I am (a guy who saw) IRON MAN

I caught Iron Man today, and I have to give it the League of Melbotis rating of: 4.5 thumbs.

My expectations for the movie were somewhat tempered by a review or two from sources such as Variety and Newsarama.com, so I wasn't too surprised by the fact that I enjoyed the movie a great deal. That's sort of been the consensus.

Iron Man is a movie with one foot in fantasy, from the science-fiction of the armor and Tony Stark's household futuristic technology to the idealistic method in which Stark is able to redress his moral failings. The other (much smaller) foot is placed in the reality of the sort of combat our soldiers are facing overseas, and the responsibilities of folks buying yachts off the proceeds from the sale of scud missles.

The effects in Iron Man benefit from the fact that the armor is non-organic and there's no fear of the Uncanny Valley. Seeing the trailer for The Incredible Hulk, just minutes before Iron Man rolled, reminded me that despite the fact that I have no idea what an 8-foot green giant looks like, I can still look at CG-Ferrigno and know that I'm watching a nicely animated cartoon. Not so much here.

There's a lot of good stuff in Iron Man, and more than being a movie about two mad scientists duking it out, or a mad scientist and Afghani boogey-men, its much more about discovery of self and super-science development. And, kids, those scenes are a lot of fun to watch.

The talent in Iron Man is actually very impressive. Paltrow's Pepper Potts refuses to be another Mary Jane in distress. Jeff Bridges is more than a cackling villain, though the script does point him in some mad-sciencey, hand-wringing directions. Terrence Howard is a good James Rhodes, but you sort of hope he gets to suit up in Iron Man II.



And Robert Downey Jr.? For all the cliches of the movie, Downey makes you forget you've seen this movie before in bits and pieces. His Stark is not the boring guy with the mustache who kept me from reading Iron Man in middle school (alcohol problems or no). He's a guy who has already found his place in the world, he's succeeded in the ways of the American Dream, through hard work and brilliance, and he's enjoying the hell out of it. Unlike movies like Spider-Man, which show us a character in the transition of youth, we get a fully formed character with whom we get to see the exact why's and how's of their change of heart. And, maybe, being a few years out of high school, I'm relating a bit better to Tony Stark these days than Spidey. Although, you know, without the billions and genius.

Many will find Stark's moral awakening to be a contrivance, and somewhat childish. After all, blowing people up should be considered patriotic. But I found the reasons for the awakening to be plausible beyond just the confines of the story, and possibly asking some questions that Americans assume are usually taken care of, but... you know...

Anyhow, this is seriously one of the most fun superhero movies Marvel has managed to put out in a long time. Where Spidey 3 disappointed last summer, Ghost Rider utterly failed, and Fantastic Four went to the negative zone, Iron Man was a great ride.

I'm finding I'm enjoying superhero movies MORE when I don't know too much about the characters (or, like Superman Returns, its such a departure, I have nothing to compare it to). So I get the cool superhero action (and the action in this movie is pretty good), but I also don't spend the movie figuring out how this is different from the comic.

I'm looking forward to any potential sequels. And I may give this one another round before it leaves the theaters. Kids will want their Iron Man suit this Halloween. Adults will wish they could find a way to test drive the suit and have Stark's home management system.

Oh, and nerds will want to wait through the credits for the final scene of the movie. Oh, yes. You will want to stay.

The League sees DOOMSDAY (so you don't have to)

Holy @#$%.

Remember when you'd go to the movies and enjoy them? After seeing Doomsday, that all seems like a distant memory, as if a glimpse of a long-forgotten dream.

This is not to say that I did not enjoy watching Doomsday. I enjoyed the act of viewing Doomsday if I did not enjoy the movie itself.

Telling you Doomsday was awful may not come as a surprise. But to me, the depths of the awfulness... well, really Doomsday knew no bounds (nor shame) when it came to awfulness. Honestly, there was a minute there when I thought "oh, they're kidding. This is intentionally bad!" But, yeah... no.

Of late, it seems that many-a-sci-fi movie is but a deliberate, derivative knock off of a movie you've already seen (ie: Eragon = Star Wars). But Doomsday takes it one step farther by offering up a smorgasbord of stuff you've seen before in movies you kind of liked. The opening sort of lifts from any of a number of movies where a crowd is trying to escape an epidemic but is stopped by the military (most recently seen in I Am Legend). This is followed by some awkward expository scenes which kind of lift from the expository scenes from "Escape From New York". This is followed by a direct rip-off of scenes from "Aliens" (I mean, right down to the sort of vehicle being used), a minute or so of "Blackhawk Down", then into "Mad Max/ Beyond Thunderdome", which launches into a quick lift from... well, it's all stuff you've seen before. And when I say you've seen it before, I mean right down to editing, lighting, look and feel. It's... weird.



Also, star Rhona Mitra looks almost exactly like Kate Beckinsale. With hair and outfit styled after "Ghost in the Shell". Don't get me wrong, she's a good looking dame and all, but...

The dialog sounds like, maybe, it could have used an extra pair of eyes before the cameras rolled. However Director Neil Marshall is also, presumably, writer Neil Marshall. And, hence, nobody got between Mr. Marshall and Mr. Marshall when it came time to second guess uncreative and frequent use of the F-bomb, as well as the clunkiest exposition this side of "Monster A-Go-Go". Also, nobody seems to have told Mr. Marshall that showing every death (and method of death, of which the movie has innumerable and creative options) need not be shown in an extreme close-up. Sometimes cannibalism is also best suggested or mentioned to be something shown off-screen.

And I don't know how many of you have seen "Garth Marenghi's Darkplace", but the writing in the two has a lot (unintentionally) in common.

And, yes, I guessed they were about to eat someone by the odd use of the appearance of a Fine Young Cannibals' song. Really, this is that kind of movie. And then for some reason, they used Siouxsie's "Spellbound". Really the only pop music in the movie.

For a movie that includes car chases, knights in armor, gladiatorial combat, punk rock cannibals, plague zombies, a herd of cattle, a car chase and stuff I suppose I'm forgetting, its also kind of dull. Partially because after the initial exposition, the characters don't really talk to one another much, and a lot of stuff occurs, but not a lot happens.

Also, everything vaguely sciency that happens in the movie is wrong. A Bentley turns over after sitting in a box untouched after 20 years. The understanding of viruses is... hazy at best. And more!

There IS a plot, which is sort of messed up and ridiculous if you buy that a wall could be built in about 48 hours which would bi-sect the UK. Also, the issues between the UK and Scotland sort of run as a nasty undercurrent through the movie, making some not very flattering assumptions about what would happen in Scotland if push came to shove.

The truth is, I love me a bad movie. And this movie fits that bill on so, so many levels. We found ourselves throwing high-fives every once in a while when we were really, really feeling it.

I really don't know if movie directors/ producers are really that mercenary that they don't care if we already know this movie, and are willing to blatantly rip-off material wholesale and put it under a different label. I don't know if they THINK they're trying, or if they just have not a clue that they ARE ripping things off, or if they don't realize it, or what... There's certainly a certain video-gameness to the movie, if a video game were dreamed up by a hyperactive 8th grader. There's no payoff between our hero and a Big Boss, and, honestly, it could have used it for the trajectory of the movie. Honestly, almost nothing about the end of the movie makes sense, including an incriminating speech by one of the characters.

But, anyway, I've warned you. You're on your own from here. But, God bless it... Doomsday is here to tell us that the B movie is alive and well. And I don't mean how movies that used to be B movies are now, really, not B- movies but sheepishly claim to be so in order to bullet-proof themselves from critics who blanch at movies with superheroes, etc...

Dammit, I mean the cheap, lousy B movie with an iffy plot, clunky dialog, exploitative use of violence, ladies, car chases and shoddy science in the science fiction. You, B-Movie, are the real spirit of the silver screen.

The League Watches: Confessions of a Superhero

I had planned to try to see "Confessions of a Superhero" a while back. I think we'd planned to go with CB, but something came up.

Anyhoo... It showed up from Netflix today, and as I'm a bit under the weather, I popped it in and watched.

A long time ago, I recall some joke about the best way to get the respect of your peers in film school was to go shoot footgae of a neighborhood hobo in black and white for a few hours, get the person to tell you a sad story and then call it "Umbrellas Under Sadness". Or something of the sort. If anyone knows the exact quote, please share. But, ultimately, the idea kind of describes how I feel about a lot of "character" based documentary. Up close, everyone comes off as bizarre, and so its kind of an easy trick, especially when you can get someone living outside of normal expectations to talk to you, and a director and editor making a narrative from the whole cloth of a life.

It goes without saying that people who make a living by standing in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater dressed as Superman, etc... have, at some point, taken the path less traveled. Yes, these subjects have a story to tell, but it's never really clear if this is a new story we haven't heard before, even without the superhero angle. The documentary points out somewhat unintentionally "Going to Hollywood and maintaining a delusion of impending stardom when all Signs Point to No makes for a kind of pathetic story". And it's a story most people already know or we'd all be in LA wondering when we were going to get our break as a leading man or lady.

The movie is mostly about the shattered lives of four Hollywood wanna-be's, and seems to be trying to use the costumes of superheroes as a symbol of their hope, but only occasionally. Unfortunately, the movie fails to answer too many questions, and so whatever message they were trying to say, what the movie winds up conveying is "these people are off their nut, and they have no marketable skills. Also, 3 of 4 of these people is certifiable, and number 4 is working her way toward some bitter disappointment."

Folks who see the movie and who know me will, no doubt, wonder about my reaction to Christopher Dennis, the movie's Superman. Mr. Dennis seems like an affable enough guy. And while I admire his collection of Superman memoribilia (which easily dwarfs my own), he's a fan who has chosen to follow his obsession to the exclusion of everything else. The fact that he has found love is, to this viewer, not a surprise. He's found someone who finds him endlessly fascinating and who has accepted him as he's accepted her (she seems to have her own quirks). The Dennis segments are an unintentional cautionary tale for folks like myself, I guess. I did appreciate the advice he gave "Ghost Rider" about what behavior is acceptable when in costume/ character. But the film also demonstrates why I never want to go to the Superman Festival in Metropolis, Illinois.

The biggest issue was that the movie raised literally dozens of serious questions about the subjects of the film, and then does nothing to resolve those questions. In effect, you feel almost as if you know less about the subjects at the conclusion of the film than you did at the beginning, and its a frustrating way to view a documentary.

The film's subjects somewhat casually tell stories which demand follow up, but the film never does the work for the viewer. Our Batman tells tales of working in the Italian mob, killing the family of a former lover, and acting as an enforcer. Superman claims to be the child of actress Sandy Dennis, while Ms. Dennis's family claims she never had any children. Our Hulk discusses being homeless, but we're never told why. And Wonder Woman isn't much of a mystery, but we never get why she and her husband split, but the fact that they married two weeks after meeting sort of suggests what may have happened.

The film's creators spend entirely too much time on cinematography and still photos and almost none actually crafting the story. They mostly take the folks involved at their word, even when their spouses are saying "you can only believe 50% of what he says." The fact that the producers didn't chase these clues down (possibly to reveal that the guy playing Batman was responsible for the deaths of many people) goes beyond laziness and into outright irresponsibility. If Batman was lying or believes what he says, he needs help. And so they send him to the shrink in a full Batman outfit.

There's never a question of where the money came from for the costumes in the first place. There's never a question of why the subjetcs chose the character they did, or what they actually know about the character (pretty clearly in the case of Dennis: a lot). Heck, there's never even a question of "is dressing as a superhero on Hollywood Boulevard the best investment of your time if you want to be a serious actor?" Like so many Hollywood producers who've generated so many bad, bad super-hero movies, to the documentarians, the costumes are just a prop on the way to a paycheck. But I suspect that's a complaint only a comic nerd like myself might have.

The documentary seems to want for the audience to root for and support the characters, but there's simply no reason given as to "why"? If they aren't putting on the costumes to make the world a better place, but for self-promotion, and this is the step they've taken toward their goals of money and power, why should I care if they fail or succeed?

Part of this, I suspect, is that the filmmakers are in line with the platitudes provided by the film's subjects regarding the movie industry's placement of value on fame and money. Perhaps the film is intended to indict this idea, but it seems to be cheerleading the subjects.

The omissions of the film act as a huge distraction and mostly point out that, aside from long, lingering views of Dennis's Superman memoribilia-rich apartment, they just don't have much to show. A quick trip to Wonder Woman's hometown suggest she had a mother who indulged her every whim and may hvae chosen poorly when she gave up an iron grip on a town of 2000 for asking for tips for dressing as Wonder Woman.

Interesting characters, perhaps... but perhaps the movie could have spent less time on musical interludes of the Hulk in litter strewn alleys and more asking him "Hey, four years on the street? How did that happen? And why didn't you just go home to North Carolina?"

The sad answer to a lot of these questions is probably: the person is crazy or not-all-there. And absolutely no evidence is given to the contrary.

In short, I can't really recommend the film. My hope was that it would be more about the histories of the subjects, but instead the producers chose to just focus on the present tense of the situation, half of which seems to be a steady stream of fabrications.

REVIEW: Justice League: New Frontier

Well, Anonymous, I watched the movie, so here we go.

New Frontier

I liked it.

Like any movie from a book, JL: New Frontier does not completely manage to capture what made the book great, but it does a pretty darn good job of translating the comic to animated format. Rather than beat around the bush, I will say that the single biggest problem with the movie is that at 75ish minutes, the movie feels about 20-30 minutes too short.

I'm not sure if viewers of the movie are going to necessarily miss the bits about Dinosaur Island (from Weird War Tales), the greater development of a few plotlines, or more about the Challengers. But they may want to see more of the Superman/ Lois relationship, get a better feel for the existing relationships among the characters, and maybe get a bit more background on The Flash.

I don't envy director Dave Bullock, or writer Stan Berkowitz. New Frontier as a comic was a sprawling epic, taking place over an extended period of time and containing both explicit and implicit inclusion of historical events and a truckload of DC publishing history. Whomever the powers that be at TimeWarner might be, they've been kind enough to greenlight this sort of project and short-sighted enough to dictate the same running time for children's movies.

New Frontier is PG-13, suggesting that DC Animated expected the movie to reach an older audience than, say, the latest installment of the Air Bud puppies series. One of the oddities of comics and their translation to television (especially to animation) is that what happens in comics is often PG to PG-13 rated. And with the opening sequences taking place in a warfield in Korea in the final days of the Korean War, they don't pull too many punches.

Whether the voice talent took part as a lark or because the pay was right, this movie has a great voice cast. Kyle MacLachlan as Superman, Jeremy Sisto's Batman is a worthy heir to Kevin Conroy. Lucy Lawless is a good Wonder Woman, and I was a fan of Vicki Lewis as Iris, and Brooke Shields as Carol Ferris. David Boreanaz of Angel fame plays Hal Jordan, and Miguel Ferrer is a great Martian Manhunter.

The art-style approximates artist Darwyn Cooke's original conception, under the steady guidance of director Dave Bullock. Coincidentally, I used to really like Bullock's cover work on Superman comics about three or four years ago, as he shared a bit of a retro-style with Cooke. Some will make the mistake of believing the late-50's style of cartoon art is imitating The Incredibles, but that's an unfortunate coincidence. New Frontier pre-dates the release of the Incredibles. I did miss some of the characterization, especially of Wonder Woman, that Cooke brought to the page, but budgetary concerns and a slightly more modern style was probably required for a general audience.

The plot holds up well, and in place of the sprawling story of the original mini-series/ graphic novel, the story is tightened up nicely in the film, with most of the major beats getting attention. From The Flash is Vegas, to the origin of Hal Jordan as Green Lantern, it's pretty well covered. The overarching storyline of The Center, that holds the film together, was surprisingly well-paced and handled with an appreciable amount of narrative economy, all while building tension.

The action scenes are very well choreographed and maturely handled. There's a great big-screen feel to the whole movie with well-staged scenes, from art direction to "blocking".

There are some scenes where they've taken some liberties, and where they've integrated sequences, etc... but as far as a film goes, I don't have any complaints.

Folks not particularly familiar with the Justice League or superheroes beyond Batman and Superman will find something to like.

Folks who are DC geeks will find a bag of things to enjoy, from the Challengers of the Unknown just sort of being there, to Madamoiselle Marie as a Fed. It's just a lot of fun.

Extras:

The preview copy I received was not the two-disc set, but did contain the film and a short documentary on the history of the Justice League.

Superman/ Doomsday contained a similar documentary, produced as a companion piece to the movie you may have just finished watching.

In this case, the documentary covered the publishing history of the Justice League, and contains some great interviews from folks who were there, or who worked with the original creators (many of whom, like Gardner Fox, have passed). Comic geeks will be excited to see the faces and hear the comments from well-known creators, but may have known some or much of the history of the Justice League of America. Non-comic geeks may be surprised at the grown men talking so lovingly about the Super Friends, but will still enjoy.

On the Whole:

I think this came out extremely well. It's tough to separate out my love of the original book from the movie, and that works in two ways. I am somewhat bothered by what was excised for time, but I'm also finding it hard to pick at the movie too much as it animates and brings to life a comic I think is top notch.

If there's one thing I think was missed, its at the very end when Lois sees Superman again. I recall seeing that page the first time I read the comic and felt it was just a perfect Superman moment. If comics can slow when you read and really impress a feeling upon you, Cooke had pulled it off. Here, I kind of felt it was rushed. But, you know, 75 minutes.

I still recommend. I will mention that I wouldn't show this to, say, very, very young kids. But if they can handle Star Wars, they can handle this.

Zero Effect Tenth Anniversary

Join Chronological Snobbery for a 10 Year anniversary investigation of the 90's-era detective movie "The Zero Effect".

Read here.

Zero Effect - 10 Years Later

The League has been asked by the powers that be at Chronological Snobbery to participate in a bit of a movie review round-robin for "The Zero Effect". It seems that the movie, Zero Effect came out ten years ago. I saw it on DVD within a year or so of its release on home video.

Rather than try to remember a movie I hadn't seen in about 9 years, I picked it up from Netflix.

I admit that I wasn't a huge fan of "Zero Effect" when I saw the movie the first time. I definitely got that the movie was a modern-day Sherlock Holmes, with Bill Pullman in the role of Daryl Zero/ Holmes and Ben Stiller in the role of Steve Arlo/ Watson. While working, Daryl Zero has superhuman abilities of deduction and intuition. Off the case, he's a drug-addled lunatic who plays the guitar. Badly. Just as Holmes was supposed to play the violin and partake in a bit of, if memory serves, cocaine, the analog is pretty straightforward. And just as Watson was supposed to declare "by jove! How the deuce did you deduce that, Holmes?", so is Stiller put the position of being both impressed by his employer's abilities, as well as assisting him and representing him to the public.

And while I certainly wouldn't want a "modern day Holmes" movie, I wasn't sure what, exactly, Kasdan was trying to create. Was this Holmes through the eyes of the modern day detective movie? Or was it Holmes through the eyes of the son of a successful Hollywood producer?

The plot/ mystery of the movie is an excuse for the audience to meet Daryl Zero and Steve Arlo, and to challenge the status quo we're to understand they share when the movie begins. Should Steve Arlo give up his working relationship with Zero for the way it interferes with his personal life? Can Zero find love?

What starts off as an amusing premise never really works. The movie isn't funny, and I don't think it's intended to be so. So I'm not really sure what Kasdan was intending. Too much time is spent concerned with the quirky relationship of Zero and Arlo, and the mystery plot isn't necessarily engaging enough on its own to work as a feature film. Perhaps this would be a great pilot leading into a television series. Long story short, its tough to ever know what is supposed to be the A-plot of the movie, and what is intended to the B-Plot. Are we watching a movie about Zero and Arlo or the blackmail case they're supposed to be uncovering? Is this a standard case for them, or is this one particularly unusual?

Part of the problem is that Pullman is only occasionally convincing as an unhinged eccentric genius. Too much of the time, perhaps, he's on the case, and so seems together. Other shows, such as Monk or Psyche feature quirky detectives (Monk, most specifically comes to mind as an example of a detective program which is completely dedicated to the protagonist's psychoses). Prior to that, Columbo and others had been pretty wacky detectives working through convoluted plots. There's nothing here in "Zero Effect" to defy expectations. Instead, not a whole lot seems to happen. Character bits that are revealed skew towards the depressing, but with so little time to get to know Arlo and Zero, its tough to get invested. Pullman has never struck me as an actor of great range, and Zero Effect does nothing to erase that notion.

TV and movies are full of such characters, and drug-addled mood swings may look good on paper, but in a movie where we're given little room to feel sympathy for our leading man to begin with, profanity-laced binges don't really draw you in. Honestly, the idea seems like something lifted out of a completely different movie, as does the intentionally awkward "Zero plays the guitar" scene.

Ben Stiller's portrayal of Steve Arlo is hampered by stilted dialog he delivers mostly through clenched teeth. This would have been a post-"Ben Stiller Show" Stiller, but pre-Super Stardom from "There's Something About Mary" and the schticky groove Stiller would carve out with films like "Meet the Fockers". Honestly, I'd forgotten he was the Watson-archetype in this film, and raised an eyebrow in the first frames when he appeared. He more or less disappears going into the third reel, with one scene which resolves his character arc and a tacked on wedding scene to give our character an out at the end of the film.

Readers may recall that the Sherlock Holmes stories were told from the perspective of Watson in order to give the reader the same surprise the audience might feel upon hearing Holmes spout out an amazing deduction. However, director/ writer Kasdan switched the POV from Arlo to Zero somewhat abruptly early on in the film, taking away the exasperated amazement that Arlo might feel working side by side with an unknowable genius. In many ways, this gives the feeling that the screenplay was cobbled together from various parts of various drafts and that there's never any solid, single point of view to the movie. No doubt this was done to accommodate the scenes with GLoria Sullivan, which, by necessity to the plot, could not include Arlo. Unfortunately, this makes Arlo semi-redundant within the structure of the story.

For someone with so much screentime and who is supposed to win over Daryl Zero, Kim Dickens' Gloria Sullivan is a surprisingly dull character and never feels like the foil she's described to be in the film's final moments (I literally paused and thought to myself... "oh, yeah... I guess she did do all of that..." as Zero re-capped why he admired her so.). Ryan O'Neal is really the only other player, and so in a mystery such as this, there just really isn't much mystery to go around. But he pretty much plays Ryan O'Neal, if you're wondering.

Director/ Writer/ etc... Jake Kasdan would have been about 23 at the time of the film's creation, and that may account for a lot of the problems with the film. Too young, perhaps, to really realize he was recycling material. Mistaking drudging, monotone dialog for moodiness, and Dennis Hopper-channeling mania for Zero as "quirkiness", whatever humor he finds in the inconsistent pill-popping of Zero simply doesn't work.

Perhaps these characters had lived in Kasdan's head too long as a writer, and as a director, he was unable to get the performances out of his seasoned cast. Fresh out of school and with a father like Lawrence Kasdan to call in favors, movies can get made. Perhaps had Kasdan waited a bit before bringing this movie to the screen, the movie would have found its footing.

I'm not familiar with the box office on Zero Effect, but I do not recall the movie doing well at the time of release, and only rented it originally at the suggestion of someone else.

Kasdan's follow up efforts haven't been as serious in tone. He directed the dispiriting, laughless "Orange County" (a movie which seemed as if it was written by the most entitled priviliged kid for other entitled privileged kids.). It is telling, I think, that I left the theater before "Orange County" was over. We had technical problems with the film in the final reel, and rather than wait for the theater to fix them, we demanded a refund and left.

Kasdan also directed this winter's musical/ comedy "Walk Hard", which was funny when relying on the improv talents of the players and otherwise awkward and clunky, and certainly stretched on about twenty minutes too long.

Perhaps Kasdan had originally intended to write a comedy with Zero Effect. Perhaps he even believed that's what he was shooting until he got back his footage. Who knows? The movie begins on a an absurd note, suggesting some dark comedy... and abandons any humorous aspects about twenty minutes in before giving up and plodding to a finish.

My guess is that I am missing something here that has kept the film alive with a certain group of fans. But on a second viewing, there's still not much to pull me in. For a movie that seems to think it has some great characters, they seem derivative. For a movie that ostensibly is about deduction and detecting a mystery, the plot just isn't really engaging enough to really feel like the greatest challenge of the career of Daryl Zero, which it must be, lest why would the movie exist?

As someone participating in a round-robin of "Zero Effect" reviews, I'll be curious to see what others say.

I was going to close the post with something dickish about how the movie had "zero effect" on me. And that's probably still true. But, mostly, I feel the movie is forgettable, and has been largely forgotten. It's never a good sign when you realize upon watching a movie again for the second time that you have no recollection of the plot or characters from the first viewing. It's a worse sign when you are dead-certain mid-viewing that your brain may be erasing the movie from your memory before you've even finished watching it, and that's not going to help when it comes time for the big reveal.

Cloverfield: Man in Suit

On Saturday Jamie, Jason, Julia and me (breaking the chain of alliteration) went to the Alamo-ized Village Cinema to catch "Cloverfield".

SPOILER LADEN REVIEW

Cloverfield is pretty much exactly (EXACTLY) what you think it is from the previews. It takes the concept of the big-budget monster movie and tells it from the pitiable angle of the person on the street, rather than from the angle of the sexy scientists and military folk who usually fill Godzilla movies. In some ways, its very similar to a zombie movie in that we're getting the perspective of the folks simply trying to not get killed, not the folks trying to bring the crisis to an end, which, really, brings us all the way back to the original novel of "War of the Worlds".

But the buzz hasn't been so much about the shake up in narrative, its been about the first-person perspective of the movie. As you probably already know, the movie is supposed to be found footage of a handi-cam which captures the desperate set of circumstances of the seven or eight hours around the attack of the monster, which I just call "Cloverfield" as, very intentionally, the movie never names, nor does it try to explain the monster. From the perspective of the characters, this makes complete sense, and, really, that's the point of the movie. This is a film about "what if you or I were minding our own business and found ourselves the screaming pedestrian in the rampaging monster film?" What I did not want to see was the scene in which our everyman heroes stumble upon a scientist who explains the entire situation. In so many ways, the movie relies upon the confusion of the characters to tell the story.

And, no, I have no idea why the movie was called Cloverfield. The movie never actually says why that was supposed to be the name at any time I saw (even in the opening minute of the movie). I probably missed something, so fill me in if you know.

In a world in which we've all seen endless footage of the WTC falling and modern military strikes on cable, the cinematographer of Cloverfield is the real hero. The scenes are captured well enough for the viewer to see what is going on without being lost in the herky-jerky camera movements, and only occasionally did I stop to think "gee, he was lucky to frame that exactly that way while running away in terror". We now know what it looks like when a huge building collapses, we understand what it looks like when missiles are flying from an armored military vehicle. All of this is brought to the screen in a manner that suggests You Are There.

A lot of folks are going to not necessarily dig the camera work, and that's a matter of both taste and whether or not you got vertigo when you saw Blair Witch.

This, in the end, is what the movie brings that "20 Million Miles to Earth", "King Kong", or any other rampaging monster-in-a-populated-area movie didn't bring. There will be the inevitable comparisons to The Blair Witch Project, and that's okay. But I don't think its fair to assume that a single movie should get the monopoly on first person genre films, especially in an era of YouTube, video cameras on phones and the everyman as creator of media. To say "Blair Witch already did this" is, to me, oversimplifying things a bit.

Some Leaguers are beholden to the whims and needs of the babies they've made and will not be able to go out to the local cinema to take in the spectacle. And I'd say that watching this on your TV will probably still get you into the experience. After all, subconsciously video shooters are thinking TV, not 40' movie screens. While the movie certainly doesn't always stick to the rule, seeing the conventions of the home video play out on your TV rather than at the movies may make for a satisfying experience.

What viewers will probably believe less than a twenty-story monster rampaging through Manhattan is the premise of the plot of the film. This is not, I say again, a movie about folks actually defeating the beastie. I think I, at age 32 or at age 15 would have a hard time buying the premise which to our film's subjects wandering through the firefight. Or that someone would feel safe walking around with a camera in their face through a disaster of cataclysmic proportions.

The leads are fairly typical young Hollywood, what producers assume I want to see when I go to the cinema (but is really intended to appeal to males, 13-25). The movie begins more or less with the beginning of the "found" tape. The first footage occurs before the disaster, capturing two young folks who are trying to decide if they're in love. A camcordery-cut later, Flash forward to the awkwardly scripted good-bye party where one of the leads is off to Japan for work, and a very high-school-like lovers' quarrel. The technique works in the narrative in a way that would have seemed ridiculous as flashbacks in any other movie, and uses the device (both plot and actual handi-cam device with its known technical quirks) to show what would otherwise have to make up for some really inappropriately timed exposition.

In all honesty, I wasn't sure I was supposed to feel deep empathy for the characters, or if that was a product of the usual poor characterization when style takes place over substance. I really didn't care about the B-plot of the movie, and I certainly didn't buy that the characters would have been knuckle-headed enough to walk back towards the danger as they did. Like a lot of zombie movies, I suppose, I was expecting our protagonists to get picked off, and was simply much more invested in the unfolding of action than what was happening to who, and who loved who. I mean... really. There's a 50-ton monster eating people. Who cares about yuppies in love?

I might also mention that the movie has no score or musical cues. You won't miss them, but if you hang around through the credits, you'll find the music over the credits sort of jarring when it does pop up.

Like Blair Witch, its unclear if its a good movie or a novelty, but I'm leaning toward a novelty that will inform future, perhaps better, efforts. It's a good popcorn flick, and it shows promise that perhaps the rampaging monster in an urban setting isn't totally gone from the world of genre movies.

But, as the Alamo pre-show reminded me, I was pretty happy with a classic Man in Suit movie. I'm not sure I really need a $150 million thrown at me to have a good time.

Three Movies I saw

During my days off, I saw some movies...

Juno: Occasionally you wander into a movie and realize that the movies aimed at the hip, the young, the with-it, the tastemakers... are no longer aimed at you. And that movie has unintentionally informed you that you are either too old, too unhip or too cynical to enjoy the movie in the way it was meant to be watched.

People love this movie. I thought it was okay, but I don't really get why people are falling over each other to praise the flick. At best, it seems like a good starter vehicle for star Ellen Page.

I found the dialog oddly stilted and stylized for a fairly concrete sort of movie, and I was sort of having trouble buying the hipper-than-thou'ness of the lead character and references that seemed to place the movie about ten to fifteen years ago. Toss in a nigh-lack of consequence for the lead characters, and a somewhat insidious cry for conformity, and the movie just didn't work for me.

Walk Hard: Is Exactly what you think it is. Only a little less funny. I do wonder if it would be funnier on a second viewing as the movie is terribly quotable. Unfortunately, in spoofing a film like "Walk the Line", the characters need to follow the same path as the late, great, screwed up Johnny Cash, you have to pretty much follow the many beats of the source material. This makes the movie seem a bit bogged down, and occasionally those familiar with Walk the Line or Cash's bio may not find much humor in scenes as they're played.

A renter for a boring Friday night, I'd say.

And, I know I am alone in this, but I think Tim Meadows is one of the most under-appreciated comedians on TV or film. That guy cracks me up. And, yes, I have both seen and ENJOYED The Ladies Man.

I am Legend: If Juno was not aimed at me, I am Legend is pretty squarely targeting me directly. Part action movie, part character piece, part Zombie flick, and featuring explosions and the affable Will Smith, they might as well have written "with The League in mind" right on the poster.

That said, the movie left too many gaps that I filled in from viewings of The Omega Man, but successfully changed the "mutants" into something far more frightening than the albino goobers of Omega Man.

Still, one feels that the movie seemed like it could have been larger in scope somehow, and that the movie seems too often like its trying to get you to jump and too seldom like there's much past the spookiness in the shadows.

Probably worth seeing in a dark theater at matinee. Or go rent Omega Man for an ending that has a really grim downer before the credits, the kind that you just don't get any more thanks to the suits wanting to offer the audience either hope or a chance of a sequel.

The New Flash Gordon on Sci-Fi

...totally sucks.

Wow. Monday evening I made poor Jason and Jamie sit through this no-budget train wreck.

Flash Gordon has successfully existed as a comic strip, 1950's TV show, radio serial movie serial, 80's camp classic, 90's cartoon, reprint series, whatever...

Yet somehow with a household name at their fingertips, untold hours of reference material and a public perception regarding the franchise, the geniuses behind this show decided that what they really needed to do was scrap all of that, make up a bunch of nonsense that's never plagued the concept before, and then spend most of the pilot in a Canadian suburb. It seems that, faced with a non-existent budget and a casting director with a pretty specific taste in women, the creators apparently had something other than Flash Gordon in mind and just borrowed the name of the property.

Seriously, nothing resembles anything you know about Flash Gordon.

A list of offenses includes:

-All of the women are thin brunettes with sort of almond eyes. I couldn't tell Dale, the princess or the bounty hunter apart in close-ups
-Flash's mom is, like, three years older than him and sort of uncomfortably attractive
-The show sorta takes a line on Latino immigrants that could be construed as racist
-Ming is the least threatening villain ever. Seriously. Ever. It's like having a record store manager mildly miffed with you.
-they've ditched the now well established, crazy, space opera look of Mongo for generic Sci-Fi channel BSG and Star Trek costuming rejects and bland hip design with no eye to the gilded age wonders of the comics and movies
-the pacing is glacial, nonsensical and meandering
-Flash is given a token black sidekick so someone can say "That's whack!" a lot
-The acting is uniformly awful
-Lines clearly intended to be played for laughs are played straight. Whether this is the director or actors' fault, I have no idea
-No Hawkmen
-No Lizardmen
-No awesome football game
-clearly filmed in a lush Canadian suburb
-Mongo: Also clearly the exact same suburb. Plus a water treatment plant possibly used in several "sci-fi" films from the 80's seen nowhere else but on MST3K
-Zarkov is now a quirky guy who will be play "The Professor" to Flash's "Gilligan"
-The girl who plays the princess seems puzzled as to what show she's on. Maybe the OC?
-absolutely no action to speak of
-And Flash can hop between a field near his house and Mongo at any time. pretty much defeating the point of the entire Flash Gordon concept

On every level possible, the program fails. If you're going to claim you're giving me Flash Gordon, Sci-Fi Channel, then give me @#$%ing Flash Gordon. Don't try to "update" a concept that's been honed and perfected over the better part of something like 70 years. You and your crappy budget are not smarter than the millions of folks who already passed judgment on the idea the way it was.

Leave it alone. Sometimes aliens just need to dress like color blind Prussian generals, weird Eastern stereotypes, pirates and barbarians.


The show is crap in a hat.

The League Surfs with the Alien

Saturday I wound up going to see Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

I might also add that due to logistical reasons, this was the first time in months I've been to a movie anywhere by the Alamo, and while the crowd was really good, it just isn't the same going to a movie when I can't drink a beer and eat a pizza.

Anyhow, the past few years have seen superhero movies which have defied all previous expectations, merging special effects, well crafted stories and respect for the source material to bring terrific entertainment to the screen. In no way should you make the mistake of believeing FF: RotSS, is to be included among these films.

FF: RotSS is a bit of a throwback to 80's era comic adaptations wherein the source material was briefly glanced at, and a few production designers who may have done their homework slipped in a bit or two from the original comics, but otherwise, the movie was pretty clearly not taken terribly seriously as producers cashed in and tried to keep a straight face when reporters asked them about what drew them to the material.

In this movie, any memory of Sue Storm as a brilliant scientist is swept under the rug as she's offered the task of Reed's girlfriend/ administrative assistant, while mostly whining a lot about a fancy wedding (oh, you girls and your romantic notions!). Sue is one of my favorite Marvel characters, and its disappointing to see her reimagined as an "E! Network" watching girl who has defined herself by her relationship with Mr. Fantastic. Reed is unable to remember he's about to get married, the Thing is... uncharacteristically happy throughout the film, and Johnny comes to some sort of nebulous conclusion about not being a jerk. I think.

The whole thing has the production value of a late 90's TV movie, with some upped CGI. That said, a lot of Reed's stretching looks... not good. And Michael Chiklis as Ben Grimm is hammy enough that one expects a trombone after each line to blurt out a "wahhh-waaahhhhhhh". Plus, man, that makeup sucks. If we can have a CGI Surfer, why not a CGI Thing?

The threats in this film are double as Victor Von Doom returns from the dead and... I dunno. That guy is nowhere close to the Von Doom of the comics, although the script does play toward Doom's tendency to always try to tilt the game in his favor. But this Von Doom is like a smarmy Owen Wilson character more than an Eastern European monarch hellbent on worldwide domination.

For being mostly a well mimed CGI effect (thank Pan's Labyrinth's Doug Jones) The Silver Surfer seems to be partaking in a completely different, far less stupid movie. Based loosely on the original FF comics featuring Galactus and the Surfer, the Surfer arrives ahead of Galactus as his herald, preparing Earth for his master's arrival. The Surfer seemingly believes he has no choice in the matter, and goes numbly about his tasks until confronted by the FF.

From here, things sort of go downhill for the FF as the bravery of their task from the 2/3rd points in the movie mostly seems to consist of breaking the Silver Surfer out of jail and then getting their butts handed to them by Doom. The actual presence of Galactus and mode of defeating the planet eater from the comics (which didn't leave the FF acting like slack jawed yokels, but Reed figuring out how to freak Galactus out by threatening existence if Galactus didn't back off) isn't invoked. Instead, it's a bit more abstract, and nebulous. It works, but it means that at no pint in the movie do the FF actually succeed at anything they attempt aside from running away. They just don't seem all that competent. And the final plan when Johny Storm does leap into action actually contradicts everything we thought we knew about the problems we believed he was having with his powers.

The producers also decided that of all the things in the FF comics to scrap, the one thing which just wouldn't work was Galactus' physical appearance. So, he's a cloud. Which is very Star Trek Next Generation, but not very satisfying. The movies are already horribly devoid of the Kirby styling which defined the comics for decades, so it would have been nice to see our guy, who has one of the most stylized appearances in comicdom... but, no... we get a sort of silhouette glimpse of his helmet.

BTW, I also think Ultimate Galactus blows. Bugs? Come on, man...

The movie is full of cute/dumb moments, meant to play to the same crowd who really likes Rob Schneider movies and who roared at the trailer for "Daddy Day Care 2: Daddy Day Camp" (Eddie Murphy was apparently too busy for this sequel, so cue Cuba Gooding "My Career is Over" Jr.). You can almost imagine the story session in which the writers thought NOTHING would advance the story like a dance sequence featuring Reed "stretch-o" Richards. It's funny 'cause he's strechy and stuff.

Oh, and the product placement... including a "It's got a hemi!" joke during some awkward Dodge product placement.

I really didn't have high hopes for this movie, and it still stunk. Weirdly, the portions featuring The Silver Surfer operate on a whole different level that, had the rest of the movie shown that sort of care, might have made for an enjoyable film.

This, however, is not that movie.

GRINDHOUSE

I am not a child of the 70's, nor was I raised in Southern California or any of the other places where "Grindhouses" may have once existed. I'm a child of the 80's, and multiplex theaters built into shopping malls. (For reason I cannot fathom, I always associate the Willowbrook Mall theater with my first viewings of Jurassic Park and Freejack, although I saw literally dozens of movies at that theater. And why Freejack, for God's sake?).

Anyhow, I don't think the "Grindhouse" idea was ever as prevalent in the US as Mssr's Tarantino and Rodriguez would have us believe. At least seeing a series of crappy movies on a single bill wasn't as fondly remembered.

But if you're going to see two movies on a single bill, Alamo Drafthouse is the place to go. We intentionally broke up our orders into appetizers and a main course over the two movies and managed to really settle in. And, prior to the movie, the Alamo showed trailers from classic "Grindhouse" movies such as "Vanishing Point", "The Thing with Two Heads" and "Dracula Meets the Seven Brothers (and their one Sister)".

So how was the actual movie?

It's possible that the entire movie might have been better off as nothing but a series of trailers. After all, trailers always show the best parts of movies, and in some ways the directors seem to know that trailers are more fun than what you actually get in a movie.

So, yes, the "trailers" between the two movies are almost more fun than the two features.

"Planet Terror" is a fun zombie movie. Flat out. I would have gladly paid to see this movie without any of the additional Grindhouse baggage. It's gross, it's an action movie, it casts Freddy Rodriguez as a bad-ass, and someone finally makes good use of Rose McGowan for the first time I can think of since the first "Scream" film. In fact, I predict that "Cherry Darling" will become one of those staples of fanboyish-ness that will lead to a new cult following for McGowan. Michael Biehn gets his best role since, possibly, The Abyss, and everyone, including Bruce Willis seems to behaving a grand time.


one more item to add to the list of "What The League Looks for in a Woman"

In a way, "Planet Terror" is critic proof as it never tries to do more than be a really fun movie (albeit not for kids or the squeamish), and I can't really think of anything that bugged me about the movie. It sets out to be an over-the-top zombie movie, and from that perspective, I think they knocked it over the fence. Winding subplots, hokey call-backs and catch phrases. A good bad movie.

Prior to "Planet Terror", Rodriguez had tacked on a trailer for what I can only refer to as an Hispanic-Sploitation action movie called "Machete". And, man, yes... I would probably go see Machete.

Between the films, Rob Zombie's trailer for "Werewolf Women of the SS" was absolutely wrong, and, yes... I would totally see that movie. Perhaps less so Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving", but in keeping with the bad-movie tradition of turning seemingly innocent Holidays in a small town into a bloodbath... sure. I could absolutely see where Roth was coming from. He had me at the turkey mascot decapitation.

I was less enthusiastic about Tarantino's "Death Proof", which surprised me. I do enjoy the purity of a good car chase, although I don't know that I've ever even seen any of the films that's comprised of almost nothing but car chases (unless you count "Smokey and the Bandit" and "Empire Strikes Back" - oh, come on! "Empire's" entire Han Solo sequence was pretty much Smokey and the Bandit in space).

The problem with "Death Proof" was two-fold:

a) A lot of the Grindhouse movies that Tarantino professes such a love for were pretty dull, when you get down to it. There's a lot of talking and standing around because that's a lot cheaper to film than action sequences. This wasn't unique to car-chase featuring C-movies of the 70's. Go back to the black and white sci-fi cheapies and serials, and you'll find endless, pointless discussion between scientists speaking in utter gibberish.

b) Tarantino writes like a 20 year old film student. He's hopelessly in love with his own dialog and the minutia of what people say to each other when sitting in cafes and bars, believing these conversations (and characters) to be far, far more compelling than they actually are.

For some reason, Tarantino decided to give a mad shout out to Austin in "Death Proof", which is sort of cute. His characters name drop and go to eat at Guero's and the Texas Chili Parlor. Two of the stars of "Rollergirls" who wait tables at the Texas Chili Parlor play themselves. The odd "Jungle Julia" billboards that were up the week I moved back to town finally receive an explanation. They were props for the movie. Apparently Mr. Tarantino is unaware that in Austin, for whatever reason, DJ's don't really splash their mugs on billboards. But it does solve the mystery Doug and I tried to solve of why a radio station would advertise their DJ and then fail to note the actual frequency of the station.

Anyhow, it seems Tarantino has a school-boy crush on Waterloo.

SPOILERS
I suppose it's possible Tarantino is presenting an homage to Hitchcock's set-up of Janet Leigh as the heroine in Psycho with his extensive set-up of four female friends at the beginning of "Death Proof", but the problem is that this ISN'T Psycho, and he ISN'T Hitch. In fact, as a 70's style horror flick, the audience expects for all but one of the female leads to die. So establishing all of the characters just doesn't seem like such a neat narrative trick when the game plan is to kill them all off.
SPOILERS END

Longtime readers will know that The League is a big fan of narrative economy, and here we get the polar opposite. The middle of "Death Proof" is essentially a fifteen minute conversation between four gal pals in a coffee shop (possibly Jo's, which I've never actually been in). Then a lengthy, lengthy conversation about driving a car and who can come.

Whenever Kurt Russell is on screen, the movie is fine. Whenever Kurt Russell is not on the screen, it's like letting air out of an impossibly irritating balloon.

When the cars are rolling, the movie is fun. I won't deny that. But it's also not really anything you haven't seen before. And that's sort of Tarantino, isn't it? He's a master art forger, but without Roger Avary around to move the story along, his movies don't seem to move beyond imitation.

Where Rodriguez seems to have seen that Achilles Heel of the C-Movie was the horrendous sense of pacing, Tarantino demonstrates slavish devotion to the drudgery of those movies and assumes his dialog is hilariousness enough to carry us through vast, vast stretches of inane conversations where, as an audience member, you want to stand up and shout "Okay, I get it! They like cars!"

It is true that Russell hands in a great performance, and I think Jason developed a crush on stuntwoman Zoe Bell (playing herself) during the course of the film. But, yeah... in some ways all "Death Proof" does is remind the audience that these films are usually remembered for brief set pieces rather than for the overall whole of the movie.

Opening Day

Well, both the Astros and the Cubbies lost the season opener. I watched a good chunk of the Astros game, but was then sidetracked by my decision to grill some burgers. So today also marked the start of the cook-out season, although we kept it simple at League HQ. I suppose we'll need to have some folks over for some grilled meat.

The 'Stros were doing okay until the 8th inning when one of the Pirates hit a homer, and I think that was the beginning of the end. I'll never know. For some odd reason we were taping two shows, which meant we couldn't watch a live show on our DVR. So I didn't see that, but I did see the conclusion of Season 1 of "I Love New York". Yes, yes... I'm still following the "Flavor of Love" programs, and will leap right into "Charm School" later this month. God bless you, VH1.

I'll also be watching the behind-the-scenes show about how the Jerry Springer show is put together. Longtime Leaguers will know that I firmly believe that the endless line of nimrods they find to put up on the stage represents the real America in many, many ways. So much poor decision making.... so very much... And not afraid to air their laundry before a national audience.

I do watch a few minutes of Springer now and then. Just as I catch myself watching a few minutes of Maury, and my new favorite... The Greg Behrendt Show. Sadly, Greg's clueless style of trying to help people by utilizing the sage wisdom of an aging LA hipster did not pan out and we will only get one season of the program. But I will always remember it as a show that had absolutely no point, and even the host looked like he didn't want to be there.

I do get to watch a considerable amount of television as an unemployed person, and I'm this close to picking up the phone and calling The Everest Institute. They've now convinced me I could be making more money.



We went and saw Blades of Glory on Sunday at The Alamo South. The movie is exactly what one would expect from the trailers, and, yes... John Heder isn't actually very funny. He mostly plays the straight man to Will Ferrell's... Will Ferrell.

Amy Poehler and Will Arnett play a competing skating duo, and some of their stuff is okay. JD asked me if this was a theatrical must-see of one to save for Netflix. And I gotta say... Netflix. At times the directors and writers weren't trying hard enough, and at other times, maybe a little too hard. Still, it's comfortable middle ground for Will Ferrell. And this is going to reveal a bit more than I'd like, but I expected more out of the skating than what I got. Yes, I wanted silly CGI skating, but for anyone whose spent as much time as The League keeping his wife company during the winter olympics, I'm not sure why they didn't employ more actual skating stuff.

That said, the movie features Scott Hamilton, Peggy Fleming, Sasha Cohen and other skating greats. But, curiously, no Michelle Kwan.

Oh, and The Office's Jenna Fischer is in the movie, but you sort of get the feeling she's barely able to keep it together in most of her scenes. That's okay.

What else...?

Oh, yes...

Somehow this little video of Bully locating the famed Forbidden Planet comic shop was both funny and sweet.



Which makes me want to go ahead and link to...




Ah, Audrey...

300 - the League sees a movie

Readers of LoM may have noticed I was cautiously optimistic about the recently released film "300". The movie promised to blend visual effects, historical inaccuracies, Frank Miller and a legendary tale together into a sort of big 'ol blockbuster. Whether the movie would make sense to mainstream America remained to be seen.

I have to say that it's gratifying in my old age to see the works of people I've genuinely respected for decades receiving star billing on multi-million dollar movies. Leaguers like Jason and JimD know the pain of too many hokey comic-to-movie adaptations that we all grew up with. But as our own generation takes the reigns in Hollywood, the generation which grew up on Dark Knight Returns and too many X-Men comics, filmmakers no longer seem embarrased by their own product, and are willing to take chances to bring some of the visual components of the comic panel to the screen.

And that is why 300 is a visually arresting, technically remarkable movie. However, that slavish devotion may also be why 300 isn't a very good movie.

300 is a slim volume and reads in a relatively quick time frame (your mileage may vary). I'd intentionally avoided re-reading the book since I'd heard the movie was in production, but I did recall that the story was slight and seemed more an opportunity for Miller to stretch his wings as artist. His dialogue is spare and his exposition non-existent as he cuts to the chase and got Persians and Spartans stabbing one another as quickly as possible.


THIS MOVIE HAS LOTS OF SHOUTING!!!!

As many might now know, Miller based the comic upon the real-life battle for Thermopylae, where, legend has it, 300 Spartans and some allies faced down thousands of troops from the Persian army. I'm a history major, but I spent too little time on Greek history to relate much other than what I've read online and seen in TV documentaries. What I can tell you is that history is a mix of myth, legend, fact and fiction. But if you want to believe the histories, Leonidas did, in fact, lead the sort of charge which is shown in the film, resulting in the eventual victory of the allied Greek armies (although the Spartans would fall within a generation or two).

And, as BS brutal as the movie depicts the life of the young king, there's signifcant historical evidence suggesting that the Spartans did send their children into the wild to learn to become fighters before apprenticing as soldiers, that Spartans were much of what was represented in film and more.

In some ways, with our comfy couches, TV's and relative security, the culture of the world 2500 years ago is completely alien. Most city-states were in a perpetual cycle of war with far off lands and with one another. The value of soldiers wasn't marked with magnetic ribbons on the back of an SUV, but in hoping that they didn't lose and that you and your family weren't taken as slaves. So when I see reviews from the NYTimes having a good chuckle at this seemingly jingoistic talk of freedom from tyranny and mysticism, I can appreciate the cynicism in a modern context, but can also appreciate what I believe the filmmakers were attempting to achieve.

I'll leave it to other arm chair quarterbacks to decide if director Zach Snyder was trying to create commentary upon the world's current political status, or if it's not telling that Miller's take on the material is a decade old and remains largely unaltered. There's a lesson in there somewhere if folks want to draw allusions to a 2500 year old story.

Unfortunately, as grand in scope and detail as Snyder would like the movie to be, the film plays more like a series of bombastic set-pieces strung together rather than as a coherent narrative. Where Miller's work moves from panel to panel, Snyder has the challenge of compressing time, of working with scenes rather than tableaus. And, for reasons that become eventually apparent in the end, he inserts the seemingly most unnecessary voice over since Harrison Ford's voice over in the original cut of Blade Runner. The much commented upon violence is brutal, if often lyrical in its blood-cult presentation. No doubt the sort of thing that will have fourteen year old boys secretly practicing spear maneuvers when they believe nobody is watching. That said, the movie does show some respect for the realities of hand to hand fighting with thousands of soldiers crashing into one another and the value of a good strategy.

But that's pretty much all viewers are going to find as far as anything fantastic.

I can't help but think that had someone expanded the scope of Miller's story, had someone else directed the actors in the scenes which do not require a lot of stabbing, the end product would have been more than a sure-fire addition to the average 18-24 tear old's DVD collection. We might have got something great.

as far as the visuals... A friend of mine said he thought the compositing looked amateurish. I think he was more or less looking for something to complain about (he hadn't seen the movie). If the movie has anything going for it, it's visuals.

And, on that note... Action directors who've gone to the "up close" and lots of cuts to disguise the action (Batman Begins comes to mind)could certainly take a page or two from 300's handbook.

When the movie ended at the Westgate, we had loud applause from our mostly 18-24 year old audience. In addition, some dude was shouting "Yeeeaaahh! Yeaaahhhh!" And, a little high school girl immediately got on her phone to tell her friend "I just saw 300. It's really violent and stuff, but it's @#$%ing awesome!"

So someone's liking this movie.

Just not me as much as I'd hoped.

Zodiac - my $0.02

Saturday I saw Zodiac with Matt Mangum. The theater, I think it's worth mentioning, was filled with dudes. A lot of those dudes were in their early to mid-20's.

The previews may be a bit telling as to the appetite of the "target" audience for a movie like Zodiac.

trailer #1) Bruce Willis in a hair piece and slimmed down is a magazine publisher who is meeting girls online and killing them.

trailer #2) Anthony Hopkins kills his wife, or does he? Is he merely pulling more flies into his daibolical spider's web?

trailer #3) Teen-age "Rear Window". A seemingly normal guy living next door to a kid with a police-installed ankle bracelet sees his neighbor killing people. he sends the minority-guy best-friend to his doom.

Zodiac is, ostensibly, a serial killer movie. Zodiac was one of those names that used to be brought up in news reports alongside names like Son of Sam, the Green River Killer, John Wayne Gacey, Ted Bundy, Henry Lee Lucas, and more recent acquisitions to the pool of whackos. Operating during the 1970's, Zodiac claimed to have killed dozens. But as Zodiac is real, and was never caught, short of writing speculative fiction, there shouldn't be much of a narrative angle to the story. Heck, they finally even made an arrest in the Green River killings a few years ago, so that story has some closure.

Instead of telling yet another post "Silence of the Lambs" serial killer story, Zodiac works more like a bit of a detective story, following a few key players in the Zodiac investigation from 1969 through the 00's as various real-life people become pulled into the investigation. Some viewers may find the film's refusal to cast any specific person as the point of view for teh audience a bit troubling, but in a lot of ways, that would take away from what director David Fincher seemed to be attempting in representing the facts of the case as a drama.

The movie is far more interested in the manner in which the investigations occured than dwelling over the grim details of the murders. Once Fincher provides the audience with a fairly brutal look at the murders (not for shock value as much as to contextualize the action to follow), the story begins to unfold in a series of frustrating stutter steps. Real-life jurisdictional disputes, human foibles, arrogance and simple mistakes may have left multiple law-enforcement teams unable to piece together the identity of the murderer.

With three sensationalistic serial killer movies previewed before this movie, there's a certain maturity I could appreciate regarding Fincher's decision not to romanticize, glorify or mystify the subject matter. It doesn't take a huge leap to see that Zodiac isn't regarded as any kind of genius by the filmmakers, and no attempt is made to make much out of him other than as a brutal megalomaniac.

There are a few narrative tricks I enjoyed that seemed to be the Fincher's "up yours" to the Zodiac, and once you see what he's doing, you sort of want to send Fincher a big valentine.

There's a lot to this 2.5 hour movie, but, for me, it never dragged, and I thought that the script and actors did an excellent job of presenting some seemingly mundane but convoluted case work as succinctly as possible.

Performances are very good. Robert Downey Jr. plays himself (can't wait to see his Tony Stark), Jake Gyllenhaal has a lot to carry, and does it well. Mark Ruffalo really surprised me. And even Dermot Mulroney may have found his niche. Apparently some guys behind us had an issue with Chloe Sevigney not being "hot" enough for them, but that died down quickly. And feature film fixture Brian Cox was excellent in his scenes (man, I love Brian Cox).

You can't really say "Hey, Zodiac is a fun movie!". It's not. But it is an interesting movie, and, if like the film's Robert Graysmith, you enjoy puzzles... or if you dont mind a little detective work in your movies about detectives, it's not a bad way to spend 2.5 hours.

The movie certainly makes a case for identifying a certain player by film's end, drawn from the work of amateur sleuth Robert Graysmith. As with any real-life mystery presented as a film, and with only the facts of the film to work with, the finger pointing seems as reasonable with their choice of suspect as anyone. If true, it's fascinating to consider. Fincher is smart enough to leave it somewhat open ended, but with Graysmith working on the film, the film manages to bring some closure, if not a conviction.

I did read on someone's blog that they felt that with today's police tactics that such a case could never occur again. I assume he was referring to cross-referencing of data, etc... I'm not so sure. Computer systems are only as good as the people using them. Cops are only as good as the evidence they find and can prove in court. Juridictional issues are always jurisdictional issues, and if we learned anything from 9/11, it's that data that should and could be shared often doesn't make it into the hands of the right people.

As Matt and I were sort of trapped on the seats in the aisle when the credits rolled, I heard the same conversation three times from those young men who filled the threater.

"I thought it was going to be... you know..."
"Dude, it's a true story."
"I know, but..."
"They can't just make stuff up."
"Yeah, I guess not."

So, yes, if you're expecting Saw IV, you might be disappointed.

Hollywoodland

This review is spoiler-laden:

Going into the movie, I probably knew more about the topic than I should have. I do not consider myself to be any sort of expert in matters George Reeves, but my reading on Superman has lent itself to some reading on the life and death of George Reeves.

I believe that there is very good reason to think that George Reeves did not kill himself. But I don't know. But it certainly colored how I saw the movie.

The film, itself, is a sort of mix between a standard detective picture and Citizen Kane flashback sequences (also used in Immortal Beloved). The detective in question is Louis Simo, a fictionalized character/ convenient amalgamation of many real people who lives the standard movie detective life of the shabby apartment/ office, the messy divorce and kid left behind, and a girlfriend who will dump him before the end of the picture.

Ben Affleck, who is never as old as the character he is portraying, especially for the second half of the film, still manages to portray a reasonable fascimile of Reeves without giving in to parody or imitation. We've got lots of Reeves to look at, and with six seasons of The Adventures of Superman to pull from, Affleck manages to use that both to his advantage and manages to overcome the problem of mis-playing someone with whom some viewers might be fairly familiar.

For me, the story failed on a few fronts.

I take some umbrage at insertion of a fictional detective with a fictional dysfunctional family life as the framing device for the film. The film is really the story of Louis Simo chasing down the truth, and coming to the revelation that mediocrity in Hollywood is okay. A suspect moral, I think, but the lesson we're to understand Reeves' death has taught us is that hoping to become something better than what you are is a way to drive yourself mad. At least in Hollywood. At the end we're supposed to get really excited to see Simo in a suit (I guess he's gotten a straight job) and is coming over to check on his kid in the two bedroom LA-style tract house. With a promise of him giving up on the chance for the abstract greatness of private detective work, I guess. Hooray?

Further, the movie really spares no expense in setting up the husband of Reeves' spurned lover as a potential murder suspect, then backs down completely. This build-up includes details that seemingly make no sense if Mannix is NOT the murderer, such as an MGM rep's appearance at Reeves' funeral and the one scene between Hoskins as Mannix and Simo. Add in some mysterious tarot cards at the crime scene, and some fudgy actual details of the murder included in the film, and the final resolution seems like a lot of back-peddling.

Which raises the question: Did the producers wimp out? As folks looking for jobs in LA once Hollywoodland was in the can, did a moment of clarity tell these guys that fingering a studio exec using studio resources to bump a prominent actor might not be a good idea, career-wise?

I'm also fairly certain that as a non-actor, the melancholy and despair presented by Affleck as Reeves at his lot in life as the Man of Steel is something that's fairly foreign to me as a person (though, certainly not Affleck). Whether a personal failure or one of the movie, I felt that there was too much telling and not enough showing of Reeves' frustration at not being able to land other roles, and it was difficult to garner much sympathy for Reeves as a working actor and kept man, aside from the "Here to Eternity" sequence (which, I've read Reeves and Mannix did not actually attend). That said, as Superman was ending, Reeves had directed a few episodes of AoS, and as the movie indicates, was making a move to television directing. His career wasn't exactly over, though it might have been over in front of the lens. It's a detail, but a detail glossed over in the movie. And as the movie is trying to point to the certainty of Reeves' suicide, the ommission becomes somewhat problematic.

Reeves' death is a huge questionmark, and that lends itself to Rashoman type-speculating. Unfortunately, none of the answers provided by the film-makers are particularly satisfying. And that means that the movie isn't particularly satisfying, either.

Brody isn't bad, but there's a bit of New York to his LA born and raised detective. Diane Lane is excellent as Toni Mannix, and makes a very believable romantic interest for Reeves.

Some additional minutia:

It also can't help that I have read multiple conflicting stories regarding whether or not Adventures of Superman was actually cancelled. After all, as a syndicated show, the principles never knew whether the show was actually cancelled or not until someone called them to show up for work. Secondly, in the wake of the death of Reeves, the studio tried to put two other shows on the air (Superpup and Superboy), indicating that they planned for more Superman product. In fact, they used the exact same set for Superpup as AoS, so they hadn't torn down the sets as if the show was over. Further, I'd read that Noel Neill was under the impression that additional seasons were in the future and that Reeves' death was what ended the program.

For some eye-brow raising comments, you can also turn to a recent Noel Neill interview at the Supermanhomepage. It's known Noel was not necessarily socially involved with Reeves off the set, but it's definitely worth reading.

***UPDATE***
Phyllis Coates, who played Lois Lane for the first season of Adventures of Superman (Neill had predated her in the Kirk Alyn serials), also takes issue with the portrayal of Reeves and events. Read here.

***UPDATE UPDATE***
Noel Neill was interviewed on KryptonFan this week. There is some mention of Hollywoodland. 02-28-2007

Bone Headed Movie

Just saw "Ghost Rider".

Wow.

Curiously, it's not Nic Cage who is going to drive you nuts. I think Nic Cage must have held both the director and the script in contempt and chose to just sort of do his own thing. And that's the only brilliance you'll see in "Ghost Rider".

After the movie spends somewhere near twenty minutes putting together the set-up, the rest of the action is just sorta obvious. Sorta. They pretty much say "Here's Ghost Rider, here's what he does. He has to keep X from happening." But this is also one of those movies where things were either lost in script versions, on the editing room floor, or because the director didn't know what he was doing. This is the same director as Daredevil, so who knows. Not me. There's just some action that seems to occur just to occur and not because it makes much sense. Like Wes Bentley's wardrobe.

It's not really clear why Satan's son is in a fight with daddy, or what his master plan is. Or why he...

Oh, heck. At least the movie moves along really, really fast. And Eva Mendes is very good looking, even if she has the least believable presence as a news reporter in recent memory. But, again, she's very good looking, and so we can forgive her.

Sam Elliot plays the old Ghost Rider, who actually DOES have precedent from the comics, if my West Coast Avengers memory serves.

I dunno. It's a dumb movie. But the FX are decent, Cage was funny, and Eva Mendes is, I repeat, very good looking.

I've not read a lot of Ghost Rider comics. Frankly, I thought the character was sort of one note. But that can work okay in a movie. It just doesn't sustain over an ongoing comic series.

Superman IV: The Quest for Mark Pillow

Can you read my mind? Do you know what it is you do to me?

Ah, Superman IV. I am uncertain as to how Superman falls into my development as a Superman Fan. Well, that's not true. I honestly think my viewing of Superman IV is a crucial portion of that tale.

I was already a huge fan of "Superman: The Movie" and "Superman II". I had seen "Superman III" numerous times, but when "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" was released, it came and went from the theaters before I could peddle my bike to the Showplace VI to catch it. Obviously the release of the film couldn't have had me sitting on pins and needles.

So one Sunday afternoon my Sophomore year at UT (a year which shall live in infamy), I was supposed to be doing homework and running my laundry, and, instead, flipped on the afternoon movie on KBVO. I had never seen "Superman IV", and now seemed like a heck of an opportunity to watch the film. Maybe just a little bit of it. And three hours later, I was slapping my forehead and rolling my eyes in shame.

But I am uncertain if it is a coincidence that my Junior year was when I began to take an interest in Superman and Superman comics (although I wouldn't begin collecting in ernest for years). Could "Superman IV" have drummed up additional Superman interest in my mind?

A quick review of the back-up materials on the Superman Ultimate DVD Collection will tell you that nobody involved with the production of Superman IV was happy with the results, including the actor who played the heavy of the film, Nuclear Man, who had two more roles before returning to Spring, Texas... just a few miles from my parent's house, in fact.

I just finished watching Superman IV, and I am unsure if it's coincidence or not, but I have a raging headache. It's sort of just north of the orbit of my left eye, and feels a bit like I've been struck with a ballpeen hammer. Sure, it could be the weather, or allergies, or a lack of caffeine. I think it's Cannon Film's half-baked treatment of the Superman franchise.

A quick IMDB search will further provide details to tell you that the theatrical release of the film was 90 minutes, but the original cut ran more than 130 minutes. At 90 minutes, the film is choppy and nonsensical, yet I cannot imagine welcoming 40 more minutes of this film into my life.

Sure, the cast is back. Christopher Reeve actually seems pretty chipper to be back in the Superman suit, and gets a little more room to play with Clark in this movie. Whatever happened to Margot Kidder had really started to sink in by the time this installment rolled around, and at age 38 or 39, she comes off like one of my goofier middle-school teachers rather than Lois (keep this in mind when you complain about the current Superman cast being cast so young). Jackie cooper is back as a Grampa-ish Perry White, and Mark McClure is in a lot of wide shots as Jimmy Olsen. I don't know what they paid Hackman to reprise his role as Lex Luthor, but apparently it was enough to make him show up, and that was about it.

Additions include an early, almost non-existent part of a slim Jim Broadbent as a weapons-dealer, John Cryer playing Luthor's ha-ha-stupid nephew, Lenny, and, of course, Mark Pillow as Nuclear Man. A little bit more interesting is that Mariel Hemingway appears as a pre-Cat Grant suitor for Clark Kent (not Superman). And I realized she sort of looks like one of my old bosses if my old boss wore dresses with enormous shoulder pads.

A quick browse of the trivia on Mark Pillow's IMDB entry tells us that there were supposed to be two Nuclear Man's in the film, but the first was cut for time. If the deleted footage of the film tells us anything, it's that it may have also been cut for taste. Now, here's the curious bit: I think that they may have left the first Nuclear Man in the TV-version I watched on that sunny Saturday those many years ago.
A) that movie went on forever, and B) there were a few things which seemed somehow familiar, including plot points. I may be halluncinating all of this, but there is a 134 minute version listed on IMDB, so it's possible that's what I saw.

The plot of the movie is as follows:


-Superman is a friend to all nations. This is illustrated with an opening sequence of Superman saving Godless communist cosmonauts when they are hit by space debris.

-The Daily Planet is sold to character actor Sam Wanamaker and Mariel Hemingway (his daughter). They turn The Daily Planet into a NY Post-style tabloid overnight. Seemingly without Perry White or any of his staff knowing what's going to print.

-Peace talks between the US, and, I assume, a pre-Glasnost USSR breakdown. Or maybe France. It's hard to tell. There's some mention of France. Both sides declare they will be "second to none" in how many nuclear missles they have.

-A young boy in serious need of a good orthodontist and a serious crush on our Man of Steel fails a class assignment by writing a "no nukes" letter to Superman instead of his Congressman.

-Luthor escapes jail with the aid of John Cryer.

-The new tabloid folks force Superman's hand by writing a "Superman tells kid to 'Drop Dead'" story.

-Superman reveals his secret to Lois for absolutely no reason. She says that "she knows", but it's not clear if she's always known or just remembered. They fly around the world at speeds that would surely tear Lois into shreds. I guess the producers were trying to recreate the magic, but it now looks like Superman is flying with someone's mom. He then kisses her and supposedly makes her forget. I have no idea what we were supposed to get out of that sequence but a brief opportunity to hit the can.

-Superman goes to the UN-set (which looks every bit as tacky as the real UN) and tells everyone he will now rid the world of nuclear weapons. He receives a standing "O". The viewer laughs aloud, trying to (a) imagine the UN agreeing to anything, (b) deciding that the right thing to do is let an alien with no oversight and an unknown agenda disarm the Earth.
Now, in the deleted scenes, prior to the UN scene, there's a bit where Superman tells the kid "I'm really not supposed to disarm all of humanity". The kid whines. I seem to also remember this from the TV version. All of that also breaks up some awkward moping that Superman/ Clark does for a while prior to the UN sequence.


-The kid is never seen again. Rightfully. If I were him, and had just had that kind of success with a letter writing campaign in 1987, I probably would have begun writing letters to Amanda Pays.

-Superman "disarms" the entire world. Sort of. I recall seeing statistics for how many nuclear weapons the US and the USSR each had on a graph in Time, circa 1983. I think Superman may have shorted himself by 100,000 weapons on both sides. He throws the nuclear weapons into the sun. Now, this is an interesting bit as nothing is made of either the US or USSR going completely monkey-crap about their nuclear stockpiles being swiped by an alien being. Really, this should have been "The Day the Earth Stood Still". But all of that is pushed aside so we can focus on...

-Luthor's idiotic plot. Luthor schemes to get in bed with some arms manufacturers who will continue to build nuclear weapons. Or something. We learn that Luthor is actually cloning a Nuclear Man from a strand of Superman's hair. But he needs the power of the sun to make his Nuclear Man work. So what he's really doing is conning a seemingly fully complicit nukes dealer into strapping a shoebox full of silly-putty and a doll-dress to a nuclear missle, hoping Superman will intercept it and throw it into the sun. Which he does.
I think (though it's never said out loud) that the idea is that the guy KNOWS what Luthor is doing, and will go along with his Nuclear Man plan to kill Superman, so he can re-arm the world, and Luthor gets a cut.
Dropping California into the ocean for a real estate swindle now seems so quaint.
-One of the guys from Ah-Ha, fresh from Studio 54 party, emerges from the sun.

- Superman fights the nuclear guy. For some reason, the nuclear guy has press-on nails that maybe poison Superman for some reason. Which is never made clear as both Nukie and Supes get their power from El Sol. Radiation?

-Lois comes to Clark's apartment and gives an awkward speech which leads you to believe she knows Clark is Superman. This goes nowhere. I think maybe we were supposed to gleen that this is Lois making peace with the knowledge she has. I don't know. Nobody is bad in the scene, it's just that nothing really comes of it and it's a big ol' matzah ball to leave in the middle of a movie like this.

-Superman uses his last crystal he grabbed early on in the movie and heals himself from the poisoning. Why he waits is never made clear, but he goes from having the chills to looking like the Crypt Keeper in two scenes.

-Supes fights Nuclear Man. the fight necessitates that Superman push the moon out of orbit to block Nuclear Man's line of site to the sun (which Nuclear Man needs to have access to his powers). Curiously, the Earth is not shorn in half by the gravitational disruption, and nobody seems to notice the moon moving out of orbit.

-Mariel Hemingway is taken into space by Nuclear Man at some point. Apparently Mariel Hemingway is immune to absolute zero temperatures, the rigors of a vaccuum, and the rough ride out of the Earth's atmosphere and gravity. She is one tough cookie.

-At some point, Mariel Hemingway, Lois, Clark and Superman partake in an awkward sex-farce style scene in which Clark and Superman keep coming and going from Mariel Hemingway's apartment. It isn't funny, and for some reason, Lois makes a duck in the oven.

-Superman throws Lex back in jail and let's the world re-arm itself

-we learn that a very 20-something looking John Cryer was supposed to be an impressionable teenager when he is placed in "Boys Town". Literally. It's his last scene and leaves a lot of questions.

-there's some talk of a narrowly averted nuclear incident. I don't know what nuclear disaster the news-guy is talking about. I assume it was yet another element cut out of the film, like the first Nuclear Man. I am trying to puzzle what why a war was imminent if nobody had missles, but nothing is coming.

-for some reason, Nuclear Man is very interested in Mariel Hemingway after seeing her on the cover of a British edition of The Planet. We know it is British as "Favorite" is spelled "Favourite" right on the cover. I assume this is how they spell "favorite" in the UK, and not just a type-o. Anyway, there's some explanation of Nuclear Man's interest in Mariel Hemingway on Mark Pillow's IMDB entry. In the context of the movie, it makes no @#$%ing sense, but does lead to a moon-fight and to Superman replacing a moon-flag, looking like a disgruntled suburbanite cleaning up after kids ran through his yard.

-Apropos of nothing, Mariel hemingway learns the value of journalism with integrity. I assume this is part of a subplot which has been cut. At the film's end, Perry White takes an escalator and announces he's taken an enormous loan to buy out Wanamaker. Which is amazing, because they clearly state at the beginning of the film that the Planet hasn't turned a profit in three years. Metropolis' banking system must be a shambles. Also, there's something very "Monster-A-Go-Go" about a character telling us about all sorts of action which took place off-screen, but which we never get to see.

This movie cost $17 million, which is roughly 5% more than just Brando's salary on the first picture, I think. It's written with the best of liberal intentions, what with the strong "no nukes" stance. I understand that it was actually Christopher Reeve who suggested Superman tackle the real-world issue of nuclear disarmament, but I think it's safe to say that he did not anticipate the endless goofiness which would saturate the film.

I don't think any of the ideas in the film are necessarily bad ideas. There is just a layer of abject failure of execution which permeates every frame of the movie. What happens when Superman tries to save all of us from ourselves in one enormous display? That's an interesting question. The movie asks the question, but is derailed by Mark Pillow in a cape before it can give a coherent answer. A walking, super-powered dirty-bomb as an enemy for the man of steel. Did he need to be a clone? Can Mariel Hemingway survive in a vaccuum? Only scientists really know.

And what must Hackman have thought of Cryer's idiotic turn as Lenny Luthor? Surely he asked him to tone it down... We may never know.

All of that said, this movie still makes more sense than Supergirl.

I kind of want to see if I can find Mark Pillow's house, as it can't be more than 10 minutes from my parent's house. Maybe he'd sign my copy of Superman IV. You never know.

Dreamgirls (aka: Never Again to the Metropolitan 14)

Wow. You know, I remember when they built the Metropolitan 14. It's a gigantic movie theater just South of the Motor Mile on I-35, tucked a ways back from the freeway as the handful of acres between the theater and the parking lot is sort of a run-off/ swampy area. But you can't miss it. The theater is four stories tall, with a gigantic tower poking up from the trees another several yards. The tower is adorned with neon rings humongous silvery statues of nude dudes, like something out of a Joel Shumacher Batman film. Inside there are statues of nude ladies, so there's equal opportunity for abso-ludicrousness.

But, since day 1, The Metropolitan has been bad news. I saw "Unbreakable" there, and was distracted for the duration of the film by a weird, stagnant swampy smell which, I assume, came from the swamp or something foul going on with the pipes. The cavernous theaters give the illusion that nobody can hear you, and thus the knobs of South Austin all flock to the theater (now that Riverside is closed down) and, seemingly, find the movies the BEST place to hold a conversation.

And, so it was with Dreamgirls. I kinda-sorta knew we were in trouble when folks were drifting in to the movie as it began (after 20 minutes of trailers, so, you know, these people were committed). Then were stunned to learn Dreamgirls was a musical, and thusly laughed and laughed whenever anyone broke into song. Which was pretty much continuously. We gave the evil eye, and both Jamie and I shushed (I resorted to the "quiet!" shush). All of this seemed to just egg on the couple who was certainly old enough to know better. So, maybe 45 minutes in, we finally moved.

I doubt our departure from our seats achieved the desired effect of somehow shaming these folks as I heard the guy laugh again two or three more times.

In the interim, a trio of teenagers who had been loudly chatting mid-theater up and left. I have no idea what spurred their departure. I like to think someone tried to shiv them.

And then the capper was when, during the FINAL scene of the movie, a family of morbidly obese folks loudly waddled their way into the row behind us, and began an involved conversation. Our quick "shush" was met with laughter and a quick discussion of how they were upsetting people. Of course, the final scene is not really the time to throw in the towel, but I seriously considered quitting as there was no new information to be gleened.

Unfortunately, most of the things I can usually think to say which probably WOULD make folks hush up are generally fairly offensive and could, potentially, lead to gun-play. The League is not ready to ruin a movie by bleeding out in his Milk Duds, so we do our best to just "shush". Further, the few times I have summoned an usher, the usher really, really DOES NOT want to get involved, and the folks have invariably been quiet as churchmice until the usher departs.

I guess I probably would have been upset if the movie were awful, and, in fact, I probably would have left. But I sort of liked Dreamgirls. Yes, it's a musical, but I will cop to enjoying a good musical now and then. A lot of love went into the movie, and unlike several recent period movies, they actually do the hairstyles and clothes of the era fairly decent justice.

I'm just going to get this out of the way: Beyonce Knowles is freakishly beautiful. When I look at Beyonce in the film, I am unsure of what I am looking at. She consistently appears to be either computer generated or air brushed. I don't want this note to detract from her acting or singing, because both are swell. She's SUPPOSED to be beautiful in the film, and obviously the DP had a good time working with her as a subject. Make of that what you will.

The rest of the cast is very good as well. Eddie Murphy pulls out his long-lost singing talents, and occasionally channels his old James Brown SNL-persona, but never inappropriately. Jamie Foxx plays the most complicated character of the film, but I don't think it's a huge surprise to say he handles both singing and acting just fine, what with he owning awards and all that. Jennifer Hudson plays a surprisingly large part in the film, and aside from a few moments which weren't nailed, her voice easily carries her through the part.

I guess not every single song was my sort of song, and I had expected something a little more of the early-"Supremes", but instead you get a "Behind the Music" career spanning tale of a fictional band, told in the musical format. That's not necessarily a bad thing if you're someone who looks at R&B or rock history as modern myth, and if you dig the songs. But at somewhere just over two-hours, the narrative's arc is only rarely surprising, especially when character arcs echo real-life talent or standard tropes of "makin' it" flicks.

Do I recommend the flick? Man, I don't know. if you're the bonehead who was heartily laughing behind us, then no. It's a musical. Would I buy the soundtrack? I don't know. I liked some of the songs, but as a good musical, the songs are focused on expressing character's thoughts and moving the action forward, just... you know, in a decades-spanning R&B format. So...

It's probably nothing I'm ever going to buy on DVD, I don't think. But, heck, it was a fun movie. I'd send the KareBear and Admiral to go see it.