Are you ready? I sure hope you are. Hollywood has opened the floodgates. Look at all those movies. Just look at them. Are you done looking yet? Okay, I’ll wait….Yes, I made it. And it’s tiny. Ready to move on now?

Anyway, this weekend is just the beginning of the cinematic maelstrom that is the remainder of 2012. It’s the triple threat of “Wreck-it Ralph,” “Flight” and “The Man with the Iron Fists.” Between Robert Zemeckis’ return to non-animated glory, Disney’s return to animated glory, and pure, ridiculous kung-fu fun, theatergoers will have a tough time choosing one movie (I wouldn’t normally advocate theater hopping, but I might be willing to make an exception this once).

And this weekend isn’t even close to the end of it. Next weekend brings two of the year’s most highly anticipated movies: 007’s return in “Skyfall” and Steven Spielberg’s Oscar bait “Lincoln.”

With your wallet empty and your eyeballs filled with stunning imagery, the likes of which have previously never been witnessed by mankind,Hollywood is content to finish you off with “Anna Karenina,” “Life of Pi,” “Silver Linings Playbook,” “Rise of the Guardians” and “Hitchcock” all set to release during November.

After that, you can enjoy your holiday season with your family in peace, not having to trouble yourself with the likes of “Les Miserables,” “The Hobbit” and “Django Unchained” releasing in December. Yeah, nobody wants to see any of those movies. At all.

Anyway, after grumbling how much Hollywood hates you for releasing garbage in the Summer and then bombarding you with awesomeness now, you’ll eventually need to resign yourself to the fact that you have to see most of these in theaters. So, however you plan to spend your movie going moments this Fall/Winter, I hope you’ll have a good time, and reflect upon the fact that we may be facing another “golden age” of film-making  Any way you slice it, it’s a great time to be a fan of the movies.

Photo: The Urban Daily

Twitter was alight with condolences on September 3, the day Michael Clarke Duncan died. A week later, fans lamented over the death of another beloved star: Morgan Freeman.

“At about 5 p.m. ET on Thursday, our beloved actor Morgan Freeman passed away due to a artery rupture,” the facebook page announcing his death read. “Morgan was born on June 1, 1937. He will be missed but not forgotten. Please show your sympathy and condolences by commenting on and liking this page.” The page has over 950,000 likes.

There’s just one problem: Morgan Freeman is not actually dead.

His announced demise was simply another hoax in a string of increasingly-popular sham celebrity “deaths.” Other non-casualties of 2012 include Bill Cosby, Paris Hilton and Adam Sandler.

It may be difficult to pinpoint the genesis of the public’s obsession with faux- celebrity deaths, but the most egregious recent example dates back to 2009, when media outlets reported on the death of actor Jeff Goldblum. Shortly after, the actor showed up on “The Colbert Report” to announce that he was, in fact, still very much alive.

The entertainment world is still reeling from a year inundated with the actual deaths of the likes of Tony Scott, Robin Gibb, Adam Yauch and Whitney Houston, along with Clarke Duncan, whose memorial page stand at just above 700,000 likes, far below Freeman’s page.

The Twitter responses to the hoax fluctuate between positive and negative, accommodating and obscene.

“One day, Morgan Freeman is going to die for real,” said Twitter user ‘hrmcewan.’ “And nobody’s going to give a s—t.”

Jackie is always a hoot. But please, no more “Spy Next Door.

Actor Jackie Chan and Laura Weissbecker speak at “Chinese Zodiac” panel during Comic-Con International 2012 at San Diego Convention Center on Thursday. — Kevin Winter / Getty Images

It may be hard to believe, but martial arts action star Jackie Chan made his first-ever Comic-Con appearance during a Hall H panel on Thursday afternoon.

The star was on hand to promote his new action film “Chinese Zodiac.” The trailer for the film, which follows a skilled but somewhat-bumbling thief played by Chan, showed off Chan’s signature humorous fighting style. The trailer suggests that Chan, who directs the film, might be poking some fun at his increasing age.

“I tell all the new people to learn special effects,” he said. “Don’t get hurt just for a movie.”

Chan was quick, however, to smack down rumors that he is thinking of retiring from making action movies.

“It’s not my last action film,” he said, “but it is, probably, my last big action movie.”

After 52 years of martial arts, Chan is staying true to his vision of providing unvarnished action free from distracting special effects.

“I’m going back to the original Jackie Chan movie,” he said. “No big special effects, just me.”

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/12/jackie-chan-returning-roots/?comic-con

I got to cover Hall H at the Con today! Not too many dull moments at that place!

Disney brought out its big guns and provided plenty of surprises during its trio of panels in Hall H on Thursday afternoon.

Panel moderator Chris Hardwick first brought out Tim Burton to discuss the upcoming stop-motion animated film “Frankenweenie.” The movie, an update on Burton’s original 1984 live action film, tells the story of a kid who successfully brings his dead dog back to life.

“It stemmed from me having a dead dog as a child,” Burton said. “I wanted to mix all of those elements: the horror, the humor, the heart of the story. It’ a really personal project for me.”

The exclusive scenes shown to the Hall H crowd suggest Burton’s signature dark comedic style and an eccentric cast of characters, some of which are based upon kids Burton knew when he was in school.

According to Burton, this was the version of the film he always wanted to make.

“I was happy to do it in live action but, for me, this is the more pure version of it.”

Next on stage was “Evil Dead” and “Spider-Man” director Sam Raimi, who introduced his origin story “Oz: The Great and Powerful.”

James Franco plays the titular wizard, who starts out as a naive circus magician.

“It’s a story of a selfish man,” Raimi said. “Oz is like a land of second chances for him.”

A Con-exclusive trailer for the film showed off some visually stunning sequences and impressive 3D.

Stars like former San Diegan Michelle Williams, who plays Glenda, and Mila Kunis, who plays a character name Theodora, were also on hand to discuss the film. Kunis appreciated the realistic visual detail that went into creating the fantasy land.

“The sets were real, and they were tangible,” Kunis said. “It wasn’t a green screen. It was magical going to work.”

The film is more heavily based upon Frank L. Baum’s original books than the classic 1939 movie.

“We couldn’t use images or ideas straight from the original film,” Raimi said. “We had to base what we did upon the books.”

Next on stage was Rich Moore, who introduced his upcoming animated ode to classic video games “Wreck-It Ralph.”

Moore showed off 10 minutes of the film, which tells a tale of a longtime video game villain who wants to be good for a change. The footage really showcased the visual splendor of the animation, replete with clever visual references to classic video games like “Pac Man,” “Donkey Kong” and “Sonic the Hedgehog.”

John C. Reilly, who plays Ralph, and Sarah Silverman, who plays a character named Penelope, were brought out to discuss the film.

According to Reilly, doing voiceover work was an exciting challenge.

“It’s been an amazingly creative process,” Reilly said. “We did a lot of improvisation, and it was pretty cool. We didn’t have to worry about how we looked, which was great.”

Filled with big stars, major announcements and exclusive footage, Disney showed its fans that their Hall H panel was worth the long wait.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jul/12/disney-had-lot-its-sleeve-hall-h-panels/?comic-con

This Summer, I have had the amazing privilege to intern with the San Diego-Union Tribune  as an Arts and Entertainment writer. Today kicks off our biggest event of the Summer, San Diego Comic-Con. I have been a Con-goer for two years now, but this will be my first time covering the Con as a member of the press. To say that I am excited is a huge understatement. Please follow all of our blog posts at utsandiego.com and tweets at @UTnightday. I will be re-posting all of my posts from the pop culture capital of the world here, as well as others that I think are particularly interesting or enlightening. It’s going to be a crazy five days, and, if I make it out alive, I’ll be sure to share some of my reactions and thoughts on the Con as a whole. If you’re not here, hopefully we can make it feel like you are!

The concept behind “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” is simple. Take historical events and actions and add vampires to the mix. Shake well, and hope that people appreciate the joke. In the original novel, Seth Grahame-Smith pulled it off by showing readers the grand scope and narrative heft ofLincoln’s life in great detail. But Grahame-Smith bungles his own adaptation by simultaneously providing too much and not enough.

The story, unsurprisingly, is that Abraham Lincoln has some vampires to hunt. After seeing his mother murdered by a vampire, he makes it his life’s mission to hunt the bloodsuckers down one by one. He comes across another crusader, Henry Sturges (an awesome Dominic Cooper), who trainsLincolnand gives him high-profile targets to kill. The head vampire is Adam, played convincingly by Rufus Sewell. Although he realizes the life of a hunter is an isolated one, he can’t help falling for Mary Todd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). He begins to find his life as a hunter conflicting with his burgeoning romance and political career.

As unfair an accusation as it may be, a big problem with the film is that it is not, in fact, the book. Grahame-Smith’s own screenplay lacks his detailed and engaging prose, and many of his hefty ideas. For example, the parallel between the blood-sucking vampires and the human slave owners who figuratively sucked the blood from an entire race of people, so eloquently explored in the book, is merely hinted at here. Also, many of the great scenes from the book are not even used; instead we get more “movie friendly” set pieces that are ridiculous in their silliness. A fight that takes place atop a stampede of horses is particularly idiotic.

Many critics would not consider it fair to read the book and then criticize the movie for not living up to those standards, and there is definitely some truth to that. But I can’t help but thinking of a movie like “Watchmen” which, flawed as it was, managed to retain the lofty ideas and pivotal scenes from its excellent source material.

So, is the movie good for people who haven’t read the book? Well, things don’t start off too good. Much of the movie is a jumbled mess of half-completed actions scenes, clumsy editing and inconsistent acting. Winstead, who was so good in “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” comes off as an actor trying to play Mary Todd Lincoln. She doesn’t seem to embody the role.

Equally distracting is the uneven visuals. The vampires look great, but the cinematography is excessively dim (even in 2D), and the screen often looks like its been soaked in tar.

But something strange happens about halfway through the movie. It gets, dare I say, good. Not just the story, but the acting. Benjamin Walker, who seems miscast as Abraham Lincoln, suddenly seems to embody the sixteenth president. I still wouldn’t say he looks likeLincoln, but his acting provides an emotional heft that can be surprisingly resonant, particularly in his scenes with Winstead, who also finds her own during the second half, partially due to some good makeup work. AsLincolnmust decide between his crusade and the good of the nation, and where those two overlap, the film finds its pulse. There’s even an actions sequence on a train that is visually stunning and features some excellent action scenes.

Unfortunately, at that point, the movie is pretty much over. Without giving too much away, it ends before the book does. The movie leaves a lot of the plot to the imagination, while focusing too much on gory action that overuses slow-mo to an almost excruciating degree. Is it fair to ask for a more detailed and less rushed plot from a movie like this, source material notwithstanding? I think so, but maybe I’m being too harsh.

“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” is never anything less than ridiculously silly, but never anything less than entertaining, either. Alas, despite being filled with vampires, the movie never really gets the blood pumping. But, during the second half in particular, it is probably better than it has any right to be. That doesn’t make it good, but…it’s something.