Recently in Movies Category

It's so funny for me to read back on what I wrote about X-Men 2 all those years ago. There's so much about that movie that I can see now so clearly that were lost to me all those years ago. Since then we've seen the Bush presidency unfold, the horrendous X-Men 3 come out, and (I argue) the misunderstood Superman Returns.

There's a thoughtfulness to this movie that I don't think I appreciated fully at the time. At the food court when Pyro makes the flame burst, Iceman cools the guy off, and then Professor X freezes everyone. The shots are gorgeous. Super tight. Eyes. Cigarette. Xavier rolling into focus. It's all very well constructed. It's by a filmmaker and not just a director; it's a subtley that is sorely lacking in X-Men 3.

This film is also interesting to look at as film history. Seeing the opening scene where Nightcrawler breaks into the White House is very post-Matrix. Nightcrawler takes out a room of secret service agents and it is a mix between slow motion and bullet-time. There's also this awareness of this is a movie that people will watch on DVD, in higher definition (although HD as we think of it today didn't exist yet) and in frame-by-frame stop-motion.

The President. He's so aggressive but so hands off. He turns things over to Stryker with the full knowledge that he might do despicable things. He's both a villain because he allows things to happen and hides behind "well, I didn't know..." but unlike how we view W now but probably did then he's childish. He just doesn't think. Once he's made aware of the situation, he regrets it. Changes course. This is the W that we hoped for in 2003. Someone who would change course if only he knew or understood how the world really works.

Magneto is held in this plastic prison "for forever." It's such a Gitmo situation. And when Xavier comes and is upset at his brutal treatment? It's such liberal outrage. Of course we want things safe, we want fundamentals of them of the streets. But when Xavier comes to visit and sees a human being, his friend, having been mistreated... well, it degrades the word 'humanity,' a thing which Xavier holds up quite highly. 
 
In general, Professor X is never as cool in the comics as he is in this movie. I think it's the dry English wit. How to make Xavier not be a tool? Think of him like Stephen Fry, Patrick Stewart, or others... He needs to be wry, intelligent, charming.

Part of the beauty is in the casting of Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart. The scene they have in his prison is gorgeous. It humanizes him and ends with his perfect line delivery of "the war has begun."

Wolverine's fight scene when the mansion gets raided? It's honestly one of my top ten favorite five minutes of cinema. About thirty minutes into the movie, when Wolverine wakes up. Talks to a kid. Talks to Iceman... it's all good. I mean, really good. It's more human than a sci-fi action film has to be. But, oh at... 35 minutes in. That... is... when... shit... gets... real... You see a major motion picture character just massacre people. He stalks them, he kills them. He is efficient. He is a killing machine. He is an animal.

And it is the striking shift from paternal figure to this military-made thing that is so amazing. Not just for the gorgeous brutality, but because it makes a statement about who he is. He knows killing. He chooses people. He chooses peace. However, like a mother bear, once poked he cannot rest until he knows that his cubs are safe. Culminating in the "you wanna shoot me? Shoot me!" I hate to boil it down to simple fanboy-like commentary but that is fucking awesome.

I think I was too harsh on how Nightcrawler was treated when I last wrote about it. His faith is present. He is interesting and colorful. But while I might have simplified my view of how he was used, I think my complaint is still valid that he gets boiled down to a plot device by the last act. 
 
"You wanted me to cure your son but mutation is not a disease..." Oh, how gay. And I don't mean that in the colloqual 'gay equals stupid,' but instead in terms of queer studies. Not to mention that in the following scene there is a "have you tried not being a mutant." And then it keeps going. When Nightcrawler asks Mystique since she can pass why she doesn't and she says "we shouldn't have to." So much of how Bryan Singer chooshes to relate the X-Men to the audience is through the metaphor of homosexuality.

Which is also why I think Singer has been misaligned when talked about Superman Returns. This movie is so similar. It's about otherness. Character motivation. Action. Thoughtfulness. Superpowers. Part of what's different from the two movies is the person vs. team dynamic. In the X-Men he can have them doing super stuff then have a good character beat. Whether it's Wolverine going crazy, Bobby's "have you tried not being a mutant?", or Nightcrawler's prepared "but in the Munich circus I was the incredible Nightcrawler" line. Whereas Superman Returns has to be carried pretty much by Superman alone.
 
As an odd end note, I think there is a problem in that Wolverine was part of our lens in the first two movies. So when he says to Jean "I could be the good guy" then kisses her (after she says "I married a good guy"). We want him to win. Cyclops is an Other. He is foreign to us. We've never really established a connection to him, the way that we have with Wolverine. I'm not saying they should have changed it, I'm just saying that it sort of doomed Cyclops to being a little unlikeable. A fate he seems to end up with without any help from the filmmakers.

I had postponed seeing this movie because of how harshly Whitney had spoken of the film. But, I could put it off no longer. So I netflixed the thing and waited for it to come to my mailbox.

The film is visually very strong and well done. The atmosphere is quite nice. I enjoy how the Batman character slowly evolves visually and when he appears in full Batman attire, he's played like the Alien, like the bad guy that we only catch in glimpses and half-seen terrors. I think that Nolan is quite qualified and up to the job but I still wish that Arnofsky had gotten to make his French Connection-inspired version of the film.

The script, as Whitney pointed out, is horrendous. I tried her drinking every time someone says 'fear' game and didn't last very long at all. The opening is so choppy, as they jump around in time (which Nolan did with far better skill in Memento and to greater effect). I was looking forward to actually seeing the origin of Batman, seeing how a boy becomes the Batman. Instead I get this MTV-inspired cutting between boy-teenager-man. Although, in terms of storytelling I will admit that the waters calmed after the time-jumps stopped.

What Goyer does do well is give a logical explaination to a large part of the Batman mythos. He explains the suit, the cave, the car and other such nonsense with great care and logic. The problem is that his human interaction and pacing (with few exceptions) could have use more work.

The actors, who are all top notch (with the exception of Katie Holmes... who was another reason I postponed seeing this movie), don't quite pan out the way you'd think. Michael Caine is fantastic as Alfred. He was given half decent lines and he's a good enough actor that he can cover the rest of the distance.

Christian Bale does an amazing Bruce Wayne but a horrible Batman, in particular the Batman voice. I think part of the problem is that the character of Batman was set-up to be the embodiment of fear. I'll grant that when your character model is kimited as such, the actor only has so many choices.

Liam Neeson is actually better than I had feared he would be, however I couldn't help but feel that he was trying to overcome some kind of Darkman-related superhero trauma. He does well enough considering what he was given but he tends to play it up too much. Just watch his performance and then watch the one scene where he talks about his lost wife. In that scene he brings a sense of honesty and humanity to that scene.

Ken Watanabe is alright. He's not really in this film much. He's mostly set-dressing.

Katie Holmes is as bad as I feared. There's not really any part of the movie that she doesn't ruin. The script is worse, the other actors falter, even the shot compositions aren't as imaganitve.

I was curious to see how the up-and-coming Cillian Murphy would do. He does extremely well, he plays Dr. Crane like the quiet boy next door who one day skins his puppy and the next murders and defiles your spouse. He does a great job of playing Crane as a man who is repressed, timid but when he gets to become the Scarecrow it is a release, almost sexual.

I had even money that Gary Oldman would rock the casbah and it seemed like a safe bet. I was glad to not be disappointed. The problem is that Oldman wants to play Gordon the way that he is playing the character as he is in Year One, that well-developed humane portrayal of a person who is almost as driven as Batman. I'm willing to grant him second best actor status in the movie (after Caine).

I didn't even know that Tom Wilkinson was in this movie. So when he showed up I was like, "whoa, what the... he's in this?" However, his part was so stereotypical and the American accent he chose was so... I mean, what is that? No one sounds like that! I felt like he was aware that he was sluming. He can play fun, mindless parts well (just look at him talking about apothacery hats in Shakespeare in Love).

Rutger Hauer is... Rutger Hauer. I mean, his only real triumph is Blade Runner and even then his whole performance is best summed up in his speech at the end, the "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."

Morgan Freeman plays the character that he plays all too often where he seems harmless and fun. The problem is that I want the Morgan Freeman from Shawshank Redemption. I want the thoughtful, sensitive Freeman, the one who can deliever lines of such simplicity and beauty with elegance and directness. He was phoning this performance in.

What the crap was up with that Batmoblie chase? I mean really. How long did that go on for? A million years? Okay, maybe that's the booze talking but seriously that rooftop chase was craptacular and went on far too long.

I'm willing to say it's a good movie although I stand by my thought that Mask of the Phantasm is the best Batman: Year One style story ever.

So recently, I reedited Daredevil into a fan edit that I've dubbed Daredevil: The Man Without Fear. Now, a fan reediting a film is not a particularly new trend. It started with Star Wars: The Phantom Menance being remade as Star Wars: The Phantom Edit by Mike J. Nichols. Another version of the film was done by someone calling themselves 'MagnoliaFan" called Star Wars: Balance of the Force and its sequel Star Wars: The Clone War.

Other famous reedits include Star Trek: Kirkless Generations (which is Star Trek: Generations with all of Kirk and the original Enterprise crew removed), The Two Towers: The Purist Edit (which removes almost forty-five minutes of plot points that Tolkin purists say deviate too much from the book), Batman and Robin: De-assified (cutting of most of the one-liners and the campy, ridiculous dialogue), and the Matrix: Dezionized (which combines the Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions into one film, mostly by removing most of the storylines centering around Zion).

So I decided to throw my hat in the ring and see if I could take a movie that I always enjoyed but felt had some flaws which prevented me from really loving it. So I decided to see if I could do an edit.

A quick glance at some of what I cut out and a brief reason why:

The flashback frame story of the film - it just made the story take forever to get started

The trial of Jose Quesada - it made Matt Murdock look like a bad attorney

"Justice!" - Daredevil seems so much more menacing when he is silent, rather than the bad Batman impression that Affleck gives here

Daredevil's voiceover - it distracted from the story

Ben Urich's investigation - his inclusion seems to be a throwback to Knox in the first Batman film, and his lighting the DD sign on fire a throwback to the Crow (why in the world would a blind superhero leave a flamable sign behind? And if he did, why wouldn't he have left it lit?)

The priest - gone is the mysterious priest who knows all about Matt's superheroics.

The introduction of the Kingpin - the establishing shot of the Kingpin and the first time we see Wesley (who's pretty much a useless character in the theatrical cut) is just a waste of time.

"Where did you learn to fight like that?" - I know we need to learn more about Elektra, but this scene just didn't quite work.

"This ain't your neighborhood no more!" - Why does the guy start taunting someone who is kicking his ass? A guy he was terrified of just seconds before.

"I'm not the bad guy" - the whole beat is great subtext, it's something that Daredevil (especially under Miller) had to deal with a lot. It is, however, horrible dialogue.

Urich at the party - He wants to talk to Matt (why? we never find out) and seems to drop hints that he suspects Matt of being Daredevil. Not even the Foggy alligators in the sewars joke saves this bit.

"I wish you could see me" - I found this scene so awkward that I listened to the director's commentary on it, to see if it could make more sense. He said that in researching the film he interviewed someone who was blind and this exact exchange happened between him and his wife. So, I think Johnson was trying to put a 'real' moment of being blind into the film, however it just feels awkward (and slightly cruel).

Kevin Smith - it hurt me to cut this scene actually. I think it really sings and it's the only time that the character of Urich really works. But by this point, this was the only scene with Urich in it, so it had to go.

Elektra's MTV moment - It's really great to see the transformation that comes over Elektra, however the movie suffers MTVitis and this fight scene is a fine example of that. It's so on the nose that it just didn't work.

Urich has to tell him to go after Bullseye? - I mean, this is a guy motivated by vengeance and he has to be told to get revenge?

So what if you were raised in the Bronx? - Kingpin's growl that he grew up in the Bronx doesn't work. First off, being streetwise doesn't mean you can take on someone who knows martial arts (despite what movies might make you try to believe), which is why Miller made Kingpin know martial arts.

Elektra's Return? - It's not that this doesn't work, it's just not what this cut of the movie is about. The movie worked better if it ended with Matt letting go of his grief and his anger after seeing what Elektra's bloodlust did to her.

• Daredevil: The Man Without Fear #1 - "Guardian Devil"
• Daredevil: The Man Without Fear #2 - "Enter Elektra"
• Daredevil: The Man Without Fear #3 - "Inner Demons"
• Daredevil: The Man Without Fear #4 - "Bullseye"
• Daredevil: The Man Without Fear #5 - "Vengeance"
• Daredevil: The Man Without Fear #6 - "Fall of the Kingpin"

I will admit I wasn't expecting much from this movie. I was expecting some kind of metaphysical heaven-hell clap-trap on par with the Order. I was figuring that after fifteen minutes, I'd be hoping that some passerby would take pity on me and bludgeoned me about the head until I lost conciousness. With such low expectations, I was mildly surprised to be only absurdly disappointed in the film.

It's got a lot in it that is what I love in the comic however the corners they decided to cut were not the best choices. Besides the drastic miscasting of Keanu Reeves in the lead (which again, I was expecting to be abonomal and was instead only extremely irritated) and the relocating of the story from London to Los Angeles there are a variety of poor choices made. His origin story for one. It's bizarre, getting a lot of his power from a suicide attempt in his teens. He's basically an exorcist instead of being a freelance magician and self proclaimed arse.

Also his motives are changed to better fit the structure of film rather than the long drawn out pace of a comic. He wants to earn his way into Heaven by exorcising demons, hoping to win enough celestial brownie points that he'd never have to return to Hell. In the comic, John Constantine isn't an anti-hero, he's a fuck-wit who abuses people's faith and trust. The movie version paints him more as broody rather than self-serving.

The comic's Constantine is sort of a new wave Adam. He has eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and so can never be allowed to enter God's presence. He fights demons but with the full knowledge that no matter what he does, God will never forgive him the things he's done and the way he's gone about his life. This best trade that shows this is "Dangerous Habits," the first arc written by Ennis where Constantine finds out he's dying of cancer (there are bits from that arc taken for the movie, not enough for my tastes but a little bit for flavor and to add a deadline for the story). There's a great scene when Constantine is sitting on a bench and he's talking about the irony of going to Hell when he's fought demons for so long. He mentions about trying to gain God's forgiveness and just laughs.

I enjoy Rachel Weisz in this movie but the odd moments where there is this attraction between the two of them feels forced and kind of weird. When you choose to tell a story about Hell breaking through into Earth and the Antichrist it's a little hard to work any kind of romantic tension. I'd say it would have been better if they didn't try.

I will say this for the film. The graphic work is really top notch. The effects team did a good job of making things creepy and really interact with the actors. No poor man's blue screen here, which means that the studio must have had enough faith in the project to pump some money in. Faith misplaced but faith nonetheless.

Also the camera work is actually quite good. There's lots of good framing and delicious shots. The film's director, Francis Lawrence, is also willing to hold out shots for a lot longer than I'd have thought from someone with such a strong music video background. Instead of fostering short attention spans, he gives us some thoughtful pauses, allowing us to digest some of the concepts that are being put out there.

The Incredibles is not only the title of this film but is also an apt description of the film itself. It is not only a great family-friendly superhero film, it's also a great film in its own right. It manages to hit all the right emotional chords while being funny and clever at the same time. It shifts gears seamlessly between these moods while never feeling forced or sczhiophrenic.

The graphics are outstanding. The director, Brad Bird, known for his work on the Simpsons and with the classic Iron Giant, had never worked with digital animation before. You'd never know it to see this film. He managedf to get a great performance out of his animators. The emotions and humor are dead on., although it's getting harder and harder to expect anything less out of Pixar.It's not just the characters though that are so impreesive, it's also the world they live in and the actions tehy perform. The Incredibles is an action packed film, full of explosions, superpowers and fight scenes. IThe whole film is rendered with lavish detail, making for a complete and enjoyable film.

The voicework is top notch. Pixar has the amazing ability to cast people not on name power but on actual talent and whether or not they're right for the part. As Brad Bird himself described it, "no one goes to a cartoon for the star." His example was Sinbad, voiced by Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta Jones which opened to empty theaters across America but it might as well have been his own brilliant Iron Giant which featured Harry Connick Jr and Jennifer Aniston. It did dismal despite the star power and being a great film. Personally, I don't care for Craig T. Nelson but he is perfect as Mr. Incredible. He manages to hit the false bravado, the true excitement in action and even his fears. Holly Hunter and Samuel L. Jackson are both, of course, brilliant. To me the surprise was Sarah Vowell as Violet. She managed to capture the awkardness of teenagedom perfectly.

The people who you have to feel bad for (other than Disney for letting Pixar go in a few years) is the cast and crew of the Fantastic Four film as that film's now been made redudant. It's not just that the main hero's name is Mr. Incredible instead of Mr. Fantastic. Nor is it is just that the Incredibles mimic the Four's powers with Mr. Incredible as the Thing, Elastigirl as Mr. Fantastic and Violet as the Invisible Woman (The writers granted the other child, Dash, with super speed, for the same reason that the old Fantastic Four cartoons had HERBIE instead of the Human Torch; lawyers are worried that kids would set themselves on fire to immulate their hero). It's not even that they have to face a character obviously based on the Mole Man.

No, the real reason that this film replaces the Fantastic Four is that it has the same loving, dysfunctional family feel to it. The cornerstone of the Four, the thing that makes them who they are, is that they are a surrogate family for each other. In the Incredibles they are a real family but it still has that playful teasing and caring that we've come to expect from Marvel's First Family.

Final review, simply put? This is a great film, possibly one of the best of the year.

Key to surviving Batman Begins: Take strong alcoholic beverage to movie theater with you. Drink every time someone says the word "fear". By about the 15 minute mark, you should be blasted enough to withstand the rest of the movie with minimal pain.

...I'm saying this was not a very good movie. In fact, I daresay it was a bad movie. Here, let me break the problems down for you. Spoiler-free version.

Look at that cast. That's a hell of a cast, isn't it? People there have won Oscars. Some of the most acclaimed actors you can get. You'd have to do some hard work to make a movie they were in not work. Now, look at the screenwriter's previous credits. That, ladies and gentlemen, would be the work one would have to do to create the kind of unnatural godawful dialogue that no actor, no matter how talented, can do anything good with. Add in a director who does not know how to direct action scenes (hint: hold your camera still and let us actually see some of the action, or at the very least allow your viewer a chance to be able to make sense of what's going on on screen), terrible pacing, and a torturously long running time. Bake at 350 degrees, add Katie Holmes as needed (hint: Katie Holmes is not needed.)

It has its moments, but they're few and far between, and if you aren't already a fan of or versed in the Batman mythos (as my viewing companion nekoleo was not), you will not appreciate many of those moments. There are a dozen or so really good lines, but they're in a sea of total crap. I don't regret seeing it, and enjoyed it for its utter mediocrity, but, hoo lord, what a massive letdown.

The first fifteen minutes of this movie were a terrible tragedy for me. I sat there, going, 'This is cool. This is cool. This is... ... jesus, how many times did he say the word 'fear' in that sentence? And now he's going on a fetchquest?' It took about an hour for me to give up hope entirely and accept that this was just not a very good movie and enjoy it for its not goodness. The worst flaw is the dialogue. God, it's so awful. So many lines that no actual human being has ever said ever. Katie Holmes was definitely the worst offender here, with, sadly, Liam Neeson coming in second, but I suppose after being in a Star Wars film, he's managed to craft delivering bad lines fairly decently into an art.

The first hour of the movie, or however the hell long it took for Bruce to get back to Gotham and get his Bat on, was just plodding. WE GET THE POINT. HE HAS SOME ISSUES WITH FEAR. COULD YOU SAY IT A FEW MORE TIMES? FEAR FEAR FEAR. FEAR. For the record, Brucie, having your worst fear in the world be bats is pretty gay, and if you're going to have a panic attack in the last act of Don Giovanni because of it, well, you deserve what you get. (An aside, from former comic book nerd perspective: wtf? Who leaves an opera house out a side door into a dirty alley? Seriously, the Waynes would have gone out of the front and gotten valet service. I guess they're too good to go to the movies these days, but I guess Zorro wouldn't have given Brucie OH NOES MY PUSSINESS KILLED MY PARENTS guilt. Geekness over.) You'd think ninja training would be a totally interesting thing to see, but due to poor direction, well, what could have been tense action scenes were visually incoherent, and due to poor writing, the rest of that section of the plot was just dull as stale toast. "Liam Neeson is a ninja!!" I said with great amusement to Arielle. "No!" she said, "He's a Jedi!" "Not again!" Bruce Wayne fighting ninjas = should have been cool.

WTF Moment: "I will not be an executioner," says Bruce as he turns away the sword. And then proceeds to set fire to the building and blow a bunch of shit up very likely killing a lot of the people inside. Way to go, BW. Way to go.

I will say, ninja Liam Neeson turned me on. But it's Liam Neeson, and it's destined to happen. This will be a good point for me to segue into the actors. ...man, such good actors, so wasted. Christian Bale was an excellent Bruce Wayne (partly because I associate him so strongly with his character in American Psycho, who, heh, is entertaining to map onto Bruce. "Do you like Huey Lewis and the News, Lieutenant Gordon?") but... just not a good Batman, mostly because worst batvoice ever. Seriously, he made me laugh every time he opened his mouth as the bat. I just thought... would you like some hot tea? Maybe a little throat spray? Arielle said that he sounded like Raiden pretending to be Solid Snake at the beginning of Metal Gear Solid 2, only worse. I kept expecting him to go something like, "the shipment will be arriving in the Narrows at ackkhg ghhgt *ptoo* oh man, sorry, hell of a cold right now, what was I saying?" Also, at times his voice seemed to be digitally altered as Batman, which added to the whole it not working thing. Michael Keaton delivered a better "I'm Batman", than you, Christian, and do you know how short he is? You just think about that one, mister. (He's actually not that short, but doesn't he seem it? Replace 'short' with 'balding', then.)

Michael Caine, Rutger Hauer, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, they all did the best they could. Michael Caine basically got the best lines in the movie, and I'm glad for it. He deserves it. We won't even discuss Katie Holmes, because... well, jeez, what's to discuss, it's pretty obvious that you could have cut her part out of the movie and gotten me home thirty minutes earlier and none the worse for wear. Also: distracted by the fact that she is fourteen years old and now a Scientologist.

WTF Moment: *Katie Holmes answer cellphone* "Hello?" *literally a two second pause* "What? Who authorized that? Call judge so and so and do this and this and this..." Note to Katie: When pretending you are on the phone in a movie, it helps to actually pretend that someone on the other end has actually said something.

The two performances I liked best were Liam Neeson (despite bad lines) because he is hot, and the reveal that he is actually Ra's al-Ghul turned me the hell on. However, the movie failed to really explain Ra's, so a lot of that coolness is lost on most of the audience. Also, Cillian Murphy was pretty entertaining as the Scarecrow (and the insanity effects were pretty awesome, I must say, except for glowing-mouth-Batman, which made me laugh), and is roughly the most beautiful man ever. I'll forgive him lots of things for those lovely lush lips.

THE GRAND WTF MOMENT that probably only me and Arielle noted: Alfred says that there are tunnels beneath stately Wayne Manor because great-great-grandpa Wayne was part of the Underground Railroad, ferrying slaves to freedom in the North during the Civil War. .... .... .... YES, GOTHAM, THAT GREAT SOUTHERN CITY. THE JEWEL BENEATH THE MASON-DIXON, GOTHAM. Seriously, bitches, it's supposed to be New York-like, and by the time you were that far North, you would no longer need to skulk in tunnels. You can't put Gotham on a map, obviously, but this has to be the first time anyone's accused it of being in the South. Gotham, South Carolina. Myrtle Beach, Bludhaven, what's the difference?

The plot was pretty entertaining for being bad comic book sciencey, but, but... Batman? Okay, say you have an antidote to a weaponized hallucinogen (weapon is a verb now?). You know you're going to a place where you or possibly people you know will come in contact with this poison. It's probably a good idea, then, to leave the antidote in the Batcave so you can have a big retarded chase scene in the (admittedly totally awesome) Batmobile. NOTE TO BATMAN: YOUR RECKLESS DRIVING, MUCH LIKE YOUR PYROMANIA, DOES NOT HOLD UP WITH YOUR 'NOT AN EXECUTIONER' PLAN. But, man, I always did love the driving on roofs levels in Grand Theft Auto. (Note to Rockstar Games: Grand Theft Auto: Gotham! Because it's time to have a game set in the South, obviously.)

WTF Moment: Batman uses 30MP to use his Summon spell: Bats!! "Didn't this happen on an episode of Kenshin?" I said. "Oh, damn, that's not a good sign," said Arielle. "It was one of the bad ones, too! With Germans! And ninjas!"

In conclusion, it could have been saved if it were a) not nine hours long, b) lacking the pastede on yay love interest, and c) more with lines like "I'm going spelunking" and less with the "It's not what you are inside. It's what you do."

God, comic books are terrible.

I really didn't like Sin City!

I go through much of my life thinking, "Nah, I'm not so much a feminist. I mean, I read Maxim." And then I see something like Sin City.

I want to never be exposed to Frank Miller or his issues ever again. They make me feel unclean and unhappy. I don't want to see worlds where every woman is a prostitute, except for the dyke (and god knows why she's a dyke, since she could have any man she wanted). Putting guns and weapons in their hands doesn't empower these women, not at all, it just makes them further fetishes, to a degree that does not titillate me (and I can be pretty darn titillated by female exploitation and fetishism), but rather repells me. Women who are so "empowered" are only so in that they don't have pimps. "Pretty little Miho" in particular turned me off, because, well, I took about four classes that barfed all over that particular archetype. I think I wrote papers. (Yes, I like Kill Bill. And anime. They're different, just trust me on this one.)

There's only so far you can go in fitting with the noir genre before this starts to just be a sickness. I could have possibly better handled these stories one at a time, but stacked up as they were, just gradually getting worse and worse (The section with Marv was okay. The segment with the hookers was where my lip started to curl and I wondered if it was just me that this was bothering. "The Yellow Bastard" segment could not have ended soon enough for me).

I mean, in fairness, the male characters were two-dimensional archetypes, as they were meant to be, but at least they got to be a range of two-dimensional archetypes. At least they got to wear pants occasionally. ...I could go on, but my point is pretty clear. Frank Miller's ladies upset me.

So, yeah, I should have known better, because I knew I didn't like Frank Miller. I bought into the hype, because the movie was supposed to be visually wonderful.

...you know what? I'm not that impressed, Rodriguez. If you are adapting a work and you (...I'm talking out of my ass here and just going from what people have said about the comics, since I haven't read Sin City) are basically adapting it directly, not changing anything, going so far as to directly imitate the panels of the comic? You aren't directing. You have put nothing of yourself into the work, you have done nothing to allow the movie to exist in its own media, as an example of the art form it appears in. I'm sure for the $10.75 I spent on that movie ticket tonight, I could have picked up a Sin City trade and gotten the exact same experience. Only it would have taken less time, since I read fast. I may not have read the original, here, but I could tell this was a comic book. It looked like one, I could nearly see the monologue text boxes. Neat trick, but a movie should be a movie, and not a comic book, or a book (you know who else is guilty of this crime? Chris Columbus. The first two Harry Potter movies. Oh yeah. I went there.), and it should exist to create an experience that can only happen on the screen, or it has no worth. ...so, yeah, basically I'm hatin' on this movie for the reasons that everyone else has praised it.

...my only other comments are that if you're going to cover a guy in makeup so much so that he ends up looking like Ron Perlman, hell, you should just hire Ron Perlman for the part. HE'd be happy to have a job where he could use his own face.

I liked the scene that Quentin Tarantino directed. And that guy who got shot with arrows.

Okay, so the first Fantastic Four film has come out and it's kinda alright. Is it good? No but it definitely showed more promise than I thought it would and even holds the potential that a sequel could actually be a good movie, if not a great one. The fact that the worst moments of the film seemed to center around Dr. Doom and he is now, quite thankfully, out of the picture, the film can move on to bigger and better things. Just how big? How about something galactic or should I say Galactus?

Whoa there, Tex. Slow down. For those of you keeping score at home, Galactus is the devour of worlds; meaning that he goes from planet to planet eating them, the more life on the planet, the tastier it is to him. He does this not out of evil but because he possess the Power Cosmic, a force that grants him almost ultimate power but drains his very existence. As this also introduced the character of the Silver Surfer, it's obvious to see why it's a fan favorite. This is an epic story that was truly one of the early "widescreen" comics that felt much more like a movie than a comic.

Which is exactly why it shouldn't be the next Fantastic Four film. Where do you go after Galactus? Do you bring in the Mole Man? The Microverse? Jeez, comic films have got themselves into a bind in the past by racing into things too quickly (don't believe me? Go watch the Daredevil movie, how much did they try to cram into that film, eh?). The Galactus story should be the third and final Fantastic Four movie, and it would also present the option of creating a spin-off movie for the Silver Surfer much in the same way that Blade: Trinity provided an oppertunity for a potential Nightstalkers franchise.

So what should the second movie be? I'm glad you asked. The Skrulls, more importantly, the Skrull invasion. The Skrulls are a shapeshifting race that appeared very early on in the Fantastic Four comic book bent on world domination (aren't they all?). Still, these guys could create some great drama because just as the Fantastic Four are starting to get good press, here comes this group of villians that can parade as them and ruin their cred. Even the team itself wouldn't know if the person they're looking at is really their teammate or a Skrull insider. It could have a great psychological drive to it, kind of like the old horror film the Thing (not to be confused with the Fantastic Four member of the same name).

Think that sounds nice but what about the fights? I mean, every superhero film has gotta have at least one knock-down fight, right? Well, that's what you got the Super-Skrull for. Here's a guy who has all the powers of the Fantastic Four and who was created for the sole purpose of killing them, painfully if possible.

What's even better is that you could even set-up the third film with this one. Perhaps these Skrulls want to take over Earth because they are fleeing Galactus. At the tail end of the film, you have a team that has barely beaten this threat, they're exhausted and then they get this glimpse of what's coming. It's so much bigger and so much more terrifying. Then, credits. Bam. People will be drooling for that third film.

The only problem? What do you call it? When you have something ending with a four you don't want to call it Fantastic Four 2... I guess they'd go the X-Men route and call it FF2 or some such nonsense. Ah well, no matter what they call it, it'd be a heck of a story.

Tagged with: Fantastic Four

Hellboy opened at the top of the box office and did something that most movies would have struggled to do: it gave Passion of the Christ a run for its Easter money. I'm glad that the film has done well, at least finacially. After all Guillermo del Toro has wanted to make his movie for a long time and has worked very hard to get it done and to get it done his way.

One of the things he fought for was the casting of Ron Perlman as Hellboy. I am very glad that the studio finally caved in and granted the request. I can't imagine anyone else playing this part. Perlman not only had the build for the part was also able to emote from underneath all the protestics and make us care about the character. After all, the great thing about Hellboy isn't any fancy power that he has or even his nifty backstory. You can't even say that he's the "world's greatest paranormal dectetive" without meaning it ironically. What makes Hellboy a rich and interesting character is the way he's written. He's a regular blue collar guy who just wants to rest, eat some nachos and drink some beer. He just wants to be happy and who can't empathize with that.

The film's supporting characters are also first rate. David Hyde Pierce lends his voice to the character of Abe Sapien and brings a real humanity to the part. We can feel Abe's love of literature and even his fondness for Hellboy and Liz Sherman. Liz, played by Selma Blair, is a little vague but comes off quite well. While all the characters are nice, they are best used to underscore a point about Hellboy himself.

The only real problem with the movie is the plot. Seed of Destruction, which the movie takes most of its plot from, is not the best story to base a movie on. It's not really structured so much like a detective story nor is it really an action piece. As with most of Mignola's best work it is a great mood piece. Which is the film's problem, it is a great mood story but the story falls apart about halfway through the second act (and lies in shambles by the end of the third).

I won't get into the logically problems of the movie, nor will I rant about how you should structure a story but suffice it to say that Rasputin, who was touted as the high priest of evil incarnate, doesn't hold together well. Part of this is the actor's, Karel Roden, fault but a larger part is the the story loses steam after the destruction of Sammael.

I absouletely recommend this movie though. The visuals are very imaginative and the characters are well done and well played. It's just a pity the story wasn't stronger so as to best highlight the film's strengths.

I like Lord of the Rings. I really do. I think it's extremely visually impressive. However I do not think that it is a better epic than Bertoluci's the Last Emperor, nor do I think it is a better written film than American Splendor.

American Splendor is the story of the life of Harvey Pekar and how he started doing comic books and became part of the comic revolution in the 70's. However, the movie isn't just about that. It's also about Harvey Pekar feels about the story of his own life. The movie is an odd mix between the straight documentary-style of Terry Zwigoff's Crumb and the straight comic adapation of Daniel Clowes' Ghost World. What is born is a strange concoction that is neither drama nor documentary (nor the bastard child of those two genres: docurama).

The film is as inventive in its own genre as Pekar was in the seventies. It's about what Pekar did in his life and even why he did it, but it's about more than that. It tries to give you a peek into who Pekar is, without justification or explination. It's honesty. Except, at no time does it allow you to forget that what you are watching is a movie and that all movies can do is lie.

The very construction of a story is to pick and choose what parts of it you tell. As Joyce, who becomes Harvey Pekar's wife, says in the film, Harvey is a pessimist and so his life always reads as worse than it is. It's not that it's not true, it's just that you are only given a specific amount of context.

American Splendor is the most truthful of lies. It tells us much about Harvey Pekar while revealing so little. It is an amazingly well writtenand well made film. It had to adapt both aspects from Pekar's life as well as from his comics (which are autobiographical, making the task far less daunting but still a challenge). It's worth anybody's time.