My Review of Speed Racer, or, WHERE THE HECK IS THE MACH 5???

Whenever filmmakers adopt properties famous in other media (comics, cartoons) into live action films, they are pretty much caught in the devil's alternative. Should they attempt to be faithful to the source material, thereby ensuring that the built-in audience of fans of the property in the alternate media will be satisfied, but run the risk of alienating viewers who may be less familiar with the source material? Should they jettison some aspects of the varied history of said pop culture property, keeping the essentials intact and make a story faithful to the underlying ideas of the property? Or should the filmmakers be COMPLETELY faithful to the point of serving the underlying source material to the point where, in their zeal to perfectly replicate the environments and "feel" of the source material, they sacrifice story and forget about what really made the source material special in the first place?

Unfortunately, Speed Racer falls into the latter trap, and IMAX could not save it. I went to see the movie with Eddie, my brother, and another pair of friends at the IMAX. Of the people who were there, I can attest that only my brother and I were well versed in the history and story background of Speed Racer. We knew what the film SHOULD be about, and perhaps this made us much harsher critics than we should be. From the blindingly colorful spectacle of the first race until the predictable finale, I was most impressed with how the Wachowski brothers had painstakingly recreated the world of a colorful anime program through their generous use of green screen-based CGI. The colors just seemed to pop from the oversized screen of the IMAX and overwhelm the senses. It was our world-but not. The special effects and music were perfectly matched to the story of Speed Racer, so the story should be slam dunk solid right?

Unfortunately, this was not the case. The film, which clocks in at close to 2.5 hours, was overlong by at least 30 minutes (maybe more). In their zeal to include so much from Speed's vast history and in their quest to cram every bit of CGI into every frame, the Wachowski's forgot about basic story pacing and dialogue. There were many painful moments where I felt as if I were listening to the stilted dialogue from the Star Wars prequels (yes, Emile Hirsch even sounded, at moments, like Hayden Christiansen-but even WORSE). It was as if someone were off screen showing Hirsch the cue cards for him to read. With the exception of John Goodman's Pops Racer, every single actor in the film really let me down. Remember what I said in my review of Iron Man that any filmmaker who tries to adapt something need not change everything about the property in order to make it a success? I was really struck by how Favreau had adhered to the Iron Man mythos without having to "Hollywoodize" it. Speed Racer had the opposite problem-TOO MUCH verisimilitude. The story should have been tighter and need not have included so many expository scenes that did nothing to establish character motivations, plot, etc.
The true impact of how the Wachowskis "just didn't get" came to me two hours after leaving the theater. I went to the suburbs to test drive some cars with my brother (a fitting denouement to a day that began with Speed Racer). While staring at an Aston Martin DB9 and thinking of how Aston Martins had become synonymous with Bond, the most glaring issue in the entire film clarified itself, and I realized that the film missed the mark completely with me.

THE MACH 5 WAS NOT FRONT AND CENTER!!!!!



Any true Speed Racer fan would tell you that the star of the original source anime and manga was not any of the human (or simian, for that matter) characters. It was the Mach 5-the coolest car ever in the history of animation (yes, this includes the various incarnations of the Batmobile-funny how I always come back to that). During the first 1/2 of the film, the Mach 5 is a non-entity, a cool "almost makeout" car for Speed that seemed to be there solely because it had the requisite trunk space for Spritle and Chim-Chim's famous stowaways. When Inspector Detector and his team of scientists got their hands on the Mach 5 prior to Speed's rally race, my interest in the movie, which had been waning, was quickly piqued, and the film had me again, The rally scenes with the Mach 5 were great, as they allowed the Mach 5 a showcase for its amazing gadgetry. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a big tease. The rally was short, and more time was spent on a lame mass kung-fu scene than on the race itself, Just as quickly as it arrived, the Mach 5 receded into the background. For the grand finale race, Pops announced "but you don't have a car." I felt like screaming from the seats "YOU HAVE THE FREAKING MACH 5, YOU FAT FOOL! THE COOLEST CAR IN THE HISTORY OF CARTOONS! USE IT! USE IT, I SAY!" Unfortunately, Pops built the completely lame Mach 6, and I was denied again. The Mach 5 never made another appearance in the film. The omission of the true star of the Speed Racer series, the Mach 5, was what made the film a loser in my eyes. I mean, IT IS IN THE FREAKING THEME SONG for the cartoon, as illustrated by these 2 lines from the opening theme song:

He's gaining on you so you'd better look alive
He's busy revvin' up the powerful MACH 5 (emphasis)

Heck...Mach 6 doesn't even RHYME with "alive", now does it? Oh well. So the first turkey of the summer is here, and as they did with the final 2 Matrix films, the Wachowski brothers completely snowed me with cool trailers. I can now understand Eddie's aversion to trailers. Much has also been made of this film as being the perfect family film. Well, if your perfect family film experience includes viewing a man being pummeled by mob heavies, profanity, an attempt to feed a man to a tank of piranha as he screams in defiance, the loss of a finger to said piranhas by another man, and an obscene gesture by young Spritle, then this IS a family film. Otherwise, keep your kids away from this movie.

One final note. There were some major annoyances provided by a school class that was here no doubt on the dime of Chicago taxpayers. As with most school trips, there appeared to be one chaperon for every 40 kids, and the kids could not sit still for any appreciable amount of time. That in itself would not be so bad, but when most of the children are constantly moving back and forth in front of me and my friends during the film itself, and where the space between the seats in the IMAX is not generous by any stretch of the imagination, and where the kids could be poster children for America's childhood obesity epidemic..well, you get my point. I thought that they distracted from my enjoyment of the film, but I cannot blame them. The film had enough faults in it such that the kids may have distracted me from noticing even more things wrong.

All I can say is thank God for Iron Man. I might have to see Iron Man again just to wipe out the experience of Speed Racer. As much as I was hoping for a sequel to Iron Man, I am hoping that Warner Brothers will let Speed Racer rest in Cartoon Network heaven.

Movie Review: Iron Man

Every time a comic book hero's stories are translated for the big screen, the powers-that-be in Hollywood figure that their control over the film grants them license to make whole sale changes in the characters, story, and even the costumes. Superman's film costume lacked the distinctiveness of its comic book counterpart and the malevolence of the comic book's Luthor, the character of Johnny Blaze in "Ghost Rider"-well the less said about THAT travesty the better, and the X-Men went the black spandex route instead of wearing the distinctive costumes from the comics series. The film version of "Spider-Man" wore the distinctive colors of the comics hero, but the costumes themselves cost Sony pictures $10,000 each to produce. Does that sound like something a freelance photographer like Peter Parker could afford? Even one of my favorite comic movies, "Batman Begins," took artistic liberties with both the story and the costume. While the liberties taken with the story were understandable (and even created a serviceable background to the Batman legend), I have never understood the repeated failure to replicate the color scheme of the classic Batman costume. In fact, no superhero film has treated its audience to a perfect translation of the hero's costume...until now.



Iron Man's various armors in the film (the Mark I, Mark II, and Mark III) mirror their comic book counterparts perfectly. Stan Winston and ILM worked hand in hand to create the perfect illusion of functionality in bringing the comic book icon to life. Several times during the film, I found myself catching my breath at the amazing likeness the costume bore to the comics version.

What about the film itself? In a word, AWESOME. All too often, special effects are used as a crutch to cover up poor storytelling or character development. Here, director Jon Favreau used the special effects in service of the plot rather than the other way around. The character of Tony Stark, Iron Man's alter ego, is perfectly inhabited by the immensely talented Robert Downey, Jr. The character's transformation from billionaire industrialist to superhero could not have been successfully accomplished by too many young actors. Downey convincingly evinces the character's flaws, his struggles when he realizes his own role as a global death dealer, and his need to make things right through the construction and use of his Iron Man armor.

And what about the supporting cast? Gwyneth Paltrow does an amazing job as Pepper Potts (yes, that is her character's name and yes, that is straight from the comics). One gets the sense of her unrequited love for her boss and the chemistry between Paltrow and Downey is palpable, but Paltrow never allows the character to fall into the cliche of the damsel in distress. Even while Iron Man is in the middle of a battle, Potts is there helping him out. For once, there is a completely realized comic book female played by an A-list actor (well, if not A-list, at least one who has excellent acting instincts). Jeff Bridges played the over-the-top villain Obadiah Stane, but this is something that one could glean from the previews. If anything, the story's development of Stane into the main villain seemed almost rushed. That, in itself, is the only thing that the filmmakers could have done better...that and have more shots of Iron Man in action. Terence Howard is excellent as Jim Rhodes, Stark's good friend and confidante who promises to be around in the sequel (please let there be one).

Strange. I have gone almost the entire review thus far and have not even talked about the story. Well, I do not think I am going to. I want everyone to experience it for themselves. I will, however, share with you 2 of my favorite scenes from the film. The first scene was that of Stark building the Mark I armor as a captive in Afghanistan. The shots of Downey's face, covered in sweat, his brow furrowed in concentration and determination, as he molds and shapes the mask of the Mark I is an indelible image from the film that I will keep with me. That one scene nicely summed up the character of Tony Stark. My second favorite scene? Stark's first flight over Malibu at night. This first flight sequence made me forget, for a moment, that I was watching a film. It represent the perfect marriage of special effects, music, and storytelling. What a great sequence.

There is one thing that I want to make clear. I know a lot of friends who do not want to see "Iron Man." They see it as "just another superhero film." I am here to tell you that it is so much more. The story, the acting, the action..everything raises this to a different level. I could not be more pleased with the first summer film of the season. I will see this a few more times in the theater. I hope that they keep the cast together. I can only assume that this is what results from a comic book publisher having control over the films. This was the first film completely financed by Marvel Comics, and they had final say on all decisions. They made a comic book movie for comic book fans. Lo and behold-it translates well for the masses. More publishers should take a page from Marvel's book. If this is what we have to look forward to from Marvel, then "The Incredible Hulk," being released on June 13, may be enough to wipe the horrible taste left over from Ang Lee's horrible "Hulk" film from a few years back.

A final note. Be sure to stay through the end credits. You will be rewarded for your patience.

Writer's Block Special

Seeing as I did not watch any new films this weekend or indulge in any new television, I am suffering from a bit of writer's block. Stream of consciousness can commence...now:

Saturday, 9:15 AM: "What the hell am I doing at school so early when I have NOTHING DUE until Thursday?"

Saturday, 12 PM: "YES! Seminar paper is DONE..now to begin my last law school paper EVER!"

Saturday, 1 PM: Paper not started, shopping for computers

Saturday 2 PM: Completed the information section on the paper (to/from); still not started. Starting to think how easy it would be to procrastinate until May 13 (paper is due by midnight that night)

Saturday 4 PM: Completed the hardest part of the paper and am over halfway done. This is a good stopping point. Go home and get ready for dinner.

Dinner was out with a group of friends in celebration of one of my friend's birthdays. This was followed by a visit to a nearby Belgian chocolate shop. I then headed out to meet other friends farther north for ANOTHER birthday celebration. A country-western bar. In Chicago. Opened since the 1950s. An AMAZING house band...the guitarist, who looked to be in his late 50s/early 60s, was incredible. Good music and great company made the evening enjoyable.

Sunday: the release of Mario Kart Wii. 4 hours spent at a friends house playing it. Much excitement. Sunday night was spent playing Guitar Hero and more Mari Kart.

So ended the weekend...and my last paper is still not done...

Insurance claims make no sense

So my wonderful renter's insurance company has acted in record speed (really, they did...I am not being sarcastic) in cutting a check that would cover my losses from the burglary, but the way they calculated some things make no sense.

First of all, the company can purchase certain new items for me. These items include a new VHS-DVD deck, a Playstation 2, my slam-bang Denon receiver, and an iPod. If I requested the cash value of the items, I would be getting the reduced value. Fair enough. I chose to have the insurance company replace these items, as I really do use all of them. The funny thing about the stolen iPod: it was an old 30 GB photo iPod that could no longer hold a charge for any appreciable amount of time. I was quite honest about this fact when I reported it to the insurance company, but an iPod is an iPod. They informed me that, since the 30 GB iPod Photo is no longer in production, they would have to substitute an 80 GB iPod video and would I give them permission to do so. Umm....yeah.

So then we get to the part of the rest of the check. It ended up being a substantial amount that will adequately cover my losses and enable me to replace most of what was stolen. No, I do not think that I will be getting a replica Darth Vader light saber handle...although...hmmm...

The big thing that was stolen was my behemoth laptop. At the time I purchase said laptop, it was state of the art with all sorts of bells and whistles...and I paid WAY too much for it. So the insurance company cut a check for the depreciated value of the laptop and then informed me that there is $2000 in reserve.

"Reserve for what?" I asked.

"Well, that represents the balance of your laptop in case you need to purchase a new one. If the amount of your new laptop exceeds the amount we allocated for the depreciated value, we will cut a check for that difference up to the $2000 reserve."

"So, in other words, if I purchase a $2000 laptop, that $2000 goes unused and I lose it. However, if I purchase a $4000 laptop, you will cut me a $2000 check to cover the difference?"

"Yes."

DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE? So, pretty much, the insurance company is FORCING me to purchase another ridiculous laptop that costs too much. Any suggestions as to types or configurations would be helpful. A FULLY LOADED Macbook Pro still does not come to the amount of $4000. If the Macbooks had Blu-ray, it would be a no-brainer. I invite all of you to provide suggestions for good, reliable laptops. In other words, Dell and Compaq need not apply.

A Man's Perspective on "Sex and the City"

Eddie correctly pointed out that, in my column on the upcoming summer movie season, I neglected to mention the release of the Sex and the City movie on May 30. At the time, I was unsure if Warner Brothers, the longtime corporate parent of New Line Cinema who had just absorbed New Line into its corporate structure, was planning on delaying the release in order to change the marketing strategy, etc. I also knew that a discussion of the film would not be complete without a discussion of my own views of the series and how watching the series became almost similar to watching a train wreck at times. The following is my own perspective of the series, one MAN's view of what Sex and the City was all about (amusingly, it turns out that it was about a lot more than the subject matter of its title!).

Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda. I daresay that if you start a conversation with those 4 names in unison, 90% percent of the women in the room will immediately get wistful looks in their eyes. When TV creator Darren Starr (can that REALLY be his name), he of "Beverly Hills 90210" and "Melrose Place" fame, brought "Sex and the City" to HBO, it was before the time of HBO Series. Back then, HBO was not know for quality television programming; it was viewed as a depository for feature films as well as the occasional made-for-HBO film. Sex and the City changed all of that. The pilot episode introduced us to the foursome of women that would take us through the rest of the 1990s and into the 2000s. Each of the women represented an archetype of the XX set. You had Samantha, the sexual feminist in complete control of her life and outwardly confident. Miranda was the career feminist, a woman who dressed like a man in an effort to be taken seriously by the partners of her button down, boys' club law firm. Charlotte was the anti-feminist, a graduate of a WASPY women's college in the Northeast who had been trained since childhood to be a good wife and mother. Finally, you had Carrie, the star of the series whose career and experiences were based on those of Candace Bushnell, the author of the book upon which the series was based. Like Bushnell, Carrie was a columnist living in New York, hanging out with her friends at the hottest and trendiest nightspots. With the exception of Charlotte, there was no emphasis on finding Mr. Right-Mr. RightNow would do. Most of the episodes would focus on the experiences of one or more of the women as they made their way through NY, the dating jungle, career issues, and, ultimately, marriage, cancer, and motherhood.

I never watched the series until 2002. My girlfriend at the time was a devotee of the series, and we would watch the episodes together. I could never convince her that I really wanted to watch the show; she always asked "do you really want to watch it?" Of course I did. The show was, for the most part, well written and provided me with a lot of insight into the female psyche. Here was a show that was not afraid to reveal the insecurities and struggles of single women everywhere, and the show served to demystify the "feminine mystique" to a certain degree, as far as I was concerned. Early on, I decided that my favorite character was Carrie. Miranda was written as too much of a man-hater, and Samantha was just a little too wild. Charlotte was not as strong as she would become later in the series, so I rooted for Carrie. This all ended the day she cheated on Aidan with Big (I am not a fan of people cheating). After that, I tended to view the women with derision. All they seemed interested in is finding ideal men, but they always tended to look at the superficial instead of what really mattered. They seemed to place more emphasis on having a good time than focusing on life itself. I found them all to be irritating and was amazed that so many women I knew and respected identified with one or more of the women on the show.

In retrospect, I was being quite shortsighted. The show has grown on me in reruns, and I see something now that I never saw before. The women were developing before our very eyes, and the things that the women did in sabotaging their own romantic lives mirrored the same things that men do. Whereas the series initially seemed to be a parade of idiot men, the later shows revealed that each woman (with the exception of Carrie) was falling for a mate that, early on in the show's run, they might not have given the time of day. Among all of the angst and struggles, the women also maintained their friendship, and this was the best part of the series. Guys form lasting friendships over experiences such as beer, sports, and video games, but these women forged their friendships over meaningful experiences in their lives.

So, at the end of the series, shiksa Charlotte fell for her Jewish divorce attorney, a bald, soft in the middle sort who loved to sit his hairy ass down on her valuable furniture. He was a good guy. She could not have children, so they adopted. Miranda the hotshot lawyer fell for bartender Steve, a series semi-regular and the father of Miranda's child. Steve was also a good guy. Samantha fell for Smith Jared, a himbo who showed Samantha that she was worth loving (his forgiveness over her indiscretion spoke volumes about relationships in general). Finally, Samantha ended up with Big, something that could have been predicted but his line to her at the end of their first date:

Carrie: So have you?
Big: Have I what?
Carrie: Ever been in love
Big (smiling broadly): Abso-f**king-lutely

Such great writing. So, in the end, I learned to appreciate the ladies of Sex and the City. I enjoyed their various misadventures and complained when the stories became too serious (as with Steve's mom's Alzheimer's storyline). As such, I intend to see it in the theater. Besides the fact that this is the first new story featuring the ladies in 4 years, there is something about being a single guy in a theater sure to be populated with women that tends to appeal to me. Unless the men in the film are masochistic jerks..in which case I will make my way to the exits muttering apologies along the way...

TV Review: "John Adams"

Normally, I am not one to do TV reviews. Most of you do not even know which TV series I follow. This is because television has really let me down as a medium. The television viewing experience has devolved into a neverending carousel of voyeuristic "reality" TV where the viewers are drawn not so much by positive messages but to the pathos and suffering endured by the participants. Even that most notable exception to the reality TV genre, "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition", is fraught with inconsistencies. I was disappointed to hear that many of the families are suing the producers of "EM" because the contractors never finished their homes! As a matter of fact, many of the homes are not up to code and have been deemed uninhabitable by the local municipalities. At least the families could have lived in the homes prior to the makeovers, but now what are they to do? Meanwhile, the show continues.

I admit to watching "Top Chef" as a reality show, as I was fished in by the challenges and the chef personalities. Part of the fun is watching the chefs at the judging table, and the tension in the room is palpable. Because I have an exception to my rule of "no 'reality' TV", I suppose that makes me a hypocrit. Oh well. I still find solace in identifying good television when it occurs.

As many of you may know, I LOVE history. I love learning about the past, about ancient cultures, and about the founding of our VERY young republic. I was lucky to grow up in Virginia, as the history of Virginia is closely intertwined with the founding of the nation. 5 of the first 10 presidents of the United States hailed from Virginia (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Tyler). Virginians were instrumental in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Patrick Henry was the Virginian who gave the famous "give me liberty or give me death" speech. The only problem with Virginian history is that, like most state histories, it tends to be a bit skewed towards the Virginians when recounting the historical events of the American Revolution (no, it is NOT the Revolutionary War, for there is nothing whatsoever revolutionary about war!). As such, I always wondered about the OTHER influential state of the Revolution, the state where the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired, where the men were even more bent on Independence than even those men of Virginia. Massachusetts is the true birthplace of the Revolution, yet I had never truly learned about the influential men behind it. I knew of them (Samuel Adams, his cousin John Adams, and John Hancock, just to name a few), but I never knew of their stories. John Adams, as far as I knew, was the first president to only serve a single term in office, as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all served 2 terms. Adams never seemed to be at the forefront of the Revolution; I only knew him as one of the founding members of the Federalist Party. There HAD to be more to the story.

Author David McCullough's biography, John Adams, was universally hailed as an invaluable resource to American Revolution scholars. This meticulously researched book painted a complete picture of Adams as a man resolute in his principles who sacrificed a great deal for his belief in the independence of the United States. Tom Hanks' Playtone production banner produced an HBO series based on McCullough's book, and I had the opportunity to watch the first 5 episodes over the last 2 days.

We first meet Adams (Paul Giamatti) as an earnest young Boston lawyer with a lovely wife named Abigail (Laura Linney) and 3 small children. It is the night of the Boston massacre, and Adams comes on the scene after the massacre. He is shocked and saddened by what he sees, and he sees his cousin Samuel watching in the background, looking almost pleased by what has transpired. Samuel is a "fiery" revolutionary, a man who wants to start fighting NOW. John is more moderate, a man of the law and principles who believes that the formation of a country without a firm foundation of law can only lead to chaos. This immediately comes into play when Adams is approached to represent the British officers accused in the massacre. Until I saw this, I had no idea that Adams had defended the men. It echoed his son John Quincy's defense of the slave from the ship "Amistad." A man takes on an unpopular case and is able to rise above it through the power of the law itself. In a hostile courtroom, Adams successfully defends the men, but the cost is his practice. Because he took the case, Adams has become unpopular with many of his countrymen, but Adams believes in the law to the point where his own reputation is secondary to everything.

These events are recounted in the FIRST episode of the series. Needless to say, I was hooked. The second episode focused on the Declaration of Independence and the beginnings of Adams long terms away from home in the name of liberty. The third episode followed Adams efforts in Paris with Benjamin Franklin and his early lessons in diplomacy and political intrigue. The fourth episode begins with the end of the Revolution and Adams' appointment as the first Ambassador to the British Empire and ends with his return to the United States and election to the vice presidency.

The portrait of the man that emerges is quite impressive. Adams had a strong sense of duty to his country and love of liberty, yet his honesty and forthright approach to issues made him ill suited for the world of politics, where political infighting and backstabbing are still the norm as they were in the days of Adams. The series does not shirk from also showing the man's true failings, as Adams was an absentee father who still insisted that his children do as he says. He was completely disconnected from his children, yet Giamatti does an excellent job of showing the pain of the man when he realizes this fact. Adams was an honest man who tried to be a politician, and it was this that prevented him from securing a second term in office. I no longer see Adams as a "one term loser"; instead, I see him as a man weary of fighting a war of subterfuge and betrayal. Adams truly gave his life for his country, yet he has never been viewed on the same plane as Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Hopefully, this impressive miniseries will establish his important place in history outside of New England alone.

One final note. As I was watching the series, I thought about how this would never be on network television, and that saddened me. There was nothing about the series that was objectionable (other than perhaps the tarring of the tax agent in Boston Harbor in episode 1), yet the series would not be considered a big enough "ratings grabber" for a network to take a chance on it. I remember watching a wonderful miniseries on John F. Kennedy, called "Kennedy" growing up, and these sorts of miniseries are few and far between. When was the last time there was a miniseries on network TV? I am glad that networks such as HBO take chances on series such as "John Adams", but I wish that the series were on regular television. There is a whole generation of children who would benefit by learning of the life of John Adams.

Movie Review: "Forgetting Sarah Marshall"

Movies come in all shapes and sizes-we call them genres. Among the many genres, the comedy genre has the most potential for hits and misses. In recent history, the films of Judd Apatow, he of "Freaks and Geeks" and "Undeclared", have mostly been hits ("The 40 Year-Old Virgin", "Knocked Up", "Superbad") with a few misses along the way (most notably "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story").

I am pleased to announce that the latest film from Apatow & Company, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," is a RESOUNDING hit. Most of you probably are aware of the broad strokes of the plot (man is dumped without warning, escapes to Hawaii to recover, and ends up spending his vacation at the same hotel as his ex and her new beau), but what really struck me was the verisimilitude to real-life situations. The dialogue and scenes themselves rang true in a way that is rare in modern day comedies. Most modern comedies tend to go for the overbroad ("Old School", the films of Will Farrell, and anything that stars the individuals from the "Wedding Crashers") but humor that is born out of a real situation is the rarest type. There were several scenes in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" that rang true. For example, Peter (the main character) is blindsided by the breakup, and the viewer feels his pain and also some animosity towards Sarah for putting him in this situation. We learn that Sarah cheated on him during their relationship, and this allows the viewer to feel even more animosity towards Sarah. It is not until later in the film, when Sarah outlines to Peter how hard she tried and how Peter was oblivious does the viewer get a sense that there is more to the story than that from Peter's perspective. None of the characters are truly hissable because, as is often the case in real life, people are not "completely bad" or "completely good". It was this crafting of the characters in the screenplay that allowed the story and the situations to resonate with me long after I had left the theater.

Granted, there were a few "wow" comedy moments as well. Highlights include Peter's interactions with the hotel staff (especially Paul Rudd's surfer burnout character), scenes referencing Peter's vampire musical (the scene featuring his song had me rolling), the "naked break-up" scene (uncomfortable to watch, but steeped in realism), and the dinner scene with both exes out with their new beaus (classic comedy that, once again, felt steeped in realism).

In the end, there were also a few problems with the film. Most notably, I felt a distinct lack of closure with regard to the fates of some of the characters, and the subplot with the newlyweds felt forced and completely superfluous to the rest of the plot. Overall, however, I enjoyed the film and will probably purchase it when it is released on disc.

I wonder if the Children's Television Workshop is going to sue for copyright infringement (see the film and you will understand)...

Second Post today-a New G.I. Joe Picture

So here is a picture of Rachel Nichols in her role as Scarlett for Stephen Sommers' G.I. Joe film.



Ummm...if Scarlett looked like this in the cartoons I watched as a wee lad, puberty would DEFINITELY have been of the early onset variety.

I'm just saying...

The Summer Movie Season: A pre-season guide

The summer movie season seems to arrive earlier and earlier every year. Back in the days pre-Jaws, there was no "summer movie season" so to speak. The big releases came out during the holidays. Jaws changed that equation for all time, and now we have "tentpole" films that lay claim to key weekends years in advance, the equivalent of studios marking their territory. Careers are made or broken on opening weekend grosses during the summer movie season, and just one bad film can ruin a filmmakers reputation (see M. Night Shyamalan and The Lady in the Water).

The summer of 2008 is upon us, and I have been told that this will be the worst summer of my life (with the bar exam being at the end of July). In spite of the pending doom of the bar exam, I plan on catching all of the big summer films. My approach to summer films differs from my approach to most other films. I can enjoy a film on the pure level of "popcorn fun," letting a mindless little film take me away for a few hours without worrying about things such as plot points and poor CGI. Of course, if the subject is one that is near and dear to my heart (for example, a comic book film), I will cast a far more critical eye towards the story, acting, and overall production than I would to an unknown film. With that in mind, allow me to outline the summer movie season for 2008 and the films that I intend to see on their opening weekends. This entry will cover the month of May.

1. Iron Man, May 2: Iron Man is a Marvel Comics character created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, Don Heck, and Jack Kirby in 1963. On the 45th anniversary of his creation, director Jon Favreau is bringing a big-budget adaptation of the character's story to life. Iron Man is the story of billionaire industrialist Tony Stark, a man whose genius was the foundation of the weapons manufacturer that bears his name. Originally set during the Vietnam War, Iron Man was born during Stark's time as a POW. A piece of shrapnel caught in his chest during his capture, and Stark was slowly dying. His captors, knowing who Stark was, demanded that he create a weapon for them. Instead, Stark created a chest plate that kept the shrapnel from reaching his heart. The power supply of the chest plate also allowed him to power an armored suit that he secretly built while he was supposedly building a weapon. Using the armored suit, Stark escaped captivity, but his newly acquired knowledge of his own mortality and the evil that he witnessed caused Stark to emerge from his experiences a changed man. When he returned to the United States, he changed the direction of Stark International and, in his Iron Man persona, fought crime on an international scale. The casting for the film is perfect. Robert Downey Jr. makes for a great Tony Stark, and Jeff Bridges is perfectly cast as Stark's rival Obadiah Stane. I have high hopes for this film.

2. Speed Racer, May 9: Based on the Japanese manga MachGoGoGo, Speed Racer is the story of a young man who is the driver for his family's racing team. His father, Pops Racer, is the creator of the incredible Mach 5, a car that has more gadgets than Bond's Aston Martin. Also lurking in the shadows is the enigmatic Racer X, one of the top racers on the circuit who always manages to save Speed from harm at the last minute. Speed's younger brother Sprittle and his pet chimpanzee Chim-chim always hide in the Mach 5's trunk so that they can race with Speed, but this always puts them in danger. The racing courses along the circuit are akin to the rally's that were first popularized during the 1960s. The film looks intriguing as envisioned by the Wachowski brothers, the creators of The Matrix. I remember describing The Matrix as "a Japanese anime film come to life," and from the trailers, it appears that the Wachoskis are continuing their trend. The driving sequences look amazing and require a lot more than a mere suspension of disbelief. As a fan of the original series (Theme song began "Here he comes, here comes Speed Racer..he's a demon on wheels...."), I am looking forward to the Wachowski's interpretation. As a bonus, it is being released in IMAX 3-D!

3. The Chronicle of Narnia: Prince Caspian; May 16. I must admit that the first film, though fun, did not exactly leave me wanting more. I was unimpressed with the performances of the actors portraying the Pevensies, and the only bright spots were those that included Aslan and the White Witch. At least Prince Caspian deals with a darker time in Narnia, with the Narnians driven underground by the invading Telmarines. The problem that I have with Narnia is the issue of kids fighting battles with swords and killing others. They never showed it in the first movie, with the exception of Peter's slaying of the wolf captain of the secret police, but that is always in the back of my mind. Whereas The Lord of the Rings dealt with the realities of war in a fantastical setting, there is no sense of reality in Narnia. Oh well. It should still be fun to watch as a kids film.

4. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull; May 22. Indiana Jones is back, and Marion and a son are in tow! I have no idea what to expect, but those of you who frequent my blog will know that Raiders of the Lost Ark is on my short list of favorite films. While I doubt that this Indy film can match the heights of the first film, I will be contented just sitting in the theater and watching Harrison Ford in the trademark fedora.

On being burglarized....

So this past weekend was schizophrenic-moreso even than John Arbuckle from Garfield without Garfield. Last Thursday, I headed out with PAG, the PAGman (I refuse to call him Arms, Daisy), Scarlett, and Daisy for 4 days in the surf and sun. This was in celebration of PAG and PAGman's pending nuptials. A good time was had by all, and I had a great time meeting the friends of PAGman. Sadly, the day came to depart, and I was on an early morning flight. During my connection, the plane sat on the runway for 1.5 hours, so I arrived in Chicago much later than anticipated. As is my routine, I immediately turned on my cell phone upon reaching my final destination and checked my messages. I had 2, both from my brother.

8:30 AM: "Dude, just checking in to see what you are up to. Talk to you later."

9:30 AM: "Dude, you have to call me as soon as you get in. It is an emergency. It concerns your apartment."

My stomach immediately fell into the bottomless pit of despair. I immediately dialed my brother, fearing a) that my home had burned down and I was now homeless or b) that someone had broken into my apartment while I was away. Upon reaching my brother, I found that the correct answer was b). Someone had indeed broken into my apartment while I was away. My brother told me that someone had kicked in two doors and taken what he thought was the entire stack of my high end electronics.

The trip from the airport back to my apartment was the longest hour of the weekend.

When I arrived, I immediately took stock of the situation. I noted that the robbers had taken most of my electronics but had left others (no doubt due to my ingenious strategy of employing hopelessly entangled wires as a deterrent). I also noted that the robbers had not taken any of my dvds, blu-rays, or video game software. Strange indeed. My place was already a mess, as I had been traveling a lot over the previous 2 weeks, and i think that that might also have contributed to the robbers being unsuccessful. Upon completing my survey of the area, I immediately called 311 to report the burglary. I expected maybe one officer to show up. Instead, 10 officers descended upon my home. The cynic in me noted that this might not have been the case if I lived in one of the more distressed areas of Chicago. Burglary is not an everyday occurrence in my neighborhood. What followed was more humorous exchanges as I slowly started my recovery from the initial shock.

Officer: "Wow..this place is a mess. They did all this, huh? They really did a number on you."
Me (too embarassed to admit that much of the mess existed before the robbery): "Yeah..those bastards..."

Officer: "Why did they only take 2 of the video game systems?"
Me: "I dunno..perhaps they were Sony fans?"

Officer (in answer to a description I gave of something that was stolen): "Excuse me??"
Me (sheepishly): "A replica Darth Vader light sabre handle made of machined metal, a limited edition in a lucite case made by Master Replicas that retails for $350.00."
Officer: "Ooooo-kay...."

Officer: "The burglar left a jacket here?"
Me: "Yes, he only needed one. He took my leather jacket."
Officer: "Score."

PAGman text to me (because I called him several times upon arriving at my home): In a movie. Is everything all right?
My text to PAGman (still in Florida): My home was burglarized while I was in Florida. Oh, and I left my iPod charger in the hotel room. Holla.

All in all, the final tally of damage was around $7,000, with most of that coming from the theft of a laptop. Thankfully, I have renters insurance, and I cannot recommend it enough to those of you who may not be investing that $10 or so a month. It is totally worth it. I think that the most irritating thing of all is having the knowledge that strangers were walking around my home with their filthy street shoes looking through my stuff (as if anyone REALLY keeps cash at home anymore).

I also learned something else, about myself, from this experience. All of my life, my parents have placed a lot of emphasis on material success in life as a measure of one's success. I was worried that I was becoming, like them, too attached to the power of money. The love of money is the root of all evil, and I feared that I was falling into that abyss. Being a victim of burglary allowed me to take stock in what was truly important. I mean, my home was not burned down and I am not homeless. No one is hurt. I went from being angry at the individuals who did this to feeling kinda sorry for them. I am indeed fortunate that I have never had to steal. I hope to never be placed in that position. In my minds eye, I hope that the individuals who stole from me did so because they had no other recourse. This is highly unlikely, but I still pity someone who has to steal from another.

Finally, I learned that I had the best friends in the world. Missy, Daisy, PAGman, PAG, Scarlett, and a whole bevy of other friends offered their condolences and offers of aid and showed me that our friendships were not just mere acquaintances. I knew this to be the case long before the burglary, but I must admit to being deeply affected by the outpouring of support provided by these friends. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, I feel as if I am truly wealthy when it comes to the riches of my friends. So here is a shout out to all of you who have helped me through this.

Now all I need to do is figure out why someone would steal a Comcast cable box....

Truth, Justice, and the American Way

I am a comic book fan who also hopes to practice intellectual property law (copyrights, trademarks, patents). Therefore, it was with great interest that I followed the court case filed by the heirs of Jerome Siegel, one of the co-creators of Superman, that sought to establish their rights to the character under a provision of the 1976 copyright act. But before we get into the importance of the court ruling, a little history lesson is in order.

During the early 1930s, the comic book medium was in its true infancy. Most of the comics at the time were mere collections of the daily "funnies" printed in the newspapers at the time. 1938 ended up being the key year that, at the latest, marked the beginning of the Golden Age of Comic books. Action Comics #1 was published. On the cover was a costumed adventurer who was lifting a car full of hoods over his head and smashing it into a giant rock.



This was the world's introduction to Superman, a character created for National Periodical Publications by Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster. Eventually, NPP would take the initials from its other best selling comic book at the time, Detective Comics, and be renamed DC Comics. Superman was the archetype for the superhero. He had powers beyond those of mortal men and used them to fight evil in the world. His success was such that, in 1939, DC issued a new monthly that, in addition to Action Comics, would spotlight Superman in his own adventures. This monthly was simply called Superman. Even as the comics taste of the public has waxed and waned over the years, Superman and Action Comics are still in publication today.

Superman is now considered a cultural icon. His iconic "S" emblem has adorned all manner of merchandising since the Golden Age of comics and continues to bring in millions of dollars to Time Warner (the present day owners of DC comics). After often being handed to lesser writers, today writers vie for the honor of creating new adventures for this iconic character. Superman has starred and continues to star in cartoons, with "Superman and the Legion of Super Heroes" providing the latest excellent incarnation of the character from the DC Animated Universe of Bruce Timm. The Superman films have also returned untold millions to Time Warner in the form of box office, videocassette and DVD sales, and other merchandising. Superman toys have been sold since the 1930s, and I personally have a collection of Superman Action figures that goes back to the 1960s with the original "Captain Action" Superman set.

all the way through to the newest one released in 2006.


In between, there have been hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of Superman toys produced and sold to kids. All of these toys lined the pockets of the corporate parents for DC Comics and the shareholders with untold gains.

Now we come to the importance of today's court ruling. What does a seemingly innocent court ruling by a California District court have to do with the character of Superman? Why will this decision likely resound with the corporate directors of many Fortune 500 companies? Well, when Siegel and Shuster worked for DC, they were considered employees of the company. Interestingly, the character of Superman, however, was conceived long before they worked for DC. They were trying to shop the character around, but they were denied until NPP needed a few pages for a new publication, "Action Comics." NPP sent the standard release agreement at the time. They offered to purchase the story for $130; in exchange for this consideration, Siegel and Shuster signed a release granting the company rights to Superman “to have and hold forever.” Forever is a pretty long time, and it was considered standard practice to allow publishers these terms. After all, merchandising and money making from characters was not all that commonplace. Aside from Little Orphan Annie, Popeye, and Betty Boop, the merchandising juggernauts of today were nothing more than minnows at the time. Furthermore, $130 in 1937 dollars was a pretty considerable sum of money (adjusted for inflation, that sum would be the equivalent of $1,911.12 today). One would almost think that the creators were making out pretty well from all of this. The issue here is the unbalanced positions of the parties at the time the contract was issued. Siegel and Shuster did not negotiate the contract with NPP nor were they in equitable bargaining positions. The corporation took advantage of the naivety of these two creators and denied them the rights to a character who would one day become one of the most recognizable on the planet. The $130 consideration was the real world equivalent of Jack's handful of magic beans, but this time the beanstalk leading to the giant's riches did not grow overnight. It took decades of legal battles and the dogged pursuit of justice on the part of the creator's heirs. In the 1940s, a special referee in NY upheld the grant of copyright, and the creators dropped their suit in exchange for a single payment of $94,000. In the 1970s, due in no small part to the new focus on the rights of creators who had been cheated from profiting from their characters, DC awarded both creators annual annuities of $20,000 and then $30,000. Nevermind that "Superman: The Movie", released over Christmas of 1978, would reap untold levels of profit for Warner Communications and DC Comics. Warners at the time probably also had an eye towards a provision of the 1976 Copyright Act. The Act represented the first wholesale change to US copyright law since 1909. Within the provisions of the 1976 Act was a cause of action that allowed heirs to recover the rights of their creations from the corporate owners under certain circumstances. In 2006, this provision allowed the heirs to recover the rights in the character and associated characters for Superboy. Around that same time, references to Superboy disappeared from DC comics almost overnight. During the intervening two years, they killed the then-current incarnation of the character and made another version of the character into a homicidal killer. Revenge of sorts? That case is on-going, for there is an issue concerning whether the current CW series. "Smallville," is based upon Siegel and Shuster's version of Superboy. Are you getting a sense of how big this is?

Today, the Federal District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the heirs of Jerome Siegel owned a share of the Superman copyright. In other words, Time Warner owes the heirs of Siegel a percentage of any profit garnered from their use of the Superman character since 1999. That is a significant amount of money that might also be enough to move the stock values of the company. This battle is not over yet, for the heirs of Shuster are also trying to get rights to the character, something they may be entitled to as of 2013. This means that Time Warner cannot publish Superman comics, create Superman cartoons or movies, or issue Superman related merchandise without a license from the heirs of the creators. This also may have a ripple effect among the heirs of the creators for many popular characters who then worked for large corporations. Who is to say that the family of Ub Iwerks will not attempt to get a royalty from monies owed from his co-creation, with Walt Disney, of the character of Mickey Mouse? What of the rights of Jack Kirby, the co-creator of the Fantastic Four, Incredible Hulk, the X-Men, and Captain America? What of the rights of Steve Ditko, the co-creator of Spider-Man? What about Bugs Bunny, the product of numerous creators (Bob Clampett, Friz Freleng, Chuck Jones, Bob McKimson, and the voice actor Mel Blanc? Can their heirs sue for the rights of the character as well?

Under the terms of the Copyright Term Extension Act (the Sonny Bono Act), copyrights for works extends to life + 70 years for works of an individual author and 120 years (after creation) or 95 years (after publication) for works of corporate authorship. There is a widespread belief that, as some of the more identifiable corporate icons reach these thresholds, there will be yet another extension of copyright term, but this may be challenged as antithetical to the Constitutional mandate that such rights be granted for a fixed time. A change of this level would appear to vest copyright in perpetuity, with few characters every lapsing into the public domain.

In the end, though, we should cheer the victory of the Superman heirs. Though the ruling may slow the flow of Superman-related stories, media, and merchandise, I have a feeling that having someone else monitoring quality would be a bad thing. So many times (see my review of "Superman Returns"), I have bemoaned the fact that the powers that be sometimes cannot see the forest for the trees. Verisimilitude in the treatment of such iconic characters is extremely important. Having another set of eyes watching to insure the proper treatment of Superman is something that, hopefully, will be good for the character. I am also eager to see how this ruling plays out with regard to claims from other creators. The creators are the ones responsible. Isn't it fair that they and their heirs reap the benefits from their creations? Without Siegel and Shuster, we might never have had Batman, Spider-Man, Captain Marvel, or any other super hero. Their contribution to mass media goes far beyond that short comic story they sold for $130. It is just that they be properly rewarded for it.


The New York Times article on the court decision can be found here.

Yo Joe!

Ok, I know I promised an update on my trip to Vegas, but I came across these pictures of Ray Park (Darth Maul from "The Phantom Menace" and Toad from "X-Men") in costume as Snake-Eyes in Stephen Sommers live action "G.I. Joe" film.



Wow. I have never witnessed a better translation from the comic/cartoon image to live action than this. Furthermore, it looks like the filmmakers are being faithful to the origins of the character. Thanks to AinitCoolNews and USA Today for posting this. I hope the script for this film is as tight as these images.

A brief glimpse of my last week-details to follow.

This was the night view from my suite at my hotel in Vegas.


and this was my meal at the Mesa Grill on Wednesday night:


Jealous?

Details will follow later in the week.

The Sharpe Movies-a Quick note

Eddie has kindly pointed out something that I neglected to mention. Most of the Sharpe books have been made into films starring Sean Bean in the title role. My older brother gave me the entire set on DVD one birthday. All of the DVDs were organized in this wooden crate with the name "Sharpe's" wood-burned on the front. The set also included a map of Europe at the time of the Peninsular Wars. A really cool gift. Here is what it looked like:


Pretty cool, huh?

An Ode to Richard Sharpe-Part Two

So where was I? Ah, yes..I had stumbled across the first in the Sharpe series by Bernard Cornwell, the novel known as "Sharpe's Rifles" which, as memory served, also happened to be the name I remembered from that long ago film from Maryland Public Television. I made my way up to the register and paid for it. I was eager to begin reading it, for I knew that I would immediately love the character and read all of the books in the series. It had a cool cover, too:


Look at that guy. Would you want to face him on the battlefield? There he is, looking mighty pissed off, holding an oversized cavalry sword and a patched up green jacket. This is the type of novel that positively begs to be read, right? Well, no. I always tend to drag my feet when it comes to adopting a new author. While I really wanted something new to read, I put the book aside for a couple of months and made do with the free newspapers that were available at the time (the RedEye and the RedLine). And it sat on my bookshelf until one August morning when I finally decided to give it a chance. I am glad that it did not stay there any longer. Although I could tell that this was an early novel (it read much like a first novel, and it was, in fact, the sixth Sharpe novel written), now, looking back, I can recognize the beginnings of the rich characterization Cornwell would bring to the Sharpe's novels.

"Sharpe's Rifles" introduces us to Richard Sharpe, a Lieutenant in a British rifle battalion that is part of the British force in Spain in 1809. The rifle company is part of the 95th, and the British rifleman are referred to as the "green jackets" because, rather than the red of the "redcoats", they wear jackets of green that speak to the elite nature of the rifle corp. As the story opens, the battalion is ambushed by French troops, and Sharpe must deal with mutiny within his ranks as a large Irishman named Patrick Harper and he do battle. Harper is beloved by the men and sees Sharpe as weak, but what is amazing is that the two become fast friends through the course of the events in this novel and the remaining novels in the series. Sharpe and the battalion meet up with Don Blas Vivar, a Spanish nobleman fighting for his country. Don Blas wants to get to Santiago de Compostela, a Spanish city occupied by the French, and raise the flag of Spain's patron saint as a sign of the indomitable spirit of the Spanish people during their war against Napoleon. Sharpe assists Don Blas in his efforts. One man seeks to thwart these plans, and that man is the Count of Mouromorto, a Spanish nobleman who also happens to be Don Blas' brother. Along the way, Sharpe and the rifles get into skirmishes and battles, rescue a damsel in distress, and end up no worse for the wear. By the end of the novel, however, one sees the greatness in the character.

I read the novel in record time. There were many things I loved about the novel. One of the main things was its educational aspect. Before I read the novel, I had no idea about the Peninsular Wars. The US educational system does not do justice to the proper study of Napoleon, Wellington, and the great European wars of the early 1800s. "Sharpe's Rifles" brought to life those volatile years in Europe. Cornwell's mastery of prose instantly transported me to the battlefields of Spain, and one could almost taste the salt from the gunpowder cartridges that Sharpe and his men used in their rifles. The character of Sharpe himself is a fascinating one. In future novels, we would discover that he was the son of a prostitute who had no knowledge of his father. After he was orphaned at the age of 3, he was raised in a foundling home, one of those horrible work houses straight out of "Oliver Twist." He grew up unloved and unwanted, beaten horribly and malnourished. He escaped to a bar where a barmaid named Maggie took him under her wing as a sort of matronly Fagin. He learned the finer arts of thieving from Maggie. As a young man, Sharpe joined the army as a way to escape the hangman's noose, for he had killed a man who was a rival for the affections of another young lady (young women would continue to be a weak spot for Sharpe throughout the novels). Sharpe started the novels as a Private and ended up a Lieutenant Colonel by the time of the 100 days (the period of time that marked Napoleon's return to power from the time of his escape from Elba until his defeat at Waterloo, Belgium). Sharpe's promotions were unheard of during a time when only the elite could be officers (commissions were purchased and not earned by merit, so only the rich could afford to be officers). Currently, there are 24 Sharpe's novels. Cornwell also wrote a 4 book series set during the Civil War (The Nathaniel Starbuck Chronicles) that has a link to the Sharpe series through the inclusion of a character who happens to be related to a Sharpe regular.

My recommendation for anyone reading the series is to start with "Sharpe's Tiger", the novel that describes the adventures of young Private Sharpe in Wellington's army's of India. When you start reading, you will find a tremendous sense of time and place thanks to the wonderfully descriptive prose of Bernard Cornwell. You will learn more about Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington who was affectionately called "Nosey" by his troops. You will discover how the destinies of Sharpe and Wellesley became intertwined early in their careers and will learn about the British conquest of India, the Battle of Trafalgar (of course Sharpe was on one of the ships), the siege of Copenhagen, the retreat of Napoleon from Portugal through Spain and back to France thanks to the efforts of the British forces and Spanish freedom fighters, and the final battle at Waterloo. That novel, simply titled "Waterloo", is one of my favorite books. Period. You will not be disappointed in the series. I have recommended the series to many people, and they invariably get hooked. Who wouldn't?

An Ode to Richard Sharpe-Part 1

Who is Richard Sharpe? Why is he one of my favorite literary characters, on par with even James Bond and Sherlock Holmes? Why should everyone take the time to learn more about him?

My story begins during my second year in graduate school. Let me take you back to 1995 Baltimore. I was living in student housing at the corner of Lombard and Greene Street. Around that time, the University of Maryland Medical Center thought it would be a good idea to begin construction on what was to become the Homer Gudelsky tower, an addition to the University of Maryland Hospital located on the north side of Lombard Street right across from the student center. At the time, the new library had not been constructed, and the promise of a new building made me more excited because I knew that the value of any degree was based, in part, upon the modernity of the facilities at the educational institutions. Furthermore, I was granted a wonderful vantage point from which I could watch the hospital go up. My window faced the construction site, and I envisioned watching the building take shape from start to finish.

Unfortunately, the construction plans included a LOT of night construction. The cranes, cement mixers, and bulldozers worked through the evening, especially during the summer. Now, our building did not have air conditioned rooms, and those of you who are familiar with Baltimore in the summertime will understand how difficult sleep would be even under normal circumstances. My situation was exacerbated by the neverending cacophony of the construction across the street. This situation was made worse by the contractors need to have bright flood lights mounted high over the construction site. Remember, in "Seinfeld", how Kramer could not sleep thanks to the bright red Kenny Roger's Roaster's sign located near his window. I would welcome light that was that dim. My room, even through its curtains, was forever bathed in light. Insomnia beckoned nightly, and there was nothing I could do to keep it at bay.

During one of these sleepless summer nights (yes, in grad school for one's PhD, there are no summer vacations), I found myself channel surfing at 3 AM. I neither had cable nor particularly good aerial reception for my tiny 13" television. Most of the time, my local Maryland Public Television station was a grainy blur, but on this one evening, I was treated to a movie that would introduce me to one of my favorite literary characters-Richard Sharpe. I cannot remember the particulars of the film. All I remember was that I was mesmerized by the story of a British rifleman during the Peninsular Wars between Britain and the France of Napoleon Bonaparte. There was action, there was intrigue, and there was..history? Although I began my search for a show in a desperate bid to find something to put me to sleep, I ended up finding a film that kept me up until 5 AM, long after the construction had finally ceased for the night.

After that night, years went by. I never found another Sharpe film, and in the infancy that would become the World Wide Web, I never thought to try and search for Sharpe on the internet. Heck, I did not even have an e-mail address at that time. I just thought that if I ever came across a videotape of Sharpe (yes, this was before the advent of DVDs), I would definitely pick up the film.

Flash forward to the summer of 2002. Almost 8 years had passed since I first watched my first Richard Sharpe film, and I had almost forgotten about the character. True, I had watched the actor, Sean Bean, in numerous films afterwards (including particularly good turns in "Patriot Games" and "Goldeneye"), and I knew that he was to play the character of Boromir, a member of the "Fellowship of the Rings", in Peter Jackson's upcoming adaptation of the "Lord of the Rings" saga, but I had not thought about the character except on those rare occasions watching a Sean Bean film. This all changed one day while I was perusing the shelves of the Border's Books and Music on the corner of Michigan Avenue and Chicago Avenue along the Magnificent Mile here in Chicago. I was on a lunch break and was desperate to find something to read on my long journeys to and from work. Riding the El without reading material is infinitely more tiring when there is nothing to grab one's attention, and I started to scan the titles in the "literature" section, starting with authors whose names began with the letter "A". My intent was to find a book series rather than an individual novel. After the "As" and "Bs" failed to yield anything of interest, my eyes were immediately drawn towards a series of novels whose spines were bright orange in color. I started a bit when I noticed the title of the first novel in the series was..."Sharpe's Rifles." The author was a man named Bernard Cornwell, a British expat now living in Massachusetts. Was the movie I remembered actually based on a series of books? That seemed too good to be true. I decided to take a chance. I picked "Sharpe's Rifles" from the shelf, made my way to the cashier, and made my purchase, with the intent that I would start reading it on my ride home from work.

Join me for my next blog entry, where I will answer the question "Who is Richard Sharpe?" in much more detail.

A little perspective, people....

Let me start off by saying that I am an animal lover. Dogs, cats, birds...it doesn't matter. Animals seem to like me as well, and somehow that sort of makes me feel better in a Stuart Smalley kind of way (I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, gosh darn it, animals like me). I think that animals are much more adept than people at sniffing out BS; they see through the players and can tell which people are sincere and which are not.

Having said that, I think that we tend to lose perspective when it comes to animal cruelty. Now, I am not here advocating that we should all go out and beat up a bird, but when the news days is dominated by the news that a somewhat pro golfer killed a hawk by hitting it with a golf ball, we need to step back and take stock in what is really going on in the world. True, it is a tragedy that deserves a quick mention, but PETA is already out there beating the drum for this golfer to be strung up by his own petard for the temerity to kill a bird. As if Ronald McDonald and Colonel Sanders don't commit this very same heinous act millions of times per day. As if all of us, in the middle of our chicken dinners, will pause for a moment of silence for the spirit of the dead bird.

Do I sound harsh? If I sound harsh, this is why:

Benedict Rogers book is an account of the systematic genocide of the Burmese people. The Karen are a peaceful people who live an agrarian lifestyle, but they are being killed by the ruling regime. Where is the righteous indignation on the part of the press concerning GENOCIDE? Oh, right...a bird died. Stop the presses. The people will put down their chicken dinners to shed a few tears for a bird on a golf course, but AN ENTIRE POPULATION in a country most Americans cannot even point to on a world map? Someone else's problems. Those of you who own rubies or want rubies, consider this: over 90% of the world's rubies comes from a single valley in Burma, where the workers are akin to slaves. Remember that the next time you take out your ruby jewelry.

Have we also forgotten about this?


The Darfur conflict is ongoing. The tribal civil war in Sudan has claimed between 200,000 to 400,000 people. That's hundreds of thousands, people. Are the world governments in an uproar over this? Well, there are SANCTIONS, but because we can get oil elsewhere, we are not supporting the Sudanese government's attempts at genocide...yet. The Chinese government has no such hesitation, as they are purchasing most of the oil that the Sudanese government sells. And what does the government buy with the money? Why, the latest and greatest arms with which to mow down innocent civilians. Why give kids who are running from the violence a chance when you can purchase a brand new RPG and get rid of a whole lot of them in one fell swoop.

Now, a lot has been mentioned about what is going on in Asia and Africa. We still have problems in our own country. Remember this?


I know that Daisy does. This is an image taken in the days following Hurricane Katrina. Now the rest of the country, thanks to the news media, wants to believe that everything is back to normal in New Orleans. It isn't. When a couple of friends visited the city for the BCS "National Championship" (yeah, it's in quotes for a reason), they recounted how the side streets were still pretty deserted and how the city seemed like a shell of what it must have been. People are not moving back, and the country has apparently forgotten about this classic American town (built below sea level by the French...so they are the real culprits in the tragedy).

But no...instead of focusing on real problems such as genocide in far away places or poverty and hardship right here in the US, we get stories of PETA demanding action for a bird that died. In the grand scheme of things, aren't there other things that are more important?

I am sad about the bird, but I am haunted by reading about the Karen people genocide.

My Favorite Movies: Raiders of the Lost Ark

There are some cinematic creations that truly stand the test of time. As stated insightfully by Eddie in his comment on my Academy Awards post, the real test of a classic film is how it is viewed in the decades following its release. A film's longevity cannot be measured simply in years; it must be measured in decades. One such film that belongs in the pantheon of cinematic classics is "Raiders of the Lost Ark."


In May of 1977, George and Marcia Lucas and Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving were vacationing in Hawaii. It was the weekend of the release of "Star Wars", and Lucas continued his tradition, begun with the release of "American Graffiti", of getting out of Hollywood every time one of his films was released. As Lucas watched in amazement the reports by Walter Cronkite on the burgeoning phenomenon (lines around the block) that was to become "Star Wars", he and Spielberg started to discuss a new film based on Lucas's story idea of an homage to the great movie serials of the past. Lucas would write the film and produce it, with Spielberg handling the directing chores. The story would follow the adventures of a globe trotting archaeologist with a penchant for getting into trouble. The focus of the film would be the MacGuffin to end all MacGuffins, and the villains and and heroes would be of the strict "black hat-white hat" variety with none of the shades of grey found in the antiheroes (Vito Corleone, Popeye Doyle, Harry Callahan) of the 1970s. Even the name would be iconic. Lucas had written a story treatment for the film, "The Adventures of Indiana Smith." Spielberg was the one who pointed out that the name Smith just did not sound right. Lucas changed it to Jones, and the rest is cinematic history.

Indiana Jones.

Yes, Indiana was the name of a dog (Lucas' dog), and Spielberg helped him come up with the surname. During production of The Empire Strikes Back, Lucas, producer Frank Marshall, and writer Lawrence Kasdan worked on the story and refined the elements, discarding many that would later resurface in the 2 sequels. Spielberg and Lucas began work on June 23, 1980 (the summer of "The Empire Strikes Back"), shooting the film as they would an independent film (few takes, rapid set-ups and take downs, multiple set-ups per day, etc).

One of the more well known bits of trivia is that Tom Selleck was originally cast in the role of Indiana Jones. Due to his contractual commitments to the TV series "Magnum PI", however, Selleck was forced to bow out. On the strength of his performances as Han Solo, Harrison Ford convinced the producers and Spielberg that he would be ideal in the role of Indiana Jones. In hindsight, it would be difficult to see anyone else in the role.

I was 10 years old when Raiders was released in 1981.

I was 11 years old when I finally saw it in the theaters. By that time, I had memorized every panel of the Marvel Comics adaptation. I thought that I knew the film backwards and forwards, and I believed that, after a year of listening to my classmates extol the virtues of Professor Jones, there was NO WAY the film could live up to the hype. One could tell the story of the film just by a sequence of memorable quotes from the film.

"The Hovitos are here. Pppp...the poison is still fresh. They are following us, I tell you."
"This is where Forrestal cashed in." "A friend?" "A competitor. He was good. He was very good."
"You throw me the whip, I throw you the idol."
"I hate snakes, Jock. I HATE THEM."
"Didn't any of you guys ever go to Sunday School?"
"An army that carries the Ark before it...would be invincible."
"Besides, Marcus, you know how careful I am."
"Whisky?"
" . . . more than that, Jones. I'm your goddamn partner!"
"Bad Dates"
"Snakes..why'd it have to be snakes?"
"Asps...very dangerous...you go first!"
"What truck?"
"I am the monarch of the sea...."
"It ain't the years..it's the mileage" (CLASSIC MOVIE QUOTE)
"It's a transmitter...a radio for speaking to God."
"And I assure you it will be. We have top men working on it now." . . . "Who?" . . ."Top...men..."

Iconic moments in cinematic history abound in the film. From the first traps of the South American tomb (spiders, spears, darts, and giant boulder), the viewer is transported to a small college, where we learn of the Ark of the Covenant. With the first strains of the Ark theme playing in the background as the army men learn of the power of the ark from Marcus Brody and Indiana Jones, the audience gets a sense of the mystery and the importance of the quest. The music of Raiders represents some of the best in the career of John Williams, and that is saying a lot considering the man created memorable scores for Jaws, Star Wars, and Superman. We were then whisked away to Nepal with a meeting with Marion Ravenwood and the evil Toht. A snowy gunbattle and an icy night later, we are in Egypt with Sallah, Indy's ally. The map room of Tanis sequence (after the memorable chase scene and the "duel" between Indy and the swordsman) is one of the best moments of the film. The discovery and escape from the Well of Souls, the airplane fistfight, the truck chase, the escape by sea, and the final climax on the hidden Nazi island as Belloq, in a Jewish ritual conducted among Nazis, pays the ultimate price for his evil, all rush by at breakneck speed. Of all of the lasting images, however, none is so indelible as the final scene of the film. After being assured by Army men that "top men" are conducting research on the Ark, we see the truth. With the eerie strains of "the Ark theme" playing in the background, a faceless worker crates up the Ark, stencils on an ID number, and slowly wheels it down an endless row of similar boxes in a nameless government warehouse...somewhere. As the Ark is slowly wheeled from sight, the screen fades to credits and the "Raiders March" plays over the speakers.



Brilliant. Freaking brilliant film.

What critiques can one make of the film? The performances were top notch, the story was engaging, and the concept was familiar yet unique. True-the cartoon Nazis in Spielberg's "Indiana Jones" world are a far cry from the ones who inhabited his Academy Award-winning "Schindler's List", but the unspoken menace posed by a Nazi Germany in possession of the Ark was enough to move Indiana Jones into action.

After its initial run, the film had grossed an astonishing $384 million dollars (1981 dollars) worldwide. When adjusted for inflation, this puts it at #16 on the list of all-time blockbusters (where #1 is "Gone with the Wind"). Spielberg and Lucas reunited twice more for sequels to the original, but neither sequel came close to matching the masterpiece that was "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Whenever someone asks me to name my favorite films, "Raiders" is always close to the top.

It is now 10 pm, but writing this entry has made me want to watch "Raiders." Catch you later!