2004 Mellies, Day Numero Dos
Today we see two categories as I try to get through this nightmare of my own making!
Most loathsome television program
Jim
The Jury - This is just one of those shows which illustrates that the writers and producers have only a little working knowledge of the law and its procedure. I suppose that they pitched the show as a "Twelve Angry Men" for cynical, modern times, but it comes off merely as a third rate legal drama in which jurors are depicted as either misunderstanding key facts and evidence or refusing to follow jury instructions. I had originally set my Tivo record this program as a Season Pass, but upon watching the first episode, I was so disappointed that I cancelled the pass so as to avoid all future showings.
(editor's note: Sorry, Jamie...) Wonderfalls - Despite the protestations of viewers, the cancellation of this acclaimed and praised (and mostly unwatched) television program was warranted. The program tried valiantly (too valiantly, in fact) to be hip and clever and postmodern and wry and ironic, and thus, its humor and narratives seemed forced. Oh, how I grimaced when the writers had their main character use the recently coined word "frenemy," a combination of "friend" and "enemy," just to showcase their hipness and familiarity with Internet lingo. Ugh
Jamie
The Simple Life. Because Paris and Nicole will never realize what dumb dipshits they really are.
Jilly
The Swan--televised trainwreck
Randy
No answer
Maxwell
The Swan--I admit I watched this a couple of times for the sheer train wreck morbid fascination, and for this I will be judged in heaven
Scaljon
Again with the Kutcher. Punk'd is stupid and juvenile
Harms
Fox News - if I must be specific I think it's Hannity and Colmes
Valdez
No Answer
Nord
a. Survivor b. American Idol
The League Chimes In:
Goodness. You know, of the shows I watched this year, I'm tempted to say anything starring Wolf Blitzer is pretty lame... but is it loathsome? Not really.
This one is a tough call, and since I haven't actually seen The Swan, I have to believe it's strong showing here indicates the loathsome nature of this show. And I thionk going into why here is a bit redundant.
The show I did see an episode or two of, which outstripped the embarassment of Jessica Simpson or the grotesque behavior of The Simple Life, was MTV I Want a Famous Face.
The show seems like some bizarre sequence from Robocop or The Running Man. There's no other term for this show than "fucked-up." The show follows really fucked-up people who worship A and B list celebrities, and, unable to stalk them on their Piggly Wiggly hourly wage, decide they will contract MTV to get them plastic surgery and a make-over so that they may look like bizarro versions of their favorite celebrities. This isn't to mention that these people don't want to look like, say... George F. Will, or Cokie Roberts. These people want to look like fucked-up celebrities like Mariah Carey or Nelson or something. But they don't. They end up looking gross and weird, and MTV sort of fawns all over them like this is something really rational to do, and not something really fucked-up to do.
I mean, this is the equivalent of you or I deciding we REALLY like Doc from Love Boat, so we're going to go get tube socks, stethoscope and a white sailor suit.
Anyway, virtually all of MTV's programming is seriously jacked, but this show is seriously fucked-up.
But, maybe less fucked up than giving people a total body make-over and THEN making them compete in a beauty contest.
Most loathsome movie (theatrical release)
Jim
Van Helsing - Said I during my initial review of this movie: "Words fail me when I attempt to describe the utter awfulness of Van Helsing. Adjectives like 'abominable,' 'regrettable,' 'ridiculous,' and 'asinine' seem appropriate, but even they cannot convey the magnitude of the film's idiocy. I could attempt to cobble together a word or phrase ('deus ex machina-ridden' perhaps?) to achieve my great level of disdain for this cinematic detrititus, but even that would not accomplish the task."I can think of no other film released this year that was as awful.
However, for good measure, I'll include this as my second nomination: Dogville, a film about America by a pretentious Danish director who has never visited America. Lars von Trier has his moments (Breaking the Waves) but his downward spiral into fashionable pretension resulted in Dogville, which even The New Yorker called "unwatchable." I did not see it.
Jamie
Garfield. Because Garfield ceased being funny circa 1991.
Jilly
haven't seen enough to answer
Randy
No answer
Maxwell
Troy-within the first five minutes Brad Pitt smells the fart. It looks like Wolfgang Peterson took a joke take for each of Orlando Bloom's scenes, a "Don't worry, we'll never use this" take, and used all of them. There is one hot sex scene with a knife, but even Brad Pitt's naked ass cannot save this film.
Scaljon
hmm. I haven't seen anything in a while that was truly awful. I'm guessing Farenheit 9/11 for the obvious reasons
Harms
The Passion of the Christ for undermining the hopeful message of Christianity and turning it into a death cult on the par of Q'tub's death cult.
Valdez
The Matrix Revolutions. The original was fantastically entertaining. Reloaded raised enough questions to keep me interested. The finale was endlessly disappointing.
Nord
a. Lost in Translation b. The Passion of the Christ
The League Chimes in:
Looks like The League has turned on Gibson's exploration of Christ's final days. I never saw this flick, so I don't really have much to say about it. I mean, I loved the book, so I wasn't sure if I wanted to spoil it with a movie.
You know what movie really pissed me off?
Disney's Home on the Range. This movie wasn't funny. It wasn't clever. It was some nice, clean animation, but the humor was derivitive of every Disney movie since Aladdin.
And, if nothing else, it's the last 2D movie from Disney for the foreseeable future. Blah. Just thinking about it irritates me too much to go on again.
Monday, July 19, 2004
The League is slowly but surely succeeding in its elaborate plan.
Just now, Jim D. e-mailed me to let me know he'd been to Mile High Comics in Denver. Jim had not bought a comic in years, but recently, I dragged him back... kicking and screaming. Apparently, he's newly fascinated with zombie and horror comics. Unfortunately, I don't pick up too many horror comics, so I am unable to be much help, but I am more than 100% supportive. I actually am digging Darkhorse's Freaks of the Heartland. it's not a horror comic, per se... but it is done in the milieu.
And then Cowgirl Funk posted about her 4th, and how she managed to incorporate Free Comic Book Day into her day. And the story is well worth reading. She seems to like Spidey. Hey, I love Spidey. More power to her.
Just now, Jim D. e-mailed me to let me know he'd been to Mile High Comics in Denver. Jim had not bought a comic in years, but recently, I dragged him back... kicking and screaming. Apparently, he's newly fascinated with zombie and horror comics. Unfortunately, I don't pick up too many horror comics, so I am unable to be much help, but I am more than 100% supportive. I actually am digging Darkhorse's Freaks of the Heartland. it's not a horror comic, per se... but it is done in the milieu.
And then Cowgirl Funk posted about her 4th, and how she managed to incorporate Free Comic Book Day into her day. And the story is well worth reading. She seems to like Spidey. Hey, I love Spidey. More power to her.
YES!!!
Arnie finally plays off his own caricature as means to a political end! And, predictably, everyone else acts like a caricature, too...
How many other Governors provide this sort of powder keg atmosphere? Not dull, old Janet Napolitano out here in Arizona.
Arnie finally plays off his own caricature as means to a political end! And, predictably, everyone else acts like a caricature, too...
How many other Governors provide this sort of powder keg atmosphere? Not dull, old Janet Napolitano out here in Arizona.
The very first rumor about a new Superman movie to not make me break out into a cold sweat hit the internet this weekend.
Apparently Bryan Singer (director of The Usual Suspects, X-Men 1 and X-Men 2) has signed on to develop the new Superman movie from Warner Bros.. Following McG (Charlie's Angels 1 and 2) being onboard twice to direct, and Brett Ratner (Rush Hour 1-15) being the other director previously affiliated with the movie, it appears Warner Bros. (who owns DC Comics, and thusly, Superman) is trying to follow the Marvel Comics path to success. By stealing Marvel's directors. Apparently WB has no idea how to handle the material, so they'll take the position of lifting Marvel's talent. Real original, guys...
Much has been made over the past two years over a JJ Abrahms (sp?) script which detailed Clark's adolescence and first appearance as Superman, etc... and riffed on The Death of Superman. The script also eliminated Superman's additional moniker "Last Son of Krypton" by, for some reason, keeping Krypton alive and well instead of blowing the planet up and giving Superman a large part of the basis for his character (ever wonder why he's so hell-bent on trying to save all of us puny earthlings?). The JJ script was written after the success of Matrix 1, and was part of planned trilogy of Superman movies in which Superman saves Earth and Krypton from Brendan Frasier.
The JJ script was read by AICN's Moriarty, detailed in Moriarty's review, and sounded like a decent sci-fi script, but had absolutely nothing to do with Superman. WB freaked out as the leaking and subsequent panning of the script became what some might estimate to be the single largest scandal ever to hit AICN. Basically, nobody but dumb 'ol Harry liked the script (who will like anything, as long as he continues to get access), and the WB almost did a mercy kill on the project. Only that didn't happen, most likely due to Hollywood politics.
(Keep in mind, when JJ wrote the script to his version of Superman in 2002, his pet project had been ABC's Alias, a criticially touted program which appeared to be a show people liked, and with a growing audience. In Summer 2004, most people aren't sure if the show is still on the air).
Well, DC and WB kept kicking the development of that script around until this week. For the past year or so, the script has been under McG. The problem was: McG's sophomore effort with Charlie's Angels 2 was a disaster, critically and financially. And somebody at the WB didn't want to hand this guy the $200 million he was asking for to make the movie on a script nobody seemed to like. Plus, McG wanted NYC as Metropolis, and WB is, for some reason, hell bent on Sydney, Australia. NYC was too expensive, the WB said.
Apparently, nobody is quite sure what the new movie would be like or about, or what Singer has in mind. Except that some genius at WB noticed that they've been running a show called "Smallville" over on their TV network. Apparently this show already tells how and where Superman came from. The rumor mill is churning that this movie takes place after the initial appearance of Superman, and, possibly, long after he first appears. This gives Smallville some breathing space and gives fans of the first Superman movies some comfort zone.
AICN seems to believe the movie is going to pick up where Superman IV left off. Or possibly Superman II. (I'd prefer the continuation of John Cryer's character from Superman IV blown out into his own series of movies). I don't know.
All I know is: starting over with a new script and director at this point can't be all bad. And Bryan Singer has handily directed the first two X-Men movies, so you get a fairly good idea of how seriously he'll take the material.
But Singer's attachment to Superman puts immediate development of X-Men 3 in serious jeopardy. The X-Men cast seems to insist on having Singer as a director, and many may not return without Singer at the helm. Personally, I wanted to see Phoenix on film, but I'll take Superman first, any day.
With Batman Begins set to hit next year (the Christopher Nolan directed Batman origin flick), could be a good year for DC.
Except: another rumor hit this week that Jack Black has optioned The Green Lantern franchise and wants to make a wacky Green Lantern movie. Of all the DC characters, Green Lantern is probably the least inherently funny, but apparently Jack Black wants to do a movie like The Mask, and WB wants to be in bed with him.
One step forward, two steps back.
Now I'm just waiting for Beyonce Knowles to begin developing Wonder Woman and Tom Green to get Hawkman. Then I can officially say that WB tries to ruin all that is fair and good.
Check out the CNN.com story
Here's the story from Newsarama.com
SINGER TO DIRECT WARNER BROS. SUPERMAN
Trading allegiances for at least one film, Variety reports that on Friday, X-Men director Bryan Singer signed with Warner Brothers to both develop and direct the Superman film.
According to the report, Singer will work with Michael Dogherty and Dan Harris to develop the film, which is slated to begin production in late 2004 in Australia. The deal with Warner Brothers makes it look unlikely that Singer will return to direct X-Men 3. The other project that Singer was reportedly set to develop and direct, a remake of Logan’s Run may still be on the table, though the trade reported the film may fall now to Constantine director Francis Lawrence.
The studio has also shelved JJ Abrams’ version of the script.
Prior to Singer, Charlie’s Angels director McG was attached to the film, though he left the picture after a disagreement with the studio over location and budget.
Variety also reports that Singer will bring a new take to the franchise for the film, most likely scrapping the original treatment’s focus on Superman’s battle with Luthor, and a mysterious visitor from Krypton who has come to earth to hunt Superman. (League editor's note: This was Brendan Frasier playing Superman's evil cousin who was coming to Earth to kill Superman so he couldn't return to Krypton to fulfill some prophecy about Superman saving Krypton. because brendan Frasier had taken control of Krypton or something...)
Singer told Variety: "My interest in Superman dates back many, many years," Singer said. "In fact, it was the Richard Donner classic film that was my day-to-day inspiration in shaping the X-Men universe for the screen. I feel that Superman has been late in his return and it is time for him to fly again."
Apparently Bryan Singer (director of The Usual Suspects, X-Men 1 and X-Men 2) has signed on to develop the new Superman movie from Warner Bros.. Following McG (Charlie's Angels 1 and 2) being onboard twice to direct, and Brett Ratner (Rush Hour 1-15) being the other director previously affiliated with the movie, it appears Warner Bros. (who owns DC Comics, and thusly, Superman) is trying to follow the Marvel Comics path to success. By stealing Marvel's directors. Apparently WB has no idea how to handle the material, so they'll take the position of lifting Marvel's talent. Real original, guys...
Much has been made over the past two years over a JJ Abrahms (sp?) script which detailed Clark's adolescence and first appearance as Superman, etc... and riffed on The Death of Superman. The script also eliminated Superman's additional moniker "Last Son of Krypton" by, for some reason, keeping Krypton alive and well instead of blowing the planet up and giving Superman a large part of the basis for his character (ever wonder why he's so hell-bent on trying to save all of us puny earthlings?). The JJ script was written after the success of Matrix 1, and was part of planned trilogy of Superman movies in which Superman saves Earth and Krypton from Brendan Frasier.
The JJ script was read by AICN's Moriarty, detailed in Moriarty's review, and sounded like a decent sci-fi script, but had absolutely nothing to do with Superman. WB freaked out as the leaking and subsequent panning of the script became what some might estimate to be the single largest scandal ever to hit AICN. Basically, nobody but dumb 'ol Harry liked the script (who will like anything, as long as he continues to get access), and the WB almost did a mercy kill on the project. Only that didn't happen, most likely due to Hollywood politics.
(Keep in mind, when JJ wrote the script to his version of Superman in 2002, his pet project had been ABC's Alias, a criticially touted program which appeared to be a show people liked, and with a growing audience. In Summer 2004, most people aren't sure if the show is still on the air).
Well, DC and WB kept kicking the development of that script around until this week. For the past year or so, the script has been under McG. The problem was: McG's sophomore effort with Charlie's Angels 2 was a disaster, critically and financially. And somebody at the WB didn't want to hand this guy the $200 million he was asking for to make the movie on a script nobody seemed to like. Plus, McG wanted NYC as Metropolis, and WB is, for some reason, hell bent on Sydney, Australia. NYC was too expensive, the WB said.
Apparently, nobody is quite sure what the new movie would be like or about, or what Singer has in mind. Except that some genius at WB noticed that they've been running a show called "Smallville" over on their TV network. Apparently this show already tells how and where Superman came from. The rumor mill is churning that this movie takes place after the initial appearance of Superman, and, possibly, long after he first appears. This gives Smallville some breathing space and gives fans of the first Superman movies some comfort zone.
AICN seems to believe the movie is going to pick up where Superman IV left off. Or possibly Superman II. (I'd prefer the continuation of John Cryer's character from Superman IV blown out into his own series of movies). I don't know.
All I know is: starting over with a new script and director at this point can't be all bad. And Bryan Singer has handily directed the first two X-Men movies, so you get a fairly good idea of how seriously he'll take the material.
But Singer's attachment to Superman puts immediate development of X-Men 3 in serious jeopardy. The X-Men cast seems to insist on having Singer as a director, and many may not return without Singer at the helm. Personally, I wanted to see Phoenix on film, but I'll take Superman first, any day.
With Batman Begins set to hit next year (the Christopher Nolan directed Batman origin flick), could be a good year for DC.
Except: another rumor hit this week that Jack Black has optioned The Green Lantern franchise and wants to make a wacky Green Lantern movie. Of all the DC characters, Green Lantern is probably the least inherently funny, but apparently Jack Black wants to do a movie like The Mask, and WB wants to be in bed with him.
One step forward, two steps back.
Now I'm just waiting for Beyonce Knowles to begin developing Wonder Woman and Tom Green to get Hawkman. Then I can officially say that WB tries to ruin all that is fair and good.
Check out the CNN.com story
Here's the story from Newsarama.com
SINGER TO DIRECT WARNER BROS. SUPERMAN
Trading allegiances for at least one film, Variety reports that on Friday, X-Men director Bryan Singer signed with Warner Brothers to both develop and direct the Superman film.
According to the report, Singer will work with Michael Dogherty and Dan Harris to develop the film, which is slated to begin production in late 2004 in Australia. The deal with Warner Brothers makes it look unlikely that Singer will return to direct X-Men 3. The other project that Singer was reportedly set to develop and direct, a remake of Logan’s Run may still be on the table, though the trade reported the film may fall now to Constantine director Francis Lawrence.
The studio has also shelved JJ Abrams’ version of the script.
Prior to Singer, Charlie’s Angels director McG was attached to the film, though he left the picture after a disagreement with the studio over location and budget.
Variety also reports that Singer will bring a new take to the franchise for the film, most likely scrapping the original treatment’s focus on Superman’s battle with Luthor, and a mysterious visitor from Krypton who has come to earth to hunt Superman. (League editor's note: This was Brendan Frasier playing Superman's evil cousin who was coming to Earth to kill Superman so he couldn't return to Krypton to fulfill some prophecy about Superman saving Krypton. because brendan Frasier had taken control of Krypton or something...)
Singer told Variety: "My interest in Superman dates back many, many years," Singer said. "In fact, it was the Richard Donner classic film that was my day-to-day inspiration in shaping the X-Men universe for the screen. I feel that Superman has been late in his return and it is time for him to fly again."
The 2004 Mellies, Day Numero Uno
This is too complicated. Next time, we're doing one category and everybody gets one vote.
The thing is, you guys did a fantastic job, and thus... I plan to share all noms and then announce the winners.
One
Day
at
a
Time.
'Cause I'm crazy like that, Leaguers.
Later I'll be posting links back to everybody's blogs for bloggers who sent in a nom.
TODAY'S CATEGORY: Most Loathsome Celebrity
Jim D.
Paris Hilton - Need I say more?
Michael Moore - The self-righteous Moore, though somtimes amusing, is no documentarian. By no means can the sort of film he makes be characterized as a documentary. Social satire, perhaps, but not strictly factual. His tendency to twist facts, rearrange the chronology of events, and omit surrounding circumstances to establish context, illustrate that he is a demagogue by any definition. (See here and here for my previous thoughts on Michael Moore.).
Jamie
Jennifer Love Hewitt. Because she refuses to go away and for her participation in Garfield.
Jilly
Jennifer Lopez--and I'm not allowed to legally get married. she is the example of why nobody should be!
Randy
No answer
Maxwell
Nicole Richie isn't the biological daughter of Lionel Richie and she hasn't made a sex tape. Why is she famous?
Scaljon
Well, Tom Green hasn't done anything in a while. So it probably has to be Ashton Kutcher. Beyond wasting oxygen that clearly belongs to others, he's just annoying and stupid. Actually, taking that into account, he ties with Nicole Richie
Harms
Simon Cowell. It's part of his act to act loathsome, and I know that, I don't like the act though.
Valdez
No Answer
Nord
a. Jessica Simpson b. Courtney Love
The League chimes in...
There are so many tools on the TV to choose from, it's a real shame that we can only pick one or two (or whatever...)
But, wow... People really dislike Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie. And who can blame them? It appears that The Simple Life duo has really drawn the ire of Loyal Leaguers. I've never actually seen "The Simple Life," but everything I've seen of the pair in ads and commercials pretty much makes The League want to begin to support communism if these two are a demonstrable example of the end result of successful capitalism.
In truth, the latest spate of Paris Hilton interviews was what spawned this particular category, but I'm glad to see that I am not alone.
This is too complicated. Next time, we're doing one category and everybody gets one vote.
The thing is, you guys did a fantastic job, and thus... I plan to share all noms and then announce the winners.
One
Day
at
a
Time.
'Cause I'm crazy like that, Leaguers.
Later I'll be posting links back to everybody's blogs for bloggers who sent in a nom.
TODAY'S CATEGORY: Most Loathsome Celebrity
Jim D.
Paris Hilton - Need I say more?
Michael Moore - The self-righteous Moore, though somtimes amusing, is no documentarian. By no means can the sort of film he makes be characterized as a documentary. Social satire, perhaps, but not strictly factual. His tendency to twist facts, rearrange the chronology of events, and omit surrounding circumstances to establish context, illustrate that he is a demagogue by any definition. (See here and here for my previous thoughts on Michael Moore.).
Jamie
Jennifer Love Hewitt. Because she refuses to go away and for her participation in Garfield.
Jilly
Jennifer Lopez--and I'm not allowed to legally get married. she is the example of why nobody should be!
Randy
No answer
Maxwell
Nicole Richie isn't the biological daughter of Lionel Richie and she hasn't made a sex tape. Why is she famous?
Scaljon
Well, Tom Green hasn't done anything in a while. So it probably has to be Ashton Kutcher. Beyond wasting oxygen that clearly belongs to others, he's just annoying and stupid. Actually, taking that into account, he ties with Nicole Richie
Harms
Simon Cowell. It's part of his act to act loathsome, and I know that, I don't like the act though.
Valdez
No Answer
Nord
a. Jessica Simpson b. Courtney Love
The League chimes in...
There are so many tools on the TV to choose from, it's a real shame that we can only pick one or two (or whatever...)
But, wow... People really dislike Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie. And who can blame them? It appears that The Simple Life duo has really drawn the ire of Loyal Leaguers. I've never actually seen "The Simple Life," but everything I've seen of the pair in ads and commercials pretty much makes The League want to begin to support communism if these two are a demonstrable example of the end result of successful capitalism.
In truth, the latest spate of Paris Hilton interviews was what spawned this particular category, but I'm glad to see that I am not alone.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Steven G. Harms sends in the following.
It's a French anti-AIDS ad depicting Superman and Wonder Woman if they were to contract the disease.
As The League is usually not very useful, we thought the least we could do is to promote a little AIDS awareness... even if the ad is in French and we're not sure what it says.
click here for the link.
here is a link to a more complete, but no less French, website with the images.
It's a French anti-AIDS ad depicting Superman and Wonder Woman if they were to contract the disease.
As The League is usually not very useful, we thought the least we could do is to promote a little AIDS awareness... even if the ad is in French and we're not sure what it says.
click here for the link.
here is a link to a more complete, but no less French, website with the images.
Randy sends this one in, a comparison between the robots in the new film I, Robot, and those seen in a Bjork video from a few years back.
I need Jeff to help me locate an image from the way cooler robot from the Autechre video from 1996 or 1997.
In the meantime, I remind you all that I, Robot was foreshadowed by the late-80's triumph, R.O.T.O.R.
I need Jeff to help me locate an image from the way cooler robot from the Autechre video from 1996 or 1997.
In the meantime, I remind you all that I, Robot was foreshadowed by the late-80's triumph, R.O.T.O.R.
Hello to Kevin Bankston, should he actually pop up here.
Kevin has forwarded this blog entry to me, which he believed I might enjoy. And now I share it with you.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Hulk saw movie about bug-man and it was good but needed more smashing.
AND HULK DID NOT GET SNIFFLY DURING ROMANTIC SCENES SO IF YOU HEAR IRON
MAN OR THOR TALKING ABOUT IT THEY ARE LIARS.
The Incredible Hulk has a blog.
Kevin has forwarded this blog entry to me, which he believed I might enjoy. And now I share it with you.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Hulk saw movie about bug-man and it was good but needed more smashing.
AND HULK DID NOT GET SNIFFLY DURING ROMANTIC SCENES SO IF YOU HEAR IRON
MAN OR THOR TALKING ABOUT IT THEY ARE LIARS.
The Incredible Hulk has a blog.
and now this law related tale which will never see the light of day on Jim's site.
Straight from my wife's home state, another thrilling tale of judicial misconduct.
thanks to Randy for the link
Straight from my wife's home state, another thrilling tale of judicial misconduct.
thanks to Randy for the link
"I'm not normally a religious man... But if you're up there... Save me, Superman!" -Homer Simpson
thanks to RHPT.com for the quote
When I got married, as the reception ended my old man had rented this kind of classic convertible. I am sorry to say I can't remember much about it. I only saw it from the inside as, while we running down to the car, folks were blowing bubbles instead of tossing birdseed, and I got soap in my eye. All I knew is that I was then piled awkwardly into the convertible for a photo op.
We posed for some pictures, waved to everybody, and off we went.
And the last thing I heard as we pulled away from the curb was, "So long, Superman!"
It took me months to find out who that had been. Thanks to Jeff Shoemaker who said the only three words I remember from that evening after, "I do."
thanks to RHPT.com for the quote
When I got married, as the reception ended my old man had rented this kind of classic convertible. I am sorry to say I can't remember much about it. I only saw it from the inside as, while we running down to the car, folks were blowing bubbles instead of tossing birdseed, and I got soap in my eye. All I knew is that I was then piled awkwardly into the convertible for a photo op.
We posed for some pictures, waved to everybody, and off we went.
And the last thing I heard as we pulled away from the curb was, "So long, Superman!"
It took me months to find out who that had been. Thanks to Jeff Shoemaker who said the only three words I remember from that evening after, "I do."
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
And now back to our regular programming.
These guys are geniuses. If I weren't so lazy, I'd try this myself.
These guys are geniuses. If I weren't so lazy, I'd try this myself.
Leaguers, you know I do not often touch upon the political in this column.
Just thought I'd post this Amendment which certain folks in DC are currently trying to tinker with.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
On Wednesday, our Senate will be seeking to repeal Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights. The Senate shall be voting to decide whether or not citizens from our nation will be able find wedded happiness, or whether homosexuals will be relegated to the status of a second-class citizen. In deciding whether or not homosexuals can marry, our representatives are taking steps to ensure that they are the first congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment which can deny a portion of our citizenry the same freedoms given to others. If this Amendment passes, it will be the first sweeping law by our government to institutionalize discrimination with no chance of appeal.
This act is the single most egregious affront to liberty to face the United States in my lifetime. This is not an act being perpetrated by our nation's enemies. This is an attack on the freedom of our own citizenry by our own representatives.
I urge all Leaguers to visit the MoveOn.org web-site and sign the petition to stop the passage of the proposed Amendment banning Gay Marriage.
It's been stated in the media that the Senate doesn't have enough votes to get this Amendment through, and this is a largely parliamentary procedure, meant to divide the Democrats or the public, or some body of people who cannot agree on the issue. And the introduction of the Amendment is certainly an appeal to social conservatives, so in an election year, it's been reported to be a win-win political move. Consequently, the media is more or less writing this whole ordeal off as a bit of showmanship.
I don't agree. I apologize for breaking from the usual nonsense in these pages, but I do have a small (minute, by all counts) readership, and if I didn't say something on this issue, I don't think I'd be doing my duty as a citizen. I love the US for its potential and its promise and its unending ability to deliver to its citizens a chance for hope and prosperity. I recognize that these are things which are not possible in much of the rest of the world.
I am ashamed to witness the Senate's acts this week, whether for partisan favor, or out of genuine distrust of our own American citizenry. The contempt that the Senate shows for the American population with this proposed Amendment is no less dehumanizing than the Jim Crow Laws.
We were given an amazing document in the Constitution. But it could not be ratified without the Bill of Rights. These rights granted us the basis of the freedoms which we purport to enjoy, but somehow cannot abide our neighbors enjoying. The document has withstood the scrutiny of more than two-hundred years, withstanding the batterings of the times and even an ill-fated Amendment or two. The proposed Amendment does little more than weaken Amendment IX, and, by default, the Bill of Rights.
Our Constitution was designed to limit no one but our government, protecting the citizens from the excesses of the ambitious. No one vested in the freedom of our citizens should agree our citizenry can be told by their government that they are forbidden to engage in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Just thought I'd post this Amendment which certain folks in DC are currently trying to tinker with.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
On Wednesday, our Senate will be seeking to repeal Amendment IX of the Bill of Rights. The Senate shall be voting to decide whether or not citizens from our nation will be able find wedded happiness, or whether homosexuals will be relegated to the status of a second-class citizen. In deciding whether or not homosexuals can marry, our representatives are taking steps to ensure that they are the first congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment which can deny a portion of our citizenry the same freedoms given to others. If this Amendment passes, it will be the first sweeping law by our government to institutionalize discrimination with no chance of appeal.
This act is the single most egregious affront to liberty to face the United States in my lifetime. This is not an act being perpetrated by our nation's enemies. This is an attack on the freedom of our own citizenry by our own representatives.
I urge all Leaguers to visit the MoveOn.org web-site and sign the petition to stop the passage of the proposed Amendment banning Gay Marriage.
It's been stated in the media that the Senate doesn't have enough votes to get this Amendment through, and this is a largely parliamentary procedure, meant to divide the Democrats or the public, or some body of people who cannot agree on the issue. And the introduction of the Amendment is certainly an appeal to social conservatives, so in an election year, it's been reported to be a win-win political move. Consequently, the media is more or less writing this whole ordeal off as a bit of showmanship.
I don't agree. I apologize for breaking from the usual nonsense in these pages, but I do have a small (minute, by all counts) readership, and if I didn't say something on this issue, I don't think I'd be doing my duty as a citizen. I love the US for its potential and its promise and its unending ability to deliver to its citizens a chance for hope and prosperity. I recognize that these are things which are not possible in much of the rest of the world.
I am ashamed to witness the Senate's acts this week, whether for partisan favor, or out of genuine distrust of our own American citizenry. The contempt that the Senate shows for the American population with this proposed Amendment is no less dehumanizing than the Jim Crow Laws.
We were given an amazing document in the Constitution. But it could not be ratified without the Bill of Rights. These rights granted us the basis of the freedoms which we purport to enjoy, but somehow cannot abide our neighbors enjoying. The document has withstood the scrutiny of more than two-hundred years, withstanding the batterings of the times and even an ill-fated Amendment or two. The proposed Amendment does little more than weaken Amendment IX, and, by default, the Bill of Rights.
Our Constitution was designed to limit no one but our government, protecting the citizens from the excesses of the ambitious. No one vested in the freedom of our citizens should agree our citizenry can be told by their government that they are forbidden to engage in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Looks like Squawkbox is down. So now all of you folks wishing to scream to the heavens your praises of The League will have to wait for a bit.
Anyone looking to give me $250K in venture capital?
Shoemaker sent in this e-bay item.
Part of me believes this is a hoax. I have a hard time believing that this sort of collection is in the hands of a single collector (unless it's that guy who owns Diamond. He has an AMAZING collection.) This poor soul appears to be in need of money, quick. Otherwise s/he wouldn't be selling this collection in one fell swoop.
Logic would dictate that this person should sell these comics off one at a time over an extended period. This would allow collectors without $200K burning a hole in their pocket to participate and bid on each comic individually, driving the cost up of each comic. By selling in bulk, the cost is now prohibitively high and only a company with good credit, or a rich bastard with lots of disposable income is going to be able to afford this. Which means the number of potential bidders just fell out the bottom.
Of course, you can't place everything on the auction block individually at once, either. The placement of so may valuable comics in the marketplace all at once would prevent collectors from being able to keep up with all the auctions and prevent them from bidding on enough comics to drive the prices up high enough. That's not to mention the dilution of the value of some of these comics as they are suddenly no longer "ultra-rare."
Just looking at the quality of this collection leads me to believe it's a big hoax. If it's not, this is probably the best collection of comics ever assembled for sale, and one wonders why the collector is liquidating in such a fashion. Holy cow.
Alas, I cannot determine who Filter81 is. It would be interesting to know.
Anyone looking to give me $250K in venture capital?
Shoemaker sent in this e-bay item.
Part of me believes this is a hoax. I have a hard time believing that this sort of collection is in the hands of a single collector (unless it's that guy who owns Diamond. He has an AMAZING collection.) This poor soul appears to be in need of money, quick. Otherwise s/he wouldn't be selling this collection in one fell swoop.
Logic would dictate that this person should sell these comics off one at a time over an extended period. This would allow collectors without $200K burning a hole in their pocket to participate and bid on each comic individually, driving the cost up of each comic. By selling in bulk, the cost is now prohibitively high and only a company with good credit, or a rich bastard with lots of disposable income is going to be able to afford this. Which means the number of potential bidders just fell out the bottom.
Of course, you can't place everything on the auction block individually at once, either. The placement of so may valuable comics in the marketplace all at once would prevent collectors from being able to keep up with all the auctions and prevent them from bidding on enough comics to drive the prices up high enough. That's not to mention the dilution of the value of some of these comics as they are suddenly no longer "ultra-rare."
Just looking at the quality of this collection leads me to believe it's a big hoax. If it's not, this is probably the best collection of comics ever assembled for sale, and one wonders why the collector is liquidating in such a fashion. Holy cow.
Alas, I cannot determine who Filter81 is. It would be interesting to know.
First, some business... which one of you was the one who demanded this find a home on DVD?
So today I meant to spend this evening working on the 2004 Mellies, and something funny happened. Something which hasn't happened since the Dungeons and Dragons/ Dracula 2000 incident of December 2000. I saw two movies in the theater in one day. But this time, I didn't walk out of the first movie.
The two movie thing was sort of a cop-out, since one of the movies was Spider-Man 2, which you might know I've already seen. The other movie was Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.
I strongly recommend Anchorman, and that's my review. It's a goofy comedy. What do you want?
I am dilignetly working on the 2004 Mellies, but we have 16 categories and a large number of participants. It's slow going.
Hopefully in the next day or two, you'll get something substantial out of me.
So today I meant to spend this evening working on the 2004 Mellies, and something funny happened. Something which hasn't happened since the Dungeons and Dragons/ Dracula 2000 incident of December 2000. I saw two movies in the theater in one day. But this time, I didn't walk out of the first movie.
The two movie thing was sort of a cop-out, since one of the movies was Spider-Man 2, which you might know I've already seen. The other movie was Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.
I strongly recommend Anchorman, and that's my review. It's a goofy comedy. What do you want?
I am dilignetly working on the 2004 Mellies, but we have 16 categories and a large number of participants. It's slow going.
Hopefully in the next day or two, you'll get something substantial out of me.
Friday, July 09, 2004
This one's for Shoemaker (and Dan, if he ever reads the damn site).
MTV article on Superman II v. Spider-Man 2
MTV article on Superman II v. Spider-Man 2
Jim was disappointed I could not join him in Houston to film the party scene for his movie as I had promised to do a year ago.
But Jim also never promised me the pre-packaged fun of Lt. Blender.
thanks to Jamie for the link.
But Jim also never promised me the pre-packaged fun of Lt. Blender.
thanks to Jamie for the link.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Review: Spider-Man 2
Movie reviews are a funny thing. Reviewers are required to do a few things:
1) not give away too much of the story so, no matter how bad, people will still not feel they've been robbed of any surprises which the movie might hold
2) provide very little context for the review unless pointing out references to other movies (this doesn't relate to documentaries as often)
I plan to do neither.
The reviews so far on Spider-Man 2 movie have been very good, with some exceptions.
I was Spider-Man for Halloween when I was 5. I don't remember knowing much about him aside from that he'd occasionally show up on The Electric Company, and that I'd seen the cartoon show from the 60's with the catchy theme song. I also had a Spider-Man belt that I used to try to hook over the door to climb up the wall. It never worked.
Then Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends took off, and I remember watching that very closely.
When I got into comics, I read Spider-Man comics for a while back in the 80's, but I was always more of an X-Men and Batman guy. I liked Spider-Man well enough, but if it came down to scrounging up money for three comics at the Piggly Wiggly, I was getting X-Men, Detective Comics and Batman. My main exposure to Spider-Man came from the newspaper strip, and a huge collection of the strips I had bought at a discount bookstore in Florida while on vacation. I will say I was there for the Todd MacFarlane kick-off of the short-lived Spider-Man series, and I have the super-sized annual where Petey and MJ tie the knot (Sorry to blow any surprises, but this happened in 1985, kids. If you don't know this by now, it's your own fault. You snooze, you lose.). And I remember losing my mind waiting for each issue of the classic Spidey tale, Kraven's Last Hunt , to hit the stands.
Then, in high school, I sunk into my "Vertigo only" phase, and Spider-Man was off my list.
But you can't read comics and not know a bit about Spider-Man. I watched the whole Clone Saga thing go down from afar. Some folks love it (ahem, you know who you are...). Others point to it as almost bankrupting Marvel Comics. I've not read it, and know it only by it's less than sterling reputation.
And then when I was getting out of college, Marvel decided to shake the dust off the Clone Saga era and revitalize the Spider-Man books. I started picking the comics up, and lo... They were good. And while I liked Amazing and Spectacular, they didn't inspire the same mania with which Justice League and Superman were filling my mind.
In a fit of curiosity, I started picking up the "Essential Spider-Man" books. All in black and white, printed on cheap newsprint, but costing only $15 and collecting 20+ issues at a time. I love these books. Pure Stan Lee, Ditko, Romita. Classic Spider-Man, pure Spider-man before writers and editors with no good ideas started adding clones, etc... And right about then, I was aware they were making a movie. But big deal... Have you ever seen the 1991 Captain America adaptation? Ay carumba.
But I LOVED that first Spider-Man movie. Loved it. Someone had finally brought the elements of a comic to the screen in a faithful and respectable fashion. Sure, Batman had been good back in '88, but that wasn't the same Batman I read in Detective and Batman comics. This was some weird guy with a weird car who dressed in a rubber batsuit. He was not a master of martial arts and the World's Greatest Detective. And while I love Superman... Let's face it, the movie gets pretty silly for stretches once they hit Metropolis.
But short of Empire Strikes Back, and maybe Godfather 2 (the Wrath of Corleone), have I really gotten much out of a sequel. So I was expecting something out of Spider-Man 2, but not the same visceral thrill I got out of the first film.
And I was wrong.
Spider-Man and Doc Ock freak me out
I loved Spider-Man 2. I honestly believe it's the best super-hero movie to date. The movie is not unflawed, and will no doubt receive the usual scorn and derision of those who know better... But it's going to be one of the movies I buy immediately on DVD (hopefully in some sort of deluxe packaging, the way I managed to pick up Spider-Man 1).
I'm at a bit of a loss to speak about the movie without gushing. Suffice it to say, I felt that the film doubled the efforts of the first movie to capture the essence of the Spider-Man comics, and delivered the feel of the comics while ditching some of the dead weight which 40 years of straight Spider-Man stories have accumulated.
You have to understand a few things. For some of us, we have more invested in Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson's relationship than the relationships of our friends. Seeing Petey and MJ on the big screen fulfilling in two hours what it took the comics more than a decade to accomplish is no small feat. And if they do it this well in the film, I can ignore the fact that Gwen Stacy simply doesn't exist in the movies. For those of you who don't know who Gwen Stacy is... Well, something bad happens to her. Something that makes comic fans not like the combination of bridges, damsels in distress and the Green Goblin.
I always liked Doc Ock in the comics, but I loved Alfred Molina's interpretation even better. The comic's Doc Ock is a raving megalomaniac. In 1963, all you needed in order to be a super-villain was to be a bit funny looking and believe yourself to be an unsurpassed genius, and sooner or later, you were tussling with Spidey. Since then, they've developed Doc Ock. But the script Molina was given, and what he managed to do with it wiped away any misgivings I had on the issue. This villain made sense to me.
Ultimate Spider-Man scribe Brian Michael Bendis has stated that his entire MO for approaching comics, but especially Spider-Man is: make the situation bad. Then make it worse. Then make the situation unwinnable. Then find a way for our hero to triumph.
And that's what this movie gives us for Peter Parker. He's got to deal with his guilt over Uncle Ben's death and admitting his failure to Aunt May. He's got to accept that his two lives will never intersect. He's got to deal with a lot of issues that are basically character issues, that, super-hero or no, are interesting to watch. And all while dealing with the core of what would have been a fine movie unto itself, he's got to deal with the insane menace of a mechanical armed mad scientist (who has his own bag of problems).
Tobey Maguire remembers where he wrote the answers to his exam
These are problems I can watch on screen for two hours. And Tobey Maguire is actor enough to handle it all. I can believe in his Peter Parker and not feel embarrassed for the poor actor having to trudge through the role.
The effects in this movie easily surpass those of the first movie. The choreography of the fight scenes is insane. In a post-Matrix world, I was amazed to see fight scenes where people were able to perform superhuman feats, and still look as if they were hitting each other in something resembling an actual fight and not The Ice Capades.
What tweaked me? The movie does do two things which, for some reason, a lot of comic book movies do. But it did them better than most.
1) The villain discovers the hero's identity at some point. In the comics, Doc Ock and Spidey only really know each other in their super-human identities. But they made this work fairly well in this movie, and not only from a narrative standpoint did this work, but from a logical standpoint, it fit. It's just been done before (see the odd ending of Batman Returns sometime...).
As far as Peter's other unmaskings, these will surely irritate some Marvel Zombies and fanboys, but from a narrative standpoint, these were seamlessly interwoven, and advanced not just the plot but the character.
2) The hero loses his mojo. Superman II saw this. Hell, even Judge Dredd did this routine. It worked in Superman II, and it works here. In fact, it works amazingly well here. Superman II posed a hypothetical question which really made no sense. You must quit being Superman to have sex with Lois Lane. Will you do it?
What? Why? Lara (Superman's mum) never says. She just insists Superman must lose his mojo, and he goes along with it. I suppose you could infer the "well, Lois is a target" thing, but that isn't really what Lara seems to be hinting at. What my 20+ year old mind makes out of the idea is fairly grisly, and I'd rather not get into it here.
Spider-Man 2 sees the loss of mojo as something of an outward manifestation of internal problems. It grants Peter what he wants, but highlights what he's leaving behind. And I think it works pretty well.
The show-stopper for me of Spider-Man 2?
Aunt May.
Rosemary Harris lights up the screen as Aunt May
Rosemary Harris gives us an Aunt May we all should want. Twice in the movie, Rosemary Harris absolutely broke my heart. And maybe it's all these years of reading Spider-Man, but I hope you guys liked those scenes as much as I did.
The first scene was after Peter's birthday party (and I'll let you guys see this one yourselves if you haven't).
The second scene included the monologue Aunt May delivers to Peter as he seems past his cross-roads, and appears content with returning to a normal life. The monologue sums up everything those of us in the superhero-reading community have always loved about the idea of a superhero, and why we pick up these damn comic books each and every month.
Harris's commitment to the monologue, the writer's execution and Raimi's direction leap out as what can happen if you treat the subject material properly, and understand why Spider-Man and superheroes need to exist, even if just as fictional characters.
And that's it. A rave review from The League.
There's probably more to write about from a critical standpoint, but this wasn't meant to be a critique, it's a review, and there's a difference. I haven't mentioned some key performances, or interesting visual imagery, or a lot of other things worth talking about. Maybe later. I think this review is long enough.
Kirsten Dunst is hot
My final, gushing note is that I loved MJ's last scene with Peter. "Go get 'em, tiger."
Indeed.
Movie reviews are a funny thing. Reviewers are required to do a few things:
1) not give away too much of the story so, no matter how bad, people will still not feel they've been robbed of any surprises which the movie might hold
2) provide very little context for the review unless pointing out references to other movies (this doesn't relate to documentaries as often)
I plan to do neither.
The reviews so far on Spider-Man 2 movie have been very good, with some exceptions.
I was Spider-Man for Halloween when I was 5. I don't remember knowing much about him aside from that he'd occasionally show up on The Electric Company, and that I'd seen the cartoon show from the 60's with the catchy theme song. I also had a Spider-Man belt that I used to try to hook over the door to climb up the wall. It never worked.
Then Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends took off, and I remember watching that very closely.
When I got into comics, I read Spider-Man comics for a while back in the 80's, but I was always more of an X-Men and Batman guy. I liked Spider-Man well enough, but if it came down to scrounging up money for three comics at the Piggly Wiggly, I was getting X-Men, Detective Comics and Batman. My main exposure to Spider-Man came from the newspaper strip, and a huge collection of the strips I had bought at a discount bookstore in Florida while on vacation. I will say I was there for the Todd MacFarlane kick-off of the short-lived Spider-Man series, and I have the super-sized annual where Petey and MJ tie the knot (Sorry to blow any surprises, but this happened in 1985, kids. If you don't know this by now, it's your own fault. You snooze, you lose.). And I remember losing my mind waiting for each issue of the classic Spidey tale, Kraven's Last Hunt , to hit the stands.
Then, in high school, I sunk into my "Vertigo only" phase, and Spider-Man was off my list.
But you can't read comics and not know a bit about Spider-Man. I watched the whole Clone Saga thing go down from afar. Some folks love it (ahem, you know who you are...). Others point to it as almost bankrupting Marvel Comics. I've not read it, and know it only by it's less than sterling reputation.
And then when I was getting out of college, Marvel decided to shake the dust off the Clone Saga era and revitalize the Spider-Man books. I started picking the comics up, and lo... They were good. And while I liked Amazing and Spectacular, they didn't inspire the same mania with which Justice League and Superman were filling my mind.
In a fit of curiosity, I started picking up the "Essential Spider-Man" books. All in black and white, printed on cheap newsprint, but costing only $15 and collecting 20+ issues at a time. I love these books. Pure Stan Lee, Ditko, Romita. Classic Spider-Man, pure Spider-man before writers and editors with no good ideas started adding clones, etc... And right about then, I was aware they were making a movie. But big deal... Have you ever seen the 1991 Captain America adaptation? Ay carumba.
But I LOVED that first Spider-Man movie. Loved it. Someone had finally brought the elements of a comic to the screen in a faithful and respectable fashion. Sure, Batman had been good back in '88, but that wasn't the same Batman I read in Detective and Batman comics. This was some weird guy with a weird car who dressed in a rubber batsuit. He was not a master of martial arts and the World's Greatest Detective. And while I love Superman... Let's face it, the movie gets pretty silly for stretches once they hit Metropolis.
But short of Empire Strikes Back, and maybe Godfather 2 (the Wrath of Corleone), have I really gotten much out of a sequel. So I was expecting something out of Spider-Man 2, but not the same visceral thrill I got out of the first film.
And I was wrong.
Spider-Man and Doc Ock freak me out
I loved Spider-Man 2. I honestly believe it's the best super-hero movie to date. The movie is not unflawed, and will no doubt receive the usual scorn and derision of those who know better... But it's going to be one of the movies I buy immediately on DVD (hopefully in some sort of deluxe packaging, the way I managed to pick up Spider-Man 1).
I'm at a bit of a loss to speak about the movie without gushing. Suffice it to say, I felt that the film doubled the efforts of the first movie to capture the essence of the Spider-Man comics, and delivered the feel of the comics while ditching some of the dead weight which 40 years of straight Spider-Man stories have accumulated.
You have to understand a few things. For some of us, we have more invested in Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson's relationship than the relationships of our friends. Seeing Petey and MJ on the big screen fulfilling in two hours what it took the comics more than a decade to accomplish is no small feat. And if they do it this well in the film, I can ignore the fact that Gwen Stacy simply doesn't exist in the movies. For those of you who don't know who Gwen Stacy is... Well, something bad happens to her. Something that makes comic fans not like the combination of bridges, damsels in distress and the Green Goblin.
I always liked Doc Ock in the comics, but I loved Alfred Molina's interpretation even better. The comic's Doc Ock is a raving megalomaniac. In 1963, all you needed in order to be a super-villain was to be a bit funny looking and believe yourself to be an unsurpassed genius, and sooner or later, you were tussling with Spidey. Since then, they've developed Doc Ock. But the script Molina was given, and what he managed to do with it wiped away any misgivings I had on the issue. This villain made sense to me.
Ultimate Spider-Man scribe Brian Michael Bendis has stated that his entire MO for approaching comics, but especially Spider-Man is: make the situation bad. Then make it worse. Then make the situation unwinnable. Then find a way for our hero to triumph.
And that's what this movie gives us for Peter Parker. He's got to deal with his guilt over Uncle Ben's death and admitting his failure to Aunt May. He's got to accept that his two lives will never intersect. He's got to deal with a lot of issues that are basically character issues, that, super-hero or no, are interesting to watch. And all while dealing with the core of what would have been a fine movie unto itself, he's got to deal with the insane menace of a mechanical armed mad scientist (who has his own bag of problems).
Tobey Maguire remembers where he wrote the answers to his exam
These are problems I can watch on screen for two hours. And Tobey Maguire is actor enough to handle it all. I can believe in his Peter Parker and not feel embarrassed for the poor actor having to trudge through the role.
The effects in this movie easily surpass those of the first movie. The choreography of the fight scenes is insane. In a post-Matrix world, I was amazed to see fight scenes where people were able to perform superhuman feats, and still look as if they were hitting each other in something resembling an actual fight and not The Ice Capades.
What tweaked me? The movie does do two things which, for some reason, a lot of comic book movies do. But it did them better than most.
1) The villain discovers the hero's identity at some point. In the comics, Doc Ock and Spidey only really know each other in their super-human identities. But they made this work fairly well in this movie, and not only from a narrative standpoint did this work, but from a logical standpoint, it fit. It's just been done before (see the odd ending of Batman Returns sometime...).
As far as Peter's other unmaskings, these will surely irritate some Marvel Zombies and fanboys, but from a narrative standpoint, these were seamlessly interwoven, and advanced not just the plot but the character.
2) The hero loses his mojo. Superman II saw this. Hell, even Judge Dredd did this routine. It worked in Superman II, and it works here. In fact, it works amazingly well here. Superman II posed a hypothetical question which really made no sense. You must quit being Superman to have sex with Lois Lane. Will you do it?
What? Why? Lara (Superman's mum) never says. She just insists Superman must lose his mojo, and he goes along with it. I suppose you could infer the "well, Lois is a target" thing, but that isn't really what Lara seems to be hinting at. What my 20+ year old mind makes out of the idea is fairly grisly, and I'd rather not get into it here.
Spider-Man 2 sees the loss of mojo as something of an outward manifestation of internal problems. It grants Peter what he wants, but highlights what he's leaving behind. And I think it works pretty well.
The show-stopper for me of Spider-Man 2?
Aunt May.
Rosemary Harris lights up the screen as Aunt May
Rosemary Harris gives us an Aunt May we all should want. Twice in the movie, Rosemary Harris absolutely broke my heart. And maybe it's all these years of reading Spider-Man, but I hope you guys liked those scenes as much as I did.
The first scene was after Peter's birthday party (and I'll let you guys see this one yourselves if you haven't).
The second scene included the monologue Aunt May delivers to Peter as he seems past his cross-roads, and appears content with returning to a normal life. The monologue sums up everything those of us in the superhero-reading community have always loved about the idea of a superhero, and why we pick up these damn comic books each and every month.
Harris's commitment to the monologue, the writer's execution and Raimi's direction leap out as what can happen if you treat the subject material properly, and understand why Spider-Man and superheroes need to exist, even if just as fictional characters.
And that's it. A rave review from The League.
There's probably more to write about from a critical standpoint, but this wasn't meant to be a critique, it's a review, and there's a difference. I haven't mentioned some key performances, or interesting visual imagery, or a lot of other things worth talking about. Maybe later. I think this review is long enough.
Kirsten Dunst is hot
My final, gushing note is that I loved MJ's last scene with Peter. "Go get 'em, tiger."
Indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)