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.

"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!