2011 movie outlook: 20 flicks I'm really looking forward to

Predicting how any year will turn out during its first week is, of course, the definition of a fool's errand, but I've certainly been called worse, so here goes: Twenty flicks I'm definitely looking out for this year, in order of release date:

"The Cabin in the Woods": The fact this was delayed for many months simply for some post-filming 3-D conversion certainly isn't promising, but in better news, it is a horror movie from the minds of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"/"Angel" mastermind Joss Whedon and co-conspirator Drew Goddard, so I'm in. (Jan. 14)

"Cedar Rapids": Ed Helms of "The Office" stars in this Miguel Arteta comedy about insurance salesmen at a conference in the titular city. This looks like the broadest kind of comedy, so here's hoping it plays wide too. (Feb. 11)

"Jane Eyre": Mia Wasikowska, easily one of my favorite young actresses, steps into the now-all-too-familiar role, but with "Sin Nombre" director Cary Fukunaga in charge and the truly haunting feel of the trailer, I'm betting this will have something new to offer. (March 11)

"Paul": Director Greg Mottola reunites the "Shaun of the Dead"/"Hot Fuzz" comedy team of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost for this flick about two geeks who encounter the titular alien on their way to Comic-Con. (March 18)

"Sucker Punch": If anything, director Zack Snyder's first movie based on an original idea - about a young woman who fights her way out of a mental institution - just might be too crazy, but I'm almost certain it will be a heck of a lot of fun, too. (March 25)

"Source Code": Director Duncan Jones follows up his fantastic debut, the seriously smart sci-fi flick "Moon," with this fairly generic sounding thriller about a man (Jake Gyllenhaal) who changes bodies with a soldier to stop a train bombing. Hope for the best here. (April 1)

"Your Highness": If you're looking for more than high stoner comedy, stay away, but director David Gordon Green proved he's a master of it with "Pineapple Express" and he's back with more this time around - with James Franco, Natalie Portman, Danny McBride and Zooey Deschanel all in tow. (April 8)

"Hanna": Saoirse Ronan reunites with "Atonement" director Joe Wright for this tale of a young lady raised by her father, an ex-CIA agent, to be the ultimate assassin. Right up my alley. (April 8)


"Water for Elephants": Sara Gruen's best-selling novel, easily one of my favorites, gets a cast worthy of the grand historical romance it unfurls at a traveling circus: Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, Christoph Waltz and Hal Holbrook all star in one of the movies I'm most looking forward to for next year. (April 22)

"African Cats": The Disney Nature movies have all been beauties to behold, but this one should finally have a great story to match as it focuses on two families, one of lions and one of tigers, and what they do to survive and thrive in Africa. (April 22)

"X-Men: First Class": After reviving the comic book movie with the big ball of fun that was "Kick-Ass," director Matthew Vaughn now tries to breath much-needed life into the mutant saga, with a new class including James McAvoy as Professor Charles Xavier, Michael Fassbender as Magneto and even Reel Fanatic fave Jennifer Lawrence as Raven/Mystique. (June 3)

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2": It will certainly be a bit sad when the grand saga ends, but part one - while not the best of Harry's flicks - set the stage for a rousing finale. (July 15)

"Cowboys and Aliens": Movie titles just don't get much more straightforward than that, and unlike, say, "Snakes on a Plane," this one should deliver all the fun it promises. When aliens invade the old American West, they find they have to take on not only Indiana Jones, but James Bond too. (July 29)

"30 Minutes or Less": "Zombieland" director Ruben Fleischer serves up what should be a second helping of very funny with this flick about two fledgling criminals who strap a bomb to the chest of a pizza delivery boy (Jesse Eisenberg) to get him to rob a bank. I promise it will be a whole lot funnier than I'm making it sound here. (Aug. 12)

"The Help": Another of my recent favorite novels, Kathyrn Stockett's "The Help," comes to the big screen with a great young actress (Emma Stone) in the lead role of Eugenia "Skeeter" Phelan, a Southern woman who convinces a group of Mississippi maids to tell their stories in the '60s. Sounds more than a little "Oprah" to me, and it is, but it should also be a lot of fun to watch. (Aug. 12)

"Moneyball": There are few genres I love better than a great baseball movie, and this flick based on Michael Lewis' book about the Oakland A's should hopefully deliver exactly that. Features Brad Pitt as bean counter Billy Beane and Philip Seymour Hoffman as A's manager Art Howe. (Sept. 23)

"The Muppets": After what seems like at least a three-year wait, there will indeed be a new Muppets movie next November, with this shortened title and our beloved puppets staging a show (of course) to save their theater from some evil oil barons. (Nov. 23)

"Hugo Cabret": It should be a banner year for literary adaptations, as now Martin Scorsese takes on this great children's novel by Brian Selznick about a boy who grows up in the walls of a Paris train station and encounters the world of George Melies' automatons. With Asa Butterfield as young Hugo and Hit-Girl Chloe Moretz co-starring, I can't see how even thoroughly unnecessary 3-D will ruin this. (Dec. 9)

"The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn": No less than Steven Spielberg directs the first installment of an expected trilogy as the young Belgian detective finally comes to the big screen and, this time out, hunts for treasure on a sunken ship. (Dec. 23)

"We Bought a Zoo": Director Cameron Crowe - at last - returns to making movies with what should be a fun ride, the story of a man (Matt Damon) and his family who indeed move to the English countryside and buy and operate a zoo.

And there you have it. I'm more than certain there are some I've forgotten, so please feel free to let me know what they are or just sound off on your favorites. Peace out.

Goofy with a guarantee of laughs

You know, I always thought Pearl Jam was more than a little overrated at its heyday, mostly I guess because they were just way too earnest for my tastes.

But, over the years, I've warmed a lot to at least Eddie Vedder, mostly because of the great soundtrack for "Into the Wild," but also because their cover of "Last Kiss" is just a little delight.

Anyways, I tell you all that to tell you this: You can stream the new Pearl Jam album, "Backspacer," on the band's MySpace page here. I'm only on song three now (mostly because it has the nasty habit of crashing my Firefox at the end of each track), but it sounds pretty epicly good to me so far.

And on a different subject, it seems that Neil Patrick Harris hosting the Emmys will deliver a bonus for anyone who bothers to tune in for the almost completely suspenseless broadcast. According to Entertainment Weekly's seriously TV-obsessed scribe Michael Ausiello, there will be a "Dr. Horrible"-themed production number about midway through the show. Harris and his castmates already won an Emmy for the Web show "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog" created by Joss Whedon. No word yet if Whedon will be involved in tonight's show, but that's still more of a reason to tune in than watching "30 Rock" win 20 awards yet again (though I do love the show.)

But on to the main event: "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" is an almost thoroughly enjoyable animated delight and, blasphemy I know, more entertaining (and frankly that's what matters most to me) than "Up."

What makes it, if not unique, at least original enough to work is the goofy spirit of both the story and its voice actors, who are clearly all in on the fun. I think it helped going in to this one that I really knew just about nothing about the children's story by Judi and Ron Barrett, on which this is based.

The story itself is indeed so silly that you have to wonder how it could possibly work for anyone over the age of 4: Our hero, Flint Lockwood (voiced by Bill Hader) is a boy and quickly man who just wants to invent things rather than get any kind of actual job (and really, who doesn't?) He lives in the quickly dying town of Swallow Falls, dying because its most famous export, sardines, are simply disgusting (though I've always kind of liked them.) I don't want to give too much away, but Flint somehow invents a device that turns water into food and, on a grand scale, causes it to rain food down on the town.

You can tell early on that this won't go extremely well, and it surely doesn't, but the jokes do. From the outset, they're not throwaway pop-culture references, but quick-flying bits that fit organicly with the story, from Flint's one-word commands to himself and his helper monkey Steve to the newspaper headline "Sardines are really gross."

The best jokes of all though, largely thanks to Anna Faris as the voice of wannabe-weather girl Sam Sparks, come at the expense of The Weather Channel. For me, the only weather channel I've ever tuned in to has been my front window, so the puns and especially the cut-in to a cute animal just hit their target spot on.

And with Bill Hader and Anna Faris leading the cast, plus Neil Patrick Harris (yes, him again), James Caan, Andy Samberg, Mr. T, Bobb'e J. Thomson (that fantastically foul-mouthed kid from "Role Models") and even Bruce Campbell in the voice cast, this could easily have turned into a hipster-irony disaster, but for the most part they disappear into their parts with ease. Faris (a favorite around here, in case you couldn't tell) fares the best of all, but Bruce Campbell as the mayor of Swallow Falls who jumps all over the opportunity to promote the town with Flint's new creation, is also a hoot. Lauren Graham is somehow in this too, though only for about 90 seconds at the very start, which is about as good a summary as any of just how well her movie career has gone since "Gilmore Girls."

As with any animated movie for kids and goofy-minded adults, there comes a point when the directors, here Phil Lord and Chris Miller, want to tell us the message about gluttony and obesity rather than simply show us through the story. Luckily though, after about a 10-minute dead space (in what is only an 81-minute movie), they quickly realize that any town covered one day with giant hot dogs and the next with kids sliding down giant scoops of ice cream pretty much speaks for itself.

I guess you can tell by now that I had a heck of a lot of fun with this one, but I'll leave you with just one more word about why: I watched it through exactly one pair of glasses, MINE. The colors of "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs" jump from the screen, and I thoroughly enjoyed watching them unfold in 2-D rather than being muddied with those silly 3-D glasses. Judging from the packed house at our Saturday afternoon screening, I'm apparently far from the only one who doesn't want to pay an extra $2 for this worthless gimmick. Peace out.

" If the apocalypse comes, beep me": Well, for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" fans, its here

Buffy: I wish we could be regular kids.
Angel: Yeah. I'll never be a kid.
Buffy: Okay, then a regular kid and her cradle-robbing, creature-of-the-night boyfriend.

Wow. I had an inkling that "Terminator Salvation" would get housed at the weekend box office by the family-friendly "Night at the Museum: Battle at the Smithsonian," but this is just downright embarrassing.

It's almost like the makers of the latter issued a dare-bet: "We'll give you an extra day, and I bet we can still beat you handily," because that's exactly what happened. Over the three days they were in direct competition, "Museum" took in about $70 million at the U.S. box office, while McG's flick netted only a truly paltry $53 million; add in his extra day numbers from Thursday, and he still lands in second place with about $67 million.

A sad saga indeed, but as a lead-in to the simply insidious tale that's about to unfold here, it's also quite cautionary. Because while for my money McG made a serviceable and even entertaining summer flick, he really didn't bother to absorb much of the Terminator mythos before he simply starting blowing things up (which, of course, certainly his its own entertainment value.) Had he studied just a bit more, his movie might have been embraced the way "Star Trek" has been by the franchise's fans and just about everyone else in the world (well, probably not, but it at least could have beat a movie with Ben Stiller getting slapped by two monkeys - you see, it's a sequel.)

And I really have tried to give up on ranting about remakes because it's just come to seem like a tremendous waste of energy. You wanna make English remakes of my two favorite movies of 2008 - "Let the Right One In" and "Tell No One"? Fair enough. I'll simply ignore them. But a "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" movie without Joss Whedon? Well, as Buffy herself might say, that's just a whole new level of suck.

So, what exactly are these jokers up to? Well, initially Whedon and since some very talented comic book artists have been continuing the "Buffy" saga in fine form in funny books. With Jane Espenson taking over the writing duties for the issues coming in July, and with Oz returning to the story to help battle the current Big Bad, Twilight (no, I'm not making that up, and it's insanely funny), I'm certainly in for the fifth volume of "season eight."

And just writing about those characters points out all that's wrong with the drive to create a "Buffy" movie that surfaced in the Hollywood Reporter this morning. It seems that Fran Rubel Kuzui, who to give credit where its due both directed the first "Buffy" movie and wisely brought Joss Whedon along to create the rather famous TV show that followed it, has held on to the rights all this time. And now it seems she's just completely lost her mind.

To finally get to the point, with Vertigo Entertainment but without Joss Whedon, she's gotten it into her head to make a "remake or relaunch" of the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" story for the big screen. If you'll excuse me for a second, I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

What in the world is "Buffy" without the writing that made it so funny and sometimes magical from week to week? Well, she's just a girl who fights vampires, which in the wrong hands could add up to simply a big ball of meh. And, just to ensure that when this finally comes together, it will be one of the most hated movies of all time along with being a box office Hindenburg, THR reports the movie will have "no connection" to the TV series, meaning it wouldn't use "popular supporting characters like Angel, Willow, Xander or Spike" (no Spike? sheesh.)

This was pitched at THR as similar to what Abrams did with "Star Trek," but I don't see how that could be more wrong. As anyone who's seen his flick by now (and, I'll admit, I've seen it twice already) knows, he made it work because he not only brought along all of the "supporting characters" in the Enterprise crew but also created a brave new world for them to inhabit. Kuzui, however, is instead apparently just trying to pretend the "Buffy" TV show and its creator didn't exist, and is therefore headed for nothing but disaster.

OK, that's enough for today about a movie that may not ever even happen. But how much do I love the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" TV show? I think the show's best couple put it best, so I'll leave it to them.

Drusilla: Do you love my insides? The parts you can't see?
Spike: Eyeballs to entrails, my sweet.

'Nuff said.

Can "The Dark Knight" really take out "Titanic"? And will Whedon's "Dollhouse" really ever open?

On the surface, it might seem like a gamble for Warner Brothers to send "The Dark Knight" back to theaters Jan. 23, banking on a bounce from the Oscar nominations being announced the day before.

If you think about it, however, there's really no way the flick can lose at this point. If it snags the Best Picture nomination it clearly deserves (and some posthumous love for Heath Ledger), than a run big enough to net the $77 million domestic take needed to unseat "Titanic" as the U.S. champ becomes inevitable. But even if it doesn't, the chip that will put on the movie's devoted fans' shoulders will only gin up the drive to take the title even further.

And I'm not a "Titanic" fan or much of a hater either. I do know that "The Dark Knight" is a far superior flick, and as a sports fan I love competitions of all kinds, so I can only say bring it on (and I'll certainly contribute my $8 or so to see it again, maybe this time finally in Imax.)

But on a personal note, this weekend is now shaping up as perhaps the best movie weekend of the year. Along with visiting a friend for lunch tomorrow, I'm hitting Atlanta mostly to see two of the movies I've been looking forward to all year: "Slumdog Millionaire" and then "Milk," both at the fantastic Regal Tara theater. I can't wait, and of course feel free to check back for reviews of both soon.

Here today, however, it's mostly about the first review of Joss Whedon's "Dollhouse," which has been in development for more than a year, has gone through at least two pilots and is supposedly still going to hit the airwaves in February on Fox (though I'll believe it only when I see it at this point.)

Well, it seems that Time TV critic James Poniewozik has done exactly that, and had what could be charitably be called a mixed reaction at best.

For those who can't remember (and really, who could blame you at this point), the new show from the creator of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" will be about a group of people known as "actives" or "dolls" who have had their personalities wiped clean so they can be imprinted with any number of new ones to perform missions. It's set to star Eliza Dushku, a k a Faith the vampire slayer, in the lead role of doll Echo, and also Olivia Williams (a k a Ms. Cross from "Rushmore") as the matron of the "dollhouse," Tahmoh Penikett of "Battlestar Galactica" as a FBI agent tracking the secret project and even "Angel" veteran Amy Acker in a recurring role (if it even goes that far) as a doctor who tends to the dolls.

After offering the qualifier that he initially misunderestimated "Firefly" when that great Whedon sci-fi Western hit the air for its far-too-brief run, Poniewozik had this to say about Whedon's new offering:

Yes, this is certainly Joss Whedon trying to do What People Think Works on Broadcast TV Today—the legendary serial-procedural hybrid. But the first episode—in which Echo is imprinted with a kidnapping-negotiator's personality to secure the return of a rich man's abducted daughter—is well enough written to be absorbing. Writing a crime hour doesn't seem like Whedon's thing, but the episode is tight, suspenseful, with intriguing psychological twists and flashes of Whedonesque humor. ...

Now the minus. Dollhouse as conceived (a heroine plays a different "person" every week) is less a series concept than an actress' showcase, a sort of extreme version of an Alias undercover premise. And the actress being showcased is Eliza Dushku. Now, I have nothing against Dushku. I thought she was fine on Buffy. But she's not exactly Toni Collette (who's playing a multiple-personality case on Showtime's The United States of Tara, which I have not seen). Watching her inhabit her imprinted "personality"—a tough negotiator with secret vulnerabilities—I did not see her becoming another person. I thought: Oh, look! There's Eliza Dushku with glasses and her hair in a bun!

If it weren't for Whedon's pedigree, I'm not sure I'd be dying to see a second episode. But for me, the main draw now is not seeing Dushku become a different person every week, but getting to see Joss Whedon become a different writer every week.

I could certainly do without the Dushku hating, but from his assessment I'd say this was just about exactly what I'd expect. Anyone who's seen the rather pedestrian first seasons of both "Buffy" and "Angel, however, knows that Whedon's stuff can often get off to a rocky start but - given the chance - eventually develop into something seriously entertaining.

You can read the rest of what Poniewozik had to say here, and like I said, please feel free to check back for a couple reviews of what are hopefully two of the year's best movies later this weekend. Peace out.