A new set of young adults that try to cheat death several times in The Final Destination steal themselves the top spot in the box office for this almost labor day weekend. Starring Bobby Campo, Shantel VanSanten, Haley Webb, the fourth installment in the horror franchise managed to bring in some money with 28.3 million. The New Line Cinema end of the summer film could have some legs, depending on what audiences next weekend feel in the mood for so to speak.

Inglorious Basterds is still keeping its heat in the box office, bringing in 20 million and still going strong. Then we skip over to Rob Zombie’s latest film, Halloween II (H2), not catching as much attention as its other horror competition as it brings in 17.4 million. The film, already at least making back its budget, at least has potential of gaining more before it quickly drops off after this upcoming labor day weekend.

Last but not least of the new ones is Ang Lee’s hippie filled film Taking Woodstock that tried to catch the season of love audience and others to the supposed ‘feel good’ reminisce film. That did not work all as planned, making only 3.7 despite heavy advertising, making it yet another possible bomb for the Brokeback Mountain director. Dished out to relatively harsh reviews from quite a few critics, the film in question teases but never fully delivers.

Even though its been out for almost a month, people still cannot stop buzzing about and watching Neil Blomkamp’s District 9 (including myself). Reaping the benefits of an awesome profit that comes from having one of the better science fiction films of this decade, its no wonder that people are still chattering away about it. Here is the rest of the chart below:

Weekend Box Office (August 28-30)

1. The Final Destination  ($28.3 Million)
2. Inglorious Basterds  ($20 Million)
3. Halloween 2  ($17.4 Million)
4. District 9  ($10.7 Million)
5. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra  ($8 Million)
6. Julie & Julia  ($7.4 Million)
7. The Time Traveler’s Wife  ($6.7 Million)
8. Shorts  ($4.8 Million)
9. Taking Woodstock  ($3.7 Million)
10. G-Force  ($2.8 Million)

Now its really going to be Labor Day weekend (hey, not my fault the calendar decided to mess us up) with the release of Mike Judge’s Extract, Gamer, and All About Steve.

“Hans Landa would have loved this movie.”
-Scott Marks

For those wondering, Mr. Marks is a pretty good friend of mine who often shares a radically different opinion than my own. Generally, I’ll come out singing the praises of Watchmen whereas he’ll yell at me for being wrong and rip the film to shreds. I can’t remember the last film I didn’t like that Scott loved, but the point has more than been made; unless it’s a classic piece of cinema, we don’t usually see eye-to-eye. Taking Woodstock should be considered an achievement just in that the two of us agreed completely on a movie. Shamefully, neither of us can raise our glasses and salute Ang Lee for making a great film. Truthfully, he’s done just the opposite and made what we agree is a horrendous picture.

What’s so offensive about Taking Woodstock isn’t any of the lack of filmmaking on display. In fact this film’s biggest crime is why I chose to begin this critique a little differently than normal. Ang Lee has decided to throw everything out that entails making a good drama and has instead littered it with every single stereotype he can dig up. The Jewish community gets the worst of it, with Imelda Stauton and Henry Goodman portrayed as the biggest Jewish caricatures likely ever put to screen. Now, I’m not Jewish and find it quite entertaining when a film plays on its stereotypes. This movie doesn’t do that and tries to make the stereotypes full-on characters.

The Jews may get it the worst, but Lee hasn’t forgotten the typical trolls who inhabit these stories. Aside from not being able to carry a picture to save his life, Demetri Martin’s Elliott Teichberg is the typical “miracle boy down on his luck.” Rooting for him is difficult when he (and the film) instill absolutely no more desire in the audience than to grab the complimentary hammer theaters will hand out to those who buy tickets and beat their own heads in. Emilie Hirsch, usually reliable, just floats in and out when the lack of a plot calls for him. Hirsch’s Billy is the “crazy Vietnam vet” that’s been done and done better. The hippies, led by Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff), feel anything but authentic. As for Liev Schreiber, he should be ashamed for playing a character like Vilma. He, she, or it isn’t funny. It’s outright disgusting.

None of the cast get any help from Ang Lee, who has decided that instead of a film, he wanted to make a sleeping pill. Lee has managed to take one of the most exciting events of the 1960s and turn it into a snoozefest. Lee’s reliance on split-screen to show us two different things happening in the same room serves no purpose at all and wears its welcome out quick. He’s not alone in creating a full-on forward assault of suck, thanks to his partner in crime, screenwriter James Schamus. The man’s scripted a film without any identity. Drama won’t be found here, nor will laughs, and excitement didn’t even get an invitation. Schamus also forgot to call a friend that all good screenwriters use: relatable characters. Instead, he opted to show us everything that makes bad cinema, for his lack of a story and lack of character development. His next assignment after this should be writing for the next studio-produced kids movie if he’s going to be so lazy with his methods.

If there’s a purpose to Taking Woodstock I couldn’t find it. This film is so terrible that it almost doesn’t want to be recommended. While most bad movies sometimes have good intentions, Ang Lee goes for the opposite and seems to be set out to make one of the worst films ever put to celluloid. Can’t say he and James Schamus aren’t successful, as together they’ve made an earnest abomination. In fact, the only people who have any business watching this film are insomniacs who have constant sleeping problems. Five minutes in, their problem will be solved and they won’t have to endure this offensive, lurid piece of something.

Rating: ★☆☆☆☆ 

If you survived this review and are somehow still interested in the film, check out our giveaway.

The summer of 2008 will be known as the starting point for something great. This will be the time we look back and see how Marvel Comics was able to take their properties and move them forward into one big movie universe. Some will say Spider-Man started it, but it didn’t start to merge till now, till Iron Man laid the groundwork of something large. The Incredible Hulk builds on this groundwork giving us a movie that fits in with the rest of the movie Marvel Universe but also is able to stand alone and deliver it’s own themes and ideas. For those of you that don’t know the background of the Hulk, here it is in song form. Catchy, isn’t it? One thing to keep in mind is, this isn’t the Ang Lee 2003 Hulk which was a very stylized movie based off of the comic book. Some liked it, some hated it. I was among those that liked it, even if the Hulk didn’t appear till almost an hour into the movie. This isn’t a continuation or sequel either. It’s a “reboot”, a do over if you would like. Marvel took a chance to re-image the Hulk’s world for the big screen and they delivered on this by getting Louis Leterrier on board to direct. He brings a real world feel to the movie that some thought was missing in the 2003 version. Plus he knows how to stage an action sequence and we get to see plenty of it in the 2008 Incredible Hulk. Here is a quick run down of the plot. Doctor Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) was belted by gamma rays and turned into the Hulk (Lou Ferrigno, providing the voice). During the accident, he injures long time girlfriend Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) and her father General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross (William Hurt). Like the TV show, we see Bruce trying to find a cure to remove the Hulk from him. Like the comic book we see Bruce running from the United States military in hope of not being captured and used as a weapon.  Two great tastes that go great together. Assisting General Ross with his quest is Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), on loan to the US from the UK. Blonsky is a warrior that lives for the fight, the adrenalin rush, the thrill of the hunt, and the capture of the prey. He’ll stop at nothing till Bruce Banner/the Hulk is captured. Bruce has help as well in the form of a mystery Mr Blue who is trying to come up with a cure. We later learn that Mr Blue is Professor Samuel Sterns (Tim Blake Nelson) and he has plans of his own for Bruce’s blood.

Unlike the previous outing, this movie picks up the action right away and we see the Hulk within the first 30 minutes of the movie. Between a roof top chase in South America, a fight between the Hulk and General Ross’ military forces, and a showdown in New York City we get to see tons of action. So in honor of this movie I am going to debut a new feature called “The Good, The Bad, and The Geeky.” The Good:

• Action and lots of action
• True to both the TV version and the comic version
• Bill Bixby is in the movie, keep your eye out
• Cameo appearances by Lou Ferrigno and Marvel Comics legend Stan Lee
• The HULK seen within the first 30 minutes is a plus
• William Hurt did a great job as General Ross; He was on-par with Sam Elliot’s version in the 2003 Hulk
• Ed Norton showed that he was a fan of the source material and respected both the TV and Comic fans with the script that he helped write

What is it about the Incredible Hulk that always seems to cause issues? The first movie came out in 2003 directed by Ang Lee and was considered a box-office bust. Why? The style of the movie was considered too slow by most and the fact that your main character of the HULK isn’t seen till over an hour into the film. When he was shown, the CGI made him look as if Shrek and the Jolly Green Giant had a child together. Add to it the very stylized comic book look and feal that Ang Lee gave the movie didn’t sit well with most audiences. For some reason they all wanted the movie to follow the themes set in the TV show from the 70′s and all forgot that there was a comic book prior to that version.

Now we move to 2008 where a newer version of The Hulk will hit movie theaters in June. This movie is being called a “restart” by Marvel Comics as the story follows the flow of the TV show with hints of the comic book thrown in. They even got a more action oriented director in Louis Leterrir (the Transporter movies) and a good set of writers in Zack Penn (Superman Returns) and the star of the movie, Edward Norton.

So where is the touble with this film? The trouble seems to be between Edward Norton, Louis Leterrir and Marvel Comics.  Entertainment Weekly had a sitdown with Louis Leterrir where he mentioned that all parties were getting along during the filming of the movie. It wasn’t till the edit proces that issues started to rise. It seems that both Leterrir and Norton wanted a “135 minute more contemplative and richer epic” as to Marvel Comics who wanted a “under 120 minutes and action packed” film.

Do you see where I’m going with this? Marvel wants an action movie featuring one of their toughest characters in comics where the director and star/writer wanted to make it more of a movie like the one in 2003.  Needless to say Marvel Comics won the battle but I won’t be surprise if we see two versions of the movie on DVD next Fall – one with the theatrical version and one with the director’s cut.

Adding to the story is that Edward Norton released a statement as he is not granting interviews at this time.

“Every good movie gets forged through collaboration, and different ideas among people who are all committed and respect the validity of each other’s opinions is the heart of filmmaking.

Regrettably, our healthy process, which is and should be a private matter, was misrepresented publicly as a ‘dispute,’ seized on by people looking for a good story, and has been distorted to such a degree that it risks distracting from the film itself, which Marvel, Universal and I refuse to let happen.

It has always been my firm conviction that films should speak for themselves… our focus has always been to deliver the Hulk that people have been waiting for and keep the worldwide love affair with the big green guy going strong.”

Again, the green guy seems to have issues. How will the audience take to the new Hulk? We’ll find out in June.