I Can Only Apologize for Chuck E. Cheese Post/ SITC

Sorry about the lengthy Chuck E. Cheese post. I'd started writing it a while back, and thought i would release a few bits every other day, but then I thought "No, just get it over with. You don't want to punish people for coming back to the site on a regular basis."

Sometimes posts just form, and you go with them.

Day 1 of the conference is good. I couldn't sleep last night until late, and that was on top of getting 4 hours of sleep Saturday/ Sunday... so I sort of paid for it today. I'm going to bed very early tonight and will try again tomorrow.

Last night my freak bout of insomnia led to me accidentally watching the entirety of the the "Sex and the City" movie. I believed I was tuning in to watch the ending, which was actually the beginning. And the next thing I knew, it was very late and the credits were rolling.

I guess I'm glad that if we're going to co-opt the romantic comedy formula for Seth Rogan, Paul Rudd, et al., and their Bromance movies, that I'm comfortable in the knowledge that the SitC movie and show are squarely not aimed at me. Which makes some of my beefs with the movie irrelevant (such as the fact that men, both straight and otherwise, appear as little but plot points in the series or movie). Like a photonegative of the Apatow-esque dude comedies, the men of SitC are there to reinforce the notion that we all love these characters, even when you want to scream "run away!" at the screen. (Be free, Big! BE FREEEEEEEE!) I suppose this must be how many people feel at the prospect of, say, Seth Rogan writing himself a part where Katherine Heigl falls for anyone approximating Seth Rogan.

Curiously, my feeling during the run of SITC, that the characters are largely completely self-absorbed, awful people, was sort of addressed in the movie. I believe it was largely tackled in part as the closed narrative of the movie forced actual character development to occur instead of the cyclical nature of the TV show. The show hung on the characters' inability to really move on or progress as humans, which would end the show.

I didn't love it, but it was okay, and I couldn't sleep and it was on.

Just want to apologize for Chuck E. Cheese again.

I am tired already and am off to bed.

The League (Finally) Watches: Watchmen

Editor's Note: This is a shared post with Comic Fodder. Its too long for me to try to do this @#$% twice. This is generally the format in which I write my longer pieces at Comic Fodder, so the "broken down in chunks" format is replicated here.

This is really, really long, Leaguers. I apologize.


Preamble

In high school, as my extra-curricular activity, I partook in drama. This meant attending and reading a pretty good number of plays, including work by ol' Bill Shakespeare. Like anyone who has read and seen Shakespeare performed, I quickly noted that not all performances I attended of the exact same material were equal. The translation from the page doesn't always go according to plan, even when the material is exceedingly familiar. I've seen both hilariously bad Romeo & Juliets, and I've seen performances where Lady Capulet was utterly heartbreaking in her calls for revenge. But either way, its Shakespeare, and so you wind up invested in the play, even if its as you tick off the bad acting and directorial decisions you observe throughout the performance. Or you wind up so engrossed in the performance that you forget this is the fourth time you've seen it and that you've read it twice.

Adaptation

There's a notion that I've seen repeatedly rehearsed, including from Patton Oswalt on his MySpace page, that comic fans dissatisfied with the adaptation should buck up. They've still got their precious comic book, and it still exists outside the movie, etc...

Upon reflection, I say: horse hockey.

It's no surprise or secret that the vast, vast portion of the population will much sooner sit through a three hour movie than pick up and read a 12-issue comic. As far as "mass-media" goes, comics are a tiny subset, whose audience numbers in the 10's of 1000's, not the millions who will eventually see the movie in the theater, on home video, etc... Even as Watchmen races to outpace all other comic sales (and is hitting #1 rankings at Amazon again), its still a tiny fraction of even the least successful of studio films. For that difference in audience between those who saw the movie but did not read the book, "Watchmen" will always be the movie. And those folks will most likely will never give the comic a chance.

For those who've seen both, you can't unsee the movie. And short of some head injury, its unlikely you'll ever be able to read the book again without the movie bouncing around in your brain in a parallel "compare and contrast" cycle. I don't turn off comparisons, and I highly suspect most people don't either. So I'm not really sure where that comes from. You can only be glad you read or saw one before the other.

Not too long ago, Time Magazine published a list of greatest novels since 1923, and among these novels they included "Watchmen". As the movie is increasingly poorly received, how is it not likely that Watchmen the Comic will not be taken down with Watchmen the Movie, for at least a generation? Simple guilt by association.

And here our troubles began

Anyhow, yes. I saw the movie. And my wife, being wiser than I, when we walked out and I was still sorting through the thing said it right:

It's not that bad. But then again, they stuck to the story, and the story is very good, so it was kind of hard to screw it up completely.

Much has been made of the fidelity the movie showed the comic, pulling exact frames from the comic for the movie. But one of the earliest scenes is telling of how director Zack Snyder was almost unable to help himself. At the beginning of the movie, masked vigilante Rorschach investigates a murder of a person thrown from a high rise window. To reach the window, Rorschach fires his grappling gun and follows the zip line up to the window.

The movie follows the sequence, with Rorschach performing the action of the comic, frame-by-frame, popping out the grappling gun and alighting on the window sill like a bird of prey before leaping to the floor like a Chinese acrobat. And it all looks pretty "awesome".

In the comic, Rorschach is pulled up, but he does not land like a bird of prey. Instead, he slides through the window frame as a man would. Any person. There's heft and effort. Despite his gadget and mask, Rorschach is not Spider-Man, he may be many things, but he's not superhuman.

And that's where Snyder's reading of the comic and my reading diverge. And why I never thought a general audience would be particularly into the subject matter.

Two Roads

I won't belabor what is a lengthy post here with a plot synopsis, but in re-reading Watchmen and seeing the movie, its fascinating to note that we should be starting our second generation at this point who has no concept of the Cold War as a fact of life, and how and why it influenced so much of culture. I, for one, fully believed I would be nuked at some point in my life, probably before I was old enough to drink. The very specific fear of a terrorist driving a plane into my office building seemed rather small in comparison. I do not know if the Cold War means anything to those in their twenties or younger.

It should be noted that a lot of my divergence came from the tone Snyder took versus how I'd long read the novel. And I am willing to accept that my reading, which has been largely unfiltered by any interaction except between myself and the printed page, may not be what Moore or Gibbons had in mind. But I always read Watchmen as a much more quiet book than what Snyder put on the screen. Despite the context of a world on the brink, I'd always read it as silent as if the world of Watchmen were holding its breath, listening for the ticking of the clock. Snyder's world is... not that one.

Snyder's characters are superhumans rather than humans. His fights are superhuman fights in which the characters feel amazing afterward, not the mix of sick and still full of adrenaline that Moore and Gibbons had suggested. His Drieberg isn't out of shape and messy, he's still toned and looks good in the owl suit. His characters are simply not the very human people behind the mask I came to know circa 1992, and every time they appeared in a costume, I was reminded of that fact.

Some other movie will determine whether or not Zack Snyder is a good director rather than a great plagiarist/ mimic. I've seen his by-the-numbers remake of a zombie movie. I saw him translate Frank Miller's "300" to the big screen (and was disappointed) even as the movie lovingly recreated Miller's artwork, speeches and characters. His reverence for the material is never a question, but whether or not he actually understands the nuance of what he's directing is another question.

For as many moments as Snyder recreates from the comic that works, every decision he was forced to make himself seems... off. Where Moore has made a career out of implicit story after the ellipsis, Snyder is intent on explicit insistence that the viewer not miss a beat, like your weird Uncle Harold who has to repeat the punchline to the joke you just told, or feeling the need to follow up with an explanation of the punchline. It's not enough that we get what's a brilliant summary of the history of the world our characters inhabit, but he's got to drive it home with "Times, They Are a Changing"? We can't just see that Dr. Manhattan was using lethal means to stop underworld characters, we've got to see their guts splayed from the ceiling? And, yeah, I got that they were going to have sex, thanks... Welcome to the world of inappropriate laughter at the movie theater.

And even scenes like the first time Rorschach and Drieberg meet again in Drieberg's house, that's lifted exactly from the comic page, seem curiously misread, with none of the cold stillness that Moore and Gibbons originally injected in the work. Where Drieberg's slump into the chair in the comic makes complete sense after the transaction, it feels like just a bit of blocking in the film.

Perfunctory movie review stuff

This viewer was mostly not impressed with the performances, but isn't sure that a lot of it didn't have to do with either Snyder's direction or lack thereof. I don't think anyone will argue that Snyder has a Lucas-esque attention to detail in his movie fascimile, or that he can't direct a fight sequence (of which he added at least two sequences which weren't in the book). But in many of the standard, face-to-face, we-have-to-talk-about-this discussions, it just didn't click. Particularly in scenes with cookie-cutter Hollywood starlet Malin Akerman as Laurie Jupiter (note that Snyder also excised the Jupiter/ Juspeczyk character point), Akerman seemed to prove herself ready for Smallville or a stint on One Tree Hill, but I'm not sure she was exactly big-screen ready.

And there are character moments that were changed that let me know that perhaps Snyder wasn't quite there. For example (spoiler, I guess): When Rorschach describes the case where he felt Walter Kovacs died and Rorschach began, the ending of the story is changed. He does not split the murderer's head in two. In the book, Rorschach leaves the murderer chained to the oven with a saw, giving him a chance to escape the house which he's set on fire. It's a subtle but telling distinction, and I was left wondering if Snyder understood the difference. And, if so, why he made the change.

Like so many in Hollywood these days, the craft of moviemaking for Snyder is a technical issue rather than one that stems from the footlights and greasepaint. And while Watchmen may not be Shakespeare, its also a comic where people sit around and talk for 12 issues, with a few scenes of action when absolutely necessary to the plot. The skills Snyder demonstrated with his zombie movie and 300 just weren't applicable.


Most of the effects were as cutting edge as anything else in Hollywood, and I can't fault the production design team. Nite-Owl's HQ and townhouse were lifted exactly from the comic, and Archie (Nite-Owl's airship) was beautifully convincing. As was the decision NOT to follow the comics and have Archie rise from a converted warehouse, which seemed a little conspicuous in the comic. The costume design is actually pretty nifty, even if I did miss the huge cowl apparatus on Nite-Owl. Obviously Rorschach and Manhattan were true to their original appearances, as were the Minutemen and Sally Jupiter.

The snake eats its own tail

It's difficult, too, to know what blanks I was filling in as someone not just familiar with the book, but who just read it. Its impossible to know if I was making connections that the average viewer might not. Moore's original series is an intricate piece of clockwork (pun unintended) with all the cogs fitting one way or another to tell the complete story. As a movie go-er, you receive the broad strokes, but you're going to know what time it is, and maybe be aware of the gears, but not see how they pull together in quite the same manner as the book.

Further, the movie does lose a bit in translation. Moore and Gibbons' use of the medium isn't really possible on the big screen, lest you tempt the wrath of movie go-ers the way Ang Lee did with his interpretation of "The Hulk" and his panels. Watchmen's largely 9 -nale per page structure told the story as mucha s words and pictures, with interchanges of color in some sections, or even the breakdown of the panels such as in "Fearful Symmetry" (the chapter of the movie that told Rorschach's past). It's not a loss you'll notice in the film, but its impossible to say that there's no loss moving from one medium to the other.

This may surprise some readers at this point, but as per the huge change at the end of the script, I wasn't sure, once I'd accidentally stumbled upon the change online, how that would work. But in the end, it changed very little and tightened up plot elements that might have become too cumbersome in even a 3 hour movie. It was far less of a change than, say, turning Galactus into a cloud and never actually interacting with the Fantastic Four (although these movies were on two completely different levels).

The movie isn't terrible. It's just that its a single volume story, so given the choice, every time I would suggest picking up the comic rather than watching the movie. The three hour run time means that they had to greatly reduce the content of the comic, dropping several elements that aren't going to make the cut in a WB picture concerned with budget and narrative economy. Snyder claims he'll reinsert some of the stuff, like the Black Freighter, in the DVD, and I'll probably actually give it another shot at that time, just to see how it works. After all, we do get a few shots of the news vendor and the comic-reading kid, so perhaps that whole subplot will be restored?

We did have at least one couple walk out. Maybe more, but with waiters coming and going at the Alamo, its hard to tell. We do know the couple next to us had enough, and left during Jon's background story. Some small part of me wanted to dash out after them and ask a series of questions. What did you think you were going to see? What was the first inkling that you were going to leave? What broke the camel's back?

I have a new fear.

When Watchmen was released as a comic, paired with other comics in the 1980's that parlayed the kid's medium into a a market with an adult readership such as Dark Knight Returns, Elektra: Assassin, American Flagg!, etc... it was seen as giving license to a lot of bad ideas that were welcomed under the idea that comics were no longer just for kids.

Sadly, I think Snyder may have ridden dangerously close to the direction those comics decided to go with his adaptation of Watchmen. From the insert shots of gore, to the lingering shots of superhero lovemaking, this comic fan who survived the 90's isn't looking forward to a repeat of the excesses of the post-Watchmen era played out on the big screen. It took a wide-proliferation of Kingdom Come for that scene to finally die down at the comic shop. And the comic racks are still full of ideas that are "awesome" and totally extreme.

For every Rolling Stones you get, you're going to wind up with thousands of lousy bar bands cranking on twelve-bar-blues and identifying with Keith Richards.

I also have a new hope.

It's that Watchmen can become the Frankenstein of comics. Not as in "sewn together creature of used parts". We'll leave that to the Sci-Fi channel originals and Nicholas Cage flicks. Rather, where Superman, Batman, etc... are a fixed origin and then open-ended serial stories open to anything, Watchmen is actually self-contained. And just as Frankenstein has seen all kinds of adaptations (or Dracula, Moby Dick, I don't care...), maybe Watchmen will survive the dent it takes from its first foray into cinematic adaptation? Maybe in fifteen years, if we haven't toally forgotten about the 1980's by then, we can give it another shot, maybe even as that HBO mini-series every single fanboy thought would work better than a movie (except Zack Snyder)?

As I said, I saw a lot of adaptations of plays. I've seen some really terrible productions of "Midsummer Night's Dream", and I've seen the weirdest "What is It Girl, there's a fire down by the well?" version of "Children of a Lesser God" that a man can stand. It's my hope, that if Watchmen the comic is what I think it is, then maybe we'll get around to a better version one day. In the meantime, enjoy Snyder's popcorn-flick take on Watchmen. Or, better yet, just get on Amazon and buy a copy of the comic. But do not, under any circumstances, buy that frikkin', shameful animated comic version.

Whether this means we'll be free of the adaptations when returning to the source material, its up to someone younger and smarter than me whose going to come to all this fresh.

As an after thought to all that, I should mention... well before I ever read Watchmen, the first I knew anything about Watchmen was an article in "Comics Scene" magazine when I was in middle school. At the time they were talking to Arnie about painting him blue. In the context of the late 80's, this sort of makes sense, and is why, no matter my grief or gripes, why I am still grateful in some small way that its post Raimi's Spidey, Singer's X-Men and Superman and Nolan's Batman that we get Watchmen.

The League Watches: Wonder Woman

This evening Jamie and I watched the latest release from DC Comics' animated films, "Wonder Woman". It's the fourth movie from the DC Universe studios, following Superman/ Doomsday, Justice League: New Frontier and Batman: Gotham Knight. And, in my opinion, its possibly the best of four. That's my way of saying I thought the movie was pretty darn good.

Some of this is tempered by the fact that Superman/ Doomsday was a first attempt and, unfortunately, seemed to climax in the first act with the animated battle between Superman and Doomsday. Justice League: New Frontier took too many shortcuts with the phenomenal comic and Gotham Knight was a beautifully rendered but ill-executed experiment.

Wonder Woman is only adapting the origin story of Wonder Woman, which isn't terribly well known by the general public, and which has only really been refreshed once or twice even in the comics (I would gladly see an all-new origin story mini-series sometime). They've used bits of the George Perez post-Crisis on Infinite Earths reboot, the classic origin, a hint of Amazons Attack! (but don't hold that against them), and it's a nice, lean origin story. The truth is, I think us fanboys are pretty forgiving of changes in our stories if its reasonably well done, and I think this movie qualifies.

As with the other movies, this one could have stood to be about 20 minutes longer, filling in a lot of details. It would have been phenomenal to have had more exploration of Wonder Woman seeing more of New York and maybe DC, establish more about Etta Candy (I'm a fan of the Perez-era Candy), more on Steve Trevor, and some explanation of the Invisible Jet.

On that last note, I'm also a fan of how the comics portray the Amazons, which the movie does phenomenally well in spirit. I've always liked (well, since I was in college or so) the idea of an island full of heavily armed, ageless female warriors, philosophers and poets who can produce someone like Wonder Woman, and who all are her peers in spirit if not in strength. Unlike the movie, the comics have always suggested that the Amazons were not still stuck in the ancient Greek era as per technology. While they might dress in robes and wear Spartan helmets, left alone on Themyscira, they've come up with all sorts of crazy gear which suits their needs.

They don't directly address this here, but... Invisible Jet.

So having had got my geek-cred stuff covered, how's the movie itself?

Firstly, let me salute long-time WB animation star Lauren Montgomery for her directorial effort on the movie. There's a lot of love here, and Montgomery and her creative team obviously had a pretty strong idea of what was possible with the character in terms of both character and action. To cut to the chase, this movie has some of the best animated action sequences I've seen in a long while. Where Superman is a flying Sherman tank, and Batman (animated) is either a boxer or ninja, Montgomery's Wonder Woman is a sword wielding Achilles who can kick over a Cadillac. Mix that with a PG-13 level of post-300 and Lord of the Rings monsters and mayhem on the battlefield, it's some crazy stuff from the first 20 seconds of the movie.



While I did wish they'd been able to fill in some of those aforementioned spots, the movie is still well written, giving Diana a chance to struggle both with her disappointment that "Man's World" hasn't improved over the stories she's heard growing up on Themyscira, and accepting the world for what it is, in part thanks to a slightly wackier-than-normal take on Steve Trevor. I was never concerned that the movie would land on some side of the coin that would over-do the possible "Girl Power" message. What could have come off as twee or hollow (see: Spice Girls + Girl Power), instead comes off as a viable way of life in the context of Themyscira and the ensuing cultural exchange. Montgomery had worked on Justice League and JLU, and is seasoned enough to know how to make the message work through character and story development rather than speechifying or dumbed-down chauvinism.

Wonder Woman, like Superman, is a very public superhero in the comics. She's not Batman skulking in the night, or Green Lantern doing his thing off in deep space. I admit I would have liked to have seen some crowd reaction to her public debut, and some hint that she was on her way to being the important public figure she becomes in the comics and in the Wonder Woman TV show. But the final sequence does suggest a future for the character (I won't spoil it), so who knows? Maybe in Wonder Woman 2?

The animation is mostly very good, with a few trouble spots (there's one walk sequence for Ares that just doesn't look good at all), and the production design is mostly very good. I'm not someone who sweats the Wonder Woman togs as being unfit for a lady unless they cut the star-spangled shorts into a g-string in the comics. That's not done here, and the minor design change, in my eyes, made total sense.

I'd heard some grumbling about Keri Russell (TV's "Felicity") as Wonder Woman, but I think we can suppose Diana is a young, young woman here. Virginia Madsen plays Hippolyta perfectly, and were this a movie about modern-day, more mature Wonder Woman, she'd have been perfect for that role, but botha ctors do their parts justice. Stand out performance from geek-girl heart-throb Nathan Fillion of Firefly fame as Col. Steve Trevor. Fillion is just plain funny, even as a voice actor. And the always great Alfred Molina plays super-nasty God of War, Ares.

The movie is about 80 minutes, and I don't think you'll be disappointed. If youa re, it'll be over quickly. For Hollywood producers looking to translate the Amazing amazon to the big screen, here's how you do it. Use the elements of the comics, check your memories of Super Friends at the door (but never, ever dismiss Lynda Carter), and aim the movie at people who'd pay to see something like Troy. Just know you're setting it in the modern world.

I picked up the 2-disc set, and haven't made it through all the extras, but it looks like good stuff. The docs on the other DCU movies I've picked up have been as interesting as the features. And with William Moulton Marston to talk about... should be fun.

If nothing else, it reminds a non-comic reading public who and what Wonder Woman is. Not some frail model or pop-singer diva or helpless princess in a tower. She's as smart as she is strong, an ambassador of peace who isn't afraid to lift a sword to protect others, and, like Superman and Batman, a character with a vast and rich story that gives the character surprising depth.

Much of my excitement with the movie comes from seeing the comics I've liked for years brought to the screen, I'm sure. But it's also in seeing it brought to the screen with such care and, honestly, being better than I expected. It's what I've liked about the character that I've tried to express to others, for years. This has been fellow comic geeks who believe reading Wonder Woman will somehow make them seem less macho, people who refuse to get past the Lynda Carter show and Super Friends, and many a non-comic reading friend who has complained that there are no (good) female superheroes.

Sure, the character has waxed and waned over the years in some cyclical fashion, but at its core, but since 1941, she's been out there. It's nice to see Diana get her due.

A Post Before Driving

I need to start reviewing more old movies

If I started reviewing more old movies I watch on cable, would that be fun for you guys? I kind of got a kick out of the "Breakfast Club" review, partially because at least Steanso seemed to get a charge out of defending the flick from my grouchy, old man's ways. And just as "Pump up the Volume" seemed to spur a conversation, perhaps we could find more 80's or 90's teen-flicks?

What else should I watch and review? I'm up for any movie we once held dear. Just not Ferris Bueller. For all I can about that movie is that its awesome. It always has been. It always will be. And it cemented Jeffrey Jones in my mind as an actor who I'm still pumped to see when he appears in anything.

One movie I've really been meaning to watch again is "3 O'Clock High". It's basically "High Noon" in a high school setting, for those who haven't seen it.

What else? Dare I take another look at "Heathers" in a post-Columbine world? Are we ready for me to review "Teen Witch"? Help me out.



Heading out to the northern lands

I'm out of Austin as of tomorrow afternoon. If any of you can take Jamie and Jason under your wing while I'm gone, please do so.

I'll be in Denton, Dallas and then Lubbock. Lots of driving. I picked up a couple of audio books on iTunes. We'll see how it goes.

Don't worry about me being bored. If push comes to shove, I'll call for Emergency Homeboys.


If I don't post or get back to you, all you Leaguers take care.

The League Re-Watches: The Breakfast Club

Another sign I am getting old:
I watched about 80% of the seminal 1980's teen movie "The Breakfast Club" on cable last night. And I found myself identifying far more with Dick Vernon than those crazy kids.

My first thought when tuning in was whether, in this day and age, anyone would cast a movie about teen-agers in an American high school with such a lily white cast. Or keep issues such as sexual identity completely off the table.

It's almost pointless to critique a movie more than 20 years and when its aimed at a much younger, more cloistered audience who more closely resemble the five characters. I recall liking the movie quite a bit myself, watching it repeatedly into high school, but its been years since I watched more than a snippet on TV. The film isn't aimed at 30+ state employees, but at kids who do believe in the trials and hardships of being upper-middle class and showing up for school (b-o-o, h-o-o).



And I also came to the startling revelation that I have no idea what the title "The Breakfast Club" means. Is it a little used term? Does it have historical connotations? Did it just sound good? I have no clue. Someone throw me a bone.

I will give Hughes credit. When one sees the endless parade of assembly line teen comedies and tween-aimed movies starring teen-agers, which were just as common in the 80's, its a miracle anyone ever bothered to take a look at high schoolers as people. But one also finds the ending of the movie to be more than a little pat.

The jock and basket case find romance? Based on what? The prom queen sneaks into the closet with the thug and possibly has sex with him? And the principal accepts one, single-page paper which would seem stunningly out of context for ol' Dick Vernon?

There's a huge amount of fantasy that creeps in around the edges of The Breakfast Club, and that's okay. The intended audience is more likely to buy it, and it helps to cement the notion of the film that we've all got something in common once you move outside of your tribal identity. And believing it can end in smooching isn't so bad, I guess (unless you're "The Brain", in which case, no smooch for you).

Its easy to be cynical with so much water under the bridge, and looking back at your own high school career with what feels like a permanently etched wince.

I guess what struck me on this viewing was how much the script stacked the deck for John Bender. Nobody ever really challenges Bender, aside from Vernon, who more or less seems to freak him out completely. In most ways, he's a bully who dominates the conversation through shouts, an actual threat of serious physical violence, and often random humiliation. But as he's a bit charming, the audience is meant to root for him. Right up to the point when Molly Ringwald, who he's badgered, berated and made unwanted sexual advances upon for the duration, for some reason slips into the supply closet to make special time with Judd Nelson.

It speaks poorly for "Claire" as written that, apparently, any attention at all seems to be enough, and she seems to be heading into what will surely be an emotionally one-sided and possibly emotionally abusive relationship by film's end.

Brian, who admits to suicidal feelings, is more or less dismissed because he didn't do it this time. But what happens when he can't light the next elephant lamp?

Perhaps 2 hours is too little time to fit in any exploration of the more-or-less real-life issues (although I still have no idea what was supposed to be up with Ally Sheedy. She's never really given any story), but its surprising how well the movie has succeeded despite the fact it doesn't really try to close the loop on the situations thrown out to move the characters beyond their stereotypes.

Perhaps the staying power stems from the fact its a movie that acknowledges its intended audience as having an inner-emotional life that isn't the usual, cheesy fair one sees in after achool specials, or that goes beyond the "will the cheerleaders win the cheer-off?" plots that most teen-oriented films contain, the film has held up for over two decades.

The movie acknowledges sex, overbearing/ suffocating parents, finding out someone gets hit at home... a lot of the messy stuff that pops up in high school but for which the audience doesn't have a serious tool-kit yet for managing. And so, in many ways, its appropriate that we don't know what happens on Monday morning, or even Saturday night with these characters. There's no American Graffitti style conclusion.

I wish today's kids the best with the movie. They'll never believe the soundtrack sold like crazy, or that the Molly Ringwald dance became sort of a thing, but there you go. But I would honestly like to see the movie re-made. Or something along those lines, if for no other reason than so that maybe teen-agers can see some reflection of high school on the screen that doesn't come from "The Hills", "Gossip Girl", or the latest teen-sex romp. It'd be nice to acknowledge at that age that you're a human, and not just so you can be marketed to, pitched a lifestyle, or given some small thrills with your cheap laughs.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (or: "I'm Getting too Old for this $#!&")

I'd read a good review or two for "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist", and while some of the items the reviewer called out as genius didn't sound all that genius to me, I figured that when Jamie wanted to see a movie on Friday night, a comedy was a better bet than grim western "Appaloosa", which I still want to see.

Friday is the one night I dread for going to the movies. It's people getting off work and "going out", but NOT just going to a bar to talk. Instead, they tend to go to the movies to talk. And so it was that the couple next to us showed up, on what appeared to be a first date or a date early on in a relationship.

A minute into the movie, the gentleman explained to his date, at full volume, why he never takes a personal day (apparently, they're for wimps...), and that he doesn't need time off to deal with his personal problems, unlike Michael Cera.

I had to ask them to shut up. Which, I hope, somehow put the first negative spin on what I was hoping would be a cratering evening for the pair.

by the way: HEAVY SPOILERS

Here's the plot to "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist":

High school senior Nick is dumped just before the movie begins by his girlfriend that none of his friends like. Norah doesn't know Nick, but goes to school with his ex. Nick and Norah meet at a bar where Nick's band is playing in a "only in a movie" meet-cute. Nick's pals realize that Norah is perfect for him (why, we are never told) and set them up, while they try to take Norah's drunk friend home to free their pal up to maneuver.

Nick and Norah kinda/ sorta travel around New York looking for a "secret" show by the impossibly hip sounding band "Fluffy Bunny". Drunk girl escapes and causes problems for all. To nobody's surprise, despite a handful of disagreements, Nick and Norah hook-up, which is movie-speak for "fall in love".

The End.

I wasn't a fan of the movie.

If I were between, maybe, 13 and 23, I think maybe I would have found it more entertaining, as the movie paints a very idealized version of teen-age love. And, honestly, in a world of post-Clueless, Mean Girls, American Pie, what-have you... at least this movie kinda-sorta felt at least a bit natural rather than frankensteined from pieces of a Hollywood screenplay morgue.

The acting of the young cast was naturalistic, the actors sort-of looked age appropriate, and it was mostly free of the gelled-LA-thing that permeates so much of teen-fare, no matter where the movie is to take place. This movie is very firmly entrenched in the world of kids from the suburbs of Manhattan who regularly come into the city on weekends to rock out. And one gets the feeling that this world is very real, but as foreign to me as a movie from Bollywood.

I think relate-ability is kind of where the movie started to fall apart for me. And then it all came back full circle with the feeling you were watching friends on a night out who are just being annoying (all too relate-able).

Neither titular character has much in the way of a spine, and is loosely defined as "the nice one" from their little gang. Which means both spend the first part of the movie going with whatever flow others impose upon them (not all bad for a high school "it happens in one night" flick). But when together, the two seemed sort of oddly passive-aggressive with one another, to the point where you don't necessarily see WHY the movie is insisting these two belong together.

Like the Peanuts gang, there's very little in the sense of any adult presence, and no parents are seen (which makes sense, in context), but as the movie is about kids, the lack of any 4:00 AM calls from parents wondering where the heck their angels were didn't make me necessarily feel the movie was disingenuous... but it also informed me that the movie was about those kids you meet in high school who are shocked (shocked!) to hear that your parents care where you are as their parents would never, ever ask.

It's also established early on that Norah and her friend are rich kids, who apparently go out to clubs that serve minors, and who kowtow to Norah because her father is some mysterious but important character (which, when its revealed who the guy is... doesn't really follow that Norah would be a 17-year old given access to any club in the tri-state area, etc... at least not in 2008).

I'm aware there is such a sub-culture, and perhaps things are different in Manhattan amongst the rich kids (that seems to be the case from Metropolitan to Gossip Girl. The movie "Kids" would inform you that a lack of parental oversight is simply commonplace in all five burroughs, cutting across class and race). It just, in no way, felt like a high school movie to me despite the grounding of the kids as high school seniors. Again, lack of relatability. Maybe if they'd been in the first year of college, but...

A large part of the plot revolves around all of the characters trying to track down Norah's pal, Caroline, who is the prototypical drunk high school girl (which is not as cute and funny as the film assumes). The movie makes little effort to make Caroline sympathetic, and so it's a bit odd that the audience gets dragged along for so much of the enabling B-plot.

The other B-plot is the relationship we're supposed to believe Nick had with his ex, "Tris", which the movie maybe doesn't need to explain why Nick was so ga-ga for the girl (we're told she's really good looking), but it would have helped. Especially as the movie relishes so much in showing how she's an awful, awful person. But it would have been nice to see SOMETHING about her Nick was supposed to like. The actress playing Tris also seemed suited better for a "Mean Girls" style flick, and sort of stood out, but I thought that was kind of the point (even if I didn't really agree with it).

Tris is also really awful to Norah before Nick ever enters Norah's picture. This is never explained, and seems, kinda/ sorta unnecessary.

Really, motivation for pretty much anybody doing ANYTHING in the movie is sort of up in the air. We're never really sure why Nick's pals decide that Norah is the girl for him. And as the movie sets up a pretty great number of conflicting moments between its titular characters (all of which Nick must back down from), why these two are supposedly such a perfect pair is kind of left up to the imagination. Especially when both of the characters seem like doormats for everyone else in the movie, and both have someone else vying for their attention.

In fact, I walked out of the movie wondering how Nick hadn't just set himself up to be a doormat for yet another girl, this time with more to hang over his head than the girl who was merely good looking. He sort of backs down to everyone in the movie, and doesn't really stand up for himself to Norah when, really, they're both being bratty, but Norah has no particular moral high ground. One foresees the first-month-of-college phone call in Nick's future where his girlfriend dumps him for a barista named "Iggy" who isn't a total push-over and who introduces her to bands equally as obscure and cool as Fluffy Bunny.

Because the movie is in love with name-dropping of music as only high schoolers can do (and the editors at Pitchfork), there's a suggestion that their mutual love of Fluffy Bunny is some sort of cosmic sign. Your mileage on this may vary. It's not that I don't buy high schoolers buying into this sort of thing, but as an adult... it seemed a tenuous connection at best.

Those looking for the same sort of gin-induced banter and hi-jinks one might have found between Nick and Nora Charles of the "Thin Man" films, you're going to be disappointed. I'm not suggesting that Michael Cera and Kat Dennings don't have good on-screen chemistry as two crazy kids who fall for each other in the scenes where they're not squabbling. But their dialog and interaction is a far cry from whatever the title was suggesting we'd get out of the pair. Luckily, the chance that most of the audience has seen a Thin Man film is nearly next to zero. Crisis averted.

Aside from the building romance, there's just not much plot to hold onto, and part of me was more interested in what the story was with Nick's bandmates and the fellow they'd picked up. (By the way: It's 2008, the black magical friend for teen movies has been replaced by the gay magical friends.)

MAJOR SPOILER BELOW:

The movie decides its important that Nick and Norah actually consummate their newly acquired love. Perhaps not unrealistic for teens in any day or age, but I wasn't entirely on board with that particular decision by the filmmakers, either. Mostly, it told me more about the folks who made the movie than about the characters, and what they saw as a necessary and natural step at the end of the flick.

But one I saw as potentially messy for everyone involved. Nick had, after all, been brooding over a completely different girl about five hours before and learned Norah's last name about fifteen minutes before. Not to mention Norah's somewhat own tumultuous evening. So... I dunno. It just felt... weird. And kind of desperate. As an audience member, I sort of wondered if either Nick or Norah were going to feel sort of weird about things the next day.

I was equally confused as to whether we were to believe Nick and Norah had good sex because they were in love (I think that's what the movie was trying to say), or that being in love equates to good sex. It's minor, but it's a distinction nonetheless.

But it wasn't too hard to imagine Norah not picking up the phone to call Nick the next day and writing the whole thing off.

END MAJOR SPOILER

On the whole, the movie just made me feel old.

Maybe the movie was realistic enough that I just felt irritated with things which irritated me back in the day. And part of me wonders, when I see a movie like this, if I'm just that out of touch. Probably.

Hipster teens will love this movie. Its going to be the hot soundtrack, I'd guess, so full of the hip music of the generation that I am not a part of and which I don't keep up with.

I certainly felt like the old man wishing the darn kids would get off his lawn, wondering where their parents were, if kids in NYC have the carte blanche on public intoxication and getting into bars that the movie suggests, and generally not feeling sorry for attention-starved teenage drunk girls (a demographic for which I had no sympathy the first time around, and frequently abandoned, unlike the film. Which is probably why I resented that subplot to such a degree.).

All of that said... it's a step in a better direction for teen-romance movies. This movie at least had one foot in some kind of reality, even if its not suburban whitebread. And I certainly can't lay claim to any knowledge of what the kids are up to (but if Newsweek is any indication... its all about prescription drugs with the kids), but it also wasn't as embarrassing as other movies.

In the tradition of "all in one night movies", its still a light year behind American Graffiti, and not as interesting or funny as Dazed and Confused. It's nowhere near as schmaltzy as "Before Sunrise". And has less explosions than "Die Hard" parts 1 and 2.

Out of Africa

So yesterday I watched a movie I'd DVR'd over the weekend "Out of Africa".

It was a movie I was pretty sure I'd seen before, but realized I'd only seen a few bits, and running at 2 hours, 45 minutes, I had seen only a snippet.

The story is based on the book and, roughly, life of Karen Blixen (pen name Isak Denisen), and her years living on and running a farm in Kenya from the mid 1910's to 1931.

The cast is led by Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, who were revered (for right or wrong) during the 1980's in a way that is no longer in practice for a mass audience, although internet noise may be giving me a false impression, what with how many sites insist I love Megan Fox of Transformers fame. And it's not hard to see how Streep gained the reputation she's still riding, even when she partakes in more whimsical movies like "Mamma Mia!" these days.

The pacing is glacial, but still engaging. Director Sydney Pollack (whose only other work I've seen is "Tootsie" and "Jeremiah Johnson"), doesn't quite insist on the dreamlike state of a Terrence Malick movie, but lets the wide open setting of the African foothills and the years in which the story occurs dictate the pacing of the story.

The story shouldn't have been the sort of thing I would normally get wrapped up in. In many ways, its a domestic melodrama that happens to stretch over years among aristocrats acting as lords of the manor, pushing back against the march of progress. And, were I thinking of a paper to write in film school, most certainly one could have a field day comparing and contrasting Scarlett from "Gone with the Wind" and Karen Blixen.

Streep's Blixen, accurate or not, is a powerful character, and is most likely the sort of role actresses are seeking when they complain that there are no good roles written for women. What's daunting in our post-PC era is guessing how the relationships actually worked with the colonists and the folks already living on the land which they carved up. But the messy relations of the colonists, and especially Blixen's relationship with Denys Hatton are easy enough to buy into without the usual eye-rolling moments of romantic plots.

While watching the movie it struck me how seldom I take time for movies that don't star superheroes, robots, aliens and/ or gorillas. Maybe a good part of that is my intolerance for the movie crowds that I recall putting up with at the multiplex in Gilbert, Arizona when we'd go see movies like "The Aviator" (which I really wanted to see), or even a flashier movie like "Chicago".

I also made a comment to Jamie, as the movie was wrapping, that they really don't make movies like "Out of Africa" anymore. Jamie disagreed, and in retrospect, I have to agree with her. I just don't go see a wide variety of movies anymore.

I sent Jamie with Nicole to go see "Atonement" without me, but I honestly don't know how it stacks up. Sometimes its better to let the "epics" stand some test of time rather than walking into a movie that is desperately trying to emulate greater movies, and just doesn't really pull it off.

I was burned out by the "Upstairs, Downstairs" type films, and movies about crossing over class lines in British society that, really... Until someone has something new to say about the caste system of early 20th Century Britain, don't call me, I'll call you, "Gosford Park".

Your mileage may vary for "There Will be Blood" (Steven), but at least the movie unapologetically set its own pacing and wasn't afraid to tell a multi-year story. Curious that movies that are so formal in so many other ways from a technical standpoint are most often the ones that bend the rules of hard pacing Hollywood so adores.

And I'm not one to usually buy into epic love stories. Because I get terribly impatient with people I actually know in romantic entanglements, I really don't want to see two people pine for each other for 2 hours on screen. And maybe Blixen's direct approach to the romance in her story won me over for that exact reason. It makes the arc of the whole thing feel that much less like Hollywood machinery.

Perhaps as the fall begins to roll out "serious" movies, I might quit being The Grinch and try something a bit out of my comfort zone.

Jason will be delighted to hear lions appear several times in the course of the movie.

Pineapple Express

Saturday I headed out to Alamo South to see the latest film in the Apatow/ Rogan/ Ferrell... comedy phalanx that has pretty much redefined comedy rather abruptly since 40 Year Old Virgin (speaking of... I think Steve Carrell would do well to hook up with these guys again rather than enter into another big-budget flick with luke-warm critical and audience reception).

Pineapple Express won't appeal to my parents, and I really wouldn't find it something I'd want my kids to see if they were under 16. But it does hit that sweet marketing spot of 18-34 year olds pretty well.

I did find the movie funny. I found the reviews that harped on the shocking violence and action to have overstated their case. The balance was similar to films such as "Beverly Hills Cop", so I don't think action/ comedy of this nature is exactly a new idea.

For full disclosure, here is my "six degrees of separation" relationship to director David Gordon Green. Green lived on my floor in Jester my first year of college, and I think, at most, I would say hi to him in the hallway. I knew him mostly because he lived with another David, musician David Wingo, so they were in the room with two Davids. David Green fled UT to go to a film conservatory in North Carolina sophomore year, which I thought was just crazy at the time. And he'd send David Wingo copies of his student work, which we'd all watch at parties and whatnot.

What struck me as interesting was that (a) I was never enamored with Green's sense of humor in his college films (I was alone in this opinion). And (b) how Pineapple Express displayed some of that sense of humor, but actually really made it work. The same sense of uncontrolled chaos and oddly placed priorities is as present in his films I recall watching in college as Pineapple Express.

Speaking of, seeing what happened to his work between his college material and his first feature, George Washington, was mind-blowing. There's nothing like seeing someone else's work, who should be your peer, to let you know "this person has a skill I do not, and never could, have."

Pineapple Express is a pretty darn far cry from George Washington, so it'll be interesting to see what direction green takes his career from here.

Also, I need to look up Wingo. It's been years since I've talked to that guy. Tjeff will know where he is... Little help, tjeff?

(tjeff who floats through the comments section occasionally is, by the way, another musician whose work I'd recommend. Here's his site.)

I also happened to watch part of "Knocked Up" last night, the Seth Rogan sleeper hit from last summer. And while I enjoyed Rogan in "Pineapple Express", Rogan is going to need to learn to play a character other than Seth Rogan at some point. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but at some point, the audience is going to find all of his roles so indistinguishable, its going to have a negative effect. Doofus twenty-something with a disarming laughing is only going to work so long.

And, surprisingly, James Franco's perpetually stoned character "Saul" doesn't come off as grating, but actually pretty likable, which I wasn't expecting. Franco is a pretty direct contrast to Rogan's insistence on playing himself, as he throws himself into the character pretty fully, and is unrecognizable as Harry Osborn of the Spidey movies.

As per plot, PE is a surprisingly tight crime script, with a certain narrowly defined cast of colorful characters (Danny McBride of "Foot Fist Way" is a particular highlight). Too often comedies decide plot is secondary, but Pineapple Express has natural arcs for literally every character, and works as well, from a narrative standpoint, as any recent crime movie I've seen. It just happens to feature two guys who could be your neighbors in the last apartment complex you lived in.

I'll be honest, I don't think you'll lose much seeing the movie on the small screen. So you can probably wait to see it in the comfort of your La-Z-Boy. And while I'm not sure how long the Apatow comedy collective (oh, Freaks and Geeks! What wonders thou hast wrought!) can keep up this pace, but they're managing to make movies that seem a heck of a lot smarter than, say, "Hollywood Chihuahua".

D-War = The League on Crazy Pills

So, this weekend Jason and I watched the 2007 film "Dragon War" off the ol' DVR. The movie was in theaters only last summer, and already its made its way from theatrical release, through DVD and onto basic cable (most likely bypassing HBO, etc... en route).

One should enter into watching any movie with a raised eye-brow when one cannot determine if a movie is called "Dragon Wars" or "D-War". Even when the movie begins and both titles share equal importance during the credits.

Opening in modern day Los Angeles, the movie quickly goes through a flashback, wrapped in a flashback, wrapped in Robert Forester dumping a lot of exposition and Korean words with which you can't possibly keep pace.

The story to the movie is probably not that complex, but the writer/ director's inability to simply get out of the way of device and tell a story is mind-boggling. Let alone his refusal to provide characters with story-arcs, growth, and dialog that doesn't sound like it came from a Babelfish translation. Also, the director's idea for a black character is mostly an amalgamation of other black sidekick buddies who tend to say things like "That's whack!" and "Say whaaat?" Unfortunately, he cast Craig Robinson of "The Office" and Apatow film fame, who is making a career out of not being the black-guy stand-in character. The whole thing reminded me of this scene from Clone High.

And there's a really weird scene where Robinson's character is attacked by one of the villains with a magic sword, and our two heroes abandon him as soon as its convenient. Bad enough, but in the next scene they comment on how "he's probably fine", though they left him for dead.

Say, whaaaaat?


The appropriate reaction to this picture is to click on it, which will blow it up to a much larger size. You will then want to perform a face melting air guitar solo in front of your computer.

Several times during the movie, I turned to Jason and said "I have no idea what's going on". It's always a little bizarre to watch a movie and get that same feeling I used to get in college watching a movie after a few drinks, and that's why you can't keep up. But when your only substance of abuse is a Starbucks Frappucino and a pack of Willy Wonka "Shockers", well... you begin to feel a bit like you've been taking crazy pills.

Which is always a sure sign that you're in for a treat of a movie.

I don't know if I was supposed to be making inferences about how Point A was tied to Point G, skipping all points between. Or, in fact, what was going on for huge chunks of the movie. Such as, where was the good-guy Dragon larvae? What was this Grand Cave they referred to frequently, but which never shows up in the film? And why had nobody but one sad sack zoo keeper noticed the 200 yard-long snake (which must have weighed several thousand tons) zipping through the streets of LA? And why would the cops believe the five dead and mutilated elephants (tossed around like rag dolls) were the work of the zoo keeper?

Inexplicably, there's a ten minute stretch in the middle of the film that's suddenly and jarringly pretty good. 16th Century Korean Magical knights and their reptilian steeds take to the streets of Los Angeles, and the effect is lot more rewarding than the jumbled mess of a street brawl from Transformers (which I think used the same streets for their climactic battle).


You may do the air guitar riff thing once again. This $#!& is totally rad.

What's most disturbing about the movie is that they hired some actors you'll recognize, such as the lovely and underappreciated Elizabeth Pena, and then stick them in thankless supporting roles. Its just bizarre casting. And I could understand "The snakes are the stars of the show" pitch for casting unknowns as leads, but neither is able to do anything with their part. My gut reaction is: hey, these guys can't act. When I'm pretty sure the reality is: hey, I think the director is awful and Meryl Streep couldn't do anything with this dialog.

That doesn't mean anything about the final scenes of the movie makes any sense, but it's staged well, and you can see the money right up there on the screen. Until they shift to the end at some mystical castle which appears to be in Apache Junction, Arizona. And I don't feel like I'm giving anything away, because... really.

I have to recommend "D-War: Dragon Wars" or "Dragon War: D-War", or whatever its called. It will blow your mind.

The League considers movies

Me am smrt 2! Me like Hulk movie!

Have you seen this new ad for "Brideshead Revisited?"

The one that says "The movie intelligent filmgoers have waited for all year!" by Rex Reed.

Wow. Isn't that kind of an insult to anyone who enjoyed any other movie this year? I mean, its one thing for Reed to make the statement (and he did like the movie), but isn't this a weird way to appeal to a mass audience on TV?

I'm not even disputing that the movie is good, or that Reed isn't right. But how many stories of Victorian-style class issues am I supposed to sit through, watching a middle-aged, respectable actress do her passive-aggressive thing over tea while our Pip stand in sits there and squirms?

I read "Great Expectations". I get it. You can't crack the upper class in Britain, and you don't want to, because Victorian stuffiness rots you from inside. Got it. Thanks.

I mostly just don't really think that it makes me a genius for going and seeing yet another Merchant-Ivory knock-off with lovely period outfits.

You know, I kinda sorta thought this would be a good one to go do for a matinee sometime next week, but I don't now if I really want to see a movie when the marketing team decided to suggest was my only intelligent choice this year.


Step Brothers

Which is why I went to go see the new John C. Reilly/ Will Ferrell movie, Step Brothers.

Which, is NOT going to be for everybody. Or most anybody. It's dumb and juvenile, and it made me want to buy a Wookie mask. And maybe hit a little close to home sometimes... But I don't think you can go wrong seeing a movie that makes you laugh until you get those little tears coming up. Mostly because what you're seeing on screen is so very, very wrong.

Step Brothers is part of the Apatow collective's steady stream of comedies (I am looking forward to "Pineapple Express"), and having others playing along certainly helps Ferrell. I liked the man in "Semi-Pro" and "Blades of Glory", but I felt like he was doing it all himself. In an Apatow movie, everybody gets to play. It's not the Robin Williams comedies of the 80's where a coked-up Williams was wound up and set loose on the squares. Part of the comedy comes from everyone's participation.

I think Mary Steenburgen is a lovely woman and fine actress, but she's never made me laugh before this movie. Not that I can recall. And the whole cast pitches in. Especially Kathryn Hahn, who plays Ferrell's sister-in-law.

Anyhoo, I was slightly appalled that a ticket this summer at Westgate is now $9.00, so that seemed a little steep, but I think its definitely worth a matinee, or rental.

Doesn't live up to the hype

The other day I took a gamble and DVR'd a movie off cable. "They Came from Beyond Space". Here's the description: Caped spacemen need slaves on the moon; a physicist and his girlfriend deal with them.

What isn't awesome about that?

Well, pretty much everything. And the caped aliens aren't really wearing capes, its more like neon colored robes. And they don't even show up until the last five minutes. And then they're represented by this old British character actor who really could have done without all the cigarettes and tea, if the color of his teeth is any indication.

I gotta say, when you're thinking of watching 1967 Brit Sci-Fi epic "They Came From Beyond Space", you might want to just skip it and save yourself the trouble.

Hellboy II? Why the hell not?

So the relatively small action flick, Hellboy, has spawned a sequel.

I enjoyed the first film, but felt like you could almost feel the edges of the film that couldn't be explored as it was written and designed with a certain budget in mind. Multi-million dollar movie, sure... but of an unknown, untested character with some pretty terrific weirdness behind it all.

But I really liked the three main protagonists, with Abe Sapien, Liz Sherman and Hellboy. The villains were bizarre and cool, and the threat appropriately apocalyptic for our hero to challenge.


Also, I believe Selma Blair to be sort of a fox.

Mostly, though, I think Ron Perlman is super great as Hellboy. I love the direct, uncomplicated guy who happens to be able to take on world-threatening baddies. All without a Will Smith "Ah, hell naw!" In a lot of ways, Hellboy is sort of a great stand-in for how I think many guys see themselves. Unpleasant, uncouth, and hoping their capable enough working with what they know to get the job done. But a totally different guy when it comes to dealing with their significant other.

The plot has an odd ring of familiarity as so many superhero films have been hitting the screen. A villain with a plan for ending the world, some personal problems, and a nick of time ending. In some ways, the plot of Hellboy II feels, in some ways, a little too much like the plot for Hellboy I, only streamlined. Instead, director Del Toro focuses on the dreamlike imagery you might remember from Pan's Labyrinth, presented on a grander scale.


This looks like the group shots of my prom pictures

And, really, no matter what else you might be skeptical about, Hellboy II is visually stunning. The dialog can be a bit clunky, and the action sequences a bit disorienting, but the creature scenes here are the best mass creature scenes since Luke Skywalker walked into a cantina.

I'm not guaranteeing its the best movie you're going to see, but its a good summer popcorn flick with surprisingly developed characters for a movie starring a red guy with an arm that came from Steelcase.

Del Toro might always have scripts that feel like they could be a bit more developed, but you have to salute him as a visionary. He's able to bring not just cool visuals (which movies like "Chronicles of Riddick do, and yet fail), but also a solid action film with a good deal of heart.

Wanted: Not Wanted

I forgot to mention I saw "Wanted" on Monday. Before you start looking to see a movie this weekend, I want to throw in with Randy here. The James MacAvoy/ Angelina Jolie/ Morgan Freeman movie "Wanted" isn't terribly good.

I don't know why. It seemed to have lots of plot elements I should have enjoyed and the idea behind the movie sort of had potential. But (1) it sort of ripped off Star Wars in some ways from a plot perspective, and (2) it refused to actually explore the space set up by the movie, which actually seemed interesting. Also, the title "Wanted" had nothing to do with anything.

The movie seemed as if it had potential to be an over-the-top dark comedy of sorts, but that, flat out, didn't happen. Instead they went the action movie route towards a terribly unsatisfactory denouement.

I also keep hearing how great Angelina Jolie was in "28 Days", but this is like the third movie I've seen her in, and I don't get it. She seemed as if she was barely registering in the movie, and mistakes "looking as if you're thinking about being somewhere else" for mysterious. I'm also one of the rare guys you'll find who doesn't find Joile attractive. (A) I look at her and see Joe Buck in makeup, and (b) she's gotten so scrawny by this movie, its sort of tough to take her seriously as someone who could take you in a fight.

MacAvoy is okay. No problem there. The material just wasn't ready to support what he should have been doing in the role. There's a few moments of slow-mo brilliance that lets you know what he should have been doing for the duration of the movie and who the character COULD have been.

The movie spends the first 2/3rds setting up a world, which is really too long. About, seriously, five minutes showing that world in action, and then the last 1/3rd taking the world apart. It's just a terribly clunky way to balance a story, and sort of makes you feel that the action taken to get you through the first part so you can get to the second is sort of a waste. Like "Men in Black", the creators are so interested in introducing you to "how things work", there's just not much room for a story.

At the end of the day, the movie could have drawn you into the world of super-human assassins and their world of moral ambiguity. I'm reminded of the engrossing environment and characters of "Fight Club", and the unapologetic approach to characters who sneer at mundane work-a-day life. That seems to be the message "Wanted" thinks its offering up, but they sort of forget that (a) killing people is illegal and won't get you very far, and (b) most people don't suddenly find out their anxiety attacks are actually supper powers bubbling to the surface (yeah, that's a spoiler, but if you don't see it coming, woe unto you). Prescribing super powers as the antidote to modern day office work is... a curious solution at best.

Oh, and yeah... this is based on Mark "My Ego is Huuuuuuuge" Millar's graphic novel, which I've never read.

The League supports Wall-E

Mangum must be getting soft in his old age. Ten years ago the mention of going to see a cartoon would have been met with snide derision, even if it featured a robot and dystopian visions of the future.

But... in the intervening years, Mangum has become a shell of his former punk-rock self. He has begun to fill his home with photos of kittens and lots of little statues of clowns holding balloons, and is always looking for new recipes for quiche and cupcakes.

Never give up smoking, kids.

Anyway, he pitched to me a screening of Wall-E, the latest Pixar venture. So, Sunday night we met he and Nicole at the Alamo South, and we were also met by Heather Wagner. And while we were all convinced that should Nicole and Wagner ever meet, time would stop and the universe might split in two, all I noticed was a small popping sound, like bubble wrap.

Nicole also got a new haircut. She looks sharp, but for some reason she felt self-conscious about it. And I should probably apologize to her about my attempt at complimenting said 'do.

Anyhoo...

I'm always far more excited to see a Pixar movie than any other cartoon. Its not just that Pixar is consistently 3-5 years ahead of everyone else as far as technology goes, but because Pixar's ability to tell a story is so very, very, very much better than what you see in 99& of the rest of family entertainment.

I'm on record with my lack of enthusiasm for the current post-Robin-Williams-in-Aladdin, post-Shrek belief that pop-culture references make a movie, or that having known comedians constantly riffing is character. I think kids and parents deserve better. I think if they want my dollar, I deserve better.

I haven't always loved every Pixar film equally. I think "Finding Nemo" is a little blah. There are parts I like about "Monsters, Inc.", but it felt like it was drifting into "celebrity-voice-theater" as its focus. That said, I'm a big fan of both "Toy Story" movies, so go figure. And I've never seen "Cars". Because, really? Owen Wilson as a NASCAR car?



My feeling is that the Pixar creators took a look at how well their short films work, and how audiences seem entirely pleased with those shorts, and took a gamble to apply that same craft to a feature length film.

Wall-E is a movie about a lonely little robot, left behind on Earth as mankind abandoned a trash-strewn, presumably polluted Earth for the stars and greener pastures. Wall-E spends his days packing, crushing and stacking the garbage strewn about the planet. Mankind hasn't returned, and in the ensuing years, of all the many, many droids just like him, only Wall-E remains, carrying about his tasks, with only a cockroach to keep him company.

How anyone managed to make a roach sympathetic while refusing to de-buggify the thing is a testament to the craft going into the film.

Wall-E has built a small home for himself, full of items he's begun to collect. And he's a fan of the movie and music of "Hello, Dolly!" which he likes to watch on a top-loading VHS player (oh, yes. Its the small things in the movie). While the movie brings him joy, it also reflects upon his desire for companionship, which is met one day with the curious arrival of a space probe robot seemingly designed by the engineers at Apple.

I don't really want to tell much more. The pacing of the story is fantastic. And though there were actually few children in our theater, the fact that the movie is incredibly light on dialog and doesn't rely on borscht-belt humor, nor fart gags for laughs, the audience stayed with the movie every step of the way.

Like much classic sci-fi, Wall-E is really a cautionary tale. Like "Idiocracy", the movie is really about mankind's consumerist, wasteful culture... but to tell more is to both give too much away, and to suggest some sort of political agenda to a movie that doesn't have one. It is a movie for our precarious place in time and for each of us as a steward of the future of the planet, and ourselves.

The visuals on Wall-E have passed from the flat, cartoon world of Toy Story to a world in which these two eyes (as bad as they are) often couldn't tell if some items/ shots/ etc... were CGI or photo compositing. And its something Pixar absolutely makes work.

Add in terrific management of a multitude of characters who, essentially, don't speak, terrifically directed scenes, and humor based on characters, motivations, etc... that actually works, and I think you've got the best Pixar movie since "The Incredibles" (which is, by far, my favorite).

Kids or no kids, The League thinks Wall-E needs to be on your summer movie viewing list. And, for the love of mike, see it on the big screen, where it belongs.

And now I kinda want to rent "Hello, Dolly", which I haven't seen since 1994.

HULK SMASH! - The League sees a movie

It will surprise exactly nobody that I went to see "The Incredible Hulk".

While I might not have loved the movie, but I liked it pretty well. That said, I only had a few criteria heading into the flick:

A) Hulk would smash a lot of military hardware
B) There would be impressive explosions
C) The fights would be increasingly cooler and bigger throughout the movie

I am happy to say that the movie delivered on all fronts.

I think if you go in looking for a popcorn movie with a solid storyline, strong actors delivering mostly believable dialog, and buy into the pseudo-science... sure. You'll have fun.

I've never really picked up much in the way of Hulk comics. I picked up "Planet Hulk" and "World War Hulk", but aside from that, and a single Bruce Jones Hulk trade, I'm not much of a reader (I do own the issue of Hulk where Rocket Raccoon gets his first appearance). I'm not married to any particular vision of the Hulk, including the TV program. But the cartoon that was on when I was pretty little probably went pretty far to shape how I think of Hulk.

I understand that Ang Lee's "Hulk" was a bit much for most folks, and there were bits of characterization I missed from Ang Lee's Hulk versus the new version (I just really felt they were able to tap into the source of the Hulk's rage a bit more understandably in Lee's version). But, hell... this version is pretty darn good.

As you've heard, they've reset the franchise, leaning 70% on the comics and 30% on the Bill Bixby/ Lou Ferrigno TV show. It has the best Stan Lee cameo to date, too.

I think the effects were really impressive in comparison to the last go-round with the Hulk, right down to texturing on Hulk's skin, but also in how the team was able to come up with some more imaginative ways in which to demonstrate the Hulk's... Hulkiness.

Anyhow, with as downright bad as many of the Marvel movies have been (FF, FF2, Ghost Rider, etc...), this one is a lot of fun. And.... explosions. And smashing. Oh, yes... The smashing.

And, you know, Liv Tyler, if you're into that (and I think I am).

Oh, Ed Norton is a really good Bruce Banner, by the way. His natural-built-in desperate look serves him well here.

Jamie's (micro) review: RRAAAARRRRGHH!!!

If you want to get an idea of what the movie is like:

The League sees "The Foot Fist Way"

Tonight I took League-Pal Matt M. out for his birthday to see "The Foot Fist Way" (it's a movie. Here's the site.)

I really liked the movie, but...

The League doesn't mention it much, but once upon a time when we were younger, thinner, full of much more youth and vigor, we were in TaeKwonDo long enough to earn a 1st degree black belt. Here's a link to the school I attended.

It was fun. And the experience is something that's very hard to relate to folks who haven't ever been involved. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to continue for a lot of reasons.

Despite being full of kids, the movie is NOT for kids. It's actually probably pretty funny if you've never taken a martial arts class before, but its really funny if you've ever been deep in the culture of martial arts schools and ever saw the slippery slope of the machismo and discipline for what it could turn into. It's really not too hard to live in some world of delusion when you have a small army of kids paying you fifty bucks a month, and a bunch of adults who literally jump when you say jump.

Anyhoo... Watching "The Foot Fist Way" was exactly like looking into a warped mirror of life at TKD. The martial arts portions of the movie are pretty much dead on to what I recall from the ITA, aside from the fact that my instructors weren't as... ah... anyway, my instructors happened to be terrifically educated and smart. But... that doesn't mean I didn't see folks just like the movie's protagonist, or many, many of the other characters in the movie (including the 13 year old kid who was tasked with running the school).

Truth to be told, it really made me miss TKD. I'd probably never been in better shape in my life, and I can't tell you what it does for your self-confidence to be able to punch through a few pieces of wood (eventually you start believing you can kick through anything... it's just a matter of the right kick).

And that sort of potentially misplaced self-confidence is exactly what the movie is about.

The movie fully embraces TKD and the stuff some folks might find a little cheesy. I don't think it plays those elements for laughs as much as it uses things like the tenets of TaeKnowDO as a counterpoint to Fred's struggles. And, again, if you've never been in TKD, then its kind of hard to understand why you'd take stuff like that seriously. But, you do.

I'll be honest... the movie was made on the cheap, and I don't know what it will lose if you see it on DVD. Especially if they include some of the commercials for the TKD school/ promo bits that were done for marketing the movie. But I liked it.

Not all of the acting is Oscar worthy, and the arc of the script probably needed some work, but its a fun movie. And, I expect, if I had a chance to watch it again it would be to memorize some of the better lines for use later.

The League Watches: Chronicles of Narnia - Prince Caspian

After the rush that was completing the 3 film cycle of "Lord of the Rings", getting through yet another adventure of Harry Potter (the boy wizard who collects doom like stamps), and wrapping up Lucas's 6 film Star Wars cycle... it didn't seem at all a bad idea that Disney produce the entire run of the well-loved CS Lewis children's novels, "The Chronicles of Narnia".

Before seeing "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", I actually bothered to read the book. In, like, an hour. It's a kids book, and its pretty short.

Also, for some reason I ate Arby's before going to the movie, and that was just a bad call. I go there, like, once a year, and I genuinely felt ill when I walked out the door.

*** SPOILERS THROUGHOUT ****

I've never read Prince Caspian, and I didn't plow through it before Jamie and I headed off for the matinee today, so I didn't have much in the way of expectations. I'd given the previous movie a solid "B". It was entertaining, the effects were convincing enough, and I thought Tilda Swinton was good. The kids were typical kiddie actors, mostly going through the motions rather than seeming to have any internal combustion going to really convince you that they were doing much but going along for the ride.

"Prince Caspian" is a very different story, and the land of Narnia has had the magic sucked right out of it by some vaguely Spanish humans, and the whole place has become a subplot for a better movie. Perhaps "The Two Towers", which it shamelessly lifts from throughout.

The kids are older, but their acting chops haven't improved much. The gentleman cast as the titular Prince Caspian is the sort of non-threatening pretty boy you expect out of a movie series this Disneyfied, without resorting to CW-style casting.

The plot basically revolves around a very-Hamletish power grab by Prince Caspian's uncle, whose name I never caught... but, man... can that guy do Evil Movie Tyrant #2 with the best of 'em. No scenery was free of teeth marks. The power grab leads to Caspian ducking out of the castle, which looks quite a bit like a LOTR castle, and running away. Which will become a theme throughout the movie. Caspian and Co. run away at every available opportunity.

For some reason, Caspian's fleeing causes the Evil Uncle to declare war on woods he should believe are almost entirely empty. I'm not really clear on the story, and mentioned to Jamie about an hour in "I have no idea what's going on". So I'd hate to make any conjecture that isn't accurate. Caspian blows the horn of Gondor, which summons the four kids from the last movie back to Middle Earth. Or Gondor. Where they team-up with Peter Dinklage (the respectable little person actor), and discover its been some time since they were last in Gondor. And now they're stuck fighting with Spanish conquistadors.

I didn't particularly care for the movie. Jamie suggested I entitle the review "Prince Cat-Stain". But, I told her, I don't work blue. She had a few other suggestions, but none of them were any more flattering than "Prince Cat-Stain". But that'll give you an idea of how it went.

I am guessing that the novel of Prince Caspian, like LOTR was to The Hobbit, much more complicated than its predecessor. Thus, its all about cramming in everyone's favorite scenes, advancing the plot whether it makes sense or not, and getting to the fight scenes, already.

In case you missed the press around the last Narnia movie, we're to understand that there's some religious allegory going on here. And, indeed, the last movie must have seemed a bit too subtle for the audience. As much as the plot seems full of inferences and non-sequitirs from a narrative standpoint, each hint about the nature of faith comes down like a bag of hammers.

The movie comes in at a glacial 2+ hours. I'm not sure, exactly, where things went off the rails here, but once your audience is aware of the situation (or as informed as the filmmakers ever make us), spending an hour watching your heroes sort things out is simply cumbersome. And dragging out poorly choreographed fight scenes isn't good for anybody.

Probably due to the time constraints, and therefore rushed scripting and poor editing... the movie has a few scenes which just sort of happen and make no sense. Somehow the four Brit kids know all about prince Caspian and his plight, when nothing which occurs before that scene would lead the kids to know anything about Caspian or his plans. There's another odd scene in which there's some grafitti on a cart, and the Ming-like bad-guy uses this an excuse to get his general to kill three his men... and it... makes no sense. (Plus, wow... how is that going to help morale?)

Like I said, there were large portions of the movie I simply wasn't following. There's a pretty large assumption you know the first movie very well, as well as that you're going to make assumptions about royal lineage, military maneuvering, political fact-mashing for personal gain, etc... noen of which is really outright explained. It just sort of happens.

Also, Narnia kicks ass. It's full of talking bears, minotaurs, and looks like a Dokken album cover. The kids are given royal authority over all the animals, and get to live for, like, a hundred years and wear really neat armor. So why, on earth, do they head back at the ends of these movies? That's a sucker's game.

I continue to find the mix of pagan iconography within the Narnia movie a bit baffling. It seems odd that Harry Potter and Co. take a hit in the Bible Belt, but this mish mash is okie dokey.

Perhaps somewhat more bizarre is the Aslan death clause of the movies, which depicts the teenaged heroes dispatching soldier after soldier with no qualms, all in the name of Aslan. I guess the lion is supposed to be a cuddlier version of Jesus, so we're supposed to buy into the idea that we should be stabbing people who are browner than you (yeah, I found the ethnic casting of the baddies a bit... unnecessary) for our God-allegory. Which... wow.

Further, Aslan in this film sort of talks like a huge, toothy fortune cookie. Stating things like "Things don't happen the same way twice". Which he says twice. And, apparently he never really feels like he owes his long-suffering people an explanation as to why he (God) abandoned his people to the horrible Spanish people for 1300 years, only to return when it was absolutely necessary to the plot.

Was Aslan off in Gondor on some much needed vay-cay? Appearing in a tortilla on Endor? Apparently he's a capricious allegory.

The message of "faith" in the story, at least as framed by the makers of this film, is that it doesn't do anyone but the four little white kids a lick of good. Holding out for 1300 years for a break seems like an awfully long stretch, and one couldn't really blame the Narnians for maybe thinking Aslan had turned his back on them as he reportedly left Narnia right after the heads of state, and allowed a mass extermination of the happy talking animals.

In addition, there's a bit telling the viewer that not jumping off a cliff to certain doom is demonstrating a lack of faith. Which... what? What kind of crazy religious allegory is Aslan running here? Despite their faith in lion/ Jesus, our heroes also run away at every opportunity. I don't think at any point in the action do they stand their ground. They're quite cowardly. Apparently jumping to your death is expected by Aslan, but holding your ground in battle to protect Aslan's kingdom is a bit up in the air.

He moves in mysterious ways, indeed.

From a narrative standpoint, I'm not going to write the filmmakers a blank check because they're playing the religious allegory card. Either your allegory works, or it doesn't. And I thought this movie did a pretty poor job of doing much but dispensing mixed messages and reinforcing some not terribly Christ-like ideals, like killing folks. Putting religion out there doesn't make your narrative bullet-proof, and, honestly, I would expect more out of the film-makers as per a sense of responsibility to the viewer in maintaining a clear message.

All in all, whatever worked in the first movie just falls apart in Prince Caspian. And there seemed to be some commentary of the wisdom of pre-emptive military strikes not going the way you think they will, which I wondered if I was the only one noticing that...

I did not like the constant jokes about the little people/ dwarfs being short. Including a belabored scene between a mouse and poor, poor Peter Dinklage. And teh bad guys all wore 300-inspired masks which looked like their Ming-like leader and his "look, I'm evil" Satan-inspired chin slinky.

Add in items lifted from LOTR such as set design, story elements and sequences like the Ents... and, it was kind of embarassing. And the end dragged and dragged. And was, for reasons I can't put my finger on, unintentionally hilarious.

Bleh.

I want my afternoon back.

The League Reviews: Speed Racer - The Next Generation

I was asked by some nice folks at the same marketing company that had me review "New Frontier" if I'd review a DVD of what I think is the pilot of the new TV series "Speed Racer: The Next Generation". I haven't seen the new feature film of Speed Racer, but I thought I'd pop in this DVD and give it a whirl.

I knew it was going to be a trouble when the low-fi credits rolled and the writers were listed as "Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray", the DC Comics writing team who never met a cliche they didn't like. The opening is horrible CG with a re-imagined Southern California rockin' take on the great Speed Racer theme, that literally sounds like a guy, his guitar, and Garage Band. Its... not good.

But, I confess to a warm place in my heart for DJ Keoki's inspired circa 1993 club re-mix of the Speed Racer theme.

So, after the credits? Yeah, uhm... it never really gets better.

The premise is that a young man of the name "Speed" arrives at a "racing academy" of some sort which is run by the now middle-aged and oddly grandfatherly Spritle. "Speed" gets hassled by upper-classmen who are mean, because that's what happens in these coming of age stories, in order for our hero to have an external as well as an internal struggle. There's a quest to become the best racer, and despite the fact that Speed seems like a nice guy, pretty much everybody has it in for him but his wacky roommate with a deep, deep crush on Speed Racer (who also built a robotic Chim-Chim), and some busy body girl whose significance is never really fleshed out.

And, as with the original Speed Racer, the fate of the world seems to be hanging somehow in the balance of the who is the best race car driver in the minds of all the characters.

The animation is some sort of odd mix of CG and what looks like Flash. Or something. And I'm not kidding when I say this, but the character design and animation both really, really reminded me of Planet Unicorn (ed note: I feel bad about bagging on Planet Unicorn. Its actually a lot like the educational comics I remember getting in elementary school on the dangers of THC, or the recent comic we got from the vert on flea control. As in, "well, it's recognizably a person, and my art-student kid needs the work, so we're forging ahead"). I mean, its really, insanely bad.

The vehicular animation sorta looked like someone with 3D Studio Max and some free time. Its the sort of stuff that truly does seem as if it were designed as some sort of web freebie. And, honestly, if I thought that this was the future of animation, I would despair.

There's some particularly crappy CG in a portion where the laws of time and space breakdown and Speed drives on a "virtual track". Its tough to explain, because it makes no sense and sucks, but the animation here is a weird mix of bad CG and, maybe, Q-Bert.

Also, Speed has an oddly bad haircut. I don't know how they got to actual animation with that particular hair-don't, but it looks a bit like a ladies' haircut of some sort. Like a wedge gone bad or something.


Behold, Speed Racer Jr. and his stupid, lumpy face

It all sort of made we wonder. The quality of the original Speed Racer cartoons was always kind of iffy in both the animation and plot departments. I was never a huge fan of the original show. As I recall, it was usually just on between other cartoons, and I always felt the show was a little light on Racer X and Chim-Chim. But the show did have a particular look, which this show did nothing to preserve, even while including stock Speed Racer art in the show in various ways.

All in all, the overall cheapness of the movie just reeks of a fairly cynical money-grab on the part of Warner Bros. Which makes sense. I sort of think that's how the whole Speed Racer enterprise has been handled since they started running those E-Surance/ Speed Racer TV spots.

The voice acting is poorly directed, and uniformly flat. The guy playing Speed sounds like he's perpetually apologizing. His roommate (Gordon? It's been twenty minutes, and already I can't remember), is shrill and irritating. But no matter the scene, all of the voice actors use exactly the same intonation. Its weird, and kind of reminiscent of when people make funny Flash movies on their own and just do the voices themselves or get a girl from their class to speak in one of the parts.

There's an odd Luke Skywalker storyline to this story, which Palmiotti and Gray go ahead and acknowledge early on in the movie. In fact, the only thing I really liked about the movie was when the characters would occasionally make comments on the action, which seemed to almost acknowledge the lack of effort on the part of all hands.

Whatever magic folks might have felt the original series contained isn't part of the equation here. Even the races feel dull and lifeless. What was considered to be life-or-death struggles in the original series is reduced to some sort of VR racing in this version, with cardboard cut out characters, 100% recycled plot elements and bland and/ or annoying protagonists. The family dynamic of the Racer clan is intentionally missing in order to give our hero a journey of discovery, and teh school yard setting takes away any weight that the international racing in the original series contained.

In many ways, this pilot reminded me of a lot of the first issues of comics from the post Spidey-boom of 2002 or so. Teenager with a mysterious gift gets hassled by his peers for simply existing, plus there's a shady adult businessman with dire plans for our hero. Unsurprising this might feel familiar, as few have ever accused Palmiotti and Gray of blowing readers' minds with original concepts.

I dunno. I've already thought too much about this, especially for something I'm highly suggesting you avoid.

I was going to do a give-away of Ol' Speed Racer here, but I like all of you too much, so I'm not going to force this DVD upon you.

There's also a trailer for an Avengers Babies movie on the DVD. Or Avengers Next. Or Something.