Rest in Peace, At The Movies

Siskel-Ebert-At-the-Movies

I can trace my love of movies to two things, my mom, who passed her love of film down to me with weekly excursions to the local cineplex, and also to Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert as they appeared on At the Movies.

I started watching the show when I was still a teenager, it must have been around the mid 1980s. I'll be the first to admit that At the Movies, even at that time, probably wasn't a show that catered to the teenage demographic. I mean, there were not that many students at my high school wearing Siskel and Ebert T-shirts.

But I was captivated. As a burgeoning film buff, I couldn't have a better example as to what loving movies was all about than these two.

When they both loved a film, I wanted to rush out and see it then and there. When they both hated it, I knew enough to stay away, but a part of me wanted to see it anyway to see if I hated it as much as they did.

But when they disagreed, you kind of got the feeling that one would launch the other off of the balcony. It would seem that there was a very good chance that a punch going to be thrown. Later, it was revealed that it all was an act, that the rancor was played up for the audiences at home. Well, you could have fooled me.

But no matter where they stood on the week's films, the show was always entertaining. These guys loved films and loved exposing great films to new audiences. I lived in a small town in Pennsylvania and foreign or indie films never really graced my local theaters. But Siskel and Ebert exposed me to these films and thankfully the local video stores were much better. I have seen many movies I would have never sought out otherwise.

_1269567996

In 1999, Gene Siskel passed away due to complications from surgery to remove a brain tumor. After a period of time of other critics getting a chance to sit across from Roger, Ebert was paired with Richard Roeper. It wasn't the same, but, then again, it never could be. But Ebert and Roeper created their own dynamic. It always seemed like it was more of a "master and student" kind of relationship than a meeting as equals. But they still had some spirited discussions and had a good chemistry.

Ebert was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002 and was struck with complications in 2006. He would never return to the show. Roeper was paired with a number of guest co-hosts for an extended period of time, but in 2008 Ebert and Roeper ended their association with the company that syndicated the program and a new direction was in store.

I kind of lost touch with the show a little while before this. I think it was a mix of a constantly shifting schedule, my life taking on outher priorities and maybe a little due to Ebert's abscenses. I wasn't a religious viewer of the program anymore, but I tried to catch it whenever I could.

Atthemovies_l

I caught some episodes of the new direction, the critically lambasted one with Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. Yeah. All the criticism that goes around with this version is pretty much right. I was never a fan of Lyons. I always found him a bit unctous when he was a celebrity interviewer on E!, and here he seemed less like a film critic than a frat boy spouting off on something he didn't know all that much about.

Mankiewicz came off a little better, at least a little more knowledgeable. However, he didn't really have that much charisma and chemistry with Lyons. I get the feeling the matching of these two was some executive's grand idea of matching a hip young guy to get the younger demographic with an older seasoned guy who could keep the show's loyal fans. It didn't work.

Neither man was a critic (although Lyons was the son of one. But genetics really doesn't count). Neither man worked for a newspaper. Neither man seemed to have the passion for films that Ebert and Roeper did, let alone Ebert and Siskel did. If you are looking to point fingers over the demise of this show, point to whoever came up with this edition of the program.

Atthemovies02a

Last year, the double Bens were replaced by A.O. Scott of the New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune. This is when I started becoming a regular viewer again. It was this version of the show that seemed to best recapture the Siskel and Ebert glory days.

These guys were experienced critics. Both had acted as fill-ins during the period of time when Ebert was out. Both seemed that they at the very least liked films very much.

And the pair had chemistry with one another. They could get argumentative, but could also be on the same page. But either way, what they said and how they said it was interesting. Their opinions might not have always matched with mine, but they were always presented in an intelligent and witty fashion.

It seems that when it was announced in March that the show would be cancelled, a lot of people seem to mourn the Siskel and Ebert version. I also mourn the present one as well. If Disney kept this on a little longer, it still might have not caught on. But at least it ends on a good note.

This weekend will be the airing of the last episode of At the Movies. The day is long in coming, but apparently could not be averted. My DVR will be down one recording each week, and the world of serious film criticism will be losing another of its best examples. Rest in peace, At the Movies. I'll miss you.    

Film: Inception

Inception

I have an unhealthy admiration for Christopher Nolan. I have been a fan of his since Memento, somehow missed Insomnia (and still haven't seen it) but love the Batman films he did. And I love the Prestige too. I have yet seen him do any wrong.

I also love the fact that he has written he has written the thinking man's summer blockbuster. His films usually come out during the time of year when "mindless fun" rules, yet still his smart films seems to bring people in.

To call Inception a complex movie, would be quite the understatement. The film demands that you pay attention. Its twists and turns have twists and turns. But everything you need to know is there on screen.

The plot involves a crew led by Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio). who involves in a special kind of industrial espionage--they steal secrets from people's minds. The crew is about to attempt the impossible. They are going to implant an idea into someone's head. This is incredibly difficult and incredibly dangerous. But dark dealings from Cobb's past jeopardize not only the job, but the lives of the whole crew.

The window dressing is that this film is a caper movie, and it works well in this aspect. The crime goes down in a way that matches up with the best of Steven Soderburgh's Ocean films, only times three. It is on the edge or your seat exciting.

But the film is really about loss of loved ones and how we shape reality to deal with it. It is one of those films where you might thing the action points are the main driving points of the plot, but actually it's the quieter, flashback moments.

There is a lot of talk about the ending and how people are confused by it, but the steps leading up to that ending are all in the film. Not to spoil anything, but anytime you think you caught a continuity error or a plot element doesn't make sense, don't simply assume it was a mistake. They are merely clues.

Inception is simply brilliant. It is so well coordinated that it is a sterling example of the best that film has to offer. I imagine we'll be seeing more of this around Oscar time.

Movies: Toy Story 3

Movie_poster-toy-story-3

Toy Story 3 isn't just an animated sequel. It's a prison escape film. It's a story about growing up. It's a story about friendship. It's a thriller more thrilling than any others that come to mind in the last few years. It's a comedy with more laugh-out loud moments than any comedy I've seen in years. It has more heartwarming moments than any tearjerker I've ever seen.

It is the best film I've seen all year, which isn't surprising. Pixar rarely strikes out.

I believe Pixar films do not get the proper respect they deserve simply because they are CGI animated. This is one of the great shames of American cinema today. Because there is no company, no producer, no director that can match Pixar for quality films, great writing, and awesome characters.

In this films, the toy's owner, Andy, is about to go to college. His room is about to be taken over by his sister. Something must be done about the toys. A mistake results in the gang being sent to a local day care center, which is more like a prison run buy a big cuddly bear. They spend the film trying to improve their situation.

The plot, as most Pixar films are, is more complex than your typical kid flick. But everything simply works. If you do not cry at the end of the movie, then there is something seriously wrong with your emotional well being.

The film is almost criticism proof. Sure, you can make a comment about it being an advertisement for certain brand-name toys, but any "Toy Story" without name toy in it would be illogical.

Great film. See it in a theater,

Movie: Iron Man 2

Iron-man-2-poster

The reason why Iron Man 2 is any good at all is due to two things--the directing of Jon Favreau and the acting of the stellar cast. Because there are many facepalm moments.

This is one busy movie. There are a lot of characters on screen, which is usually the death knell in comic book films but here seems to work well. Certain characters get a shafted--Rhodey, Black Widow, but they get enough good scenes to make an impression.

It is also busy plotwise. Tony Stark has to deal with an angry Russian out to kill him, a rival industrialist jealous of his fame and celebrity, a Senator looking to appropriate the suit for the U.S. Government, the spy organization S.H.I.E.L.D. breathing down his neck, daddy issues, and, if all this wasn't enough, a degenerative disease that is slowly killing him. I'm surprised they didn't give a psycho ex-girlfriend and a newspaper editor out to get huim as well.

Favreau really has grown as a director. He has become quite adept at chosing his scenes carefully, buliding tension, and letting the picture tell the story.

The acting is top notch. The scenes with Gwyneth Paltrow and Robert Downey, Jr. are some of the least action oriented scenes but yet are some of the most exciting. They are totally in tune with each other and with their character. I would also say that this is some of the best acting that Scarlett Johansson has ever done. Her part isn't all that big, but she plays the dual nature of her role well. Sam Rockwell is his usually excellent petulant child self, and Mickey Rourke, Sam Jackson and Don Cheadle turn in their typical solid performances.

The dialogue has the feel of being improvised. When it works, it pops. When it doesn't, it thuds. There is also a good deal of humor here, quite a good deal of it double entendre stuff, but that also works.

However, there are quite a bit of stupid parts as well. Nick Fury is basically a plot contrivance to nudge Tony towards his third act life-changing discovery. Rourke's character gains control of a piece of technology that he really shouldn't have been able to. And the final battle features Iron Man rushing off to "protect the people " in the immediate area, by flying off through a skylight in a glass roof in an auditorium, which is shot out by the bad guys allowing glass to rain down on the people in the audience and flying in front of a big glass window of an observation tower to allow the people inside to be strafed by machine gun fire.

All in all, the good parts outweight the bad points. I liked it, but wonder how it will hold up to repeat viewings. 

Movie: The Losers

The_Losers_poster

The Losers is a old fashioned, late 70s--early 80s action film given a modern upgrade. Yes, it is based on a comic book that is not even ten years old, but it is an action movie based on the old time tradition of the shoot-em-up. 

The plot revolves a special forces group who have been double crossed by their handler. Presumed dead, they take up a mysterious woman on her offer of bankrolling their vengeance. Gun play and explosions ensue.

Their have been some changes from the comics to the screen, including the race and nationality of some of the characters. But some of the best scenes from the comic make it to the screen, including Jensen's corporate office get away and the hijack of Army helicopter.

There is a lot of backstabbing and people not being who are not who they say they are. There are a lot of people being in the right place at the right time and people showing remarkable resilience to getting shot.

But all in all, it is a great mindless action film. The acting is great from top to bottom with each actor cast perfectly for their roles. It's might not be the most faithful adaptation of the comic, but it is one fun popcorn summer film. 

 

Movie: Hot Tub Time Machine

Hot_tub_time_machine

The title might have scared some people away or given the idea that this film might have been completely brainless. That's a shame because while this is a raunchfest and a grossout comedy, it has a lot of wit to it.

An suicide attempt by Lou (Rob Corddry) reunites him with  two of his estranged friends, Adam (John Cusack) and Nick (Craig Robinson). They decide to try to get Lou's character's mind of things by taking him, and Adam's tag along nephew, Jacob (Clark Duke) to a ski resort where they had some of their best times. They find that the resort has gone to seed, but they also find a hot tub which mystically will allow them to travell back to their glory days of 1986.

Any time travel comedy had to at least name drop Back to the Future and this one does, once by a character calling Lou "McFly" and the other by a standout performance by Crispin Glover. But that's where the similarities end. This is a story about the rediscover of friendship and taking opportunities that are given to them.

The typical "don't do anything to mess up the future" card is played, but fate almost compels the characters to change their own past. The film plays with duality as well. Not only do Adam, Nick, and Rob play adults in their own younger bodies, but also Chevy Chase plays a maitenence man who my be an all-knowing seer or just a guy who tells it like it is.

There is plety of sex, nudity and vomit scenes to choose from, but there are also a lot of laughs. Great performances by the leads, who make it almost impossible to see the roles played by anyone else.

It's a great comedy with a better than average cast and a lot of wit and a little bit of heart. I liked it a lot.

Film: Avatar

Avatar-movie-poster

The wife and I used a surprise offer of baby sitting to become two of the last people on Earth to see Avatar. Granted, I am sure that we are not the very last, but whoever that is they should win a prize or something. Like 1% of the gross.

On a visual level, the film is brilliant. It is world building on a level never before seen. Yes, many of the alien animals have mirror on out planet, but all of them are well designed and look weird and unique.

The story, however, is rather pedestrian. It's you basic "man goes undercover, finds love on the other side, realizes that he might be working for the bad guys, has a change of heart" with a preachy eco-friendly subplot attached. The characters aren't all that well defined. The pacing is a bit off. It's still a good movie, but not perfect by any means.

 

Film: G.I. Joe

Gi_joe_poster

I wasn't 100% percent sure about this movie until half way through it. That is when the Joes chased the Cobra operatives through the streets of Paris. That chase scene is so over-the-top absurd that it approached awesome. Seriously, SUV's that would make James Bond drool being attacked by a ninja wielding swords and a gun being chase by two guys running in Iron Man-esque suits that give them Spider-Man like abilities. That is totally silly and, therefore, a lot of fun.

G.I. Joe is not a great movie. You can argue that it isn't even a good movie. But it is entertaining, that's for sure. But the film does try to be anything else but a pleasant diversion.

This is not a subtle, nuanced film. It works in wide brush strokes and familiar tropes--the star-crossed lovers, the man looking for vengeance for his slain father figure, the cocky hero who can pretty much do anything, the comic relief sidekick.

The better actors in the cast know what they're dealing with and relax and ham it up. The lesser actors in the cast also relax and do the best job they can.

This is a mindless fun type of movie. If you are looking for a weighty film that you can dissect, examine and look for metaphor in, you will be disappointed. There are holes in this film that you can drive a Mack Truck through. But if you are looking for a fun action movie that you do not have to think for, then this is a good choice.  

 

Film: UP

Disney-pixar-up-movie-poster-2

There is a 5 to 10 minute span at the beginning of this movie where the brilliance of Pixar and the filmmakers really shine through. They show us the life of the main character, Carl Fredricksen, from a child to an elderly man. The filmmakers show us how he became the man he is--his loves, his fears, and the tragedies he lived through. This segment is both funny and sad, heart warming and heart breaking. You could give other artists 3 hours of film time and you wouldn't get the same kind of character portrait you get here. And the boys at Pixar did it all in 10 minutes--with no dialogue and no narration. That was just brilliant.

It's bravura film making. That scene alone should qualify UP for an Oscar. And not an animation Oscar, a real, honest to god, given out at the end of the show Best Picture Oscar.

The story is about dreams and the pursuit of them. This plays out in many forms. About how you shouldn't delay in chasing after the dream. That no dream in impossible or unattainable. But, also, the difference between showing determination and obssession in the pursuit.

This being said, the filmmaker create a world of magic and wonder. It is a world where the implausible becomes the reality.Where imagination is key. Yes, you could go through the entire movie and pinpoint all the things that can conceivably happen, but you won't want to. You'll want to be swept up in the fantasy.

The script and plot is intelligent and engaging. There is a lot going on in this story, and where it goes is imaginative and unlike anything else you'll see this year.

UP is a great movie. I saw it almost 12 hours ago and I still smile when I remember seeing it. It's just perfect.  

 

Movie: Star Trek

Star_trek_movie_poster_imax

A film reviewer friend of mine said that this movie "was not your father's Star Trek." That is 100% accurate. But it knows your father's Star Trek, realizes how many people like your father's Star Trek, and updates your father's Star Trek with this in mind so it does it without diminishing your father's Star Trek.

For me, as good as they got, the previous Star Trek films seemed to be big-budget, much longer episodes of the TV series. This is the first that feels like a film first, franchise extension second.

You opinion of the film should be determined with in the first half hour. The wife and I were moved to tears. This could probably be due to where we are in our lives right now, but it could also be due to the skill of the filmmakers.

This is a more viseral film than a cerebral one. The emphasis is more on action that the contemplation of weighty issues. But it is a movie, not an episodic TV show. It is a different animal.

Granted, this script isn't King Lear. It manages to be complex (as plots involving time travel usually are) yet simplistic (if you've seen a movie before, you'll be able to predict events before they happen), but it works.

This film moves along quickly and is never boring. Even with the exposition laden scenes, which are a necessity considering the plot, come across as unique and entertaining.

There are nods to fans of the original series. There is a reference to a plot point in the film which should allievate any long-time fans concern about the changes to the mythology. This is not a prequel to the TV series, but rather, a sequel to the other movies.

But you still have taglines and references from the original series thrown in to please fans.  

The acting is uniformly awesome. Each actor comes to inhabit the iconic roles they were given. Especially Chris Pine. His Kirk isn't a smooth or polished Shatner-ish Kirk (until the last few frames) but rather a younger, rougher Shatner Kirk. You believe this is the man who will become the hero of the Enterprise. And Karl Urban does well at channelling not only DeForrest Kelley's cantankerous McCoy but also the kind and human McCoy as well.

The film beefs up Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov, giving each of them moments in the sun. The only bad thing about this is that it takes away moments from Bones and Scotty, which is regrettable.  

This is not to say the film does not have its flaws. The predictability is an issue. And the reliance on slapstick is very disconcerting. The goofy chase scenes and other physical comedy breaks the narrative flow. And there are plot elements that are essentially MacGuffins which are never explained (Red Matter? What is Red Matter?) 

Some people criticize the film as being an ipso facto remake of Star Wars. And I'll admit, when Kirk was fighting that weird animal on the ice planet, I was expecting him to whip a lightsaber out of his boot. But I think the similarites is that both films are sci-fi actioners more than a deliberate attempt of mockery.

However, this isn't a deep film. The creators are actively moving away from that. But if you want a fun, popcorn summer flick, then you should be entertained by this film.  

Movie: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

New-wolverine-movie-poster_404x606

If I had to sum up my feelings about X-Men Origins Wolverine in one word, that word would be "meh". It more disappointing than downright bad.

The film is a brand extension for the X-Men franchise starring Hugh Jackman's Wolverine (I know, weren't the last three Wolverine movies too? Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk). It focuses on his history prior to joining the X-Men.

There is an artistic quality to the work that prevents it from being entirely awful. Gavin Hood has enough skill to shoot a good movie. Yet, there is a major problem of tonal changes through out. There is the Matrix-like beginning, then it shifts to more of a 1970s Clint Eastwood kind of flick, they it apes the look and style of the rest of the X-Men franchise. This results in a choppy viewing experience.

And the plot is lacking. It features two of the most annoying qualities any script can have--not explaining things properly (why did Stryker want to bond adamantium to Logan anyway?) and characters acting like idiots just to move the plot along (Gambit attacks Wolvie for no good reason right before he was going to take care of Sabretooth once and for all, conveniently allowing Sabretooth to escape).

The most annoying quailty of this film is the change in the character. In the other X-Men movies, Wolverine had the Han Solo-esque quality of being a bad man who does good things. Here, he's a good man who occassionally does bad things. You might not think that is much of a difference, but it is and it severely handicaps the character.

There are a lot of comic book characters appearing in this movie for the first time. The filmmakers do a good job of giving them all a reason for being there and not just shoving them in. This doesn't mean that they are not underused. But at least they have a plot worthy reason for being included.

The action scenes are good, inventive and exciting. And, for the most part, the acting is top notch. There are nods to a lot of the elements of the comic book history thrown in. And the plot does a good job of lining up the arrows with the rest of the franchise. This film ends about 20 years before X-Men, and does nothing to contradict that story.  

I guess you could enjoy this film if you put aside the flaws and just don't think too much about it. But it definitely could be better.

Movie Review: Watchmen

Copy of SecondWatchmenteaser

I've decided to give this review a couple days to let myself think about the movie. I saw the film on Friday, but I needed to get my thoughts in order. And I have decided I am totally bipolar about this movie.

As a comic fan, how can I not be impressed by the faithfulness of the film? Yet, as a movie fan, I found it lacking. It's a movie that what it got right, it got so perfectly right, that I can never hate it. But it's flaws are so damning that I can't love it.

Let's start with the good. The movie is not 100% faithful to the book. There's stuff added, stuff left out, and things changed. But this is as close to an exact copy we are going to get outside of the motion comic. Lines of dialog are taken directly from Alan Moore script, and scenes look like they stepped out of Dave Gibbons artwork.

You can see love and care in these moments. They almost glorify the original work, and the film does well capturing the mood of the graphic novel at these times.

The acting, with one major exception, is amazing, especially Jackie Earle Haley. He does an excellent job acting, both inside and out of the mask. He captures Rorschach perfectly.

Also great are Billy Crudup and Patrick Wilson as Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan and Dan Dreiberg respectively. They have a tough job, as they are the most subdued roles in the film, but they bring humanity and consistency to the portrayals. They might not get as much attention as the showier parts, but the excelled in what they did.

It should come as a surprise to no one that the ending was changed. However, and I might be going out on a limb here, I think the film ending works better than the comic version. It's the same style of Deus Ex Machina, but it makes more sense from a plot perspective. It is more tied into the narrative and makes more sense. The only qualm I have in it is who they use as a scapegoat, but even that makes a certain amount of sense.

Of course, since the ending is changed,, there needed to be scenes added to set up this new ending. This is where my criticisms come in. While they took such great care in transferring Moore's words to the screen, they didn't take as much care in making sure the new scenes matched in style, tone or timbre. The result is a jarring break from the action, it's like someone putting product placement in Hamlet.

HAMLET: Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy. He...

HORATIO: Yo, Hamslice, you gonna be long? I gots me a hankerin to make a run for the border!

HAMLET: Yo quiero Taco Bell?

HORATIO: Yo definitely quiero Taco Bell. You up for it?

HAMLET: Mos def!

Cut to interior if the Elsinore Taco Bell.

HAMLET: These Cheesy Gorditas are off the hook!. Now, where was I? Oh, yeah, Yorick. He hath bore me on his back a thousand times...

The only way they could have made the fact it was added more glaringly obvious is if they used a siren and a red flashing light to alert us.

But the difference in tone isn't the only thing that is jarring. You can see the hands of studio executives. who, after reading the graphic novel, were disappointed in the minimal level of sex and violence. They got  a hold of Snyder and made him amp both up.

The result is what was a scuffle in the book became an all-out fight scene in the movie. And what was a fight scene became a festival of bloody, slow motion bone-breaking where even the non-powered cast members had the ability to atomize bricks by just punching them.

And the gore quotient is raised considerably. This is not a film for the squemish. Dr. Manhattan, who's comic book move was exploding people's heads, just wasn't gross enough, I guess. Now he explodes the entire body, leaving the people next to the victim, and the walls, and the ceiling, covered in blood and offal.

And then there's the sex scene, where the movie exchanges reels with its soft core porn ripoff, "Crotchmen". The scene goes on too long, and is an uncomfortably awkward break in the narrative. I'm no prude, but the scene just didn't work from a character perspective. And a note to Snyder, the scene in the comic when the couple accidentally hits the flame thrower is meant to be a metaphor for the orgasm. It becomes pointless when you show Malik Ackerman going through the throws of the orgasm right before it.

These breaks make the Watchmen, purely as a film, kind of bad. Add to that the only back story Ozymandias gets is a 20 minute monologue (which, we all know, if exposition or a character motivation is delivered in a 20 minute monologue, that's bad writing) and that Malin Ackerman is woefully miscast and completely one note throughout the movie (meaning her acting stays the same whether she is angry, sad, happy, flirtatious, or bored), and you have some seriously negative strikes against it as a movie.

But the good part were so good, it acted as a balance to the bad. It could have been much better, great even, but as it is, it is only good--and lucky to be considered that.

Top Ten People or Things That Annoyed Me In 2008.

I am going to try and make this a yearly tradition. Last year, I ranted about people or things that annoyed me. And, wouldn't you know it, I found ten things this year to rant about. What can I say, I'm a ranty guy.

These are just my opinions. I'm sure that I will rant about some things that people really love. You can love these things. That is your right. I really don't mean to offend anybody. But I just feel very strongly about the things on this list. So, no death threats or insults.

 

Without any further ado, here we go:

 

 

Anamericancarol

10. "Parody" films: There has been a recent trend of parody films sucking. It started last year with Epic Movie and continued this year with Meet the Spartans, Disaster Movie, and An American Carol.

The first two are from the same team that brought you Date Movie and Epic Movie, so they should be considered public enemy number one. These films are basically a collection of lame gags strung together with a flimsy plot  Strangely enough, up until Disaster Movie, these films always open at number one at the box office. Hopefully, this trend is going to end.

An American Carol was done by one of the Zucker Brothers, who brought us one of the best parody movies of all time, Airplane. It was his attempt to gain equal time for the conservative right by poking fun at the liberals. Unfortunately, he forgot to make it funny. This is a major disappointment.

An American Carol also tanked at the box office, which its creators probably thought was because of the unfair liberal bias in Hollywood. But really because it was a hamfisted hatchet job first, entertaining parody second.

Parodies are not easy to do. They require wit, intelligence and just the right touch. You can't just throw a bunch of scenes together and make it work. Which is what these people are finding out.

 

Santonio holmes

9. Santonio Holmes: I had the opportunity to watch at least some part of all the Steelers games this season (most from the comfort of my own home, as a lot of them were on national TV).

This was supposed to be the year Santonio Holmes was supposed to break out. The number one draft pick was entering his third season, the season when the good receivers are supposed to blossom.

Unfortunately, he did anything but blossom. The lasting impression I got of Holmes is one of dropped passes, routes run wrong, and stupid mistakes.

It got to such a point that when he actually did make a catch, my wife and I would say, "Wow, he finally caught one!" Like he won the lottery or something.

The Steelers have a history of having bad luck with high-round draft picks. Hines Ward was taken, I believe, in the 3rd round and has been nothing but clutch.  Holmes seems to be like fellow first-rounder Plaxico Burress and not living up to his potential while on the Steelers. Maybe Holmes will have better luck on his next team. And maybe the Steelers will just wait until the 3rd round to draft their WRs in the future.

 

 

Grantmorrison

8. Grant Morrison: I like a lot of what Grant Morrison does. I think he's a great writer. But he really isn't a great mainstream "event" writer.

I'll start with a caveat--All-Star Superman was a great book, filled with big moments and was one of the best interpretations of Superman ever.

But he seems to have been given carte blanche on that title, which is probably why it was so good. But when he has to work in the constraints of someone elses sandbox, he withers away.

"Batman R.I.P.," which was supposed to be the earth-shaking event which would turn the Bat-family of books on its ear, but instead was a chaotic mess. It was rumored that he was asked to rewrite the ending because DC wasn't satisfied with it. In my opinion, they should have stepped in much sooner.

Final Crisis was supposed to be the big event of the summer, the bookend to DC's "Crisis" trilogy. After bitching about not getting exclusive use of the New Gods (which, granted, he has a point) he gave us a rehash of an arc from his JLA run. For a big. blockbuster event with many other crossovers DC expects us to buy, we deserved more. And he was rumored to do rewrites on this one as well.

Morrison should stay to Vertigo where he can do what he wants and doesn't have to worry about continuity. He's a much better writer that way.

 

 

Kristen wiig

7. Kristen Wiig: I know I am in the minority here. Almost every magazine in the world has anointed her as the funniest woman since Lucille Ball. But I really don't find her funny at all.

Of course, one of her stock and trades is being an "annoyance comedienne" (I.E. the more annoying she is, the funnier she is supposed to be). But I didn't like that style when Borat did it, and she doesn't do it any better.

After that, she is essentially just a two-trick pony. She does that staccato monotone thing, like a surfer girl Rain Man. And she makes stupid faces and quirky body movements. Neither one impresses me.

Don't misunderstand me. It's not because she's a woman. I've seen Amy Poehler do improv and it was brilliant. And I find something I like in everything Tina Fey does. They are ten times the comediennes Wiig is, but get less press (well, maybe not Fey. She seems not to lack press ar all).

What it boils down to is that I don't find her funny. And the fact that it seems like everyone else does gets on my last nerve. In my eyes, she isn't the second coming of Gilda Radner, she's the new Melanie Hutsall.

 

 

Thomas_beatie_pregnant

 6. Thomas Beatie: Okay, let me just state that I really have nothing against transgender people in general. If you believe you should be a sex other than the one you're born with, you have the means to change it, and no one gets hurt in the process, I say more power to you.

But if you think you should be a man yet were born a woman, and you decide to change it, then you should leave every thing that makes you a woman behind and become a man. Thomas Beatie supposedly want to be a man. But she held on to her female reproductive organs. This causes doubt as per her motivation.

And, yes, I refered to Beatie exclusively as a female, because that's what she is-- a woman. Because if she truly wanted to be a man, believes she was a man, believes she should be a man, then she'd give up everything that made her a woman, a big part of which is the ability to bear children.

But know, she kept that. And when her wife found she couldn't have kids, Beatie decided to step in an help out and became the first pregnant "man.".

Naturally, this gained national attention through almost every news outlet, including ones that really shouldn't be covering it at all, because it is a curiousity. She gave birth and if that was the end of it, it wouldn't be as annoying.

But she is pregnant again. And she makes the announcement to Barbara Walters. Because, well, I guess all parties involved think its news or something.  And we face the possibility that this will become a reoccuring theme.

This makes me think Beatie is using the supposed freakish nature of her pregnancies as a means of self-promotion. I'm sure there will be other talk show appearances, maybe another book, and perhaps a TV deal. And that doesn't sit well with me. Having a child is a sacred, special thing. To exploit it the way Beatie has seems unctious at best. 

But, lets face it, Thomas Beatie is not a pregnant man. She is a woman who looks like a man who has gotten pregnant. This should have only been a mild curiousity the first time. The second time shouldn't have gotten any attention at all. But Beatie appears to be turing her situation it a gigantic circus sideshow just for want of attention. Yes, she should be blamed for it, but if we weren't so attracted by the whole car-wreck aspect of Beatie's sideshow, she'd slip into the obscurity she deserves..

 

 

Twilight1

5. Twilight: It seems the media and book publishers were really too desperate to fill the void left by Harry Potter. They were frantic to find a franchise that would appeal to both kids and adults. It appears that it has got what it wanted with Twilight. I heard absolutely nothing about the books while JK Rowling was still putting out novels. But now, it's the biggest thing ever.

And, granted, I am not its target audience, but Twilight seems to be the lamest thing ever as well.

First off, I believe vampires only should come out at night. Period. It was good enough for my parents. It was good enough for their parents. It's good enough for me.

However, the previews for the movie have the vampires wandering around in broad daylight. I understand the reason for this. After all, it is hard to have a teenage romance when the teens in question should be sleeping. But it kind of violates Bill's first law of vampires.

Other than that, based on what I've heard and read, it looks like it is goth-lite. It's goth for people who don't want to go full goth. There are pale people, a lot of shoegazing, a bit of romance, but all done in earth tones so as not to scare the squares.

And, logically, a romance between a vampire can only end two ways. Either she grows old while he stays the same age (unless they changed that vampire rule too) until her inevitable death does them part. That would be tragic and bittersweet and not at all happy, but would probably be the best option. Or he turns her into a vampire and they live forever and ever together in a perfect love, which, if that is the end result, the longer she is not a vampire the more annoying it will be (apparently, this the way Meyer went, and it happened in the 4th installment, which is another reason why the whole thing is annoying).

But, hey, I am not its target audience. It sold incredibly well and millions of people love it (to the point of obsession). Pehaps there is something I am missing, some subtle nuance, by not reading it. But I'll never know because I just have no desire to get into it.

 

Brett Favre

 4. Brett Favre: I've already covered my annoyance with Brett earlier in this blog. Yes, the whole ordeal over the summer really seemed to show Brett's true colors. People think he was justified in throwing the tantrum and can't understand why the Packers would not just ignore the public support they put behind Aaron Rogers and take Brett back with open arms.

But Brett became a whiny baby, an indecisive wuss and a petulant child in my eyes. Heck, he is still one of the best QB's in NFL history, and is destined for the Hall of Fame, but he isn't as much of a hero as he once was to me.

But now, with a whole season of football behind us, what has Brett done for the Jets. You could say Brett made them in to a playoff contender (although, not one who could win it when it was all on the line). But, outside of last year's abberation, the Jets were in the playoffs several times in the past few years. And the man Brett replaced, Chad Pennington, led the 1-15 of last year Miami Dolphins to a division championship and a playoff spot--with arguably less talent than Brett has. Who's to say Pennington could do the same if he stayed with the Jets.

What Brett did bring to the Jets was the whole "will he retire" rigamarole that plagued his last few years with the Pack. It's started again, and it's sure to get a lot of media attention. But if he does decide to re-retire, keep a locker open for him just in case. Or have a trade waiting in the wings in case he wants to come back, only not with you.

 

Sarah-palin

3. Sarah Palin: You know, I lived through the era of Dan Quayle, and I thought that was about as low as Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates could go. Then along came Sarah.

I try to figure out the reason why McCain added her to the ticket. I hope it wasn't just because she had girl parts and Hilary Clinton had girl parts and they hoped all the people who supported Hilary because of her girl parts would switch to McCain because of Palin's girl parts.

Part of the reason probably because she was folksy. She was supposed to embody that "person you'd like to have a beer with" quality that got Dubya inexplicably elected twice. But instead of folksy she came across as a rube who you wouldn't a heartbeat away from the presidency.

She couldn't interview her way out of a paper bag. She didn't appear to be knowledgeable about foreign affairs or practically anything presidential. She used her office as governor to punish her ex-brother-in-law. And, worse of all, she winked at us during a nationally televised debate. Winked. At. Us. Let's face it. I was probably never going to vote for McCain/Palin. But if I was on the fence, that wink would have sent me permanently over to Obama's side.  

People say Palin is the future of the Republican party. If she is, well, get used to a long reign with the Democrats in power.

 

 

Heroes

2. This "Chapter" of Heroes:  The Heroes season so far is like fast food TV. You consume it, and at the time you think it is good and satisfying. But when you think about it later, you wonder why you bothered taking it at all.

This was supposed to be the bounce back year, the one where they fixed all the problems that plagued the series before the writer's strike. But not only didn't they fix the problems, they developed a whole new batch of them.

It seemed fairly obvious that they had no long range plan for the series in general or this season in particular. Questions were raised that were never explained. Heroes turned to villains with little or no known motivations. Characters acted like idiots just so they could advance the plot. Other characters when through season long developments which were interesting and could have been explored further but instead they were abruptly returned to the status quo. Powers of the cast were only what the writers need that week, and changed as per their whim.

There was a major creative shake-up, the effects of which will be seen when the series returns in February. I hope upon hope that the series will be able to right itself because of these changes. Because if it doesn't, it might not remain on the air that long.  

 

The Hills

1. The Hills: I think this show is proof that God exists, Because if Satan exists, then God has to exist. And there has to be a lot of blood oaths to the dark lord for this series to remain on the air and have the popularity it has.

If this was just a reality program about a bunch of vapid bints complaining that their almost perfect lives are not completely perfect wholly through their own asinine actions, it would be pretty unbearable. Because, you know, I always find people who could afford to sell me a thousand times over whining because the a-hole they are dating is, well, an a-hole so gosh darn interesting.

But what makes it extra annoying that this is a unreal reality show. The "real life" events that make up the show are obviously shot and shot over again until they get it just right. That heart to heart talk you see probably took hours to shoot because the lighting was off or there was too much background sound.

This makes the fake and phony lives of these people even more fake and phony. The result is a poorly acted melodrama masquerading as real life. I simply can't understand what the appeal is. I just hope they reach teh ceiling fast. These yahoos 15 minutes of fame has long expired.   

Movie: The Spirit

The-spirit-poster

How bad was the The Spirit?

You could compare it to a bad community theater performance, but I had my share of those in the past and the people in it usually know they're in a stinker. So that really doesn't apply.

You could compare it to a high school performance, but the creators of that performance at least realize that they have a lot to learn about the craft and strive to better themselves.

The closest comparison I can come to for this movie would be kids playing in the backyard. The storylines are made up from whole cloth, and veer from one style to another based on what the kids think are cool. The players find the fantasy they create greatly entertaining, but everyone else would be bored.

Not only is The Spirit the worst comic book movie of all time (Howard the Duck, Batman and Robin, you may stop fighting for that title) but ranks as one of the worst movies of all time.

One of the major complements of Frank Miller's comic book storytelling was that it was "cinematic". I guess Miller took this to mean that he could put anything on the screen and it would be brilliant. He was wrong.

This film is more a collection of scene connected by a flimsy plot. The style goes from high camp, to Looney Tunes;like action, to Douglas Sirk-like melodrama to typical comic book fare. Each style shift is jarring and slaps the audience in the face.

There is no dramatic flow to the film. Miller gives us nothing to make us feel for the characters or care whether they live or die. He paints them in only the broadest of terms, and we never for once gain enough for us to become emotionally invested in them as people.

And, you get the feeling that Miller really wanted to make a Batman film, had no shot at doing that, and decided to shoehorn The Spirit into that. It really didn't work.

Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, and Eva Mendes gave some of the worst performances of their careers. Jackson was hamming up constantly and chewing up scenery everywhere he went. You'd think that Johansson would be able to do a femme fatale role in her sleep, but her take was just trying to talk lower. It was like a five year-old trying to talk like a big girl. And Mendes lacked the emotional depth her role called for.

No that the acting was all bad. Gabriel Macht did well in the lead role and Dan Lauria did well as Commissioner Dolan. You get the impression that since these guys were "smaller names," Miller was able to guide their performances more but was too star struck to do the same for Jackson, Johansson, and Mendes.

There are some shots of visual brilliance here and there, but most of them are inserted where they really don't belong which ruins their effectiveness.

I could complain about this movie all day. Heck, I can devote an entire blog post to Miller's using a photocopy of a woman's ass as a plot point. But it won't change the overall result. This movie is a failure on just about all levels, and should be avoided at all costs. Hopefully, this film ends Miller's career and serves as a wake up call for the creator.

Zombie Meme

I saw this on my internet travels (here to be exact)  and decided to share:

You are in a mall when zombies attack. You have:

1.) One weapon.

2.) One song blasting on the speakers.

3.) One famous person to fight along side you (Historical or Fictional).

What are your choices?

 

1. A Baseball Bat.  I'll go with Rich from the above link. More free range of movement, less chance of it getting stuck in someone, less chance of hurting yourself. But I'd make it a steel bat. Steel bats don't splinter and break as easily.

2. Something by Evanescence. I'd say "Bring Me To Life" but that would be a bit to self-referential to the situation at hand. Maybe "Sweet Sacrifice" or "Tourniquet"

3. Wow. Like Rich, I can't just choose one. Here are my top three:

Bruce Campbell as Ash:

 

Bruce-campbell

Which really is a no-brainer.

John Wayne as he was in pretty much all of his movies:

 

130-157~John-Wayne-Posters

I mean, let's face it. He always played a mean, onery S.O.B. He was good with guns and if he had your back, you back is had. Who wouldn't want the Duke by their side as the face down the zombie hordes.

Obi-Wan Kenobi, sometime between "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones":

 

Ewen2

To start, he's a Jedi, which is nice to have on your side when you're fighting zombies. The zombies get too close? A wave of the hand flicks them away. Heck, he could send a display rack flying into a group of zombies from across the mall. On top of that, he has a sword that could cut through anything. ANYTHING.

And this was a tough choice. Anakin/Vader you can't trust. Luke, Mace Windu? Not really sure how good they are. Yoda? I could fight zombies with Yoda. But I wan't this particular version of Obi-Wan. One not that far removed from the guy who was jumping up and down waiting for his shot at Darth Maul but schooled enough to kick some major ass.

Honorable Mentions: Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Dirty Harry, Wolverine, The Incredible Hulk, The Bride from Kill Bill 

Looking at this post, this might be the geekiest blog entry I ever written. And, good lord, have I written a lot of geeky blog posts.  

Movie: Incredible Hulk

The_incredible_hulk_2_movie_poster2

The wife and I, and a whole gaggle of my friends, went to see The Incredible Hulk this past weekend. The general consensus is that it was really good.

This is more a sequel to the TV show than a sequel to the Ang Lee film, which is good because the TV show "got" the Hulk much better than that previous movie.

The origin is revamped and explained very succinctly over the opening credits. It told you exactly what you needed to know without telling you what you didn't. Many comic book movies have the perceived problem of being bogged down with an origin story. If more films presented the origin this way, there wouldn't be a problem.

The acting was first rate all around, and, for the most part, better than the Ang Lee version. Edward Norton was good as he always is. Same with Tim Roth, who was badass as the bad guy even before his transformation. I was especially impressed with Liv Tyler. I kind of always thought of her acting as being kind of "eh" but she really did a good job in this film.

The only actor who I think was a step down from the previous cast is William Hurt. He did a good job, don't get me wrong, and physically he was an almost exact match with the comic version of General Ross, but he wasn't the grizzled soldier than Sam Elliot was. 

Another actor who coluld be considered a bad addition was Tim Blake Nelson as Samuel Sterns. In this film, he is a minor character. So it is kind of jarring to see Nelson ham it up on screen. But when you consider who the character turns out to be, the acting actually makes sense.

The final scene was, like the first movie, a CGI fest. But, unlike the last one, it was clear and easy to see. And exciting and with a villain who not only posed a threat to the Hulk, but also wasn't a lake.

The film is filled with easter eggs for fans of the TV and comic book, from Bill Bixby appearing on a TV screen to Stan Lee and Lou Ferringno having their cameos bumped up to small roles to Banner's dog being named Rick.

The Incredible Hulk was a great comic book movie which got right what Ang Lee got wrong.

Movie:Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Indiana1

The wife and I just came back from seeing the latest Indy. And this is what we had to say about it.

This is one fun movie.

Of course, it is updated. Harrison Ford isn't in his 40s anymore. And the movie doesn't pretend he is. And once they get that out of the way, the ball really starts rolling.

This movie is packed with fun moments. The sword fight on the moving vehicles. The fistfight in field full of ants. The swing from the vines like a bunch of monkeys.

There are a lot of, well, I guess you'd call them Easter Eggs in the film. Tips of the hat for long time fans of the franchise. Also a shout out or two to Star Wars.

The acting was great all around, but Cate Blanchett is superb. Really. Just by looking at her, you can tell what she's feeling at all times. She didn't even need dialogue.

As to problems people have with the update of the enemy and the logic behind the "MacGuffin", well, I look at it this way. The first three Indy movies reflected the serials of the time they were set in--the 30s or the 40s. This reflects the B-grade Sci-Fi films of the era it was set in--the 50s.

As for the CGI, well, that didn't bother me. Because it is pretty good CGI.

So, I had a blast. Indy 4 was a lot of fun.

Now, the trailers before Indy:

• The Dark Knight: The voice Heath Ledger does reminds me a little of Dustin Hoffman. I don't know why.
• Australia: Baz Luhrmann's (SIC) ode to his home country. It seems like a parody of all those cheesy "For Your Consideration" movie you get at the end of the year. I don't really know what its about, something about Hugh Jackman having to save Australia.
• Wall-E: Man, this looks absolutely cute and charming. Can't wait to see it.
• Hellboy II: The Golden Army: The weird thing about this is that Hellboy doesn't make an appearance until halfway through the trailer. It seem more like a sequel to Pan's Labrynth tham Hellboy. Maybe they thought they had to fool people to be interested.
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: It is a "Serious drama" about a man who ages backwards and all I can think of is Jonathan Winters character fron Mork and Mindy.
• Kung Fu Panda: It seems fun for what it is. Maybe if we see two movies this weekend, we catch it.
• Eagle Eye: This Shia trailer sneaked in on us. It has a Matrix like vibe, but in a good way.  

Ooops!!!! I caused some controversy!!!

EWjun62008

Short version: Some Entertainment Weekly writer says all comic movies suck. I write an editorial and say he's entitled to his opinion, but his logic is flawed. End result: My point is missed and I get called a geek.

 

Long version: Click here.

The Gates Ombudsman: April 8, 2008.

Ombudsman,-header

Yeah, I know I just made two other posts. But this one is going to be a catch all for all the other, smaller new items I want to rant about. It could be a long one. And all over the place.

ITEM!!! I will be attending the New York Comic Con: I know, I know. I have been critical of the NYCC in the past. But it is practically in my back yard and it is quickly becoming a place where my comic loving friends from NEPA and I can meet up.

I will only be going on Friday, however, for those of you who will accept that as a protest. A wedding and Kids in the Hall tickets interfere with me making a weekend out of it.

They are making changes to some of the issues I had with the convention. Not necessarily the changes I think they should make, but at least they are addressing the problems. When I got my ticket, the letter, instead of saying I could proceed directly to the show floor like last year's did, at least alerts me that there will be a line. Why there needs to be a line is beyond me, but at least now I know. Not that knowing does me any good, because I can't get there early, like they recommend, because I have class that day. Of course, if I had a VIP badge, which costs $400, I could get directly in. This is quite a bit more expensive than Wizard's baseline VIP package, and you get far less swag for it.

They also addressed the issue of not everybody getting a chance at an autograph with their special guests (last year, all the ticket were handed out a good 8 hours ahead of schedule due to demand). Their solution? Charge for it! $200 for Mike Mignola and Grant Morrison, $350 for a VIP party with Stan Lee, $500 for a party with Neil Gaiman. The proceeds for the last one go to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, a worthy cause, but the rest I guess the money goes to NYCC. I guess there could be a better way, but at least this give the people who want Grant Morrison's autograph but can't camp out overnight a chance at meeting him.

ITEM! Bill Richardson creates divisive act, calls for unity: I was going to give this one it's own post, but decided against it. I will say this: if you are a man who kept his name in the political spotlight through mentioning his friendship with the Clintons--even going so far as to speak to Anderson Cooper for 10 minutes about watching the Super Bowl with Bill Clinton--then you go and give your Superdelegates to his wife's opponent, you, sir, are a hypocrite and are in no position to ask for unity. And the fact you gave them to Obama after your state voted for Clinton is even worse. Worse yet is the fact that you stated that the Governors should give their Superdelegates to whoever their states votes for makes you the king of all hypocrites. Sure, he might have been just following his own beliefs, but lets just see if he lands a place on Obama's ticket somewhere.

ITEM!! Firefly might be coming out with a special edition of the complete TV series: If I thought for a second that buying this might get another season or movie out of the cast and crew, I'd buy it. But it reeks of the powers that be trying to wring a little more dough out of their fevorent fan base. I mean, really. Will there be enough new stuff on this edition that I have to buy it? If so, why not put it on the first edition in the first place. It's not like you seriously thought it would be this popular at the time, was it?

ITEM!!! Comic Book Resources updates it's look: I don't like it. The old way might not have been fancy, but at least you knew that the left side had news, the right had columns, and the new ones were at the top.

ITEM!! Comics Should Be Good starts its 100 Greatest Creative Team Runs countdown!: The idea is to list the Top 100 creative teams or creators who worked on a book for an extended period of time. Clicking above will take you to 100 to 91, clicking here will take you to 90 to 86.

ITEM!!! Entertainment Weekly runs down the 20 Worst Comic Book Movies: Their definition of "comic book" is a bit stretched. I'm not certain, but I don't believe Brenda Starr ever was a comic book. But, regardless, it is fodder for conversations at your local comic shop.  

ITEM!!! Kids on the Block to reunite: I'm with Joel McHale. I doubt the apocalypse is ever going to arrive. I mean, if this isn't a sign, then nothing is.

ITEM!! Set pictures from The Spirit released: You know, the more I see of this movie, the less I want to see.

ITEM!!! Uwe Boll will stop making movies if they gets 1,000,000 signatures on a petition asking him to stop: Finally! A cause everybody can get behind!

ITEM!!! Fraction and Brubaker off of Iron Fist, Johns and Katz off of Booster Gold, Ellis off of Thunderbolts: My reactions, in order:1) Noooooooooooooooo!!!!! (Swierczynski is, really, no replacement), 2) Noooooooooo!!! (If DC really wanted to give fans a treat, they'd have Jurgens take over the writing as well. 3) Wait a minute? Marvel is still publishing Thunderbolts? (No, seriously, are they still publishing Thunderbolts?)

ITEM!!!: Marvel fan is a contestant on Deal or No Deal: Spoiler alert: The guy opens a million on the first case. The banker reveals himself to be Mephisto and offers to put the million back in play if the guy gives up his marriage.

ITEM!!! New Guiding Lines columns published: There's a link to all of them.

ITEM!!! Also, my article on the Geppi Entertainment Museum is posted: Click above for the link to that.

The Gates Ombudsman: 03/06/08

Ombudsman,-header

Another collection of random news stories from around the web.

• New Guiding Lines Column up: This week, I cover Logan #1, The Dark Tower: The Long Road Home #1, Justice League: The New Frontier Special, Dead Space #1, DC Special: Raven #1, New Dynamix #1, Cable #1, and All-New Atom #21. Check it out.
• First Watchmen publicity photos released: The internet reaction has been mockery with faint praise, mockery, quasi-mockery, and generally positive reaction. My two cents: Did they really need to change Nite-Owl's and Ozymandeus' outfits that much? I thought that they could be translated to film pretty much the way they are. (For a side by side comparison, click here.) Maybe they are saving some money by recycling some old Batman suits from the first four movies. And, really Warners, nipples? Really? Hire someone to read the Internet, would you? People are still mocking Shumacher's addition of those to the Bat uniform and it happened over a decade ago.
• Patrick Swayze diagnosed with pancreatic cancer: The odds aren't good, but I wish him the best. If it wasn't for him, Roadhouse would just be a bad movie, and not campy fun.
• Latest Buffy issue causes a stir:  Covered by the New York Times no less! Also by ABC News, who calls Buffy's female on female fling with another Slayer a "marketing ploy". I am so happy that comics have grown to such a level that they can actually have marketing ploys.