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.

"At World's End"

When “Pirates of the Caribbean” was first announced as the next “ride-turned-movie” from Walt Disney Pictures, I was skeptical. I mean, this was the studio responsible for the “Country Bears Movie” and “The Haunted Mansion.” Could another film based on a thrill ride be any different from those failed attempts? To understand what was going on in the minds of the directors of Disney at the time, we must understand the studio politics at the time. Michael Eisner was the CEO and President of the Walt Disney Corporation, and he had fallen into that most dangerous of territory-the financial “suit” who fancied himself a creative executive. Eisner obviously forgot that even Walt needed Roy Disney to run the business side of the Disney empire! Slowly over the years, he had rid himself of many of the creative geniuses who at, at one time or another, worked for Disney (Jeffrey Katzenberg, Jon Lasseter, and Tim Burton included). He had refused to appoint a successor to Frank Wells (who had tragically and suddenly died in a helicopter accident the winter before the release of “The Lion King”) until giving the position to the woefully underqualified and unprepared Michael Ovitz. Near the end of his tenure at Disney, Eisner was responsible for 1) the firing of the creative executives responsible for “Lost,” “Grey’s Anatomy,” and “Desperate Housewives,” 2) ABC passing on “Survivor” and “The Apprentice” in favor of airing “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” 4 times a week, 3) selling off the rights for “The Sixth Sense” in an effort to merely recoup the cost of production (thereby costing Disney hundreds of millions of dollars), and 4) favoring pet projects at the expense of the high concept projects that he could just not understand. This last problem was nothing less than amazing, as Eisner, Katzenberg, and Barry Diller had all been a part of the Paramount brain trust from the 1980s that introduced the concept of high concept, with films such as “Flashdance,” “Top Gun,” and “Beverly Hills Cop.” One of Eisner’s goto producing companies at that time was Simpson-Bruckheimer (which became Bruckheimer Pictures after the untimely overdose-death of Don Simpson in the mid ‘90s).

When “Pirates” went into production, Eisner envisioned a low budget pirate caper, but Jerry Bruckheimer recognized that this could be something much more. Armed with a screenplay by Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, Bruckheimer proceeded to assemble his team of artisans, recruiting Gore Verbinski (director of “The Ring” and “The Mexican”), Hans Zimmer, and a cast consisting of newcomers (Kiera Knightley and Orlando Bloom-fresh off the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy) and, most importantly, Johnny Depp in the role of Captain Jack Sparrow. Filming commenced, and the suits at Disney were up in arms about the elevating costs, the use of ILM as the special effects house, and. most notably, Depp’s characterization of Captain Jack. If Eisner had had his way, Depp would not have been Captain Jack and we would have been deprived of one of the great performances of the past decade. Luckily, Bruckheimer’s clout won the day. Depp got to keep his characterization (and his gold teeth and eyeliner) intact, and Verbinski was allowed to craft a swashbuckling fantasy action film where the story was central and not in service to the special effects. One must remember that the pirate film genre has been marked more by failures than by successes (“The Pirate Movie,” “The Island” (the Peter Benchley version from the 80s), and most notably, “Cutthroat Island”). Few were willing to give this film a chance, but the trailers played up the supernatural aspects of the story and brought the people to the theaters. Depp’s performance and the story kept the people in the theater once they were there. Word of mouth from the film spread, and Disney (which had already released Pixar’s “Finding Nemo” that summer), easily won 2003's summer box office crown with the one-two punch of “Pirates” and “Nemo.” Naturally, talk of a sequel started soon after.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first film, but the second film left me a little unsatisfied. The story was extremely confusing, and the main action sequence in “Dead Man’s Chest” was "the action scene that would never end." In preparing to write this entry, I revisited the first 2 films thanks to the wonders of Disney Blu-ray (the picture is SO clear…but I digress…). The first film was just as enjoyable as I remembered, and the second film (though less confusing than I remembered) still had that long and drawn out action sequence in it (where they are fighting on the rolling wheel). The main weakness of the second film (I thought at the time) was the absence of significant screen time for Depp’s Captain Jack. He was the star of the first film, and I did not really care for the secondary stories concerning Will Turner, Elizabeth, and Bootstrap Bill. Although I found the character of Davy Jones intriguing (due in no small part to the abilities of Bill Nighy, who I have admired since his role as Victor in the “Underworld” films) and I loved the development of Jack Davenport’s character Norrington, I felt that something was missing from the second film. I thought that it was a greater focus on Captain Jack. I was wrong. The thing that was missing from the second film returned in full force to the third film.

Let me segue at this point to speak about my movie going habits. For the most part, I enjoy seeing films by myself. I can usually control the time and place of the showing, and I never have to worry about coordinating schedules or any other such nonsense. Of course, I find that this has changed over the past few weeks. I saw “Spider-Man” with my friend Jeff, and I saw “Shrek the Third” with a large group of people from DePaul. Prior to these experiences, I had always thought that the movie going experience was best enjoyed by myself, but I was wrong. It is fun to go to movies with others; though I will still see the occasional films by myself (especially the independent ones), I think that having a movie going buddy will be fun. This summer, it looks like my friend and fellow blogger Daisy Duke (from www.legallyblondeambition.blogspot.com) will be my movie going buddy (if for no other reason than she does not seem to mind going to movies early on a Saturday!). I appreciate the fact that she can discuss films in detail; that is what makes it so fun.

So Daisy and I went to see “At World’s End” on Saturday. The theater was crowded but not packed, and it turned out to be a good call to see the film on Saturday, as it was a rainy day in Chicago. After sitting through NUMEROUS trailers, the film started. I was immediately struck with how somber and serious (and adult) this entry in the series was to be. You will understand when you see it; I felt a chill when the child on the gallows started to sing. It perfectly set the mood for the film, and I was immediately drawn into the story. So now comes the part where I discuss what was good and what was bad.

What was bad? Well…there were quite a few plot points left dangling. These include, but are not limited to, the Calypso-Davy Jones substory, the reason for the fate of the Kraken (when in the first film Beckett seemed so set on controlling Jones due to his control over the Kraken), the reason for Beckett’s “actions” at the end of the film, and Beckett’s reasons for wanting Norrington and a detachment of troops on board the Flying Dutchman with the heart of Davy Jones (I mean, would he not feel safer if the heart was in HIS possession?). I also thought (until the VERY end of the credits) that the Will/Elizabeth love story was completely superfluous. The resolution of the fate of Will and Elizabeth, however, assuaged my concerns regarding this. Most of my gripes (and the gripes of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes who have blasted this film with a rating in the 40s) could be addressed through paying careful attention at the groundwork that was laid in the second film or the plot points introduced in the first film. I do not believe, however, that the shortcomings of the film lend themselves to the critical drubbing that we have seen thus far. I only wish that the critics had watched the first 2 films just prior to watching the third. It does make a difference.

What worked in this film? First of all, there was more of a focus on Captain Jack. In the first film, he supposedly went mad when Barbossa and the crew of the Black Pearl left him to die on a deserted island, but in truth he had not gone mad because he only spent 3 days there. Here, however, we learn that Captain Jack has, indeed, gone mad from his time in Davy Jones’ Locker (read the “afterlife”). Depp once again chews up the scenery at every opportunity, and I was glad to see it. After all, I really missed Captain Jack being the focus in the second film. Secondly, the third film restored that mystery factor that had been missing in the second film. I was wrong: the mystery factor was not the lack of focus on Captain Jack alone; in actuality, the missing factor in the second film was Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa. Barbossa’s return was the best thing of all. I realized that part of the charm in the first film was the repartee between Barbossa and Captain Jack, and here the repartee is back in full force. Geoffrey Rush was amazing, and I do not think that he has merited the attention that he deserves. Thirdly, I admire the fact that the filmmakers (Verbinski and the writers together) did not shirk away from the harsh choices concerning the fates of some of the characters. I will not give these away, but once again, I was impressed with the choices that were made, particularly with regard to the resolution of the Elizabeth/Will storyline. There were no needless deaths of lead characters (a la “The Matrix Revolutions”), and I loved the final coda at the end of the credits. I was surprised that few people stayed in the theater until the end considering that both of the previous “Pirates” films had an extra bit at the end. This coda, however, unlike those in the previous films, ties in directly to the fate of Will and Elizabeth. Do not leave the theater until AFTER the credits have rolled. You will not be disappointed. I also LOVED the key action set piece of the film. There is so much happening in the face-off between the Flying Dutchman and the Black Pearl, but Verbinski does a masterful job of shifting among the various events to the extent that at no time was I confused as to what was going on. This is skill.

What is the final verdict? This is a solid effort and a worthy finale to the “Pirates” films even if the filmmakers chose not to make another one (although there are many more tales that can be told). How does it measure up overall? I must agree with my friend Aaron and give it a “B.” A “B” is good for a summer film considering that I have enjoyed so few from the past few years. It means that the film is “good but not great.” Would I see it again? Absolutely. What would I change? If the film (already long at 2.5+ hours) had an extra 15 minutes, it could have answered many of the dangling questions and been a more complete film. Who knows? Maybe those bits of film exist somewhere. All I can say is that I am glad that Bob Iger is now in charge of Disney. He greenlit a $300 million dollar film, and I enjoyed it as did Daisy.

What’s the next film up for review? “Ocean’s 13.” Stay tuned! By the way. if you are interested in finding out more about the Eisner years, I highly recommend the book "Disney War," written by James Stewart.

Shrek the Third....Blecch the Third.....

So I saw “Shrek the Third” last weekend. With the number of sequels in Hollywood rising beyond the scope of reason, I was not surprised that “Shrek the Third” (or STT as I will be referring to it in the rest of this entry) had fallen into that dreadful category of sequels that are victims of “sequelitis.” What is sequelitis? Well, there are several types of films. There are those that do not demand that any sequel be made, whether it is because of the story itself (imagine “Citizen Kane 2: Rosebud’s Revenge”), because the success of the first film was due solely to the talents of the star (*cough* “Son of the Mask”*cough*), or because the story was so bad in the first place that there is no way in heck that the audience should be exposed to further dreck for fear that they might all commit seppuku. There are also films that can be considered chapters in an overall story (including the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings films). The wonderful thing about these films is that the filmmaker can really explore different character nuances once the main characters have been introduced in the first film. There is no need to spend an inordinate amount of time on the character introduction for each of the returning characters, and the filmmaker can delve further into story development. Finally, we have the “money grab”- the sequel that has NO RIGHT being made because of an absence of artistry of any kind (or minimal) in the making of the film. Here is where most sequels belong. I am not no naïve as to believe that producers are altruistic in their reasons to make sequels; they ALL want to make lots of money. Sequels have a built in recognizability that makes them easier to market to the general public. Absent a long publication history or pop culture references (comics characters, the Transformers, and the Bourne series), producers are understandably loathed to invest lots of time and money into unproven commodities. Even where the generation of multimillions should be a sure thing, some star will go off his rocker and ruin the box office solely because of his or her wacky antics (Tom Cruise or Lindsay Lohan, anyone?). The money grab is the most insidious of sequels because at this point, the producers and directors just do not care about quality; all they want to do is milk the property for all that it is worth or maybe put their own loathsome spin on a strong property that may end up dooming it for all time (something that Joel Schumacher attempted mightily with “Batman and Robin”). Key features of the money grab include (but are not limited to): 1) a different cast (although a cast that is just going through the motions, as was the case in “STT,” also qualifies in my book), 2) a story retread, 3) the introduction of “new, exciting, hip” characters (the “Scrappy Doo” approach), or, the most insidious of all, 4) the lazy writer/too many writers. Ladies and gentleman, may I present “STT.”

Let me start off by saying that this is a GREAT movie for small children. The kids in the audience loved it, and if you are a parent, I recommend this film as good, clean, wholesome moviemaking. The problem here is that the adult audience is a large reason for Shrek 2 being #3 on the list of all time domestic blockbusters (unadjusted for inflation), yet the writers chose to give this audience short shrift. This would be antithetical to the whole reason for the film to be made in the first place (i.e., to entice full paying childless adults who loved the first 2 films). I mean, although “Shrek 2” had the introduction of a hip cool character, the script writers did not make that character (Puss in Boots) superfluous; they gave Antonio Banderas something to play with and also some great material (I still laugh during the “Cops” take off when the knights find catnip on Puss and he intones, as most perps do on the “Cops” TV show, “thas no’ mine, man.”). The film also extended the story of Fiona and Shrek to a logical place: how are her parents going to react? It was kind of like the Shrek version of “Meet the Parents.” I loved that film save for the character of the Fairy Godmother. It had some great sequences, and there was a lot of effort spent on the principles of the cast while changing around the Shrek formula. Here? The film was totally forgettable. There were, to be sure, a few moments, but the moments were few and far between. The pop culture references were not as on point as in the previous films, and the introduction of the other princesses seemed tacked on. They were not personifications of the Disney princesses nor were they send ups of them; they were just thrown in as extra bodies to separate out what had been, to this point, the core of both Shrek films: the relationship between Shrek and Fiona. As the trailers have made clear, there is a baby Shrek in the film, but the baby does not make an appearance (save for a single dream sequence) until the end of the film. Remember how gypped you felt when Darth Vader was in black only at the very end of the film? Once again, the filmmaker does not deliver on the promise from the trailers. The filmmakers missed a golden opportunity to really focus on the changing dynamics of Shrek and Fiona’s relationship and move the struggles that all couples face (courtship in the first film, dealing with the in-laws/early marriage struggles in the second film) to the changes associated with having children in the third one. Instead, the audience is treated to a completely predictable story about Charming’s revenge, Arthur, and the other fairy tale princesses. This was a good film for kids, but if you are an adult, do not go into the theater expecting the same level of quality from the first 2 Shrek films. This was a money grab in every sense of the word, the “safe film” that causes the series to lose its way (yes, “Shrek 4” has already been announced) because of sequelitis.

I also have some non-movie news. I started my summer clerkship! Exams are behind me and I am at the law office every day faced with the prospect that this is what the rest of my life will look like. So far, I must say that this exceeds my expectations. I am eagerly working on my projects, and I wake up looking forward to the day. I realize that being a summer clerk is a LOT different from working as an attorney full time, but I really like it! I will still be writing my reviews, though, so look for my “Pirates” review next week.

Spider-Man 3

Many of you already know that I am a comic fan. From time I was 6, I have been enamored of the comics medium. I have witnessed the development of the medium from the children’s stories of my childhood to the more grown-up graphic novels of today. I think that a well written and executed comic really succeeds on dual artistic levels: that of excellent literature and that of art. The archetypes that most people enjoy in other artistic works are there, but the comics creators and the ever changing creative teams on the different books all allow multiple versions and storylines of these archetypes. Imagine, if you will, Homer’s Odysseus as written by Shakespeare or even Bernard Cornwell’s Richard Sharpe as written by Ian Fleming. Although the underlying archetype is the same, the artists and writers through the years have successfully placed their own indelible imprints upon the collected adventures of comic book mainstays. I daresay that anyone reading Bob Kane/Bill Finger/Jerry Robinson Batman stories from the 1940s would recognize the treatment of Batman and the Joker in Alan Moore’s and Brian Bolland’s graphic novel masterpiece “The Killing Joker,” but this is a good thing. The constant changes in the storylines and status quo of so many heroes has proven to be quite necessary in contributing to the longevity of pop culture icons like Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man. At the same time, the consistency of various story elements (the characters’ secret identities, supporting cast members, and continuity histories) allows even the most casual of comic fans to pick up a few issues and read an adventure or two of his or her favorite heroes.

This extension and development of stories is not just limited solely to the comic book medium. The motion picture world has been responsible for some of the best (Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2) and some of the worst (Superman Returns, Batman and Robin, the Shadow, Ghost Rider) stories involving comic book heroes. I do not envy the task of filmmakers, for theirs is more difficult that that of comic creators. Filmmakers are trying to serve everyone (casual fans, non-fans, and hard core fans alike) by incorporating enough different elements to please everyone. The movie story has to be faithful enough to drive the die hard fans to the theaters yet accessible that it not turn off the casual fan. The story needs to contribute to the overall cannon of stories for the character, yet it cannot deviate too much from the established “safe” norms of comic book films. In trying to please so many parties, filmmakers often try the “kitchen sink approach”, throwing everything into a film and hoping that it will please everyone. The best of the films have directors who recognize the importance of verisimilitude to the source material These directors change those things which are tangential to those aspects that are material to the character in question, yet they respect the source material enough to understand why it has sustained its readership audience for so long. This is why Ghost Rider failed and why Batman Begins succeeded. Verisimilitude. Respect for the source material.

Yesterday, I saw Spider-Man 3 at the Navy Pier IMAX. I had been cooped up all week in my apartment studying for law school finals, and I figured that this would be the perfect study break to maintain me through the next 2 long weeks. My friend Jeff and I arrived right on time (with me having spent the morning studying with my friend Elese at the library for 3.5 hours). We had great seats and were treated to the trailer for the next Harry Potter film (3-D IMAX…gotta get tickets). At this point, the film started, and the opening credits began. Now, the opening credits themselves were very creative, with scenes from the previous 2 films playing within the web spaces of the screen. At the same time, we are treated to our first glimpses of the “alien costume” (more on this later). What really intrigued me was the obvious change to the musical score. I knew instantly that there was another composer involved in the film, and this was another good thing. I have always found Danny Elfman’s scores to be (with the notable exception of the original Batman film) rather pedestrian. Christopher Young did a great job of adapting the score set down by Elfman and making it his own. For me, music is an extremely important part of the movie going experience, so my expectations started to rise. The film then started.

What worked in the film? First of all, the action sequences. If there is any film that demands to be seen on IMAX, it would be Spider-Man 3. Raimi did a great job early on of interspersing the action with the drama and the comedy, and the action sequences were exhilarating to watch. The first sequence alone (with the new Goblin) was worth the price of admission. Thomas Hayden Church was also a wonderful Flint Marko/Sandman. Raimi faithfully transferred the tragic character from the comics and gave him a new life on the screen. One of my major problems with the film (discussed in more detail later) was the fact that we did not get to see more of him. The realization of the character of Venom was successful enough to surprise me. I wondered how Raimi would be able to pull off the “living slime” look of the alien symbiote and the irreverent nature of such an evil villain. For once, there was a Spider-Man villain that was completely unsympathetic. The character of Eddie Brock, played by Topher Grace, oozed insouciance as he made with the false charm to get ahead. The CGI has improved leaps and bounds beyond the first film, as Venom looks REAL. Awesome.

What did not work in the film? The overall story and the pacing. Early on in the film, Raimi was firing on all cylinders. We had the introduction of the symbiote (via an acceptable twist on the established “Secret Wars” origin of the costume from the comics history), the introduction of Harry Osborne as the new Green Goblin, and Peter’s excitement over proposing to Mary Jane and New York’s love of Spider-Man. As we see Peter’s star rise, we see Mary Jane’s fall, and this was where Raimi was at his best: the juxtaposition of amazing action sequences with character development. We also get the introduction of Flint Marko/Sandman and the origin therein. Flint Marko is a sympathetic villain in the same way as Otto Octavius in the second film. Everything was going according to script. About halfway through the film, however, it appeared that Raimi handed off the directing chores to someone else. Trust me, you will understand it when you see it. After that sequence (when the symbiote has bonded to Peter and we see “bad Peter” and “bad Spider-Man”), the film is in a mad rush to the finish. The second film lacked the character development and careful crafting of Raimi’s earlier efforts, and I can only attribute this to the writing. Remember the kitchen sink approach to sequels and writing that I alluded to earlier? Here it was, in all of its splendor. Raimi, in the second half of the film, committed a common crime in many comic book films: he tried to listen to everyone with regard to what they wanted to see in a Spider-Man film, and in the end, he sacrificed story in favor of action. A better story would include the introduction of the alien costume within the backdrop of the Sandman story. Perhaps the film would end with the climactic confrontation between Harry and Peter; a cliffhanger ending such as this would have dovetailed quite nicely with the beginning of a 4^th film, where the focus would be on the development of Venom. Perhaps because Raimi thought this to be his swan song on the series, he felt the need to put in as much as possible. What the audience is left with is a series of questions beginning with the interrogative “If only…”.

Let me stress that this is not a bad film (as was Ghost Rider and Superman Returns). In a way, this film is more frustrating because I know of the capabilities Sam Raimi and the cast and crew. They made an almost perfect superhero film their last time out. By setting the bar so high, perhaps they were doomed to failure. Don’t get me wrong-I still enjoyed the film (except for the weird 5 minutes in the middle of the film), but it was thisclose to being great as opposed to being merely good. Maybe Sony should have allowed Raimi to cut the film in half. All I know is that if there is another Spider-Man film, I hope that the final act does not involve the now-cliched “Mary Jane in mortal danger” hook that has heretofore been present in all 3 films. The next director in the series (if not Raimi) should return to the character focus that marks other more successful comic films. In the end, the fact that we care about the characters is what makes a successful superhero film.

NOTE: if you chose to see the film, see it in IMAX. The picture was so clear that I could see Toby Maguire’s contact lenses!

Exams...Visit from the Folks...and a Word about the Upcoming Summer Movie Season

So exam time is almost upon me again, and I can already feel the noose tightening. The odd thing is that this is the first time I have approached exams without feeling the “legal writing burnout.” The next 3 weeks will be the usual test of endurance, but the end of my second year is in sight, and I am looking forward to it. I have selected my classes for the fall; they include Secured Transactions, Intellectual Property for Corporate Transactional Attorneys, and Legal Profession. I am also getting credits for serving as an editor for the DePaul Journal of Art, Technology, and Intellectual Property, and I only have classes on Mondays and Wednesdays. That in itself is something to get excited about. My summer job will be starting the Monday after exams, and the firm has already been preparing me for it with various mailings.

The past weekend brought a wonderful visit from my parents. My brother picked them up from the airport on Friday morning, and he took them to the suburban hospital where he works (1/3 of the time). They made their way back downtown and were at the house by 3 PM. I then spent the rest of the evening with my family, sitting around eating pizza and having a pretty good time. We also watched “Casino Royale,” and I think that my parents really liked it. Of course, my Dad astutely pointed out some minor problems concerning the murkiness of Vesper’s motivations, and it took me a second to try to figure them out myself, but I think that I satisfied both my Dad and myself with my explanation. My Dad is sure perceptive when it comes to movies! The next day, we all went to Devon Street in Chicago. Devon is the Pakistani and Indian section of Chicago, and a buffet lunch at a local restaurant awaited us Saturday was also my Mom’s birthday, and Dad remarked how it had been ages since Mom had been with my brother and me for her birthday. We came back home after a busy day at Devon, and we all watched “The Departed.” The next morning, we talked over our morning coffee and then headed to the Northwest suburbs to the home of my brother’s girlfriend’s sister and brother-in-law. They had a full Indian feast waiting for us; it has been a LONG time since I last ate so much Indian food. My brother and I dropped my folks off at the airport, and I was struck by how sad I felt. It is much easier being the visitor rather than the host; when my folks left, there was a definite void. I ended up doing some reading for Monday’s class and then went to the gym.

On a completely different note, the summer movie season is upon us! During the summer, I will be pretty regular in updating the site with the latest movie reviews. Look for my Spider-Man 3 IMAX review on May 5.

The release list is as follows (and is by NO MEANS exhaustive):

Spider-Man 3 (in IMAX, too!) May 4

Shrek the Third May 18

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End May 25

Oceans 13 June 8

Fantastic Four 2 (ehh, maybe not) June 15

Evan Almighty June 22

Live Free or Die Hard June 27

Ratatouille June 29

Transformers July 4

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (IMAX) July 13

I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry July 20

The Simpsons July 27

The Bourne Ultimatum August 3

Fanboys August 17

A Happy Easter with Friends and Sad News From Home

Another Easter has come and gone, and I had the opportunity to spend it with my friends Kyle and Dana in Madison, WI. I met Dana when I was a field application specialist with Bio-Rad and she was an account manager. We both hit it off quite well, as Dana is one of those rare brainy cool chicks (lets face it, brainy cool dudes are rare, too). During one of my working trips to Madison, Dana invited me to have dinner with her and her husband. Kyle and I hit it off immediately. I got the feeling that he and I were a lot alike in terms of making friends in that we have a lot of acquaintances but very few good friends. I view Dana and Kyle as close to me as being my brother and sister, and friendships like that are very rare. This visit, I spent some time with the new addition to their family, Alex. He is 14 lbs now, and is just about 2.5 months old (sorry about not knowing the exact date, Dana). I loved spending the weekend with them. My schedule is about to get wicked busy with the onset of exams, so this was a welcome respite from the craziness that is law school. In spite of the business of having a newborn in the house, Kyle and Dana were gracious hosts, and I always feel so much at home when I visit them. They always take care of me, and I have to remind them that payback will be coming when I finish school. I want to do something for SO many people who have helped me (my brother [wow do I owe him], my parents, Aaron and Julie, and Dana and Kyle…and Alex too!). Alex is an extremely cute child, and I came away from my visit with the firm belief that guys have biological clocks too. I also love visiting with their dogs Meg and Jack. I think that they love me too, and nothing validates you more than when dogs and babies love you. I am feeling pretty good about myself. This thank-you goes out to Kyle and Dana.

I made my way back to Chicago, and I am now hard at work on law school stuff. I also want to get a card for a dear family friend who, I found out, has cancer. Vernon Netto (or Uncle Vernon to me) is an accomplished urologist from Poquoson, VA. He and his wife (Aunt Molly to me) were two of my parents’ good friends from the time I was extremely young. Uncle Vernon and Aunt Molly never had kids, but the result was that they treated my brother and me as if we were their own. There were gifts when we visited, and they both made a big fuss over us whenever we saw them. Their influence on my life is even a bit more than I think they even know, for I can actually trace my earliest fascination with cooking to my visits to their home. Uncle Vernon was a foodie before there WERE foodies. He and Aunt Molly always made elaborate, homemade dishes and were early devotees of Julia Child. They both have an infectious zest for life that really affected those around them, and I have never reflected on how important they were to me from a very young age. When I was in college, Uncle Vernon was in town, and he called me up to invite me out to dinner. Now, as a college student, I would have been thrilled with a burger and fries, but Uncle Vernon proceeded to take me to a VERY expensive French restaurant. When I hesitated about ordering something from the menu, he ordered for both of us-and it was one of the most delicious meals I had ever eaten. I learned a lot about food and friendship from that evening, and I remember it to this day.

I learned today about Uncle Vernon’s weakened condition, and my heart sank. I cannot imagine the world without him even though I have not interacted with him in years. He has, as I said before, an incredible and infectious zest for life. I hope that I get a chance to see him. I hope that he can read this entry. If those of you who are reading would throw out a prayer for Uncle Vernon, I would appreciate it.

My views on "300," and a Rant Against Relying on Critics.

One of the many things that I find irritating (and the list is long and distinguished) is the emphasis that so many people place on the opinions of critics in our society. Art critics, film critics, music critics, food critics, wine critics…there seems to be a critic for every single aspect of our daily lives. Often, I suppose we look to these so called “experts” to help us make up our minds as we decide what to wear, what to see, what to do, and what to eat. Although I can appreciate a person’s desire to be well-informed, I cannot understand the implicit trust that we all seem to have on these virtual strangers and so-called trendsetters in society. It is almost as if we have all placed “checked at the door” signs on our brains. Can’t we make up our own minds without any help from strangers?

Critics have long been accused of being out of touch with society; I firmly believe that this is the case. For example, most food critics would turn their noses up at any of the fare from McDonald’s, yet this is the same institution that has served “billions and billions.” Can “billions and billions” be wrong? Many would scoff at this, saying that people only eat there because McDonald’s is cheap. Well, even if it is cheap, people would not eat there unless they enjoyed the taste of the food. This being “out of touch” with the rest of society (likes and dislikes, etc) extends everywhere.

Our implicit trust in critics has reached the point where most of us will take critics’ opinion at face value. How many times have you been at a party and, in the midst of a discussion on a film, someone interjects with the pithy phrase “I heard that film sucks.” It doesn’t matter whether or not that person has actually watched the film; the problem is that, in order to interject in a conversation about a film, they feel inclined to quote some nebulous “person” who “said” that the film sucks. I myself am not above checking out critical opinion, but I have learned over the years that I should not limit myself to the opinions of individual critics. For example, I enjoy reading Roger Ebert’s reviews and usually agree with him; however, Ebert did not like the film “The Usual Suspects,” a film that is in my top ten. If I had blindly followed his advice, I would have avoided the film to this day. Until recently, I feared that the moviegoing public was falling prey to the phenomenon of blindly following critics on the basis of the critics' “status” of purveyors of all that is critically worthy.

Times have changed, at least with regard to films.

When one looks at the top ten lists for the past few film releases, one should note that the top films were lambasted by the critics, but they proved to be critically immune. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you “Ghost Rider,” “Wild Hogs,” and “300”. Let me first discuss “Ghost Rider.” I had been looking forward to this film. It had a good cast and a director who seemed to have an appreciation for the character. Once the reviews started coming in, however, things looked bleak. My expectations for the film diminished to the point where it was no longer a “must see” film. I saw it with my brother, and I was able to appreciate it for what it was: a cool long trailer about a guy with a flaming skull head riding a flaming motorcycle. I was entertained because I was able to check my brain at the door and because films are all about entertainment, “Ghost Rider” succeeded for me. Were the performances good? No. Was the story compelling? Nope. Was it even faithful to the source material? HECK no! At the same time, this was a bit different than “Superman Returns” or “Batman Begins” in that I did not have the same connection to the Ghost Rider character that I have to Superman or Batman. That might have allowed me to enjoy the film more than the average fanboy. My point is that I was able to enjoy the film in spite of the negative criticism.

I believe that, over the years, the impact that the critics might have on the box office has been steadily diminishing. This was reflected in the fact that only one of the films nominated for best picture this year crossed the magical $100 million gross barrier that is essential to be considered a hit (although I suppose that the minimal gross nowadays is closer to $150 million thanks to inflation and the rising costs of film production). To date, “Ghost Rider” has grossed $113 million. “Wild Hogs” displaced “Ghost Rider” at the top of the box office charts; like “Ghost Rider”, “Wild Hogs” was critically panned. In spite of this, “Wild Hogs” has become what is coined a “surprise hit.” For the people who made it, its status was no surprise. I have not watched the film, but I have “heard” (ugh) that it is a really funny film that appeals to all the middle America folks, the people who love “America’s Funniest Home Videos,” “Extreme Makeover Home Edition”, and “Home Improvement.” Would it be logical to believe that the critics from LA, Chicago, and New York have their finger on the pulse of what Middle America loves? Of course not! In 3 weeks, “Wild Hogs” has outgrossed the critical darling “The Departed” in less than a quarter of the time. The trend continues with “300”.

I watched “300” on the IMAX screen in Chicago, the same screen where I witnessed the “Superman Returns” swill from last summer. The critics had not been kind to the film before its release, using hackneyed descriptions like a “filmed video game” and “sword and sandals for the MTV set”. What was completely missing from their descriptions was the beauty of the film itself. The critics were so caught up in trying to tear down the film for what it wasn’t (a throwback to the halcyon Hollywood days of “Ben-Hur”) that they missed it for what it was: a piece of artwork brought to life in a new medium. Whenever genre films are made, fanboys and genre fans alike hold their collective breath. We were all worried when Peter Jackson, at the time best known for his colossal failure “The Frighteners”, announced a Lord of the Rings trilogy, but he created a masterpiece by not dumbing down the richness of the source material (as did the film version of “Eragon”, or what I like to call “Star Wars with Dragons”). The only note-perfect translation of a comic book that I have witnessed has been Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller’s “Sin City”, based upon Miller’s noir graphic novel of the same name. Rodriguez recreated the novel and translated it into the film medium using the innovative merging to digital bluescreen for the entire film. I think that critics loved it because it was noir and perhaps reminded them of some of their favorite films from childhood. They did not, however, dismiss the film as a video game shot on film.

Now we have “300”. This film has a rating of 61% on rottentomatoes.com, allowing it to qualify as “barely fresh.” This was a welcome change from the low ratings of “Wild Hogs” (17% fresh) and “Ghost Rider” (26% fresh), but it was still considered, at best, only marginally good. In my previous post, I described the source material (Frank Miller’s graphic novel) and the true story that it was based on. I was looking forward to this film (critics be damned). The film did not disappoint. What many critics casually disregarded as a “video game movie” has found a place in the cultural zeitgeist that surpasses even the harshest of criticisms. No one I spoke to had a bad thing to say about “300.” Gerard Butler is magnificent as the Spartan King Leonidas, and the supporting cast is wonderful. The film moves along quickly, and the battle scenes are interspersed with quieter scenes that inform on the political machinations and the background corruption that is present with the seers and with the Spartan city-state council. In addition to succeeding by way of a compelling story, the film succeeds as a work of art. I am convinced that there is NO WAY that the filter effects, colors, and staging of the film could be replicated on a conventional soundstage. The embrace of a new medium (fully digital film with real actors) could have failed if the faith of the filmmaker was borne solely on the shoulders of razzle dazzle technology with a minimal emphasis on story and character development (witness Lucas’s failed experiment that was "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace"). By utilizing the technology to assist in the storytelling where both are seamless, director Zack Snyder has succeeded where so many others before him have failed. The truism is still the same: the story’s the thing! Several scenes held my mouth agape with sheer wonder over the sheer visual beauty that they conveyed. The overall golden beige tint to the film accentuated the brilliant red cloaks of the Spartan warriors, and the scenes in the fields surrounding Sparta were beautiful, especially the farewells taken in the fields between the King Leonidas and Queen Gorgo as he made his march north to the fiery gates. The true stunner was the end scene, a scene that was a slow pull back from the body of Leonidas, riddled with arrows. As the camera (computer?) pulled back, the fallen bodies of the remaining 300 were shown as a sort of macabre tapestry that was equally grotesque, sad, and beautiful. If you choose to see the film, you will recognize the shot. Of course, there were some weak points. Rodrigo Santoro’s portrayal of the Persian King Xerxes was laughable, but this can easily be overlooked because the role was so small. Some of the mythological elements were a bit disconcerting when one considers that this film is supposed to be a film about a real battle and a real time in history, but this too is easily explained. The story is told in narrative form by Dilios, the sole survivor of the 300 who was sent back by Leonidas to tell the tale. Liberties with the narrative are acceptable, especially in light of Dilios’ desire to get the Spartan’s blood up.

The film is extremely violent; however, the violence rarely approaches the level where it could be described as gratuitous. The battle scenes are the strength of the film; the use of slow motion is used effectively to the point where the audience can almost understand the heat of battle.

This is the first good film of the year. Thankfully, it only took 3 months to get here. Will it be considered a classic? Probably not. Was it enjoyable? Heck, yes! Was it worth the price of an IMAX admission? They should be charging MORE to see this film. What about what the critics said? Well, my advice is look to what the film hopes to accomplish with its audience. If an audience watches a film and looses itself in a film without wondering “how did they do that?”, the film is a success. For those of you who have not had the pleasure of reading Frank Miller’s source graphic novel, I recommend that you read it prior to seeing the film. Your appreciation of what Zack Snyder and the Virtual Studios team have accomplished will be that much greater.

March 8...and a week until Spring Break

School and life go on. Right now, I am in the depths of the semester. So far, the semester has not been as stressful as the last one. I think that a lot of this is due to the fact that, for the first time in my law school career, I do not have Legal Writing and Analysis. I am taking 5 classes and I am taking 16 credit hours. My daily routine consists of classes and studying. This also includes the weekends. I do not have classes on Fridays, but I have been spending Fridays in the library trying to get a head start on the week.

There has not been a lot going on socially, and I have yet to see any of the newer films that are out on the screens (except for “Ghost Rider”, but the less said about THAT film, the better!). I was happy to see Martin Scorsese finally win an Academy Award for Best Director for “The Departed,” but at the same time, I know that this was not for his best work. This was definitely more of a “career accomplishment” award for someone who, arguably, made the best films of the 70s (“Taxi Driver”), 80s (“Raging Bull”) and 90s (“Goodfellas”). At the same time, I think that most of Scorsese’s films retain a certain sense of the 70s sensibilities, and I agree with Peter Biskind’s assessment of “Raging Bull” in his book “Easy Riders, Raging Bulls”-“Raging Bull” could be considered an orphaned child of the 1970s. I was disappointed that Eddie Murphy lost in his bid for an Academy Award, but I hope that this will be the first in a run of nominations for Eddie.

I am looking forward to catching the film “300” this week. Director Zack Snyder’s adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel of the same name tells the story of the Battle of Thermopylae. This is the celebrated “few against many” battle where, in 480 B.C., 300 Spartan warriors (led by the Spartan King Leonidas), held off hundreds of thousands of Persian ruler Xerxes’ warriors for three days. All of the Spartans were ultimately killed. I first became enamored by this version of the tale when I read Frank Miller’s graphic novel, and upon viewing the earliest trailers, I was relieved that they retained the lighting and shading techniques used by Miller in the illustrations in the graphic novel. I love the look of the film. Although George Lucas was the first to truly take advantage of a “set-less” film (filming the actors in front of the blue screen and then filling in the details later) for his film “Radioland Murders”, it was not until his later Star Wars films that the technique was finally perfected. The use of this technique and the more modern digital video cameras have taken everything one step farther; the technique was used with great effect in Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller’s film “Sin City.” There, the directors were able to fully render actual scenes from Miller’s graphic novel perfectly. Zack Snyder appears to be paying the same sort of attention to Miller’s work from the “300” graphic novel, as some of the scenes from the trailer directly mirror scenes from the graphic novel. This gives me hope for Snyder’s adaptation of Alan Moore’s 1985 graphic novel/miniseries “Watchmen”.

I am halfway done with the semester, yet this is only my second post. Bear with me!

First Post of 2007..It's a long one....

So it has been over a month, but I have some really good excuses. First of all, I had exams for most of the month of December. I have always hated exam time. I tend to lose track of the days, and my normal routine suffers greatly. I have no time for relaxation, and I cannot enjoy my NFL games as I normally do. Furthermore, my exams were spread out over a 2 week period. While this might be conducive to studying, it is in no way conducive to having an actual life for a 2 week period during the holiday season. It is SUCH a joykill for Christmas! Anyway, I made it through exams relatively unscathed. My final exam was for Evidence, and it was a toughie. The next day, my friend Tom and I went to the early show for “Rocky Balboa.” I know what you all are thinking:Artful, I thought you liked GOOD movies, not dreck like the “Rocky” series. All I have to say in response to that is that, once again, as was the case with the James Bond series, “Rocky” was an integral part of my formative years. The first Rocky film that I saw was “Rocky III,” the motion picture introductions (for better or for worse) of both Hulk Hogan and Mr. T. Both of those larger than life figures made quite an impression on me and went on to be icons of the ‘80s. In retrospect, I realize that watching “Rocky III” before the previous ones in the series handicapped my ability to understand the impact of Mickey’s death on Rocky, one of the seminal dramatic moments of the series. At the same time, I was able to appreciate the friendship between Rocky and Apollo and how Apollo drove Rocky to find the competitive spirit within him. My father always loved Adrian’s confrontation with Rocky on the beach in California during his training session where, in one conversation, she reignites within Rocky his own sense of self worth. A few years later, I watched “Rocky IV.” In spite of its flag-waving, Reagan-era, cold war propaganda messages, it succeeds as pure pop entertainment. Having grown to appreciate the character of Apollo Creed and his friendship with Rocky, my young mind was shocked when Apollo died in the ring at the hands of Dolph Lundgren’s Ivan Drago. Few people appreciate Sylvester Stallone’s ability to find talent. Dolph Lundgren was actually a Fulbright Scholar who was set to attend MIT on account of his genius (seriously!), but the acting bug bit Lundgren in a hard way and he threw it all away for the chance to be a star opposite Stallone. In the long run, it was not a bad trade, as the film proved to be a launching pad for Lundgren’s turn as a “B” list action star for the rest of the 80s and the early 90s.

But I digress. I enjoyed “Rocky IV” as did most of the movie going audience. The soundtrack remains one of the best collections of workout music available, and Rocky’s cold, single-minded determination to avenge the death of his friend was something that was, up to that time, an unexplored facet of Rocky’s psyche.

Finally, a few years after watching "Rocky IV," I sat down and watched the original "Rocky" and its sequel, "Rocky II." Many people forget that the original "Rocky" won the Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Editing in 1976. Furthermore, Burt Young, Talia Shire, Burgess Meredith, and Sylvester Stallone were all nominated for the various acting awards. I think the most surprising thing was that Bill Conti's memorable theme was nominated for Best Original Score, but it did not win the award! The original "Rocky" was a wonderful film that transcended the normal "sports underdog" formula and reformulated it for the next 40 years. People tend to forget that the underdog lost at the end of the film. People also tend to forget that the boxing was never front and center in the film. The film was about Rocky and Adrian. Having revisited the original "Rocky" prior to my viewing of "Rocky Balboa", all I can say is that it really stands the test of time (moreso than "Rocky III" or "Rocky IV").

“Rocky V.” The less said about that debacle the better.

15 years later, we have “Rocky Balboa.” The newest film is a wonderful bookend to the saga of “Rocky.” When the trailers first started playing, I was skeptical. Who wanted to see an aged (60 y o) Stallone in the ring? It looked like a desperate attempt by an over-the-hill 80s action star to recapture some of his former glory and squeeze blood from a stone. There is no way that it could be a worthy sequel to the original “Rocky,” as Stallone claimed throughout the filming. Advanced word also revealed that Adrian was dead. Adrian dead? She was the heart and soul of the franchise. A Rocky film without the immortal phrase “Yo Adrian”? Unthinkable!

And then, just before the opening of the film, Stallone conducted a 200 question Q & A session with the website aintitcoolnews.com. He answered anything and everything. His answers were thoughtful, insightful, and self-deprecating (particularly on his distaste for such misfires as “Get Carter,” “Driven,” and most of all, “Stop, or My Mom will Shoot!” I thoroughly enjoyed the Q & A, and I must admit that my curiosity was piqued by his answers. I made plans with one of my movie going buddies from law school to see the film the day after my last final.

I ended up really loving the film. My fears about the absence of Adrian were unfounded. The film was a poignant reminder of the great love affair of Rocky and Adrian. Her spirit pervaded the entire film, and I found myself getting a bit choked up early on when Rocky, on the anniversary of Adrian’s death, revisited all of the places he and Adrian went on their first date. The film was bolstered by ghostly images from the first “Rocky” film, as the audience was treated to a view of events as Rocky remembered them. His ghosts became ours, and the audience felt his sadness and desolation. Paulie was also part of this journey, and his reasons for not wanting to revisit this time in his life allowed actor Burt Young to truly shine. I was taken aback. Was this a Rocky movie? Wow. The entire set up of Rocky’s newfound desire to fight was believable. He had reached the point where he did not really want to go on. He was living in the past, where his happiest memories were. The thought of digging down deep and finding the fighting spirit is something that everyone can relate to...the strength to go on. It is also the central message of all of the Rocky films: overcoming the odds to keep going. Sure, there are a lot of flaws with the film: for all of his skill with defining the characters of Rocky and Paulie, the rest of the characters suffered short shrift. The final scene, however, is where Stallone revealed his hand and was the perfect coda for a classic movie series (except for “Rocky V”). I recommend this film, but I also recommend watching the first “Rocky” before going to this one.

Following the film, I went home and went back to sleep. This was a good day. On the Saturday before Christmas, I drove to Cleveland to visit my friends Aaron and Julie and their family. I completely surprised Aaron, and we all went to the house from “A Christmas Story,” a house that had been restored as shown in the classic Christmas film. Following that, we went to the Chinese restaurant from the movie (yes, there was Peking Duck and “fa ra ra ra ra”, but thankfully, not at our table). We were treated to some of the best Chinese food that I have ever had. I highly recommend a visit to the restaurant if you are in Cleveland. Christmas itself was fun because of Aaron’s kids. Viewing the wonder and excitement of Christmas through the eyes of children, I think, keeps us all young. I had a wonderful time at their place, but I could not do it justice within this short blog entry.

The weekend of New Year’s, I flew to Omaha to attend the wedding of a classmate . Several of my classmates also made the journey, and we ended up having a wonderful time. We were, by far, the most fun table at the wedding, and people there knew it. I had a great time hanging out with my friends in a relaxed social setting. I flew back to Chicago on New Years Eve and I had a wonderful New Years as well. Quiet. I went to bed early and relaxed for a couple of days. I flew out to Virginia on January 4, and my parents were there to pick me up from the airport. We were going to drive down to Orlando and meet my brother in Disneyworld for a few days. The drive down was uneventful, but it was fun. I cannot remember when my parents and I last spent 12 uninterrupted hours together. Dad and I both split the driving responsibilities, and we made it to Orlando in excellent time. My brother flew in that evening and joined us at a hotel near the airport. Bright and early the next day, we checked into our hotel on the Disney property. It was a value resort, but that was fine because we were not going to stay in the hotel for most of the time. The first day was spent at Disney-MGM. The family took in most of the rides and attractions here on day one. Mom, in her infinite wisdom in planning all aspects of the trip, had paid for park hopper passes. This meant that we could visit any and all of the parks on any given day. This proved to be ideal, as our family took full advantage of it to go to multiple parks on the same day. Day 2 started bright and early at EPCOT. Our efforts to see everything were a bit hampered by the running of the Disneyworld marathon, but we still managed to go to Soar, Test track, Mission: Space, The Universe of Energy, Honey, I Shrunk the audience, and Finding Nemo. That pretty much exhausted most of EPCOT, as the world showcase was something that my parents have experienced for real. In the evening, we went to the Magic Kingdom and rode the new Pirates of the Caribbean ride, the one featuring Jack Sparrow. We also revisted the Haunted Mansion, the Carousel of Progress, and the On Monday, our last day at the Disney resort, we started the day in the Animal Kingdom.

Now, the Animal Kingdom was the only Disney Park that neither my brother nor I had ever visited. We (the whole family) immediately went to the Tree of Life to watch the “A Bug’s Life” 4-D show (highly enjoyable). After that, we went on the jungle safari and then spent some time walking around the park. The park is well designed, clean, and welcoming. My brother, a fan of roller coasters, wanted to ride the new “Expedition: Everest” ride, so we made our way to the Asia part of the park. While my brother went on the ride, my folks and I relaxed with a little soft serve. The vending cart was a little interesting. In keeping with the Indian theme of that section of the park, the side of the cart was painted with an image of the Hindu God Ganesha….with his multiple arms holding a multitude of frozen treats. Now, I am not a strict Hindu by any stretch of the imagination, but I must admit that my cultural pride was offended by this blatant disregard for my heritage. I mean, Disney should be even MORE conscious of such things than other corporations. Heck, they even stopped the sequences on the Pirates of the Caribbean ride where the pirates were chasing comely wenches for fear of offending feminists. One might think that a company that is so socially aware might have done its research when designing a theme park around a culture that contains over a billion people. Ugh.

Anyway, after that, we attended the live Lion King show. It proved to be a good coda to the Broadway show (a show that I had attended when I was still living on the East Coast. We then made our way back to the hotel, and my brother caught a flight back to Chicago while my parents and I went back to MGM for the evening. I then passed the evening watching the NCAA Football “National Championship” game, where the Gators walloped the Buckeyes. It was fun being in Florida when this happened.

Early the next morning, my parents and I checked out of the Disney resort and went to our hotel outside of Universal Studios. We had our tickets to go to the Universal parks and spent the entire day at the Islands of Adventure. I highly recommend the Spider-Man ride, the Jurassic Park River Ride (my parents were such good sports in going on the water ride, and my mom, who hates rides with huge vertical drops, handled the one on that ride like a pro), the “Terminator 3D” film, the Jaws ride, “Back to the Future”, and the “Shrek” 4-D movie. I actually though the “Shrek” film was a better sequel than “Shrek 2.” At the conclusion of our very busy day, my folks and I checked into our hotel. Early the next morning, we hit the road and were in Virginia in 11 short hours. I had a (too short) day with my parents back in Virginia, and I then flew back to Chicago for the beginning of my new semester of law school.

Upon arriving in Chicago, I rode the El downtown and picked up my books for my classes. $590 poorer, I took my books home. Following a short nap, I hit the books. I wish that my vacation had been a bit longer.

The first day of classes arrived all too soon. At 9:30 on Monday morning, I was in my seat in Patent Law class. There were not too many of us, and our instructor is an accomplished practitioner of patent law here in Chicago. The rest of the day was given to reading for my Tuesday classes. I ended up changing around my schedule a bit, and my Tuesday/Thursday classes are now Corporate Finance and International Intellectual Property. In addition to those 2 classes and Patent Law, I am also taking a course on Federal Courts and a course in Commercial Arbitration. I am back to feeling very busy, but at least I do not have classes on Friday nor do I have any evening classes.

Whew… this has been a long entry. Now I am pretty caught up with everything that has gone on in the last month. Look for new entries detailing my 4th semester of law school!