My Theater-Going Dilemma

I'm poor as hell.  Not having a job for the last seven months will do that to you.  It's difficult for me to go out with my friends if I do not have money to spend on anything because I need to save it to pay my phone bill.  Where this really hurts a wannabe cinephile like me is at the movie theater, where right now there are multiple movies that I would very much like to see (the posters for two of those films are above).  However, thinking about it now, I find that even if I did have plenty of disposable income to spend on movie tickets, I still probably would not go out to see a film like "Haywire" or "The Grey," even though they both appear to be high quality films judging by their scores on Rotten Tomatoes (80 and 78%, respectively).  That both of these films were released in January, a month where the studios usually dump their foulest drek (see Contraband) makes them more worthy of attention when the options for quality films in theaters remains limited.  Yet despite this, I still would not see them in the theaters, even if I had the money, and I have a few reasons why:

1.  Tickets are expensive


The most obvious reason, but no matter how rich I am, I still would feel conned when I give the movie theaters 12 dollars to see a movie on a Friday night.  In my opinion, it makes very little economic sense to go see a movie that does not carry a guarantee that I will approve of it and therefore make it money well spent (If you want that guarantee, go see The Room at midnight and thank me later).  Plus, with Netflix, I have so many more options for much less money.  One movie ticket costs almost one month of what I pay for Netflix service, and if faced with paying 10 to 12 dollars for one film and two hours of viewing time or 17 dollars and 20 hours, I'll take the latter equation every time.

2.  I can wait to see it through Netflix


While I may really want to see these films, the desire to see them on the big screen does not register strongly enough for me to pay the money and make the drive to the theater.  I can wait until they are released on DVD and put them in my Netflix queue and watch them on my 55-inch HD screen from the comfort of my couch.  In the meantime, I'll just watch the other movies that come in from my queue without feeling like I am missing out on a transcendent theater-going experience.

3.  The quality of the home-viewing experience


These days, home theater systems are so high-performance that one can very nearly replicate and in some instances exceed the experience of watching a film in the theater.  One can do all of this without having to drive in the cold to a megaplex filled with annoying people who insist on talking and texting through the entire film.  No one who truly values the movie watching experience like myself wants to put up with these plebeian imbeciles.  Add in the fact that theaters have a captive audience to show commercials (which I hate) and previews (which I love).  On top of that, once the movie starts, if you have to go to the bathroom, you are SOL because you can't pause the film.  It's the same argument for watching sports at home: convenience remains king, and having to put up with all of those uncontrollable external factors is the farthest thing from convenient.  Maybe theater chains should sue electronics manufacturers for making products that are so good that it hurts their bottom line.

4. I don't like seeing movies alone


I of course mean I don't like going to theaters by myself, but watching alone at home feels completely normal.  Call me weird, but going to the theater by myself makes me feel like a total lowlife who has no friends.  I've only gone to the theater by myself three times in my entire life (Clerks 2, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, and Tree of Life) and each time it was a strange feeling.  My ability to watch the film was not affected by being alone, but to me, the theater was always meant to be a social gathering place.  Yes, the irony of hanging out with friends without being able to talk to them is not lost on me, but for me, the theater-going experience is always better when shared with people I know and care about.  We can laugh, gasp, or cry together.  Doing that alone makes me incredibly self-conscious because I do not know if the other people in the audience are viewing the film the same way I am.  What I enjoy as much as the films themselves are the few minutes fresh out of the theater as the credits roll and the music plays.  I can recap with my friends or family member, hear their opinions, share mine, crack jokes about the film, and just generally enjoy each other's company.  The point is that because I am far and away the biggest film buff in my friend group, the only films I can see in the theater with them are the summer blockbuster action movies and the big Christmas movie.  Finding someone to accompany me to all the awards contenders and art-house curios I want to see remains tremendously difficult and therefore not worth the effort of going to the theater.

(Note: my father is the only person I know who rivals my voracious cinematic appetite and could possibly solve that last problem, but he lives halfway across the country, hence the conundrum.)



I'm not one of those people that despises the general theater-going experience, even though I mentioned numerous things that bother me about it.  What keeps my desire to go to the theater strong is the possibility of a memorable experience like seeing 300 with hundreds of other gawking fanboys, seeing Borat and laughing at the Jewish jokes louder than everyone else, or even experiencing the horror of the last Indiana Jones film at midnight with a sellout crowd (actually, never mind, that  last one never happened).  I go to the theater hoping for a memory like that, and when I see a film I'm interested in like "The Grey" playing in theaters, I pause and weigh the probability that I will have an unforgettable theatrical experience.  After maybe a minute, I will come to the following conclusion: It just doesn't feel like something I HAVE to see on the big screen (see: Tree of Life) in order to obtain maximum enjoyment, which is the whole reason we go to the movies at all.

50/50: Most Underrated Film of 2011

In 1983, a film chronicling the close relationship between two people while one of them battles cancer was released.  The film featured many funny moments but also was able to inject some heartbreaking drama into the narrative, with the protagonist realizing in the face of death the true importance of the people closest to her.  The film was Terms of Endearment, which became a major box-office sensation and went on to win five Academy Awards, including Best Picture.

Fast forward 28 years to the release of another film chronicling the relationship between two people while one of them battles cancer.  The film features many funny moments but is also able to inject some heartbreaking drama into the narrative with the protagonist realizing in the face of death the true importance of the people closest to him.  The film is 50/50, which did not become a major box-office sensation and will not be nominated for any Academy Awards, much less win.

Granted, Terms of Endearment starred two acting legends who both won Oscars for their performances in the film (Shirley MacLaine and Jack Nicholson) and it had the unbeatable scene of a cute kid crying uncontrollably at his mother's bedside as she lay dying, while 50/50 had Seth Rogen and pot-smoking old people.  However, I feel that both critics and audiences gave 50/50 a tremendously tough break by not giving it more recognition.

There have been other films that have been underrated this year in one way or another.  "Senna," the wonderful documentary about legendary Formula 1 driver Ayrton Senna, did not really catch on in this country and received very little awards recognition, but in the UK, the film is nominated for three BAFTAs, including Best British Film, so at least some critics are recognizing its brilliance.  "Drive" is a film that was beloved by many critics and moviegoers (myself included), received a ton of press, yet received no recognition during awards season, culminating in Albert Brooks' egregious Oscar snub this morning.  "Take Shelter" did not catch on with art-house audiences, never playing in more than 100 screens and grossing just shy of $2 million, nor did it receive any awards-season recognition, but it wound up on many critics' top ten lists at the end of the year, so it cannot be considered completely underrated.

50/50 did really well with critics, scoring 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, with the consensus being: "A good-hearted film about a difficult topic, 50/50 maneuvers between jokes and drama with surprising finesse."  The film, while it did not light the box office on fire, still did relatively well, grossing $34 million from an $8 million budget.  It was also nominated for two Golden Globes, best actor for Joseph Gordon-Levitt and best picture-musical or comedy.

However, even with all of this praise, it still feels as though 50/50 has mostly been forgotten, which is a shame considering it is one of the best films of 2011.  It features a great Academy-snubbed script from Will Reiser, a real-life cancer survivor whose story this film is based on.  It features a great central performance from Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who effortlessly handles both the lighter and darker moments of the narrative with equal panache.  The most underrated aspect of this film and its secret weapon is Seth Rogen, Reiser's real-life friend who  plays a version of himself and the film and brings a surprising amount of warmth and heart to the story of a young man dealing with the possibility of death.  Even in a year where dogs in movies have gotten a ton of love from the press, poor Skeletor the greyhound, Gordon Levitt's loyal companion, has been completely forgotten.

But getting back to Seth Rogen: I believe him to be the main reason this film has not become an awards season staple like it should have.  His involvement in the film probably signaled to Academy voters that this film should not be taken seriously because how could a raunchy Seth Rogen comedy actually be an award-worthy film?  And since it didn't have the financial success of Bridesmaids (an inferior film), there was no pressure from outside sources to recognize it come awards season.  The fact that 50/50 was not nominated in the original screenplay category alongside Bridesmaids should be considered a lowdown dirty shame.

Those who dismiss it as a Seth Rogen vehicle or as "that cancer comedy" however are completely blind to the true nature of the film.  Yes, it has some fantastically hysterical moments (including the best Total Recall reference in movie history), but the film never has a false emotional moment (the same cannot be said for the Best Picture frontrunner, The Artist) even though the audience has a pretty good idea what the outcome will be.  The amount of emotional investment Reiser and director Jonathan Levine put into these characters allows the audience feel like they experiencing the main character's disease personally without feeling emotionally manipulated.  50/50 had a tremendously high degree of difficulty and pulled it off better than I think most people could have imagined.

Hopefully, as is the case with many great films, 50/50 becomes more appreciated a few years down the road when audiences can look back on the Best Picture nominees for this year's Oscars and ask themselves some of the following questions: "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close?  I've never even heard of that!  Wait, Tom Hanks was in that...? Was that pile of crap really better than 50/50 or Drive?  The Help?  That movie that totally glossed over race relations got nominated for Best Picture?!?!?!?   God, the Oscars suck!"  

The Year of Bryan Cranston

What if I told you that between September, 2011 and September, 2012, there was an actor who was in films directed by Steven Soderbergh, Nicolas Winding Refn, Andrew Stanton, and Ben Affleck, as well as roles in the film adaptation of one of the biggest Broadway hits of the last decade, a film produced and financed by George Lucas that isn’t Star Wars or Indiana Jones, and a co-starring role in a remake of one of the most iconic science-fiction films of the last 25 years?  Not to mention he stars in the most critically-acclaimed show on television.  One would think that this was one of the biggest stars on the planet, and yet outside of the people who watch him on TV, he barely registers as a household name.  For those who have not guessed already, the actor in question is Bryan Cranston.

(Note: Yes, I know the title gives away the answer to the question in the first paragraph, but bear with me for effect.  It's more fun that way.)

At 55 years old, Bryan Cranston has reached his acting prime.  He won three consecutive Emmys (and if justice is served, he’ll make it four this year) and has become the go-to middle-aged male character actor of the moment.  To go back to the films I alluded to earlier, Cranston, in that period of time, will have been in the following films in order of their release dates: Contagion, Drive, Red Tails, John Carter, Rock of Ages, Total Recall, and Argo.  I also failed to mention that in that same time period he also provided the voice of Commissioner Gordon in the animated adaptation of the canonical Batman comic “Year One.”  That’s a pretty prolific body of work he’s developing in addition to his biggest time commitment of all, Breaking Bad, which comes back to AMC in July or August.

Granted, many of these films feature him in roles with little screen time (i.e. Contagion, Red Tails, Rock of Ages that I know of), but he has a crucial role in Drive and he’s playing the lead villain in Total Recall (therefore being the only reason I will even entertain the notion of seeing this film).  His presence, no matter how small, in all of these films only serves to increase his profile among average moviegoers and bring Mr. Cranston the fame he so richly deserves.  He will most likely take on more prominent and interesting film roles when Breaking Bad finishes shooting its final sixteen episodes this year.

I could go on for days about how brilliant Breaking Bad is, but everybody else on the web is doing that already, so I don’t want to be too derivative by praising it to the heavens as well.  All I will say is that Bryan Cranston’s performance on the show is so good, that not only should he win the Emmy every year for Best Actor, but the Oscar as well.  There is no better acting performance in any visual medium today than Cranston’s as chemistry teacher turned meth cooker Walter White.  Seeing the transformation his character undergoes over the course of four seasons, with each season exceeding the last in quality, is something that those who have witnessed it will treasure for the rest of their lives (some might see this as hyperbole, but those people clearly haven’t watched the show).  I will be devastated when Breaking Bad ends because the best program on television since The Wire will be gone, but I will also be excited for what the future holds for Bryan Cranston post-B.B.  He has been making very smart choices with his film roles, associating himself with great artists and learning what it takes to succeed on the big screen.  It may lead to some Oscar recognition in the future, but why worry about that when his present is something all fans of great art should cherish?  For that reason, I am dubbing 2012 The Year of Bryan Cranston.

(Note: The first three seasons of Breaking Bad are available for streaming on Netflix.  I suggest to those who haven’t watched it to take a three-day weekend and plow through all of the episodes.  You’ll thank me later.)

Mark Wahlberg Is Not A Movie Star

Wanting to be sociable, I went with my uncle and cousins to the movies yesterday to see the new Mark Wahlberg vehicle “Contraband,” and 110 minutes and almost as many plot holes later, I came to the following conclusion: Marky Mark is no movie star.

Sure, he has the square jaw, impressive physique, and intimidating glare of all the action stars of yore, but he lacks the clear charisma and charm of his movie star peers and predecessors.  What made the Bourne movies so good is that while Matt Damon may have shared the same characteristics as Wahlberg, he also was easy to root for because of his natural charm.  He was able to elevate what could have been a by-the-numbers action franchise with his performance alone, something Wahlberg has never been able to do in any of the films where he has been the clear star.

His first shot at carrying a major film was Tim Burton’s critically reviled remake of Planet of the Apes.  While many of the problems of that film are not Wahlberg’s fault, if he had even an eighth of the movie star charisma of the film’s original star, Charlton Heston, the film would have worked quite a bit better.  The trend continued through his next few films, including another remake with Wahlberg playing the same role as another great star, Michael Caine, in 2003’s “The Italian Job.”  While that film is much more enjoyable than “Planet of the Apes,” Wahlberg is not the main reason (that would be Edward Norton) and the film itself still isn’t that great.  After that came 2005’s “Four Brothers,” 2007’s “Shooter,” and 2008’s “Max Payne,” all mediocre action films that have been relegated to constant play on weekends on TNT and FX.  The nadir of Wahlberg’s career as a leading man came with M. Night Shyamalan’s disasterpiece “The Happening.”  He was roundly criticized for his expressionless face and wooden line delivery, and while some of the blame can be attributed to Shymalan’s incompetence, Wahlberg still had the chance to bring something interesting to the material and decided not to even bother.  He was even overshadowed in his dream project, 2010’s “The Fighter.”  While Wahlberg himself is not bad as Mickey Ward, he was unfortunate to be overshadowed by two Academy-Award winning performances from Melissa Leo and Christian Bale.

However, even though Wahlberg may not be able to carry a film on his own, I still enjoy him immensely when he gets to share the spotlight with other really talented actors.  The first and best example of this is Paul Thomas Anderson’s masterpiece “Boogie Nights.”  While the film is nominally Wahlberg’s story, it’s really an ensemble piece and he fits very nicely in the cast that includes Julianne Moore, Don Cheadle, Philip Seymour Hoffman, John C. Reilly, William H. Macy, and an Oscar-nominated turn from Burt Reynolds.  Wahlberg also gave a fine performance in “Three Kings” when he got to share the spotlight with George Clooney and Ice Cube.  He also did really good work in other films where he played a supporting role such as “I Heart Huckabees” and “The Departed,” for which he received a deserved Oscar nomination as a foul-mouthed cop who becomes rightfully suspicious of Matt Damon’s character.  A few years later, he gave enjoyable performances in two comedies: a small but memorable role in “Date Night” and in “The Other Guys.”  He was allowed to play the straight man to one of Hollywood’s most talented comedic performers, Will Ferrell, and their chemistry really made the film a joy to watch.

Looking ahead to Wahlberg’s films post-“Contraband,” there are signs both good and bad that he is leaning towards more films where he is not the main star.  His next film, the Seth Macfarlane comedy “Ted,” could be an absolute disaster with him as the clear lead (clear human lead at least.  Macfarlane voices his teddy bear come to life.  Good god…).  However, another of his upcoming projects, “Broken City,” looks more promising, as he will get to share the screen with Russell Crowe and Catherine Zeta-Jones in a film that has the following synopsis from IMDB: “An ex-cop trailing the wife of New York City’s mayor finds himself immersed in a larger scandal.”  Assuming Wahlberg is the cop, I hope for the film’s sake that Crowe gets to chew his fair amount of scenery as the mayor.

My ultimate feeling is that Mark Wahlberg will rotate between star vehicles and ensemble pieces while producing half of HBO’s programming on the side.  However, if I were his agent, I would have Marky Mark pursue a role along these lines that I guarantee will get him the best reviews and box office of his career.  He should be second in command of some elite secret ops unit, the guy who is the brawn to the leader’s brains.  The two should butt heads at some point bringing up some traumatic even from Wahlberg’s past with him staring down the leader with his formidable “I can kill you with my bare hands and you know it” face.  Seriously, this was role Mr. Funky Bunch was born to play.  Somebody start writing this thing and get his agent on the phone, stat!

(Note: I wrote this Saturday morning before "Contraband" ended the weekend as the #1 movie at the box office, grossing over $24 million through Sunday with the holiday still to come Monday.  Due to the lack of other options, it'll probably have some legs and make almost $100 million, but no matter how much money the film makes, my opinion of Wahlberg does not change.)

My Top 12 Movies to See Before the World Ends (And 5 Movies That Are a Sign it Already Has)

As we all know, the world is going to end on December 21^st.   The Mayans said so; therefore, it must be true.  Knowing in the end is near so far in advance allows the entire population to get their affairs in order and start marking things off their bucket list like visiting the Great Wall of China, going to the Super Bowl, or getting laid.  Another great advantage to knowing the end is near is that people like me can figure out what movies I should see in the theater before that fateful day.  With the exception of my most anticipated movie, I will not have a problem seeing any of these films before the end of the world, though one of them is fittingly being released on the day of the apocalypse.  However, I would have no problem seeking out my number one film before December 21^st.  If I do it legally, I can splash the cash and the long-term consequences of my reckless spending will be irrelevant.  If I see the film through illegal or nefarious means, the American legal process takes so long that I wouldn’t be charged with anything before the end of the world.  It’s a win-win scenario!  Now, without further ado, here are my twelve most anticipated movies of 2012:

1. Django Unchained (Dec. 25^th)

Any Quentin Tarantino film is great cause for anticipation, especially coming off what in my opinion may be his best film (Inglourious Basterds).  The fact that he’s finally making a spaghetti-western type of film after littering all of his previous movies with references to the works of his favorite director Sergio Leone is the icing on the cake.  But the cast of this “southern,” as he calls it, is whatever can go on top of the icing.  Check out this cast: Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christoph Waltz (aka Hans Landa), Kurt Russell, Samuel L. Jackson, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Sacha Baron Cohen.  Are you freaking kidding me?!?  I’d watch these guys do a public reading of Twilight (more Twilight bashing to come)!  This has the makings of a true masterpiece to put alongside Leone’s best work and if I have to kill someone to see this movie before the world ends, I would give it some serious thought.

2. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Dec. 14^th)

It’s pretty amazing that my two most anticipated films of 2012 are brushing right up against that December 21^st deadline, but in the case of the Hobbit, I should have no problem seeing the hopefully glorious return of Peter Jackson to the remarkable world he created with the original Lord of the Rings trilogy.  I was giddily looking forward to this one before the trailer even came out.  After watching that trailer at least ten times, I can now say that my anticipation for this film is at fever pitch.  Yes, the film is in 3-D (more on my hatred for the format later) and the book that is shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings books will be split into two films, one of which will never see the light of day because the Mayans said so, while each of those books only got one movie.  In spite of these things, the film looks to be the most spectacular visual feast of 2012 with dwarves, goblins, trolls, and, of course, Smaug the dragon (who will be voiced by the man whose diction almost lives up to the brilliance of his name: Benedict Cumberbatch). Add in the perfectly cast Martin Freeman as Bilbo and you have a film that looks to fit right in with its predecessors at the top of the fantasy genre.

3.  The Dark Knight Rises (Jul. 20^th)-

In most years, this film would be a slam dunk number one choice for me.  It’s the sequel to the best superhero movie of all time and the conclusion to one of the great trilogies of this generation.  For good measure, director Christopher Nolan cast my new favorite actor, Tom Hardy, as the main villain, Bane.  Mr. Hardy has a lot to live up after Heath Ledger’s iconic Oscar-winning role, but if anyone can pull it off, it’s him.  Even with Anne Hathaway doing her best to ruin the proceedings, I still have faith that this will be a satisfying ending to this trilogy before Warner Brothers ruins its legacy by immediately putting another Batman film into production.  I just hope it ends with Bane breaking the Bat.

4. Gravity (Nov. 23^rd)

The reason this film is so high on my list above other more high profile films can be summed up in two words: Alfonso Cuaron.  The master of the tracking shot is back with his first film since the transcendent Children of Men, which was six years ago (absolutely remarkable: I remember seeing it in the theater like it was yesterday)!  He has been working on this film for almost that entire period, so I can only imagine what kind of visual wizardry he has come up with this time around.  Even though it takes place in space, this film looks to have a much smaller scope than Children of Men, with George Clooney and Sandra Bullock as the only actors in the cast.  I know basically nothing about the plot, but I do not care.  Any new film from Cuaron is a cause for celebration, and this one sounds like a better version of Moon.

5.  The Avengers (May 4^th)

This one is the easiest pick on this list.  All of the films leading into this one (Iron Man 2 excluded) were extremely fun popcorn films with engaging lead characters.  This time around, geek extraordinaire Joss Whedon is at the reins, and while his only previous feature directing credit is the underrated Serenity (the conclusion to his even more underrated series Firefly), I believe that he will be able to handle the technical side just fine with the people at Marvel totally behind him.  Where Whedon’s involvement excites me most is in how he will be able to bring all of these characters with big personalities together to fight evil as one unit. Robert Downey Jr., Chrises Hemsworth and Evans are all great in their roles and Tom Hiddleston is equally up to the challenge as the villain Loki, so look for these guys to avenge the world before it ends seven months later.

6.  Prometheus (June 8^th)

Ridley Scott returning to the Alien universe?  Yes, please!  While Sir Ridley was coy about whether this really was an Alien prequel, the mysterious trailer seems to signal the affirmative.  Ridley has also assembled the best cast on paper of any of the Alien films, with the original Girl With the Dragon Tattoo Noomi Rapace being supported by Charlize Theron, Michael Fassbender (my other new favorite actor), and Idris Elba (STRINGER BEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!).  I have very high expectations for this film.  Ridley Scott finally returns to the genre that made him a legend (no pun intended, Legend fans!), and if that’s not a good enough reason to look forward to Prometheus, then no hope exists for the human race

7. Looper (Sep. 28^th)

This looks to be first challenger to Inception for the best mind-bending thriller of the Twitter generation, and the premise is a bit hard to comprehend to say the least.  However, with Joseph Gordon-Levitt (this year’s Michael Fassbender) and Bruce Willis playing the younger and older versions of the same character, color me intrigued.  This looks to be director Rian Johnson’s first attempt at a big mainstream Hollywood film, and if his past work is any indication, it could be something that will get everyone talking.

8. Brave (June 22^nd)

It’s the newest film from Pixar.  It’s going to be great.  The end.

9. Gangster Squad (Oct. 19^th)

Director Ruben Fleischer (Zombieland, 30 Minutes or Less) makes the jump from raunchy comedy to serious drama for what looks to be a spiritual companion to one of my favorite movies of all time, L.A. Confidential.  Like that film, this one takes place in 1950s Los Angeles with LAPD detectives (played by Josh Brolin and Ryan Gosling) trying to bring down Mickey Cohen’s criminal empire.  However, the difference between the two films is that Cohen is a major character in Gangster Squad, and he will embodied by Sean Penn, which looks to be genius casting.  The film is going to have fantastic production and costume design because the era and location lend themselves to glitz and glamour of mainstream cinema.  However, the success of this film could fall on Emma Stone, who is taking a major departure to play a femme fatale.  If she succeeds like Kim Basinger did in L.A. Confidential, We could have one of the best double features of all time.

10.  World War Z (Dec. 21^st)

What better way to celebrate the end of the world than to see a movie about the end of the world?  Max Brooks’ best-selling zombie novel comes to life as a big-budget spectacle with Brad Pitt as a researcher traveling the world to document the zombie apocalypse and its effect on humanity.  Chalk this one up to Pitt’s involvement and the genius premise.  Let’s just hope that director Marc Forster doesn’t screw up this blockbuster like the last one he did.

11.  The Hunger Games (Mar. 23^rd)

While most major publications would probably have this movie at the very top of their most anticipated lists, I leave it for the second to last spot on this list with the condition that it could climb if I read the book before the movie comes out.  My anticipation comes solely from the trailer, which makes the film look like a tamer futuristic version of Battle Royale.  With my new celebrity crush Jennifer Lawrence playing the lead, I am totally there.  2012 is the perfect year for this dystopic film to come out, and I expect it to make gobs of money and get a sequel greenlighted but never produced (again: apocalypse).

12.   Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (June 22^nd)

 I just had to put this one on here, almost for the title alone.  I can’t think of a more hilarious premise for a would-be summer blockbuster!  I understand that this is the one film on this list that has the potential to be a complete train wreck, but I don’t care.  Honest Abe murders vampires!  With an ax!  How can you not love this?!?

Now, I count down the five (really, eight) films coming out in 2012 that are signs that the apocalypse might have already arrived, we just don’t know it yet because we’re stuck in the Matrix.  These may not actually technically be the worst films of 2012, but with the exception of number five, all of these films would be contenders for Razzies in 2013 if the apocalypse was averted (it won’t be) and ceremony were to take place.  These are not just bad films, they are misguided ones and signals that Hollywood studio executives just don’t give a shit anymore.  The choices will be revealed from five to one, so as to make one think “there’s a worse-sounding movie than this?”

5.  The 3-D re-releases: Beauty and the Beast (Jan; 13^th), Star Wars Episode I (Feb. 10^th), Titanic (Apr. 6^th), Finding Nemo (Sep. 14^th)

Further proof that Hollywood studio executives don’t give a shit anymore: they keep trying to force feed 3-D to a movie-going audience that, for the most part, doesn’t want it.  Tickets for these films are expensive and make live-action films look like animated ones and animated films look worse period.  Is it any wonder that ticket sales reached a 20-year low in 2011?  Yes, the total box office was barely down from 2010, but that’s because people were dumb enough to see movies in 3-D.  Even dumber people went to the theater to see a movie in 3-D that they already own (The Lion King) and made Disney a ton of money.  Now in 2012, three films are looking to duplicate The Lion King’s success, and for the sake of humanity, I hope they all fail for different reasons.  Beauty and the Beast is undoubtedly one of Disney’s best, but as anyone with a brain knows, the best way to watch all those Disney classics from my childhood are on original VHS.  Converting it to 3-D makes the film seem artificial when in reality it has more beauty and heart than any Disney movie of the last fifty years.  The re-release of “Finding Nemo” in 3-D is yet another sobering cash grab for Disney.  The 2003 release is the second-highest grossing Pixar movie ever after Toy Story 3!  I guess because Toy Story 3 had the benefit of 3-D prices and Nemo did not, Pixar felt they to have Nemo’s total box office match or exceed Toy Story 3.  As for Star Wars and Titanic being released in 3-D, we need to stop giving two long-past-their-prime filmmakers our hard earned money like it’s a Pavlovian reflex.  James Cameron and especially George Lucas need to go crawling back into their garish McMansions to count their Mcmillions for the rest of time.

4.  Live-action fairytales: Mirror, Mirror (Mar. 16^th), Jack the Giant Killer (Jun. 25^th)

When I saw the trailers for both of these movies, I was floored, and not in the same way that I was floored by the trailer for Children of Men.  I almost thought they were expensive joke trailers, but then I saw that famous people like Julia Roberts and Ewan McGregor were in these and I realized that I was wrong.  They both look atrociously awful, but in completely opposite ways.  Mirror, Mirror looks like a film where nobody in the production was taking it seriously and they just thought that they could put this thing out, no harm no foul.  Seriously, it looks like a film made with infants as the target audience.  Meanwhile, Jack the Giant Killer looks to be taking itself WAY too seriously and in turn coming off as an insult to our intelligence for thinking the movie-going public wants a legitimate Jack and the Beanstalk movie.  I outwardly hope for movies to fail all the time (like every single one on this list), but I make special exceptions in the cases of these films because that will mean that the trend of making popular fairy tales into blockbusters will go the way of Osama Bin Laden, Muammar Qadaffi, and Kim Jong-Il.

3.  The Three Stooges (Apr. 13^th)

After seeing the trailer for this movie, I understood why actors such as Jim Carrey, Benicio Del Toro, and Sean Penn passed on it.  To put it nicely: it looks awful.  One would think that it was made by the guys who made Epic Movie and Disaster Movie and all those heaps of crap, but then I see that it’s the Farrelly Brothers behind it, and my heart sinks.  This is the same duo who gave us two comedy classics, Dumb and Dumber and There’s Something About Mary!  Now they’re trying to bring back a franchise from sixty years ago (which rarely works anyway) that has not aged well at all.  I’ve tried to watch a couple old Three Stooges shorts and it’s almost as bad as watching Aqua Teen Hunger Force.  As if that didn’t sound bad enough, this film has Snooki in it.  Need I say more?

2.  The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2 (Nov. 16^th)

Before I lay into this pile, I am going to go on record and say that typing that whole title caused me actual physical pain.  Actually, you know what?  I’m not going to really lay into the movie itself because there’s really no point.  Men the world over have spent countless hours wondering why the hell their wives, girlfriends, and women everywhere have become obsessed with this horribly written, morally dangerous vermin?  I’m just going to say that if I find out a girl I’m dating likes Twilight, it’s over before you can say “sparkling vampires.”  If you like Twilight, you may be a good person, but you’re not someone I see myself with long-term.  Sorry, ladies.  It’s for the best.

1.Battleship (May 18^th)

When I was double checking the release dates for all of these films and saw when this one was coming out, I let out one of those Gaston-like hearty laughs because May 18^th is my brother’s birthday.  When I tell him that this movie comes out on his birthday, he’ll look at me like he just found out Michele Bachmann would become the President of the United States.  This film is my number one sign of the apocalypse from the world of cinema for many reasons, but I’m only going to list five.

1. It’s based on a board game that is as uncinematic as watching someone sleep for eight hours.

2. Some studio thought it was a genius idea to make a movie out of this uncinematic boardgame, and then thought it was an even more genius idea to invest $200 million into its production.

3. It has Rihanna playing a tough Naval soldier.  Seriously, these people aren’t even trying.

4.  Based on the trailer, it looks exactly like the fourth Transformers movie, which means it has to be directed by Michael Bay, right?  Wrong.  Unfortunately, it’s directed by Peter Berg, who has actually done good work in the past (Friday Night Lights, both versions).  Now that FNL the show is over, he must be going through a midlife crisis, so he decided to take it out on the human race, both on film and in real life.

5. It’s a movie about the end of the world!  In 2012!  Of course it’s a sign!

Add in the fact that it actually stars three actors I like a lot (Alexander Skarsgaard, Taylor Kitsch, and the one and only Liam Neeson) and one “actress” I like looking at a lot (Brooklyn Decker), and you’ve the potential for a crapsterpiece that only Michael Bay could previously aspire to.  Congratulations, Mr. Berg.  I secretly hope that millions of people are dumb enough to pay money to see this thing because it would be the ultimate sign that the end was indeed nigh.