Great Odin's Raven!

In case you were wondering what to get me for Christmas.

Ron Burgundy is finally getting his own scotch (click for story).

Charlie Chaplin speech from 'The Great Dictator'

A pretty amazing speech from from a guy known almost exclusively for his silent films. The Great Dictator was Charlie Chaplin's first talking picture, and his most commercially successful.  I had never even heard of this movie until a few days ago, but now I'd like to see it.  The film was released in 1940 when the United States was still formally at peace with Germany.  The Great Dictator is a allegorical take on Hitler's Germany, in which Chaplin mocks and condemns Hitler, Nazism, Mussolini and fascism.

Chaplin, who was not a Jew, plays a Jewish barber who looks just like the dictator of Tomania, Adenoid Hynkel.  Near the end of the movie, there is a mix up in which Hynkel is mistaken for the barber and arrested.  Consequently, the barber is forced to assume the identity of Hynkel.  He is taken to the capital where he must give a speech. His lieutenant Garbitsch, while introducing him to the crowd, decries free speech and calls for subjugation of the Jews.  The Barber gets up and delivers a stirring speech, calling for humanity to break free from dictatorships and use science and progress to make the world better instead.  Chaplin starred, wrote, produced, scored, and directed The Great Dictator.  I don't much about Chaplin, but I like that he used his popularity and clout to make a film that addresses the greatest threat of his day.

(Full disclosure: I swiped most of this summary of the film from Wikipedia.)

Man Of Steel (of Nazareth?)

With six months until opening day, the studio released a new poster for the Man of Steel this week.  It's a very striking image, and not at all how we're accustomed to seeing Superman.  Ryan over at the Signal Watch, who has forgotten more about Superman than I'll ever know, made some interesting observations about the choice of this image.

If there's an image that maybe can turn the perception of Superman on its ear, its the image of Superman in shackles surrounded by the minions of authority figures.  It plays on a lot of ideas - not the least of which is that we automatically root for the misunderstood good guy (see Batman, Spider-Man, etc...), and we love to distrust and look down on the nitwits in positions of power - in the 80's it might have been corporate tycoons, but these days it seems "the guvernmint". 

If a rockstar, rapper or actor gets street cred from trouble with the law, why not a Man of Steel?  In a lot of ways, it makes far more sense, and it does go to Superman's roots.  He can't have started as a duly deputized agent of the cops and friend to law everywhere.  Is this the image that brings relevancy back to The Man of Steel for the pop culture pundits? Dark in tone as well as content, no smile, no circus-performer suit and the outsider status clearly front and center...  it's like pop culture pundit catnip. 

I think he's right, but for me the poster also evokes powerful Christian imagery.  The picture of Superman, who is essentially a God, humbled and led away in handcuffs, draws to mind the image of Jesus's arrest, trial, and ultimately his redemptive sacrifice. As a Christian, I confess I find this appealing, but Superman-Christian allegories, while not a huge stretch, tend to be way overstated.  I think Superman's story is probably more Jewish, anyway.  Did the producers have this in mind?  I doubt it, but who knows? Either way, it's a great marketing ploy that will create lots of buzz, while giving a new audience an insight into the character and perhaps an understanding of his lasting appeal.

The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 trailer

I welcome the release of The Hobbit movie this December as a great excuse to re-read one my favorite books of all time, even though Peter Jackson has seen fit to somehow stretch a 320 page book into three full-length films.  Much the same can be said for this new animated version of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, part 1 slated for release in September, part 2 sometime next year.  I have always hoped for a live action adaptation, but that's more doubtful than ever with The Dark Knight Rises touching on similar themes and story points.  The good news is that DC's best products are not coming from the print side of the company, but rather from their animation division which has put out a slew of solid, entertaining films the last few years, including Justice League: New Frontier, Green Lantern: Emerald Knights and Batman: Year One.  The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 definitely looks the part, with several familiar and iconic images from the 26-year-old story.  The choice of Peter Weller to voice the aged Caped Crusader sounds, at first impression, spot on.  I'm excited to see how they handle Superman and his conflict with Batman, as well as the social and political elements that were influenced by Cold War America in the 1980s. If nothing else, perhaps it will give kids who've never read the original an opportunity to discover one of the classics.

Hell Comes to Frogtown

How have I never heard of this?  And why haven't any of my friends made me aware of it?  I thought Rowdy Roddy Piper's 9th Symphony was They Live.  It appears I was mistaken.  If nothing else, this movie answers my long standing question, "What else has that chick from Conan been in?"

"Man of Steel" teaser trailer

Looks ...intriguing.  Not what one would expect from a Superman trailer.  It definitely implies a more serious, perhaps sober take on the mythos.  I can't say I have anything to complain about other than I wish they showed a little bit more.  The Russell Crowe (Jor-El) voice-over is effective.  Another version playing in theaters has a Kevin Costner (Jonathan Kent) voice-over.  I like that, much like the original 1978 film and Superman Returns, fatherhood is a prominent theme.  

I sure hope they pull this off.  If this bombs, there probably won't be another Superman movie for at least twenty years (or any other DC movie).  It would be a shame for a generation of kids to lose out on what Superman meant for a lot of kids like me growing up.  I liked Dirty Harry, Batman, and Arnold as much as the next kid, but their appeal was largely the catharsis of getting even, punishing bad guy and making him pay. Superman was always about doing what's right no matter what.  He's about justice, mercy, self-sacrifice, faithfulness, responsibility and hope. In other words, Superman is an ideal.  He is us at our best; what we all aspire to be.  As my friend Ted says, "Superman could curb stomp the planet Earth if he wanted and make us all his slaves," but instead he chooses to serve the planet.  And I think that goes a lot further than emptying a clip into a crook's chest or plunging your Adamantium claws through some poor Skrull.

"Oz the Great and Powerful" trailer

A prequel to The Wizard of Oz?

"Man of Steel" Teaser Poster

"Man of Steel" logo

Spidey Redux?

I hate Hollywood.  Every time I bitch and moan over the annual flood of sequels, remakes and adaptations, they suck me back in with one.  When I heard they were not only making a fourth Spiderman movie, but a reboot of the franchise after three (okay, two) very successful movies, I wondered, "what's the point?"  But after watching this trailer, I have to say, they've got me hooked.  Spiderman was my favorite comic book growing up, and although I liked the first two Spiderman movies with Tobey Maguire, I always thought they had a hint of Sam Raimi brand cheese.  That was part of their charm, but the films never quite looked or felt like the comic book.  This new film, with Andrew Garfield as a dead ringer for Peter Parker (with his homemade web shooters), looks like it may have a shot at being as good or better.  Ya think?  

'The Avengers' make a Super Bowl appearance

Okay, I'm excited.

'Way' to go Emilio Estevez

Mr. Estevez has come a long way since The Breakfast Club, Young Guns, and The Mighty Ducks.  His new film, The Way which he produced, wrote and directed looks to be quite a departure from the usual Hollywood fare.  And that's just the way he wants it.

Brent Bozell at Newsbusters writes:

In an interview on the Catholic cable channel EWTN, Estevez joked about the horror of making the pitch for this movie about a pilgrimage – no massive special effects, no parade of gore or bedroom scenes with nudity. It’s just an old man hiking across Spain with three people he meets along the way. It’s a small movie, made on a small budget. It’s about our humanity and our spirituality. It’s so easy to imagine Tinseltown’s eyes glazing over.

But what Estevez said in that interview was still striking. “Hollywood is a very difficult place to be earnest and be heartfelt. And I am not interested in making films that are anything but. There’s a lot of vulgarity in films. There’s a lot of violence, casual sex – things that make me uncomfortable watching – and I’m not interested in perpetuating that message.”  …

Here’s how “The Way” unfolds. Sheen’s character, California ophthalmologist Tom Avery, is a widower who’s been angry at his son’s decision to forego a graduate degree to wander the world. While Avery’s out on the golf course, a French policeman calls to tell him his son has died in a storm in the Pyrenees. When Avery arrives to identify the body, the policeman tells him about the “camino,” and he resolves to travel the route with his son’s cremated remains. On this very long walk, he finds companionship with a burly Dutchman who wants to lose weight, an Irish writer with writer’s block, and a bitter Canadian woman trying to quit smoking – and ultimately rediscovers his lost faith.

The movie is beautiful travelogue of the sites along the route, from mountain vistas to beautiful old cathedrals. It’s a great backdrop for a subtle human story. After the Canadian woman cynically suggestes Sheen’s character is there to march on a self-absorbed baby-boomer journey to a James Taylor soundtrack, she’s embarrassed to learn the truth. Later she admits her own dark troubles. She was a battered wife and is haunted by an abortion she underwent because she didn’t want her husband to have two females to brutalize. She says she can hear her daughter’s voice. Estevez explained, “We give voice to the unborn, and again, that is another thing Hollywood doesn’t necesssarily celebrate.”

To quote the great Clark Griswold, "If I woke up tomorrow with my head sewn to the carpet, I wouldn't be more surprised than I am right now."  In another interview, Estevez said this:

This film is really a celebration of family and faith and community and healing and our humanity. And it’s, you know, there’s no CGI, there’s no explosions, there’s no vulgarity, there’s no overt sexuality. There’s a ton of humor, and none of it is raunchy. So, this movie is really a reflection of the path that I’m walking on.  

I go to so many films and I'm embarrassed by what I see. And, you know, Hollywood is responsible for those themes and those messages that they're projecting out there for not only Americans to see, but the rest of the world. It's one of our last great exports, is our popular culture. And it's just that there's so much of it that is negative and anti, and this is a movie that’s not anti anything. This is all inclusive.

Remember this, because it may be a hundred years before you hear a major Hollywood star say something like that again.  Good for him.  We'll see how this works out for him, but whatever the repercussions from his constituents, I suspect he will gain overwhelming support from a huge swath of the country that Hollywood chooses to largely ignore.

Spock is gay

So apparently Zachary Quinto (Heroes, Star Trek) is gay.

Please register your indifference to:

The Department of Not Giving a Damn
PO Box: Nobody Cares
You're Boring, ME 97321

Courtesy of John Nolte at Big Hollywood

Ever step in a pile of dog crap?

I know I'm coming to this party a little late, but I can't leave it alone.  Last night, I finally saw The Expendables.  Part of me wanted to see this movie when it was released in theaters last year, but the bad reviews discouraged me.  Recently the film was made available on Netflix, so I thought I'd give it a tumble.

It's not like I had high hopes.  Directed by Sylvester Stallone, the movie stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews, Steve Austin, Randy Couture, and of course, Stallone himself.  The film also features cameos by Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Hardly an ensemble cast of accomplished thespians, so I went into the film with especially low expectations.

Somehow the The Expendables managed to exceed them.  There are simply no words to describe how bad this movie is.  I already mentioned the cast, but surprisingly, despite the presence of former UFC and WWE stars bringing down the curve, the acting really isn't the problem, or at least, not the most obvious.  The real problem is one of the worst scripts in the history of cinema.  It's written by David Callahan (?), whose most significant previous work is the screenplay for Doom. Watching this movie,  you'd think Stallone bought the story from the 3rd place finisher in a middle school writing contest for $20 and a signed copy of Tango and Cash.

It's essentially a plot held together by a series of one-liners.  Bad ones.  Like, so bad you don't even understand them.  Now you might say, as defenders of the film do, the movie is a throwback, an homage to 80s action films that weren't very good themselves.

Balderdash.

Yes, many of those 80s movies that we love weren't all that great, but they at least had some style and panache.  Movies like Roadhouse and Commando are on the Mount Rushmore of over the top, 80s cinema excesses, but they were fun and unabashedly committed to style over substance.  Eighties action movies are legendary for their one-liners, but the story wasn't built around them.  Some were cheesy ("I feel the need, the need for speed!"), some were ridiculous ("Let off some steam Bennett!"), but they always made you smile ("I'm too old for this shit.").  And when they were delivered, there was no conceit, no inside joke, no shame.  Just perfect timing ("Yippee-ki-yay motherf@#$%*").

Not so here.  Expendables isn't fun.  It's boring and incomprehensible.  From what I could figure out, Stallone and co. are a group of mercenaries who are hired by the CIA to kill a "rogue" agent who is taking over some small, nameless South American country in order to start his own drug trade.  But during a recon mission, he is captivated by young woman who refuses to leave when given the chance, choosing to stay and help her people.    Stallone decides he must go back to rescue her.  And of course, his fellow mercs (all four of them) sympathize and decide to join their friend in taking on an entire army by themselves for free.  Not surprisingly, they succeed (with no casualties).

The action isn't bad; well choreographed and fast.  The violence quotient is pretty high with bones and joints being broken and bent the wrong way.  Bodies are shredded and blown apart by weapons fire.  But it comes at you so fast, it begins to blur together. None of the action is in the least bit compelling because you don't really believe any of the heroes are in danger, or care enough about them if they were.

As far as the characters, the only thing that differentiates them is how they prefer to kill people.  Stallone's the crack shot.  Statham is the knife guy.  Jet Li's the martial arts expert.  Crews is the heavy weapons guy and so on.  The acting, like I said before, is about what you'd expect given the screenplay they had to work with, but one guy stands out below the rest.  I don't remember Dolph Lundgren being a particularly bad actor, but his "performance" makes you think a drunk wandered onto the movie set, stumbling and slurring his way around, demanding that he be given a part.  I seriously couldn't understand a word he said.

It's too bad.  With its cast,the film had the potential to be a lot of fun.  Stallone has shown he can direct halfway decent films.  His last two outings, Rocky Balboa and Rambo were actually kind of compelling.  The Expendables, in contrast, is dull, humorless, and I found myself checking my watch hoping it would end soon.  The worst part, however, is that no one, not my friends, not my family told me how bad this movie is.  Shame on them.

Avengers Assemble!

Sean Connery: The Musical

Fright Night review

I have long lamented the fact that vampires, one of the great antagonists of literature and mythology, have been so poorly translated to film.  Since 1922's Nosferatu, you can count the number of good vampire movies on one hand.  What's worse is how the portrayal of vampires has transformed from the embodiment of pure evil, to sympathetic vagabond, and now, sexy hero.

In 1985, before this idiotic evolution, Fright Night was released in theaters.  The movie centered around a high school kid, Charlie, who comes to realize that a vampire, a fellow by the name of Jerry, has moved into the house next door.  When he tries to convince his girlfriend and best friend, they laugh at him.  But his insistence begins to worry them, so they enlist the help of Peter Vincent, an aging star of a recently canceled late night horror show, played by Roddy McDowall (Cornelius from Planet of the Apes).  His friends hope this vampire "expert" will prove to Charlie that their neighbor is no creature of the night. When Mr. Vincent realizes Jerry really is a bloodsucker, he eventually helps Charlie exterminate the creature.  Chris Sarandon (Prince Humperdinck of "The Princess Bride") gives a great performance that is both charming and malevolent as the evil neighbor.  The movie is a little dated, with 80s styles and music, but it's still among the best of the genre.  And it blends humor and horror as well any film ever has.

The folks over at DreamWorks apparently felt this formula would work again in 2011. And since Hollywood is loathe to produce original material these days, a remake was in order.  This remake works largely because of timing.  In an era where vampires have become cute, misunderstood teen idols, audiences are ready for vampires who are just ruthless monsters, unencumbered by guilt or angst over their existence.

The new Fright Night takes place in LasVegas; an ideal place for a vampire to blend in because of its transient population that works all night and sleeps all day.  Overall, the remake has a superior cast.  Colin Farrell takes over as the not so friendly neighbor, Jerry.  Although, I think he's a good actor, I have to say that I have long suffered from an acute case of Colin Farrell fatigue caused by his appearance in one out every three movies released from 2002-2006.  But Farrell is up to the challenge.  His Jerry is a sadistic and unrelenting killer.  He lacks the elegance and panache of Sarandon, but is every bit as charming.  Anton Yelchin (Chekov in the new Star Trek) plays Charlie, a kid who is trying hard to distance himself from his nerdy past and nerdy friends in order to win the affection of a pretty girl.  This time, Peter Vincent is a Vegas magician and narcissistic drunk hilariously brought to life by David Tennant (Doctor Who).  The movie has a few good scares and more than few good laughs.  If I was a movie critic, I would say it's "wickedly funny."

Fright Night moves fast, running from scene to scene, rarely slowing down for anything, which is too bad because its best scenes happen when the movie slows down to build the tension.  One such scene occurs when Jerry tries and tries to get a suspicious Charlie to invite him into the house.  Another when Charlie attempts to rescue one of Jerry's victims.  But the movie prefers a sprinters pace, so it can feel a little rushed at times.  There is also a few scenes with annoying CGI blood that's squirts at the camera intended for the 3D version.  But none of this keeps Fright Night from being a highly enjoyable date movie, quite possibly the most fun I've had at the theater this year.  And probably one of the best vampire movies ever, but that's not saying much.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance trailer

Ghost Rider is a very cool comic book character, but most people of sound mind would agree the first movie was somewhere between not good and just another Nicolas Cage movie.  Which begs the question, how bad does a movie have to be nowadays for the producers to say, "There's just no way we can make a sequel."?  And judging by the trailer, the filmmakers have not learned their lesson.

The New "Man of Steel"

Click to enlarge

Given that Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen, Sucker Punch) is directing this, I'm not very hopeful.  Henry Cavill looks the part, I guess, but I wish they would have stuck with Brandon Routh.  There no denying though, it's got a great cast.  Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Ma and Pa Kent, Amy Adams as Lois Lane, and Russell Crowe as Jor-El. As far as the photo, my initial thoughts are:

a)  This looks more like a promotional photo rather than a still shot from the film.  

b)  That is a REALLY long cape.  And... 

c)  The filmmakers really want to you to know this is a darker, more action-packed Superman movie; not a plodding, character driven film.  In other words, it's not Superman Returns (which I liked a lot by the way).  

What do you think?

Captain America: The First Avenger review

With Hollywood honing the superhero film into a reliable cash cow and even a respectable art form, the time seemed right to bring one of Marvel's flagship characters to the silver screen.  It should be noted however, that the release of Captain America: The First Avenger actually marks the fourth attempt to showcase Cap on film.  First in a 1944 serial.  Then in a couple of 1979 made for TV movies.  And finally a 1990 straight to video version starring the venerable Matt Salinger (son of J.D. Salinger).  All were unspeakably bad, but even with the prospect of a respectable budget, it has long been a topic of discussion whether Captain America, with his star-spangled costume and patriotic values would translate well to the big screen.  Well, that argument appears to be settled.

What's right
Captain has enjoyed very positive reviews thus far and deservedly so.  The movie is fun, has a great cast, and stylish production quality.  Chris Evans delivers a fine performance as Steve Rogers, a virtuous runt who wants nothing more than to serve his country.  He is eminently likable and sympathetic.  The seamless SFX that combine the head of Evans with a frail, 98 lb. body are stunning.  The supporting performances are equally good with Tommy Lee Jones as a predictably gruff commander, Stanley Tucci as the kindly scientist Dr. Erskine, and Hayley Atwell as a feisty intelligence officer and love interest of our hero.  The movie's romantic element works far better than most superhero movies, preferring a certain modesty appropriate to the time period. Hugo Weaving's Red Skull is decent, but nowhere near the menace of Agent Smith in the Matrix films.  Director Joe Johnston deftly combines action, humor, nostalgia and romance into a solid adventure movie that appeals to a very wide audience.

What's Wrong
Last year, Johnston went out of his way to assure everyone that his protagonist would not be "this jingoistic American flag-waver.  He's just a good person."  And that the film "isn't so much about America as it is about the spirit of doing the right thing.  It's an international cast and an international story."  Chris Evans joined this chorus of pre-emptive assurances that the spectre of patriotism would not taint the film, "I'm trying not to get too lost in the American side of it.  This is not a flag waving movie...He might wear the red, white and blue, but I don't think this is all about America.  It is what America stands for.  It could be called Captain Good."
  
Captain Good?  Uh-huh...
  
Well, having seeing the movie, I can you tell you Johnston and Evans were telling the truth.  

As a matter of fact, it might as well be called Steve Rogers: The First Avenger.  Is that a problem?  Well, let's face it, lots of other heroes are "good."  Peter Parker is "good." He's a wimpy nerd who, like Steve Rogers, gains amazing powers.  What differentiates the two?  According to the movie, nothing except time and circumstances.   In truth, what separates Captain America from every other hero is his public embrace of, commitment to uphold, and willingness to fight for specifically American values such as liberty, equality, and justice.  This makes him a symbol.  But the studio's determination to avoid any appearance of "jingoism" (i.e patriotism) ultimately robs him of an ethos that is central to his character and his heroism.  Steven Greydanus over at Decentfilms.com (who loved the film) articulated this sentiment beautifully:

I appreciate that when Erskine asks Steve, “Do you want to kill Nazis?” Steve’s response is: “I don’t want to kill anyone. I don’t like bullies, no matter where they’re from.” That’s a fine sentiment, and a universal one.

At the same time, Captain America is not a universal hero. He’s a hero uniquely identified with the iconography, mythology and aspirations of a particular nation. What does America mean to Steve? What does it mean to him to be an American? I’m not saying Steve needs to be Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith or anything, although, actually, something in that direction might have helped.

Going beyond the character’s underdeveloped comic-book origins might have helped too. Superman’s values were shaped by salt-of-the-earth Ma and Pa Kent and Kansas farm life. Spider-Man’s sense of responsibility was shaped by Uncle Ben in life and death, and Aunt May helps him keep it real. Batman is defined by his parents’ murder. Where does Steve Rogers come from? When did his family come to America? What did America mean to his parents?

Of course, I understand the filmmakers’ reticence; they want to avoid any appearance of jingoism to be as marketable as possible overseas. 

Still, with this hero, if you aren’t willing to at least run the risk of an appearance of a little jingoism, you can’t help falsifying the character to some extent. It’s one thing for a movie like Superman Returns to toss out a line about Superman standing for “truth, justice, all that stuff,” in part because “the American way” wasn’t a fixture of Superman’s spiel until the 1950s; back in the 1940s, Superman really did fight for “truth and justice.” Captain America is different. 

He needs to fight for the American way.

Of course he does.  But the movie won't have any of it.  It's almost comical.  There's a scene in which Rogers is sent by the USO to give a show to some combat weary troops in his red, white and blue propaganda costume.  He later wears this when he rescues a bunch of captured soldiers.  Upon returning, he has a utility uniform made for him modeled after his colorful USO outfit.  The movie never explains why he does this or why his commanders would allow it.  A symbol to communicate ideas/values? To rally? To inspire?  We're never told.

In fairness, the film by no means bashes America.  In fact, the USA and the military come off quite well, going so far as to assemble a multi-racial team of soldiers to fight alongside the Captain (In the segregated U.S. military of 1944.  Right.).  And while the film doesn't dare to utter anything overtly patriotic, it does have a few good lines that can easily be interpreted that way.   

When asked by the Red Skull, "What makes you so special?" the Captain answers, "Nothing.  I'm just a kid from Brooklyn."  This implies, if one likes, that all Americans will fight tyranny with the same courage and determination.  Another nice line comes when the Skull mocks his costume, "I have seen the future.  There are no flags." To which the Captain responds, "Not in my future."  It's subtle, but perhaps as patriotic as Hollywood is currently capable of without raising the ire of the media and cultural elites, who are ever vigilant to protect the public from the kind of simple minded sentiments that would undoubtedly lead to nationalism and hatred of all other peoples.

Despite this lengthy criticism, I did enjoy the film.  But because it lacks anything other than a generic goodness at its heart, the movie fails to thrill or stir us in any lasting way, which is what prevents Captain America: The First Avenger from being a great superhero movie.


Fanboy Quibbles

In the comic book, Steve Rogers is trained as a master tactician and battlefield commander.  His enhanced physical abilities are honed through intense martial training, making him the most formidable hand to hand combatant there is.  In the movie, he basically walks into battle after battle with virtually no training (including flying a plane) and kicks butt, relying purely on his physical strength, agility and endurance.  The outstanding Avengers cartoon doesn't forget these details, and has a far better grasp of his character than this movie.  OK, I'm done.