Childhood Story #1: The Great Sockball Incident

My brother and I were extremely close growing up, and we remain so to this day. Our close relationship could be attributed to a myriad of factors, but the most important factor would probably be the absence of extended family during our childhood. The families of our friends always seemed to have a congregation of grandparents, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, cousins, grandkids, second cousins, third cousins (now, what the heck IS a third cousin, anyway), etc. visiting, and to this day, my parents bemoan the fact that my brother and I were denied that particular experience. As I already mentioned, however, the result of this was the close bond that was forged between my brother and me. Please do not misunderstand-things were not always smooth sailing between us, but in any relationship, there are bound to be ups and downs. I always knew, and I still know, that my brother has my back when the chips are down, and that kind of knowledge is EXTREMELY reassuring in an uncertain world.

I have promised to share with you all some of our (mis)adventures from our childhood, and today’s story will be the Great Sockball Incident. I wish that I could remember our exact ages at the time, but let’s just say that I was 8 and my brother was 12. Until my brother left for college, we shared a bedroom. The bedroom was painted a bright powder blue with matching light blue shag carpet (ahh the 70s). When you entered the bedroom, you were on my side of the room. The right and left wall each had large windows, and our twin beds were in the middle of the room. There was a nightstand in between the 2 beds where our solitary alarm clock sat. My job was to set the alarm and wake my brother (truly ironic since now, as a physician, my brother is programmed to wake up in the odd hours of the morning). There was a significant amount of space between the 2 beds, and this factor resulted in a game that had tragic (and comedic) consequences for all parties involved in the mayhem that I will now recount.

My brother and I had our chores, one of which was folding our laundry. This meant that I folded the laundry because I was the younger brother (you younger siblings know EXACTLY what I am talking about), but my brother was cool in that he kept me company while I worked. My brother is also great at coming up with fun ideas. Only now do I realize that these ideas usually ended up with the two of us in hot water, but at the TIME they were fun! On this particular day, I was folding socks. For some reason, we always ended up with loads of single socks, but instead of tossing the socks away, we would put them back in the laundry pile and wash them again. Maybe we were expecting the lost sock to magically reappear and join its mate in the laundry, but whatever the case, it never made any sense. My brother looked at the pile of single socks (a significant pile of multi-colored socks), and decided that we should just combine all of them into a single large sock ball. That made sense to me, as I was sick of dealing with them every time I folded laundry, and my brother’s idea would get them out of the way once and for all. We started to sift through the laundry pile to find the single socks, and as we discovered them, we would add them to the sock ball. By the end of our task, the sock ball was of a significant size and weight. My brother remarked that it was almost as large as a volleyball. At that comment, 2 identical lightbulbs exploded in each of our heads, and we decided that it was PERFECT for volleyball. The only problem was that we had no net, we were inside, and we were to remain inside per Mom’s orders. What to do?

My brother came up with the ingenious plan of indoor volleyball. Remember that space between the beds that I talked about? Well, that space became the “net” and the floor near the opposite windows became the opposing sides. My brother and I started a rousing game of indoor sock volleyball. We were tossing it back and forth, leaping and diving to make saves, and generally having a great time. We would alternate serves, but we were not worried about breaking anything. I mean, it was a sockball, right? Soft, malleable, and harmless!

Wrong.

After one of my brother’s serves, I tried to hit it back and I couldn’t. The next thing I heard was the sound of shattering glass behind me. I did not look behind me but at the horrified expression on my brother’s face. He said nothing. I kept calling his name. He remained silent and pointed at the window behind my head. I turned around and saw a GAPING HOLE in the middle of the window, with jagged cracks radiating out from the hole in all directions.

Thought #1: A SOCKBALL did that? COOOOOOL!

Thought #2: OH CRAP! WE ARE SOOOOOO DEAD.

There was no way to hide our problem. All of the windows were tied into the burglar alarm that would be activated in the evening, so my parents had to be notified. We slowly went to Mom and told her that we needed her. She entered the bedroom and immediately saw the broken window. Her Mom instincts click in, and she immediately was concerned that my brother and I were hurt by broken glass. Once she realized that we were unharmed, however…umm…..

[as I maintain a reader friendly blogsite, I will (to paraphrase Sam Clemens) draw the curtain of charity upon my mother’s rage]

When the yelling stopped. my Mom asked my brother and I how it happened.

My brother: “We were playing volleyball with a ball made out of single socks and it went through the window.”

My mother: Silent. The corners of her mouth were twitching, but she maintained the “Mom glare.” She asked my brother to repeat what he said.

My brother: “We were playing volleyball with a ball made out of single socks, and it went through the window.”

My Mom (the corners of her mouth still twitching): “Tell the truth and you will not be punished as much.”

I asked to be excused and then quickly ran outside to retrieve the sock ball. My parents always held my brother responsible for any such mishaps (this is the BENEFIT of being the younger sibling), and my Mom proceeded to read my brother the riot act about lying. I then returned to the bedroom, sockball in hand, and wordlessly handed it to Mom. She took one look at it, turned around, and walked (sockball in hand) out of the bedroom and into my parents bedroom. She then closed the door. My brother and I were terrified. WE WERE SOOOO DEAD. WHAT WOULD DAD SAY?

My Mom stayed in their room until my Dad got home. We heard him enter the house and go to the room to change as usual. We then heard my parents in urgent conversation, with words such as “window” and “socks” being thrown around. We held our collective breath. What would Dad do to us? What would Mom do to us?

To this day, I can still remember the peals of laughter from both of my parents that emanated from their bedroom door.

The Bourne Ultimatum: My Choice as the Best Studio Film of the Summer

In 2002, the spy genre was in dire straits. After the Cold War, it seemed as if Hollywood had given up on crafting intelligent stories with smart action and engaging characters. The James Bond films, the films that had set the standard in the 60s and started the whole “spy craze,” had become a sad caricature of itself, with “Die Another Day”, the 2002 spy installment, featuring an invisible car. The summer movie season looked grim as well, as there were relatively few big budget films that appeared to have the requisite level of story crafting and special effects to challenge an audience. Of course, this was the summer of “Spider-Man,” “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones,” “Signs,” “The Sum of All Fears,” “Austin Powers in Goldmember”, and “Men in Black II.” Amid the chaos, however, Universal Pictures quietly released a little film based on a best selling novel first published in the 1980s. The film had had troubles on the set, and there were doubts as to whether Doug Liman, the director, could really handle a big budget action film. Matt Damon, the star, was more known for more personal and intimate films. Could he really pull off an action film?

“The Bourne Identity” changed the rules for spy films and for Hollywood’s habit of treating the movie going audience with such derision. With John Powell’s music setting the scene, we witnessed a body floating on the water in the middle of a thunderstorm at sea. This was our introduction to the cinematic incarnation of Jason Bourne. Over the next 2 hours, we were thrust into the world of Jason Bourne, and as Bourne found clues, so did the audience. Although Bourne was a bit of a superhero in that he survived many incredible scrapes, this superhero was worse for the wear. Beaten, bloodied and bruised, the audiences final shot of Bourne (before his happy Greek reunion with Marie) was limping down the street as the last of the Treadstone assassins dealt with the treacherous Conklin (Chris Cooper) at the behest of Conklin’s superior, Abbott (Brian Cox). By itself, the film was a fine stand alone movie and a worthy addition to the collective works of the spy film genre. This was the thinking-person’s action film, one that begged for repeated viewings. The audiences agreed, and “The Bourne Identity” became one of the surprise hits of the summer.

The success of the first film led to a sequel, directed by Paul Greengrass. Thankfully, screenwriter Tony Gilroy was back to continue the story of Jason Bourne and Marie. In expanding the backstory of Treadstone and the not-so-pure motives of Abbott’s operations with the CIA, Gilroy again created a taut thriller that was a worthy follow-up to its predecessor. Although Paul Greengrass was an able enough director, his choice to use handheld cameras for most scenes was not very well thought out, especially for a film that, to a large extent, depends upon an audience’s appreciation of a sense of place. Where the audience would have loved to see what a high-speed chase through the streets of Moscow looked like, the director instead treated the audience to flashing images of Bourne shifting gears and close ups of his face. Granted, such shots did establish the immediacy of his sense of peril, but they left a lot to be desired with respect to establishing that all important sense of place. I mean, why bother with the expense of mounting a chase scene in Berlin or Moscow when the audience will not be treated to shots of those cities? The overall effect of “The Bourne Supremacy” was that it made the viewer a little motion sick, but because Tony Gilroy’s script was so tight and wonderfully constructed, the shortcomings of Greengrass’s technique were overcome. Damon again delivered a tour-de-force performance as Bourne, and the film was a worthy sequel.

Now it was time for a new film, one that Damon promised would be the last of the series. This film would answer all of the lingering questions from the first 2 films, but it would involve the same team. A lot had changed since the first Bourne film was released. The studios had finally caught on that the summer audiences would go out in droves to see smart thrillers. James Bond received a new lease on life with the release of “Casino Royale.” “Batman Begins” rebooted a moribund franchise and did not even show the Dark Knight until almost half of the film was done. Would Bourne still be able to meet the standards set by the first 2 films?

I saw “The Bourne Ultimatum” today, and with the opening strains of John Powell’s music playing over the Universal symbol at the beginning of the film, I was immediately thrust back into the world of Jason Bourne. Gilroy’s script did a wonderful job establishing a sense of time, as 3 years have elapsed since Bourne fell victim to amnesia and Wambosi’s bullets in his back. We see Bourne running in Moscow in the aftermath of the tunnel chase from the previous film and then see a reporter who has been piecing together the story of Bourne. From their, Bourne meets the reporter, and Bourne begins to piece together the missing fragments of his memory. Gilroy continues to amaze with his latest script. Having already written 2 screenplays where much of the action is set in dark computer rooms with official-looking people yelling orders at one another, Gilroy kept the premise fresh by injecting dissension in the ranks as Landy starts to question whether the Agency deserves her loyalty. In a wonderful bit of ret-conning, the final coda from the last film was rewritten as happening in real time with the current film. The attention to detail is what is remarkable. I must also note that, just prior to watching "The "Bourne Ultimatum", I revisited "The Bourne Identity" on HD-DVD. At the end of the first film, where Abbott is in front of the finance committee, he dismisses Treadstone as a game program that failed. However, his next project (and the one that the audience hears him explain as the scene dissolves into the coast of Greece for the finale) was a project called Blackbriar. Gilroy really brought everything full circle, as we learned in this film that Blackbriar was the replacement program for Treadstone. What could have been a throwaway scene from the first film was of some import to the running backstory of the films and rewards viewers who have an an attention to detail!

With regard to "The Bourne Supremacy's" major weakness, Greengrass fixed the shortcomings of the camera work in that film; now, even though some of the fight scenes are still a bit disorienting, there is definitely a sense of place during the numerous chase scenes in the film, including a particularly thrilling nailbiter involving Nicky (Julia Stiles), an assassin, and Bourne through the rooftops and streets of Tangier. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I was most impressed with how Gilroy revealed Bourne’s history.

When “The Bourne Identity” came out, I remember thinking that it was the best film of that summer. Granted, this summer, I have not had the chance to see some of the smaller independent films in theaters, but I have watched all of the big blockbusters (“Spider-Man 3,” “Shrek the Third,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End,” “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer,” “Ocean’s 13,” “Live Free or Die Hard,” “Ratatouille,” “Transformers,” “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” and “The Simpsons Movie”). There were quite a few enjoyable films in that bunch, but once again, Bourne must come out on top. This was the best film of the summer (in my opinion). I can’t wait to see it again.

The Simpsons Movie...was it any good?

“The Simpsons” are an American icon, but much has been made about the perceived decrease in the show’s quality over the last 18(!) years. I suppose this is normal. Most people have a perception of “the good old days” in some way, shape or form. I myself always bemoan the lack of quality music when compared to the variety that made up the musical tapestry that was the 1980s. “The Simpsons,” in spanning 3 decades of poking fun at anyone and everyone, has at times struggled to stay relevant, but in my opinion, the hits far outnumber the misses. My friend Aaron and I agree that, where an episode focuses on Bart, Homer, or Burns, the episodes usually succeed. The weakest episodes are usually Lisa-centric, and I think that the preachy Lisa episodes are the ones that most easily come to mind when one identifies weak Simpson episodes. I, however, have always been a fan. “The Simpsons” debuted during my first year in college. Every Sunday evening, my fellow dorm denizens and I would hunker down in front of the lone TV on the premises (hard to believe that most dorm rooms did not come with TVs back then) to watch “The Simpsons.” At the time, Homer’s character was not even close to being fully realized, and Bart was the real star of the show. Thankfully, the show grew beyond Bart and found its niche poking fun at all of pop culture with a rich cast of characters. Back then, Moe, Barney, Bumblebeeman, Duffman, Burns, Smithers, Carl, Lenny, Krusty, and Grandpa were simply background characters who were there for the sole purpose of being sounding boards for the various Simpson family members. This, however, served the show well because we knew so little about the family itself. Over time, the characters became more fully fleshed out, and the writers looked beyond the family for story inspiration. As the stories focused more on external characters, the supporting cast started to look a lot more interesting than the stars of the show. Of course, Homer could always be looked to for comic relief, and Bart still had his moments, but for the most part, the denizens of Springfield were often more interesting.

I think that “The Simpsons Movie” admirably rectifies that situation and reminds the audience why it is that Marge stays married to Homer. The writers brought it back to basics by having a simple story of Homer royally screwing something up and the family being forced to flee Springfield. During their flight, they uncover a nastier plot (with clues from Tom Hanks, of all people) that threatens all of Springfield, and it is up to the Simpsons to save the day. That, in a nutshell, is the plot. What is missing is the multitude of jokes and clever humor that had the auditorium where I saw the movie in stitches. One watches “The Simpsons” for the clever jokes and comments and the visual gags. The “sketchiness” of the stories works to the writers’ advantage in that it allows them to cram in as many jokes and references as they possibly can. I laughed loudly and I laughed often while watching this film. It was well worth the 18 year wait, and I hope that the writers have another one in them.

The Order of the Phoenix

During the spring of 2000, I emerged from the haze that was my dissertation to find that there was a hubbub surrounding a series of books about someone named Harry Potter. As I was always seeking things to read, I perused the first few pages of “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” at my local Barnes and Noble. I was hooked. That evening, I ordered the 3 available books in the series from Amazon, but only the first book and the third book arrived. At the time, I was living with my buddy Aaron and his wife Julie in Baltimore. I left the books on the kitchen table, figuring that the second book would arrive soon enough and then I could read all three in order. The next day, Aaron exclaimed how he started flipping through the first book the night before and ended up reading both book 1 and book 3 because they were so entertaining. He started after me to let him read book 2 as soon as I got it, but in my infinite cruelty, I made him wait until I had read the first 2 (but it was not a long wait, as I, like Aaron, am a fast reader). With that experience behind me, I became a huge Harry Potter fan. I did not care that the books were touted as “children’s literature.” They were fun to read and intricate in their references that wove tapestries between and among the books in the series. I remember Hagrid delivering Harry to the Dursleys the first night, claiming that he borrowed young Sirius Black’s motorcycle for the task. I did not know at the time that Black would play such an important role (more fully explained in “Azkaban”). I loved the series, and I pre-ordered “Goblet of Fire,” staying up all night to read it. The first of the films was released in the fall of 2001, and I was amazed at how the magic and the places in the book had been so wonderfully translated to fit the large screen. Of course, there were some problems with the earlier films. Chris Columbus is a cookie cutter director, one who is better at coloring in the canvas rather than creating a sketch from scratch. It was not until the cinematic adaptation of “Azkaban” that the Potter film series really took flight. With each successive film, the directors have been more and more willing to discard the less vital elements of each story in a manner that still allows for some of these things to have been going on in the background but just not on screen. The success of the films has really peaked with the latest film in the series, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.”

Having watched “Azkaban” at the IMAX theater 3 years ago upon its release, I was already excited over the fact that this newest film would similarly be released in the IMAX format. When word was leaked that the last 20 minutes of the film (with story that entailed the exciting climax) was to be in IMAX 3-D, I knew that seeing the film in IMAX (or experiencing it, as it were) was a must. I organized a viewing party of 16 people and purchased tickets the day that they were released-3 weeks before the film came out! The nice thing about Navy Pier’s IMAX theater is that all seating is reserved. I was careful to choose excellent seats at the time of purchase (middle of the rows, but not too close to the screen) for the viewing party. Including in the party were Daisy, Jeff, Kate, Mike, Elese and more than a few other friends. The film began without any previews or warning of any sort, and the audience was at once in the world of Harry Potter. We follow Harry, alone in his thoughts, as he is interrupted by Dudley and his band of bullies. The Dementor attack soon follows, and we are whisked away to Sirius Black’s home in a thrilling broomstick ride through London at night. This is what IMAX was made for! Writer Michael Goldenberg and director David Yeates wisely streamlined the story to maintain the focus on Harry and his efforts to train his friends and companions in the Defense Against the Dark Arts. The result is a tight film that is the shortest of the films, all the more remarkable when one realizes that the book was the longest of all the Potter films. The three principle actors, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson, have really grown into their roles. I, for one, envision these actors as I read the Potter books. More importantly, the interaction among the three seems less forced and more natural, as if the audience is looking in on a gathering of real friends rather than watching actors falter through some forced humor. A key example of this is the Gryffindor common room sequence where Harry, Ron, and Hermione have gathered in front of the fireplace as Harry recounts his first kiss. The audience is treated to a wonderful scene of friendship, complete with gentle ribbing and laughing.

What else worked in the film? The following scenes illustrate why this film was able to supersede the wonders of the magical world with some well directed character moments: 1) the arrival of the kids at Hogwarts and Ginny’s expression upon seeing Harry’s interest in Cho, 2) scenes where Harry is angry at Ron and Hermione for not understanding his pain over what he has endured and Ron and Hermione’s angst at not being able to understand, 3) Harry’s scene with Luna where she explains that Voldemort would most likely want Harry to be separated from his friends as it would make Harry an easier target, 4) the quick flashback to Snape’s time as a student and as an object of ridicule at the hands of James Potter, 5) Neville’s recounting to Harry of the death of his parents and Harry’s words of comfort, 6) Fred and George comforting a young member of the DA crying from Umbridge’s tortuous punishment, 7) changes to the betrayal of the DA by one of their own, 8) Trelawney’s firing and Dumbledore’s response, 9) the final battle sequence, including Harry and Sirius fighting side-by-side and the showdown between Dumbledore and Voldemort. There were very few ill-conceived moments in the film. I suppose the only weakness might have been the shoddy CGI of Grawp (Hagrid’s brother), but the stunningly rendered centaurs more than made up for it. I was also struck with the busy-ness of the battle in the Hall of Mysteries, as the audience is witnessing a full on battle among good and evil wizards and witches.

In the end, the film surprised me because I usually find film adaptations of literary works to be incomplete at best and incomprehensible translations at worst. This film, however, transcends the normal shortcomings of cinematic adaptations, and this transcendence resulted in my failure to realize what, exactly, was missing. In the end, I decided that nothing was missing. This was the perfect film to whet my appetite for the final Potter novel, and I am pleased that Yeates will be back to direct the next film in the series.

Suresh’s rating: Wonderfully Entertaining and the best of the Potter films

The Return of John McClane...and Not a Moment Too Soon!

The 1980s were an interesting time for action films. The feel-good artificial superiority of the American way of life espoused by Reagan’s America was best reflected at the time by the action heroes on the big screen. I remember the 80s as being the time of Rocky and Rambo, of looking at the screen and seeing grotesque (maybe not to Daisy, who was crawling at this time, but definitely grotesque to me) images of Governor Schwarzenegger (then an up-and-coming action star) as he wreaked mayhem on bad guys with films such as “Commando,” “Raw Deal”, and “Red Heat.” The steroided denizens of the action movie universe almost made one feel sorry for the villains…almost. Most of the villains in these single note action extravaganzas could barely understand their own machinations, much less be a proper foil for the action star of the day. Furthermore, as a young, impressionable male of the era, I knew that I could never hope to emulate these steroid poster boys in any way, shape or form. The stories were interchangeable, the action was over the top, the villains were laughable, and the dialogue (if you could call it that) was utterly forgettable. This was the status of the action film circa 1988. This was before John McClane.

John McClane was everyman. He was balding, did not have a chiseled physique, did not have a happy marriage, and was cynical in every way. McClane was someone that everyone could relate to. We all knew guys like McClane…at least on the outside. The difference between McClane and other guys rested with the intangibles. As a man perennially caught in the wrong place at the wrong time with the odds stacked hopelessly against him, what chance did McClane have armed with a single automatic pistol and his spirit? The answer, it turned out, was more than the better armed and prepared villains. “Die Hard” exploded (I know…a clichéd phrase, but apropos) onto screens and into the cultural zeitgeist on July 15, 1988 (wow, has it really been almost 20 years?). The film has excellent pacing. We meet officer McClane as he is flying to California to meet up with his estranged wife and children. He figures that he will meet his wife at her place of work (the Nakatomi skyscraper) and the two of them may or may not be able to reconcile. While there, Officer McClane falls into the middle of a heist masterminded by Hans Gruber (portrayed in a tour de force performance by Alan Rickman). I liken everything up until the take over to a roller coaster being pulled up the first giant hill. Once Gruber’s minions seize control of the building, the audience is hurtled over the top into a wild ride where what we have learned in Action Films 101 does not matter. We see McClane gradually get beaten and bloody throughout the film, but he never quits. He is the only one who is trying to stop the bad guys, and his sole motivation is to save his wife. There are several memorable (even classic) scenes in this film: 1) the explosion that takes out an entire floor of the skyscraper, 2) the banter between Al (Reginald VelJohnson (better known as Carl from “Family Matters”)) and McClane, 3) ANY of Gruber’s dialogue in the film, 4) the helicopter/rooftop action sequence- “Oh God, please don’t let me die”, 4) the final showdown between Karl (Alexander Godunov) and McClane, 6) “shoot the glass”, 7) “Yipee-ki-yay, M-F’er”, and 8) the fate of Hans Gruber.

Sadly, this film was followed by the immediately forgettable “Die Hard 2.” The third film in the series, “Die Hard With a Vengeance,” was released in 1995 and worked as an action film. There was no motivation, however, for John McClane doing what he was doing. There was a loose connection with the villain (Jeremy Irons) and Hans Gruber, but the motivation for John McClane was not the same as it was in earlier films. The writers, however, crafted a film where McClane was merely a guy doing the things he does because no one else can. Quite wisely, they kept his family out of this and made John a failure in life. John’s character is one that rises to the occasion in times of great threats, but he cannot cope with the mundaneness of a normal life. With repeated viewings, I grew to enjoy this film as a good film in its own right.

Now we reach 2007. The action film landscape has changed considerably. With the advent of CGI and the decline in actual live stunts, the movie going audience is much more sophisticated when it comes to the action films that they enjoy. If you do not believe me, try sitting through a mid-80s action film now. The films are just not watchable (save for “Die Hard”) on any meaningful level. In an effort to recapture some of the taste of the 80s, Stallone and Willis have both returned to the scenes of their greatest successes. Stallone was first with his release of “Rocky Balboa,” a fitting bookend to the “Rocky” saga. Stallone is currently working on the similarly titled “John Rambo,” starring the granddaddy (literally at this point) of 80s action stars. It seemed only fitting that Bruce Willis would resurrect John McClane, and thankfully, he made sure that audiences would recognize the character when he agreed to star in “Live Free or Die Hard.” In this film, McClane is older. His daughter Lucy (seen briefly as a child in the original “Die Hard,” hates her father so much that she goes by her mother’s surname. John is still a loner when he is called on to do something that should be quite ordinary-escort a “person of interest” to FBI headquarters in Washington DC over the Fourth of July. Instead, John is drawn into the center of a master criminal’s plan to cripple the US infrastructure through the shutdown of the computer networks while the criminal attempts to upload files from a secure location in Maryland. McClane is “an analog guy in a digital world,” but as he soon shows, in a battle between a sledgehammer and a computer, the sledgehammer will usually win. This film, like “Transformers” before it, is definitely a “check your brain at the door” action film, but it succeeds in its mission to entertain. It was refreshing to see classic action filmmaking even in the midst of a few instances of CGI in the film. Favorite moments from this film included (for me) sequences in one of the DC tunnels, the action sequence at the power grid location in West Virginia, and the final desperate action sequence featuring McClane against a fighter jet and thousands of tons of falling highway. The villain was not especially strong, but as no one could top Alan Rickman’s Hans Gruber from the first one, I could forgive this. John’s personal stake in this film was the safety of his daughter; therefore, it was easy to understand why he did not choose to walk away from it when he did not have to go after the bad guys. Even without the bad guys, however, McClane does a great job of explaining why he still tries-because no one else will do it.

The film is, of course, filled with ludicrous stunts and lots of dead bad guys, but gone are the horrible puns associated with the action genre of the 1980s. In the 2000s, death is not something to make light of, and the fact that the audience did not respond negatively to a fake shot of the U.S. Capitol blowing up told me that we have healed a bit since 9/11. The patriotism from the film came not from a partisan stance on either side but from McClane himself. The script is not the best in the series, but the action stunts and Bruce Willis’s now-iconic portrayal of the true “last action hero” allowed the film to rise above mediocrity into a level higher than that of most of this summer’s films.

Check your brain at the door and spend some time with John McClane. Welcome back, old friend.

Artful's scale: better than Die Hard 2, but not as good as Die Hard or Die Hard With a Vengeance.

Ratatouille...almost great

Computer animation is all the rage now. It has almost succeeded in completely supplanting traditional hand-drawn animation to the point where even everyday cartoons are done by computers. This is not to say that the writing was on the wall early on in the evolution of computer animation. When “Tron” was released in 1982, it represented a quantum leap forward in animation technique in a film that was ahead of its time. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, I suggest that you check it out. Disney was not the only one experimenting with computerized film making. Universal Studios and Lorimar film entertainment exclusively utilized Cray supercomputers to generate the special effects for the 1984 film “The Last Starfighter.” The marriage of computer effects and cinematic special effects to this point, however, were merged with the video game subculture, as both of the aforementioned films dealt heavily with videogames as something other than side diversions. It would not be until Disney’s animation renaissance with “The Little Mermaid” in 1989 that the power of computers for animation would fully be appreciated. Although much of “The Little Mermaid” was of the traditional, hand drawn variety, some of the key action-intensive sequences, such as the final battle with Ursula, utilized the Pixar program developed at Disney and in collaboration with Lucasfilm. Computers were also at play in “Beauty and the Beast” during the show-stopping romantic climax where Belle and the Beast dance below a beautifully (computer) animated chandelier while Angela Lansbury sang the title song. Note that if you ever see a purported animation “cel” of this sequence, it is most likely a fake. Unlike traditional animation, there are no cels in computer animation. A cel is a clear plastic piece of cellulose upon which animators would draw their photos. Some of the classic cels are worth many thousands of dollars. Be careful….

But I digress. During the animation renaissance at Disney, Eisner had an opportunity to purchase the Pixar program from Lucas, but he did not. Instead, John Lasseter (then a Disney animator) left when the program was purchased by Steve Jobs, and the Pixar Studio was formed. For the rest of the 1990s, Disney ruled animation, with the zenith of the format’s popularity present in 1994’s “The Lion King.” Sadly, shortly thereafter, Animation Head Jeffrey Katzenberg left the studio, and Disney’s animation fortune rapidly deteriorated into films of diminished returns, including “Pocahontas,” “Hercules”, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” “Atlantis”, and “Treasure Planet.” Of course, there were a few hits among the misses (“Mulan,” “Lilo and Stitch,” “Tarzan,” and one of my favorites, “The Emperor’s New Groove”), but for the most part, Disney animation had reached a nadir. “Home on the Range” was the last nail in the coffin.

Meanwhile, Pixar patiently developed their technology. The animation became more and more three dimensional, and the animators worked on perfecting nuances that were not easily accomplished using traditional hand drawn techniques. It was during the early 1990s that Lasseter started work on “Toy Story,” the film that changed all of the rules. The story became the thing, however. Usually, a typical Disney animated film seemed to rise or fall on the number of stuffed animals it was able to sell or the number of hit songs on the Broadway-like soundtracks. With “Toy Story,” however, Pixar crafted a film that succeeded on multiple levels. No more were characters relegated to parts in animated Broadway musicals. The story was the thing. The animation, as beautiful as it was, was in service to the story versus the other way around. Pixar immediately followed up its success with “A Bug’s Life,” “Toy Story 2”, “Monsters, Inc.”, “Finding Nemo”, “The Incredibles”, and “Cars.” Pixar has never experienced a flop, and this is with good reason. They always have great stories.

The creative teams at Pixar really know how to make films. Brad Bird is no exception. One of my favorite films (animated or otherwise) is “The Iron Giant.” It is a traditional animated film based upon a children’s book that is far and away better than anything Disney has put out in the last 15 years. Warner Brothers, the releasing studio at the time, could not figure out how to sell the film, and they ended up dumping it into theaters at the end of August the year of its release. It is truly an amazing film and I heartily recommend this hidden treasure. The director on this amazing film? Brad Bird. Although the film tanked at the box office, the powers-that-be at Pixar knew that the director shared the same sort of vision as they: creating the perfect story and then using animation as the medium. They handed the reins to Brad Bird to create a Pixar film, and Bird succeeded beyond all expectations with “The Incredibles.” The marriage of 60s spy noir with the superhero films of today was a worldwide success, but the success of the film, once again, rose and fell on the dialogue, the relationships, and the storyline. “The Incredibles” is one of my favorite films because it transcends the standard superhero fare. My favorite part of the film is not one of the numerous (albeit amazing) action set pieces; it is the moment near the end when Mr. Incredible tells Helen that he can’t go through the thought of losing his family again. Great stuff.

Why was there this long lead up? Well, I was bringing everyone up to speed to the point of the release of the newest Brad Bird-Pixar collaboration. I have a feeling that Pixar gave Bird even more creative control over this film (for better or for worse), and I have read the usual laudatory praises concerning this latest “Pixar masterpiece.” “Ratatouille” imagines the story of a Food Network devotee who happens to be a rat in Paris. No, that actually is not the story, but I daresay that my fellow devotees of the Food Network will appreciate the film a lot more than those individuals who are not self-described “foodies.” Remy the Rat (kinda like Mickey the Mouse, huh?) is the underappreciated member of his rat’s nest (if that sounds disgusting, let this be fair warning that there are a lot of “yuck, rats!” moments in the film). He finds his way to Paris and becomes the savior of the restaurant and heir left behind by his idol Gasteau, the author of the tome “Anyone Can Cook.”

What works about the film? The animation is incredible. As most of you know, I was a scientist in a previous life. I have observed actual live rats, and the animation on these cinematic versions is astonishing. There is a wonderful scene (in the trailers, actually) where Remy is trapped in a bottle, and the animation is detailed enough that one can see his heart rapidly beating beneath his fur just as one would see the same thing in a live rat. The story really resonated with me, and I admired how Bird made Remy and his human friend Linguini both have foibles that tested the bounds of their friendship. The dialogue was wonderful, and the development of the characters was also perfect.

What did not work for me? Well, as much as I love Brad Bird and as much as I love Pixar, this film has the weakest ending of all of the Pixar films to date. Earlier in this entry, I mentioned how Pixar appeared to have given Bird more creative freedom to do what he wanted, but I think that this was a bad thing. The ending of the film is a muddled mess, with dropped plot points, a sudden switch to first person narration after a sparing use earlier, and a framing device that had one end of a bookend but not the other. SPOILER ALERT: I was most troubled by the fact that the audience never received closure concerning the fate of the head chef who was trying to steal Linguini’s birthright. I mean, this was a major character in the film, yet it seemed that Bird did not know how to address his fate. The appearance of the health inspector was also superfluous. When the “bad guy” reported Gasteau’s to the inspector and the inspector said “3 months,” that should have been the end of it. There was no need for the assault on the health inspector by the rats. I also think that the rest of the crew should have shown more faith in Linguini rather than walking out. The entire film set up Linguini as the savior of the restaurant and of the kitchen staff. They were all behind him when they were kicking out the head chef; why the sudden abandonment of faith? It just did not ring true to me. I felt that the film rapidly wound down without coming to a satisfying conclusion and was completely inapposite to what had gone on before.

In spite of this, I would still recommend the film. The animation and story for the first 2/3 are strong enough to overcome my dislike of the film’s ending. I must also report that my filmgoing companions (including my movie going buddy Daisy) loved the film, so perhaps I am being a bit more cynical. I think that, fairly or unfairly, I am holding Pixar to a higher standard. Although this is head and tails above “Cars,” it does not quite rank with the best the studio has to offer. Perhaps this was a side effect of Disney’s acquisition of Pixar. Maybe John Lasseter does not have the time to review the films as he used to do. Nevertheless, this film does rank as one of the better films of the summer. I wonder if this is due more to the fact that so many other films have disappointed…

More than Meets the Eye Indeed: My Review of "Transformers."

I am a true child of the 80s. Although I was born in the 70s, all of my formative years (from 4^th grade until high school graduation) were spent in the 1980s. As part of that generation, my childhood was spent with the products of Hasbro toys, the G.I. Joe and Transformers series. Now, my parents never purchased GI Joes for me due to their understandable aversion to tiny figures being underfoot on the carpet. The Transformers, however, were a different story. I still remember getting my first Transformer. My parents took me to Best Products Company, a now-defunct retail chain that had an outlet in Norfolk, Virginia. Early on in their run, Transformers were difficult to find (much like Nintendo’s Wii today). Imagine my surprise one day when, during an average trip to Best, I found myself face to face with every single toy from the first series of Transformers figures. Even though it was not a special occasion, my parents allowed me to choose one figure. I chose Sideswipe, a Lamborghini Countach that looked awesome in both robot and vehicle form. I remember, even at my young age, being impressed with the fact that ½ of the figure was made of die-cast metal. I was excited to get the packed-in catalogue that showed the remaining figures in the assortment. I loved watching the animated show and seeing my figure on TV. This was my introduction into the world of figure collecting. Over the ensuing years, I continued to collect the Transformers. I had all of the jets from the first series (Skywarp. Starscream and Thundercracker), Soundwave (to this day, my favorite figure ever), Optimus Prime, Megatron, Blaster, Trypticon, Omega Supreme, Ultra Magnus, Metroplex, Dirge, Kup. Wheeljack, Devastator, Superion, Hot Rod, Perceptor, Astrotrain, and more. I watched the cartoon, I saw the movie in the theaters and I played with my toys. Most of all, I loved watching Optimus Prime. Optimus was the leader of the Autobots, the “good” robots who waged their “battle to destroy the evil forces of the Decepticons.” The Transformers were (and are) a happy..even cherished…memory from my childhood. I still have most of those Transformers to this day.

When I first heard of Tom DeSanto’s (the person responsible for bringing X-Men to the big screen) efforts to make a “Transformers” live action movie, I was excited. One of the things that I always wanted to see was a “Transformers” film, but the technology of 1980s filmmaking was so limited as to make such a film impossible. The technological leaps of films such as “Jurassic Park,” the second “Star Wars Trilogy”, and “the Lord of the Rings” made me believe that such a film was possible. All the film needed was a filmmaker who understood the mythology of the previous series, a filmmaker who could please both fanboys and the general public. Suddenly, a light appeared. Steven Spielberg had agreed to produce the film. Maybe he would direct as well? That would have been great! Spielberg, however, decided to chose a filmmaker whose resume was, umm, a bit suspect to say the least.

Michael Bay.

Now, I have nothing personal against Bay; it is just that he is a “movie maker”, not a filmmaker. Bay’s films are loud, full of quick edits, headache inducing, melodramatic, maudlin, sappy, bombastic, senses-assaulting popcorn entertainment. Let us now look at his filmography.

1. Bad Boys: the film that put Will Smith on the map as a bona fide action star. Would Smith have been given projects such as “Independence Day”, “I, Robot,” or “I Am Legend” without this? Probably not. The film was not subtle in ANY way, and the plotline was laughable. Still, it was a noble first effort.

2. The Rock: Sean Connery and Nick Cage’s action extravaganza set in Alcatraz with ludicrous plot points galore. Boy did this film give me a headache!

3. Armageddon: Ugh. ‘Nuff said (except that Bay would mimic the melodrama in many of his later films).

4. Pearl Harbor: Great trailer, AWFUL FILM. What was Bay thinking?

5. Bad Boys II: a truly awful film, but a guilty pleasure for no other reason than the action set pieces. The freeway chase with the boats and the Ferrari is still fun to watch.

6. The Island: Skipped it (as did most of America).

This was the man who was to give life to “Transformers”? Had Spielberg lost his instincts? This looked to be a slap in the face to fans everywhere. Word started coming out from the set that Bay was changing the “Transformers” that we fanboys had grown up with. He made Bumblebee, the robot everyman, a Camaro instead of a Beetle and took away his voice. He put FLAMES on Optimus Prime! All of the Autobots were now products of GM. What the heck was Bay thinking?

And then…other things started to leak out of the production. Peter Cullen, the actor who voiced Optimus Prime (the bastion of good and leader of the Autobots) for the animated series was back as the voice of Optimus Prime. Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith and Elrond!!!!) was to be the voice of the villainous Megatron. The battle scenes were supposedly off the hook. Gradually, the tidings of dismay started to turn into hope. What was I hoping for? Well, I knew that there would be changes, but so long as I still recognized my Transformers, I would have no problems with the film. Truth be told, the original series and the original animated film were not all that great to begin with. Their sole purpose was to sell the newest models of Transformers. If the film paid homage to the original series, that would be enough.

So on July 3^rd, my friends Jeff, Mike and I made our way to the River East 21 in Chicago. We made our way to Theater 10 and witnessed the latest Bay “movie.” Would Bay deliver? Would it be a fun popcorn film ideal for the summer? The answer is a resounding YES! First of all, let me discuss the bad. Bay cannot for the life of him stay away from EVERY SINGLE movie cliché there is (the soldier with the wife and baby back home, the bad girl, the nerdy guy who gets the girl, the clueless parents, the slo-mo for action scenes, the forced patriotism, Jon Turturro, sappy pop songs to sell soundtracks, and a lack of basic storytelling techniques). Now, although that may seem like quite the list, the film was still awesome. Why did I enjoy myself? By all accounts, this film should have left me feeling like I had watched a marathon of “Spider-Man III” interspersed with moments of “Shrek the Third.” Why did I enjoy it? Quite simply, it’s because I have never watched a film like this before. The premise of the film is quite simple: giant robots beat up on each other and cause mass destruction in some awesome action sequences. This is the prototypical “check your brain at the door” summer movie, and it does its job exceedingly well. Optimus Prime was great, and the battles among the Transformers were awe inspiring. The entire audience was quiet during the battles –not because of confusion or boredom with the CGI (as Roger Ebert would have us believe) but because of bated breath waiting to see what would happen next. Just when I thought the action in the final battle could not be any cooler, enter Starscream against a squadron of F-22 Raptors. I will not describe the scene any further other than to say that this one 2 minute sequence alone was worth the price of admission.

The biggest surprise (for me), was the believable performance of Shia LaBeouf as Sam Witwicky. LaBeouf, rumored to be playing Indiana Jones’ son in the next Indy film, succeeded where so many better actors before him had failed. We as the audience believe it when he is talking to the Autobots because LaBeouf knows how to act in front of a blue screen. I maintain that the best actors are those who can convincingly act in front of a blue screen because, at that point in production, everything is in their imagination. With a lesser actor (Hayden Christiansen in the last 2 “Star Wars” films, Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow in Gerry Conran’s “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow”), the audience ends up getting pulled out of the film because the actors do not believably convey that they are interacting with the fantasy world. This was not the case here. I forgot all about CGI (even with the knowledge that some scenes utilized full scale robot models) because of LaBeouf’s work. If he is careful with his script choices, I hope to see him develop into quite an actor. This is a wonderful step in the right direction.

If you are looking for a “film,” this is not the movie for you. If you want to see the best of the summer spectacles thus far, I recommend this film. It is pure, unadulterated fun that just may succeed in rekindling your memories of childhood (whatever they may be).

Suresh’s scale: guilty pleasure action film that is better than “Point Break”, but not as good as “Lethal Weapon.”

Why oh why did I see "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer"?

I have witnessed my share of poorly made .. no… ill-conceived… hmmm .. ok, down and out BAD films in my life. I calculate that for every 10 films I see, I might enjoy one out of 10. This also seems to be the pattern of the critics as well from the looks of rottentomatoes.com. I have already railed against the horrific blunders with regard to comic book films that currently litter the cinematic landscape. These include, but are not limited to, “Daredevil,’ “Hulk,” “Ghost Rider,” “Elektra,” “The Fantastic Four”, “Spider-Man 3”, and “The Punisher.” Lest you think that I am being unfair to Marvel Comics (whose properties were the subjects of the aforementioned examples of comic book cinematic detritus), we also have DC films such as “Batman Forever”, “Batman and Robin (my personal choice for worst comic book film ever made)”, “Catwoman (perhaps I spoke to soon)”, “Steel”, and “Superman Returns.” What is so hard about making a good comic book movie? The directors who “get it” respect the source material without letting ego get in the way. They understand comics to be a storytelling medium that is the perfect marriage of artwork and prose, yet time and again, these “filmmakers” take it upon themselves to “improve” comic book story cannon and to put their own imprint on someone else’s creation. Often, the results are disastrous.

To be fair, the worst of the films are often hamstrung by the comic creators themselves. Let’s face it-origin stories are boring for the most part. There seems to be a need by directors and filmmakers to “explain” why a hero is a certain way. Despite the success of the superhero masterpiece that was “Batman Begins,” I must say that I no longer feel as if directors have to follow the usual pattern of "origin/training/crisis/resolution using super powers" that they have come to rely on. At the same time, I am more willing to give a second chance to a filmmaker who made a bad origin film because, as I said, they might have been hamstrung by the origin story with nowhere left to turn. Such was the case with Tim Story’s “Fantastic Four.” For the first film, I was willing to give him a pass (unlike many other comic fans) because this was the first time he had made a movie with such a high profile. The weaknesses of the first film had more to do with a lack of direction story wise and with a lack of discernible skill from Julian McMahon and Jessica Alba (other than, in Alba’s case, to look good wearing spandex) than with the director himself. I loathed the first film, but I was willing to give the second a chance. There was nothing else in the theaters that I wanted to watch, and I as visiting Aaron (also a huge comic fan who hated the first one) in Cleveland. I also thought that this might provide me with some enjoyment if the film were horrible, as Aaron and I usually break into a MSK 3000 riff when the going gets tough (i.e., movies end up reeking to high heaven). So Aaron, Jessica (one of Aaron’s assistants and a friend of ours) and I went to see FF 2 on opening weekend. We arrived at the not-even-close-to-full theater on time and watched some pretty good trailers (especially the new Harry Potter trailer…wow).

That was the high point of the movie going experience.

The film starts off by ripping off the opening of “Superman Returns (which itself ripped off the opening of “Superman: The Movie”) and then proceeded to rip off “Armageddon” (Who rips off a movie as crappy as “Armageddon”? I mean, REALLY!) and the original “Batman” film (where, in the role of the Joker, we have Dr. Doom). The filmmakers succeeded in taking the pathos and epic scope and feel of the FF’s first adventures with the Silver Surfer (recounted in the classic Fantastic Four issue #s 48-50) and making them pedestrian, mundane, and ludicrous all at once. The characters of Reed and Sue supposedly represent pure intellect versus pure common sense (and brains and beauty), but Alba left her brain at the door when she was pouring herself into her FF catsuit, and the sight of Ioan Gruffudd’s Reed Richards dancing at a nightclub was enough to make anyone cringe. The filmmakers really treated the audience as idiots. I mean, the atmosphere in the aforementioned nightclub scene had all of the posh elegance of a high school dance. Aaron was most insulted by a scene where, in a German forest, the Thing faces down a grizzly bear.

That’s right. I said a grizzly bear. In Germany.

There were a couple of instances where the film rose (albeit briefly) about the bad script. Doug Jones’/Laurence Fishburne’s Silver Surfer was spot on. He was majestic, grand and noble. Once again, Chris Evan’s Johnny Storm was one of the solo bright spots in the film, and his character even got a chance to mature. Michael Chiklis’ Ben Grimm was wonderfully realized (albeit a lot smaller than in the comics). Beyond these 3 performances, however, I had the distinct feeling that Tim Story and the studio brass at Fox have the utmost disdain for comic book fandom . The examples include any scene that included Doctor Doom. In the comics, Doctor Doom is a genius, the ruler of Latveria, and a man who seeks to merge science with sorcery. He is a megalomaniac of the highest order, but his character does not lend itself to throwaway quips. He always sees the big picture. The Doom from the comics would not be using the Power Cosmic to fly around on a silver surfboard. He would instead use the Surfer on the board to trick Galactus into saving Earth (with Doom as its ruler and with Doom wielding the Power Cosmic). This utter and complete failure to understand the motivations of the principle villain rivals that of Bryan Singer’s version of Luthor (played by Kevin Spacey) in last summer’s “Superman Returns.” Story also fails once again to understand the characters of Reed and Sue. There is also no point to the story. A herald for a galactic destructive force comes to Earth, but it seemed so small. I mean, there was no “panic in the streets” a la “Independence Day” or “Armageddon.” Granted, both of those movies were bad, but at least one got a sense of the scope of the problem. Here, the audience is treated to substandard CGI of a giant space cloud (OOOO..scary) engulfing what looked like a toy globe in front of giant star curtains. I guess the filmmakers spent their special FX budget on the Surfer. There never seems to be any sense of immediacy to the story, and the story failed to engage me as a viewer.

I think the largest slap in the face had to be the Fantasticar, Reed’s creation for getting the characters from place to place. Product placement was EVERYWHERE in the film. Now, I am not adverse to product placement in films so long as it does not take you out of the film itself. Johnny’s new costume replete with sponsor ads a la a NASCAR driving suit almost seemed to parody the need to put such ads in films. The Fantasticar ad placement, however, completely pulled me from the movie. How can a non-existent hovercar be considered product placement. Apparently, Reed did not build it. It was build by Daimler-Chrysler. No wonder Daimler-Benz sold the Chrysler Corporation-it was building non-existent hover cars with hemi engines and seats embroidered with the Dodge logo. I am not making this up. This was ridiculous.

There are many reviewers out there who are applauding the return of heroes who are not “dark and mopey.” Some reviewers have even deigned this version of the Fantastic Four to reflect Stan Lee’s original stories from the 1960s with the ludicrousness therein. My answer to all of them is that this film does not service the rich publication history of the Fantastic Four. The comic launched the Marvel Comics that we know, and without its success (real heroes with real problems), we might never have had Spider-Man, Iron Man, the Hulk, or the Avengers. I would not have a problem with a happy superhero story, but any story that is based on source material should at least reflect that material. When will so-called Hollywood geniuses get this?

"Ocean's 13"

Films do not have to surprise us in order to entertain. Sometimes we can enter a darkened cinema armed with the knowledge of the complete plotline of the film we are about to experience (one does not merely “watch” a film) and yet still enjoy the ride even where there are no surprises. Sometimes the surprise is the thing and the journey that manipulates us is the point of the film (as in “The Usual Suspects”, “Memento”, and “The Shawshank Redemption.” Sometimes, however, we enjoy our time with a predictable story because the fun is in the interplay of the actors, the wittiness of the dialogue, and the knowledge that, in the end, we will leave the theater having been completely entertained for our 2 hours and our $8. “Oceans 13” is such a film.

This is the first “Oceans” that I watched in the theater. I saw the first one on dvd, and I was captured by both the storyline and the characters (as well as by the actors who inhabited these characters). Part of the film was setting up minor “character info” cards for each one so that the audience knew of the backgrounds and the motivations. In the end, the movie succeeded due to the chemistry of the 2 leads (can there be leads in an ensemble film). I would enjoy any film that stars Clooney and Pitt because they are such personable actors. Danny and Rusty imbued the first chapter with life and propelled the story forward. Andy Garcia’s Benedict was a wonderfully hissable villain, and the con/heist of the robbery of the Bellagio was a wonderful roller coaster. The most memorable scene for me, however, was the final gathering of the thieves on the walkway in front of the Bellagio’s famous fountains. Slowly, one-by-one, they leave the scene after taking in the sight of their greatest heist ever. I loved that moment because in most heist films, we hardly ever get to see the revelry that follows a successful heist. In the end, “Oceans 11” succeeded because of smart dialogue, a fun script, and a story where no one had to be killed or shot in order to further the characters’ motivations. The unsung hero of the first film, however, was Law Vegas. The filmmakers lost sight of this and many other things in “Oceans 12.” Here, we had Catherine Zeta-Jones ridiculously superfluous character of a police inspector, a plotline set in Europe (Danny Ocean is a Vegas person), and a heist where most of the principles were behind bars. The success of the ensemble in the first film was not replicated to the detriment of the plot and the overall enjoyability of the film. There was too much angst, and the story was a little “mean.” The biggest fraud was the “gotcha” that the filmmakers pulled at the end of the film. I mean, it is one thing to pull the bait and switch on the audience when you have provided clues that they should have followed, but where the filmmakers seemingly pull a plot resolution out of their proverbial rear ends, the film fails as a heist caper. I was extremely let down by “Oceans 12” in spite of the wonderful dialogue and chemistry (once again) among Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Cheadle et al.

So, having watched the first 2 and having been disappointed in the second one, why did I go see this one? In the end, it was because of three plot points alluded to in the trailer. First of all, the story was once again set in Vegas. Secondly, the villain of the piece was to be played by Al Pacino (doing an uncanny Steve Wynn impersonation). Finally, it looked like the ensemble was going to be acting together again, with each cast member having something substantial to do during the heist. So, early on Sunday afternoon, Daisy and I made our way to the AMC River East 21 for a showing of “Oceans 13”. The film was completely predictable, and yet it was a blast. I laughed aloud several times during the show (at least 3x the number of times I laughed during “Shrek the Third”). With this being the third go around for the cast and crew, everyone was comfortable in their roles. Danny was still smarter than everyone else, but this time the story was not “lazy.” The ultimate payoff was satisfactory because the clues were planted for the audience to enjoy. Naturally, there were some bits of implausibility, but the suspension of disbelief was a small price to pay for enjoying the banter among the actors. There were many laughs that were the results of reaction shots of the actors where no words were necessary. My favorite such shots included Danny’s reaction to one of Benedict’s comments, Danny, Linus and Rusty watching television while waiting for their planes, and Rusty and Danny watching TV (a shot alluded to in the trailers). Furthermore, I have no idea how they integrated the shot of the Bank hotel into the Vegas strip, but kudos to the special effects crew. I actually believed that the casino was a part of the strip. There was also a marvelous bit of dialogue from Reuben when he awakens and paraphrases Don Corleone from “The Godfather.” As I was the only person in the theater who laughed at this piece of dialogue, 2 thoughts went through my mind: 1) the modern day movie goer is woefully ignorant concerning the classics and 2) to paraphrase Homer Simpson “everyone is stupid except me.”

There were some weak plot points, however. I found it hard to believe that Pacino’s Bank, a sharp operator, would not be wise to what was going on. A smarter casino owner would have had cameras pointed at all of the Ocean crew the minute they arrived on the scene. Bank was a bit too clueless for my taste. Bank was also too nice. Benedict was a person without morals, but Bank just seemed greedy and clueless. One almost feels sorry for him by the end…almost. The elaborate escape plan with the tunnel borer was also a bit over the top for my taste, and Benedict’s performance (not Garcia’s, but his character’s performance) should not have been believed by Bank. Finally, the minute that the disguised Rusty dropped off the seismograph in Bank’s office, Bank should have had it removed. Once again, Bank was a little too clueless for my taste. In the end, however, the film succeeded because I received exactly what I expected. A fun escape for 2 hours where no one was hurt (except maybe for David Paymer’s hapless hotel reviewer) and a happy ending was the result. Will this film win any awards? No. Is this in my list of top films? Not even close. Did it fulfill expectations? Yes. In the end, that is all that matters.

One more note. I have decided to design a “sliding scale” of sorts for my movie reviews. The movies will be slotted from 0-10, but there will be a movie at each slot and not just a number. For example, 10 would be something on the order of “Citizen Kane” while 0 would be just about any film from Madonna’s filmography.

I have not yet watched “Knocked Up,” but I hear good things. I will try to watch that and the new Fantastic Four film this week.