’s all so, well, “Safe.”

Rating: 2.0/5.0

It seems clear to me that “Safe House” started life as a better film. Here’s the pitch and the movie I wish I had seen – “Keyser Soze goes to a safe house.” Imagine that movie. A world-famous, notorious criminal ends up in a safe house run by a relatively green agent and the poor guy has to deal not only with the lunatic now in his care but also everyone who wants him dead. THAT movie could have been great. “Safe House” is not that movie. You see, once you cast Denzel Washington in the Soze role and he decides to produce as well, everything changes. He becomes nicer, more likable, and a whole lot duller. The biggest problem with “Safe House” is that it’s a movie about a legendary figure in the intelligence community who never lives up to his reputation. He’s been neutered to the point that even an actor as charismatic as Washington can’t bring him to life.

Read Brian Tallerico’s full review of “Safe House” in our reviews section.

Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) is the kind of action movie character who one instantly knows is about to have a very bad day. There’s never been a government agent who complains about being bored who doesn’t fall into some very bad shit in the history of film. So, when Weston complains to his boss, David Barlow (Brendan Gleeson) that he’s not seeing enough activity in his Cape Town safe house, anyone who’s seen an action movie knows that’s about to change.
Enter Tobin Frost (Washington), a man who we meet bartering a deal for a microchip from an MI6 agent named Alec Wade (Liam Cunningham). Wade tells him that just possessing the file (which he hints is filled with all kinds of international secrets) will make Frost target #1. Of course, as soon as our goatee-ed friend leaves the meeting, a group of heavily-armed men try to kill him. With nowhere left to run, he actually walks into a consulate and we learn that Frost used to be a U.S. agent who went rogue a decade ago. While people back in the States (including Vera Farmiga and Sam Shepard) try to figure out what to do next, Frost is taken to Weston’s safe house.

Not for long. Shortly after interrogation (by Robert Patrick of all people) begins, the same gang that chased Frost to the consulate finds the safe house and basically kills everyone except Weston and his guest. Weston turns out to be tougher than he looks and a car chase, the best scene in the movie, ensues. The rest of “Safe House” consists of Weston getting to the bottom of a few questions about what Frost was doing, what the file reveals, and who might want it.

Continue reading for Brian Tallerico’s full “Safe House” review.

“Safe House” stars Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds, Brendan Gleeson, Vera Farmiga, Sam Shepard, Ruben Blades, and Nora Arnezeder. It was written by David Guggenheim and directed by Daniel Espinosa. It is rated R and opens on February 10th, 2012.

Safe House
Photo credit: Fox Pictures

Film Review: ‘Father’s Day’ is Grindhouse Holiday From Normalcy

adam@hollywoodchicago.com (Adam Fendelman) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:27:47 -0500

Rating: 3.5/5.0

CHICAGO – If the word Troma means nothing to you, then you may want to avoid “Father’s Day,” a truly twisted and sadistic slice of horror-comedy that makes other recent attempts at grindhouse insanity (“Machete,” “Hobo with a Shotgun”) look “The Help.” It’s a bit inconsistent (especially in the first act) but the sheer balls-to-the-wall (literally) approach to filmmaking here is so far over-the-top that one has to admire the audacity of the filmmakers, a quintet that goes by the name Astron-6.

How simply crazy is “Father’s Day”? You mean outside of the fact that it’s about a serial killer named Fuchman (pronounced how fans of Troma films like “The Toxic Avenger” and “Class of Nuke ‘Em High” will know it should be pronounced) who rapes, dismembers, and kills fathers? Hmmm. Where to start? “Father’s Day” features things that you probably think you’ll never see on film (and much of America would say you never should). Like a serial killer slicing a man’s throat and, while he’s bleeding to death, chomping off his penis. Or injecting drugs into his own penile member before mutilating it. Intestines, puke, incest, and buckets of blood — “Father’s Day” is remarkably crazy even in grindhouse terms. It doesn’t quite have the whimsy of the best of Troma (especially in the first reel), but I’d take it over many of the high-profile attempts at grindhouse horror and it’s even more remarkable when one considers that the legendary company gave Astron-6 $10,000 to make it. I’m slightly terrified to think of what they could do with $10 million.

Read Brian Tallerico’s full review of “Father’s Day” in our reviews section.

Believe it or not, despite the ludicrous gore, “Father’s Day” is also pretty damn funny. The first act takes itself WAY too seriously (and the opening scene, featuring Fuchman using a decapitated head to give himself oral is too dark a note on which to open the film) but it clicks into a gear somewhere around the 30-minute mark when the three heroes of the piece have been united. “Father’s Day” is a film about a priest, a gay prostitute, and a one-eyed vigilante trying to stop not just a male-raping serial killer but a centuries-old creature from Hell (the Fuchmannicus, of course). The story is SO increasingly crazy (incorporating drug-induced dream sequences and trips to Heaven and Hell) that one has to simply admire the insanity of the accomplishment. The film should be 80 minutes but runs 100 instead and I would have cut most of that from the too-intense first act, but “Father’s Day” should still connect with the target audience for which it was created.

Continue reading for Brian Tallerico’s full “Father’s Day” review.

“Father’s Day” stars Adam Brooks, Conor Sweeney, and Matthew Kennedy. It was written and directed by Astron-6 and is VERY not rated.

Father’s Day
Photo credit: Troma

Film Review: Mixed Bag of Quality in ‘Oscar Nominated Short Films 2012’

adam@hollywoodchicago.com (Adam Fendelman) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:20:52 -0500

CHICAGO – It’s that time of the year when you can get a leg up on your friends at your Oscar party when the short film categories pop up by seeing “Oscar Nominated Short Films 2012: The Animated” and “Oscar Nominated Short Films 2012: The Live Action,” opening around the country tomorrow, February 10th, 2012, and in Chicago at the Landmark Century Cinema. An expected mixed bag of quality, this year’s line-up of ten shorts in two separate programs is stronger than some years and weaker than others. There are stand-outs in both programs including a new short by Pixar (that will play in front of “Brave” this summer) and a stellar drama starring Ciaran Hinds from director Terry George (“Hotel Rwanda”). Overall, the live action program is significantly stronger if you only have time for one.

Rating: 3.5/5.0

“Oscar Nominated Short Films 2012: The Animated”

In order of quality:

“A Morning Stroll”

Playing with form and style, the creators of this clever gem take a story of a man seeing a chicken walk down a city street, knock on a door, and be let in and turn it into a three-part comedy. Basically, the same story of the chicken who climbed the stairs is presented in stick figures in 1959, more detailed animation in 2009, and pure CGI chaos in 2059. It’s fun and very well-made and the reason it stands out in particular is, unlike most of the shorts, the length feels perfect. Too many this year felt too long or too short. “A Morning Stroll” is perfectly timed and it will make you smile without trying as hard to do so as some of the other entries.

Read Brian Tallerico’s full review of “Oscar Shorts 2012” in our reviews section.

“Wild Life”

The longest of the animated shorts could have been a live-action film but would have cost a fortune and features an enormous cast. It is the story of a man trying to move to a relatively-unexplored section of the world and missing home and battling mother nature. The idea that relatively aristocratic people once had to give it all up to live in log cabins with brutal weather conditions just to “go west, young man” is a clever one for a short film, animated or not, and this one starts somewhat whimsical but gains a high level of melancholy as it goes on. The brush stroke-style animation adds a level of visual art that helps the piece stand out.

Continue reading for Brian Tallerico’s full “Oscar Shorts 2012” review.

Wild Life
Photo credit: Shorts International

DVD Review: ‘Another Happy Day’ Plunges Headfirst Into Familial Hellhole

adam@hollywoodchicago.com (Adam Fendelman) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:18:06 -0500

CHICAGO – “Another Happy Day” is essentially the inverse of “Rachel Getting Married.” Instead of an unstable, self-pitying girl wreaking havoc on an otherwise pleasant wedding, we have a sensitive, otherwise pleasant woman driven mad by her unstable, self-pitying family…at a wedding, no less. I’ve seen war enemies with less animosity than this group of miserable basket cases.

Of course, weddings have routinely been a hotbed of family dysfunction typified by Robert Altman’s flawed yet woefully underrated 1978 satire, “A Wedding.” “Happy Day” is closer in spirit to Noah Baumbach’s caustic and somewhat repellant 2007 effort, “Margot at the Wedding,” albeit without the handheld photography. There’s a lot of talent on display that’s worth admiring, but the film is more depressing and drab than it is funny or insightful.

DVD Rating: 2.5/5.0

It’s the directorial debut of Sam Levinson (son of Barry), and it’s clear that he’s inherited his father’s gift for directing actors. This is a promising first film, but like most rookie directors, Levinson is eager to bite off more than he can chew. Though his screenplay won an award at Sundance, it could’ve benefited from a few more rewrites. Extraneous subplots are cluttered throughout the film that add very little to the main dramatic arc. There are also an abundance of awkwardly cut scenes ending on a would-be punch line that falls flat. Yet perhaps the biggest problem here is the instant familiarity of the clichéd characters. Audiences have become all too accustomed to sardonic drug addicts, embittered matriarchs and precocious kids with a mild case of Asperger’s. Yet it’s to the credit of Levinson’s script that the Asperger’s-inflicted Ben (well-played by Daniel Yelsky) does not talk chiefly in sitcom stereotypes or tiresome exposition, unlike Thomas Horn in Stephen Daldry’s awful “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.” He’s also the most well-adjusted and sane person in the ensemble, which is a good thing since his mother, Lynn (Ellen Barkin), needs all the sanity she can get.

Another Happy Day was released on DVD on Jan. 24, 2012.
Photo credit: Phase 4 Films

In order to celebrate the marriage of her eldest son, Dylan (Michael Nardelli), Lynn must face her contemptuous vixen of a mother, Doris (Ellen Burstyn), an abusive ex-husband, Paul (Thomas Hayden Church), and a swarm of gossiping, cheerfully heartless siblings. One of them is a vulgar loudmouth played by the gifted comic actress Siobhan Fallon, whose performance I would’ve singled out for being over-the-top if I hadn’t met people exactly like her character. Lynn is so terrified of her family that she has forced her sons to submit to her pattern of lies. Instead of breaking the news that her troubled son, Elliott (Ezra Miller), was in rehab, she spreads the story that he recently returned from a trip to Sweden. The added stress caused by this blatant deceit leads Elliott to quickly relapse, and it’s not long before he snags a box of Fentanyl from his ailing Grandpa Joe (George Kennedy). Miller is a mesmerizing actor with brooding features that have led him to become typecast as a budding sociopath, and there are numerous moments when the acid-tongued Elliott appears as if he’s about to snap. He also scores with throwaway quips, such as his impeccably timed response to his mother when she calls him a “son of a b—ch” (“You just insulted yourself”).

Film buffs may spot parallels between Lynn and Joyce, the self-doubting and misguided mother Barkin played in Todd Solondz’s equally dark satire, “Palindromes.” In both roles, Barkin perfects the choked voice and painful vulnerability of a woman at the end of her rope. But while Joyce was a deeply flawed character in her own right, Lynn is more of a victim than anything else. She left Dylan as a child after Paul punched her in the face, and yet she’s still blamed for abandoning him. When Paul finally admits the abuse to Lynn’s parents, they remain absolutely silent until Joe warmly replies, “Must feel good to get that off your chest.”

One nagging question that remains unanswered is why Doris refused to support Lynn during her messy divorce. Burstyn brilliantly delivers a wrenching Bergmanesque monologue about her husband’s deteriorating condition, but there isn’t a moment in the picture that deepens our understanding of Doris’s antagonistic relationship with her own daughter. Unfortunately, Levinson is more interested in staging shrill cat fights that would be more at home on a Jerry Springer episode, while repeatedly allowing characters to burst through doors at inappropriate moments (don’t any of these doors have locks?). The least convincing cliché of all occurs at the very end, when a tragic occurrence threatens to bring the wretched family together at last. I’d argue that the only way this film could possibly end on a credible happy note is if it had borrowed the ending from “We Need to Talk About Kevin.” If you’re going this far into the scathing waters of jet-black comedy, you might as well go the whole way.

“Another Happy Day” is presented in its 1.78:1 aspect ratio and contains no extras aside from two trailers.

‘Another Happy Day’ is released by Phase 4 Films and stars Ellen Barkin, Ezra Miller, Daniel Yelsky, Ellen Burstyn, Kate Bosworth, Thomas Hayden Church, Demi Moore and George Kennedy. It was written and directed by Sam Levinson. It was released on Jan. 24, 2012. It is rated R.

By MATT FAGERHOLM
Staff Writer
HollywoodChicago.com
matt@hollywoodchicago.com

TV News: Current Season of FOX Hit ‘House’ to Be Last

adam@hollywoodchicago.com (Adam Fendelman) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:51:54 -0500

CHICAGO – Well, this isn’t TOO surprising — after a few years of dwindling ratings and rumors that it might even shift networks to survive, FOX announced today that the current season of “House” would be the last for the hit show.

By the time the show ends, one of the longest-running programs currently on TV will have notched 177 episodes and eight seasons, remarkable numbers that I don’t think anyone would have predicted after the premiere in 2004. The numbers have eroded over the years, especially the last few, but this show still has a loyal following that I imagine will be disappointed in this news. At least now they can end the show on their own terms.

An excerpt from the press release from Executive Producers David Shore, Katie Jacobs and Hugh Laurie:

“Since it began, House has aspired to offer a coherent and satisfying world in which everlasting human questions of ethics and emotion, logic and truth, could be examined, played out, and occasionally answered. This sounds like fancy talk, but it really isn’t. House has, in its time, intrigued audiences around the world in vast numbers, and has shown that there is a strong appetite for television drama that relies on more than prettiness or gun play.

But now that time is drawing to a close. The producers have always imagined House as an enigmatic creature; he should never be the last one to leave the party. How much better to disappear before the music stops, while there is still some promise and mystique in the air.

The producers can never sufficiently express their gratitude to the hundreds of dedicated artists and technicians who have given so generously of their energy and talent to make House the show it has been - and perhaps will continue to be for some time, on one cable network or another.

The makers of House would also like to thank Fox Broadcasting and Universal Television for supporting the show with patience, imagination and large quantities of good taste. The Studio-As-Evil-Adversary is one of the many clichés that House has managed to avoid, and for that the cast and crew are deeply grateful.”

Now the guessing game begins as to what FOX does on Monday nights. Neither “Terra Nova” nor “Alcatraz” has been a smash hit, but maybe if they’re paired together?

By BRIAN TALLERICO
Content Director
HollywoodChicago.com
brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Blu-ray Review: Denzel Washington in Spike Lee’s Timeless ‘Malcolm X’

adam@hollywoodchicago.com (Adam Fendelman) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:49:07 -0500

CHICAGO – Spike Lee has been getting national buzz again after the Sundance premiere of his controversial “Red Hook Summer” and the ageless Denzel Washington is back in the spotlight as his latest action vehicle, “Safe House,” premieres in theaters on Friday. It seems a perfect time for a Blu-ray release to bring audiences back to one of their career highlights. Over twenty years ago, the two collaborated on their most artistically rewarding venture, the epic “Malcolm X,” a fantastic film that has held up remarkably well, in no small part due to the excellent HD transfer from Warner Bros.

Rating: 4.5/5.0

There’s an entire generation who probably has no idea about the controversy that swirled around Lee’s “Malcolm X.” First, it was originally going to be directed by Norman Jewison, which seemed like an unusual choice for a film about such an important figure of the civil rights movement. Denzel Washington, relatively fresh off his Oscar win for “Glory,” seemed like perfect casting but there was some concern as to whether or not Jewison would be the right fit. When Jewison left the project and was replaced by someone who had just collaborated with Washington on “Mo’ Better Blues,” it seemed too good to be true. Lee was a troublemaker whose “Do the Right Thing” was widely considered one of the best films of the previous decade. He would be perfect, with just the right mix of controversy and seriousness about his subject matter.

Malcolm X
Photo credit: WB

After “Malcolm X” was released, Spike Lee notoriously refused to be interviewed by white journalists for the film. The controversy somewhat overshadowed the fact that this is a stellar, ambitious, remarkable piece of filmmaking — Lee’s second-best fictional film to date (include his amazing documentary work in the conversation and “4 Broke Girls” and “When the Levees Broke” might compete). By the time the film was nominated for only two Oscars (when it deserved at least seven nods, including Best Picture), people were already forgetting about “Malcolm X.” And the fact that Washington lost to Al Pacino for “Scent of a Woman” for Best Actor is one of the Academy’s greatest errors in judgment.

Watching “Malcolm X” again twenty years later in a stellar HD transfer from WB, I was stunned at how little the film has aged. Washington is still absolutely amazing, capturing an entire life. Rarely has an actor been given such an arc, one that led to multiple critics awards (including Chicago) for Best Actor. And Lee’s technical craft here has been underrated. Yes, some of the period scenes seem to be a little too much for him to rein in for an audience, but people forget the sheer ambition of this film, one that runs 200 minutes. It’s an EPIC about a man who deserved storytellers like Spike Lee and Denzel Washington to bring it to life.

Special Features:
o Commentary by Spike Lee, Director of Photography Ernest Dickerson, Editor Barry Alexander Brown and Costume Designer Ruth Carter
o Deleted Scenes with Introduction by Spike Lee
o Featurette “By Any Means Necessary: The Making Of Malcolm X”
o Theatrical Trailer
o Oscar-Nominated 1972 Feature-Length Documentary “Malcolm X”

“Malcolm X” stars Denzel Washington, Spike Lee, Delroy Lindo, Angela Bassett, Al Freeman Jr., and Albert Hall. It was directed by Lee and released on Blu-ray on January 31st, 2012.

By BRIAN TALLERICO
Content Director
HollywoodChicago.com
brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Video Game Feature: Hands-On With the Sony PlayStation Vita

adam@hollywoodchicago.com (Adam Fendelman) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:31:21 -0500

CHICAGO – It feels like there’s a new must-have electronic toy every quarter. Do you have an iPad 2? iPhone 4S? Nintendo 3DS? Whatever that obnoxious SuperBowl commercial with The Darkness was shilling? It can get exhausting, especially if you don’t have the expendable income to get them all. So why should you buy a Sony PlayStation Vita? Why get another toy if something else will simply replace it three months later? Having been lucky enough to get an exclusive, hands-on sneak preview of the Vita, I can tell you this — Sony has developed an incredibly impressive machine, one that will surprise you with its functionality and versatility. In many ways, it is the ultimate gaming toy, taking elements of handhelds that have worked before and merging them with the new socially-intertwined landscape.

PlayStation Vita
Photo credit: Sony

First, let’s hit a few bullet points of unique functions of the Vita before detailing our hands-on experience with the games available for it:

The first thing one notices when picking up a Vita is that it is awfully familiar. The design is very similar to the Sony PSP. It’s a little bigger and features two analog sticks along with a back touch pad, but it is very clearly a relative of the Sony handheld that came before. But everything about it feels like an improvement on the PSP. It’s physically bigger but not as heavy. The screen is vibrant and large (five inches) for a handheld. The controls are well-mapped and responsive. It feels like the “right” size for a machine like this one and it was a smart decision to not stray too far from the model of what worked before for Sony.

Uncharted: Golden Abyss for the PS Vita
Photo credit: Sony

In fact, the first major difference one will notice is in the interface. The traditional XMB is gone in favor of something that will look much more familiar to iPhone and iPad users. Icons like games, libraries, and social functions pop up on one screen and the user can swipe to move to another screen like an in-pause game. Most of the action outside of gaming (and sometimes even in, which we’ll get to) are touch screen-based. And its the integration of the touch screen, Sixaxis controls, and other bells and whistles to the basics of gaming that clearly has excited developers. All four of the games I demoed at this preview involved heavy touch screen usage. But is it a gimmick (like I would argue the Kinect and Nintendo 3D gaming turned out to be) or the next phase in gaming?

Before we get to the games, a few more interesting things to note about the Vita:

1. This is one of the coolest things I’ve heard in the history of gaming development. For some games, you’ll be able to merge your experience with your PS3 gaming world. In other words, you can play a game on your PS3, earn XP or unlock items, save your experience to the cloud, download it on your Vita, and go. The PSP was always rumored to be incredibly functional with the PS3 but it never quite lived up to that potential. The idea that a player could start a season in, for example, a sports game on the road and continue their schedule at home is truly a step forward in turning these machines into partners instead of merely parallel players.

Unit 13 for the PS Vita
Photo credit: Sony

2. There’s clearly a heavy emphasis on social networking and it’s more than just bragging about your high score on Facebook. There’s a feature called Near, in which you can interact with and see high scores of the people around you who have also turned on their Wi-fi or 3G capability (and, yes, you will have to pay a monthly fee to AT&T for 3G). Not only can you compete with friends in your neighborhood, some games will utilize this feature in unique ways. Let’s say I unlock a mission in a game. I can give it to someone on my Near network. The lovely Jennifer Hallett, Senior Software Specialist for Sony, who ran the presentation even ran a mind-blowing possible function by me — location-based exclusive content. Let’s say you’re in New York City and you turn on ModNation Racers. There could be an exclusive Empire State Building track for you to play. (Which makes one envision a world in which kids beg their parents to go on certain vacations just to get certain content). You’ll even be able to jack in with your BlueTooth and chat with other people on your Near network. The concept of a gaming network is clearly being conceived as a HUGE PART of the experience with a Vita, not just an Add-on.

3. The PSP was originally pitched as a do-it-all entertainment machine with buyers encouraged to buy UMD movies and listen to music on it as well. It feels like the Vita is going back to gaming as its priority. When asked if it will play movies and TV shows downloaded from the PSN library, the answer is yes, but it’s clearly more of an afterthought. You use this to game, social network, talk to your friends, and if you feel like watching an episode of “The Walking Dead” on it, you can do that too.

What about the games? Click to page two for details on what we were able to play including a rare opportunity with the upcoming Vita version of “Mortal Kombat.”

Trailer Tracking, Super Bowl Edition: ‘John Carter,’ ‘The Avengers,’ ‘Battleship,’ ‘GI Joe 2: Retaliation’

adam@hollywoodchicago.com (Adam Fendelman) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:45:09 -0500

CHICAGO – Aside from the whole football thing, Superbowl Sunday has always been known as the launch-pad for some of the best commercials in the world and Hollywood has traditionally used the event as the launch-pad for the annual marketing blitzes for their best, brightest, and most expensive films of the year. (Although, in years’ past, Hollywood has debated just how cost-effective these high-priced Superbowl ads really are.)

So, how did the 2012 Superbowl movie ads stack up? There were definitely some hits and misses. “The Lorax” and “The Dictator” teasers were entertaining, but there was nothing substantially new in either commercial – it was just recycled footage from earlier trailers. (“The Lorax” seemingly wants to get as much mileage as possible from its “THAT’s a woman?” joke, “The Dictator” just lobbed in an easy “I bought NBC” gag.) That, more or less, only left four films that debuted any significant footage - “John Carter,” “The Avengers,” “Battleship,” and “GI Joe 2: Retaliation. ”

How did the new trailers stack up? We’ll give you the play-by-play and… insert clichéd football metaphor here. Basically, we’ll tell you what we liked and what we didn’t, what worked and what flopped. Enjoy.

Movie: “John Carter”

Best Part of the Trailer: There are some fantastic visual landscapes on display.

Worst Part of the Trailer: While fantastic, those landscapes just aren’t that interesting.

OUR TAKE: I’ve been holding off on this, but here goes - I have finally reached the moment where I’m comfortable admitting that I am very, very nervous about “John Carter”.

But how did we get here? “John Carter” should be a slam-dunk. It’s, essentially, the first live-action Pixar film (yes, I know it’s “technically” under the Disney banner, but c’mon); it’s an epic space adventure based on a classic work of pulp fiction; and it’s directed by Andrew Stanton, the card-carrying genius behind “Finding Nemo” and “WALL-E.” Andrew Stanton directing a “John Carter” movie should be as much of a no-brainer as Brad Bird directing a “Mission: Impossible” movie. It should be as close to a sure thing as Hollywood can get.

So, with all that in mind, why does it feel like the world just doesn’t really give a damn about “John Carter”? Who is to blame for this growing sense of apathy about what, in theory, should be a very cool movie?

At the moment, it’s easiest to blame whoever has been handling the marketing for “John Carter” so far, particularly whoever was responsible for the first trailers. The initial trailers and even this new “extended Superbowl teaser” are just ridiculously inert. They’re just not exciting at all. And, granted, lots of exciting things are apparently happening in these trailers – battles and gladiatorial contests and a whole lot of jumping, jumping, jumping – and yet, when you watch them, it’s like drinking a glass of warm milk. My pace barely quickens and I quickly realize that not even the most rock-opera-ed version of Zeppelin’s “Kashmir” around is enough to get me into a movie theatre these days.

So what’s wrong with these “John Carter” trailers? First off, they all seem to place this huge value on the import and power of the name “John Carter”, which… is a huge mistake. 90% of the viewing public has no awareness of literary pulp heroes of the 1910s, so announcing that “hey, everyone, they finally made a John Carter movie!” means almost nothing to a large bulk of the world. The Superbowl trailer spends half its running time pulling back into this huge mosaic of images spelling out “John Carter”, as if they’re revealing a secret or announcing something shocking, and it’s just not the case. When the title is revealed, I think most people are just sitting back and giving the most natural response imaginable – “Well, who’s John Carter?” And what REALLY annoys me about the Disney marketing team is that they’re COMPLETELY FAILING to address that question.

WHO IS John Carter? THAT is what the trailers should be telling us at this point. The “JC” trailers have been extremely focused on showing us scenes of rich visual lushness and… I hate to say it, but they’re not landing. People aren’t that impressed. They look GREAT, but they’re nothing groundbreaking and more than one person has commented to me about how much the gladiator scenes remind them of the Geonosis gladiator scenes in “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones”. (This Superbowl teaser also includes a moment of Carter hijacking a huge gun to shoot down a spaceship with huge sails that looks remarkably like Luke Skywalker blowing up Jabba’s sail barge in “Return of the Jedi”.) I hate admitting this, but the imagery in “John Carter”, so far, is not convincing audiences that this is an event movie worth seeing. So, why – why, why, why – has Disney not changed tactics and begun promoting the STORY of “John Carter”? Why are they not answering that question – “Who is John Carter?”

Because I think they could get some traction there. Taking a quick poll of my non-fanboy-ish friends and family, I’ve found that a big portion of them are just stymied about what the heck the movie is about. All they’ve seen are a big helping of very expensive, very disparate images and a gladiator fight right out of “Attack of the Clones”. The word “confusing” came up more than once. Heck, maybe if you actually explained why Carter can jump around like a Mario Brother – I’ve heard it’s a reaction to Mars’ lighter gravitational forces… not that they’ve said anything about it in the trailers – you might draw some more people in or convince them that, in theory, this movie is a much, much grander and more thoughtful production than something like “The Chronicles of Riddick”. Or maybe, since the movie is named after its lead character, if you ever gave Taylor Kitsch more than two lines of dialogue per trailer, you might even get some people interested in why this John guy was considered charismatic enough to warrant his own movie in the first place.

Put the albino ape away, Disney. If you don’t start forcibly TELLING people why they should give a damn about who John Carter is and why his story is worth seeing, I have a bad feeling that “John Carter” is going to be Disney’s biggest sci-fi misfire since “The Black Hole”.

TRAILER OUTLOOK: Not great. Lots of expensive toys on display, but I don’t really want to play with any of them.