365 Films A Year!

So I got a free pass to see a preview of the new film Forgetting Sarah Marshall and I went mostly because of my long-standing policy never to refuse a free movie, but partly because of my fandom of co-star Mila Kunis, the only reason I ever tuned in to That 70’s Show. What I was expecting was a gross-out/sex farce in the “modern” style of films like the dreadful Good Luck Chuck. What I got was something quite different (mostly).

The story tells of a television composer, Peter Bretter (Jason Segel), whose girlfriend, TV star Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell of TV’s Veronica Mars and Heroes), dumps him. With the help of his step-brother, Brian (SNL’s Bill Hader), he tries to get over her by sleeping with lots of women, but decides he needs to get away. He chooses to go to Hawaii because Sarah had always talked about going there. He does, but is shocked to find that Sarah is there with her new rock-star boyfriend, Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Peter finds it all a bit too much to take, but finds help in the form of Rachel Jansen (Kunis), a girl who works at the hotel who takes an instant liking to him.

I think the start of the film is intended to pull in those people expecting a “Chuck-like” experience and sucker them into watching something more. Certainly the copious amounts of male frontal nudity (by the in-no-shape-to-be-filmed-naked Segel) made me think I had probably made a mistake. But once Peter reaches Hawaii, an amazing thing happens. Suddenly, I found myself in the middle of a well-written, decently performed comedy that had more to say about relationships than just a bunch of sex jokes.

Key to this is the fact that none of the characters are given the easy way out. Credit for this goes to Jason Segel himself, making his screenwriting debut with Sarah Marshall. While Sarah is clearly in the position of the “bad guy” and much of her behavior supports that, she is still given a level of sympathy beyond her obvious good looks. Sarah clearly had issues with Peter that went beyond her just being a slut or something. And Segel and director Nicholas Stoller do an excellent job of setting up Peter and Sarah’s reuniting as a viable potential outcome. I’m going to do something odd here and compare this film to the action flick Speed. I’ve always said that Speed’s greatest strength was in sticking to a formula, while simultaneously defying it and convincing the audience that things *just might not* turn out the way everyone expected. The same can be said here. There were moments where I thought they might let the two get back together. It flies in the face of the formula, but they made it seem like it might go there. *That* helped keep me interested.

And before you think that this is some kind of drama, let me make it clear that this is a *very* funny comedy. Yes, it does get into that over-the-top nonsense that is often the only thing holding some comedies together these days, but that stuff (like a newlywed couple having sex problems on their Honeymoon) seems tacked on, as if the filmmakers thought they needed to do that kind of stuff. (Again, like the opening.) Most of the comedy is of a more traditional (you know, funny) nature. There’s a lot of mileage made from Peter’s great life’s work, a rock opera version of Dracula - using puppets. It’s just the kind of ernestly-delivered nonsense that I adore. And the dialogue is honestly funny, coming from real-life situations, not unbelieveable nonsense.

There’s also a lot of good comedy to be found in the smaller roles. Paul Rudd (Anchorman) shows his versatility again in the role of a brain-dead surfing instructor. He was so immersed in the role that I actually kept asking myself “Is that Paul Rudd? I think he’s in this. Is that him? No. Yes. Is it?” Great stuff. There’s also solid material for Jonah Hill (Superbad) as a star-struck waiter who continuously tries to get in with Aldous Snow. And there’s a few more smaller parts; Davon McDonald as a bartender, William Baldwin as Sarah’s TV show co-star and even Steve Landesberg (Barney Miller) as Peter’s doctor friend. Bill Hader’s Brian suffers a bit from the film’s dichotomy, being something of a wise advisor to Peter in the early scenes (trying to talk real sense to Peter), but becomes basically a goof once Peter gets to Hawaii (becoming obsessed with his computer’s visual effects). He’s effective in either mode, but it keeps the character from being as well defined as it otherwise could have been.

But the film is carried by the leads. All the excellent writing in the world wouldn’t matter if they couldn’t make the characters real. Segel obviously tailored the lead role for himself, as it doesn’t stretch him too far and he is able to carry the film ably. (Again, he shows great fearlessness.) If I have a complaint about him it’s that he is so overwhelmingly out of it following the breakup, it’s difficult to see why so many women (three shown, but more implied) would go for a guy who shifts between utter depression and drunken idiocy. But that’s all pre-Hawaii, so I’ll chalk it up to the film not having found its legs yet at that stage. Mila Kunis makes her Rachel more than just a romantic ideal. She comes off as a real person, not just a convenient savior for the distressed Peter. She is set up as his eventual love interest in her first moments on screen, but Kunis keeps her interesting and her place in Peter’s life seems natural and not at all contrived. Russel Brand has the difficult challenge of making his character, who is quite clearly a self-centered ass, somehow noble. He may be a jerk, but he’s comfortable in his own skin, something none of the other characters can claim. But Kristen Bell has the hardest task, as Sarah must be shown to be the “wrong girl”, yet we as an audience need to understand why she has been so appealing to Peter and she has to really sell that potential reconcilliation I mentioned earlier.

The soundtrack is a definite highlight. While Lyle Workman’s original score is so subtle as to be unnoticeable, the songs really stand out. First, there’s that stuff from Peter’s “Dracula”. Writing funny songs that aren’t obviously funny in-story isn’t easy, but these are winners. Segel sings them with such heartfelt honesty that they’re innate silliness is amplified. (To the film’s credit, it ultimately recognizes how silly it all is without trivializing it.) There is also Aldous Snow’s environmental song “We’ve Got to do Something”, which ably skewers “right thinking” rock songs and his preposterous supposed love song “Inside of You”. On top of that material, there are several songs that fall into the anti-romance (”These Boots Are Made for Walkin’”, “Everybody Hurts”) and overly-romantic (”More Than Words”, “Nothing Compares 2 U”) categories delivered in the Hawaiian language to great effect. If the Dracula songs hadn’t sold me, that Hawaiian Prince cover did. I’m buying this soundtrack.

It would be silly to try and pretend that I didn’t like this film just because its excesses were so irritating. I laughed too much and liked pretty much all the major characters to such a degree that I know I will want to watch it again. I may chapter skip to Hawaii, but I’ll definitely watch it again. Honestly, I think a re-edit that removes all of the over-the-top sex and nudity would do this film a world of good. It will play much better edited-for-television. But if you’re considering seeing Forgetting Sarah Marshall, as long as your prepared to see more of Jason Segel than you ever wanted to and you can look past its several hiccups, I can certainly recommend it.

Not too long ago, I picked up two recent comics of significance and of quite startling disparity.

First, I’d like to talk about Sergio Aragones Groo: 25th Anniversary Special.

Groo is one of the series responsible for my voluminous comic book collection. I first read Groo in a preview that appeared in Epic Magazine that I read in a grocery store while my father did the shopping. This led to me buying Groo each month when it showed up in my local 7-11. (Yes, 7-11 still had comics back then.) Eventually, I lost track of Groo after I stopped going with my dad to the store, but he was one of the first things I picked up again when I started collecting after high school. I read it faithfully through the Epic years and then followed to Image, all the while collecting the older issues I missed. (Got ‘em all except that Eclipse special).

Then something Earth-shatteringly horrible happened. In the most shark-jumping, mind-boggling move, they let Groo learn to read. Instantaneously, the comic went from being the most consistantly funny and entertaining comics to the most tedious series of dissertations on liberal political thought this side of a Warren Beatty symposium. I really wasn’t reading Groo for wafer-thinly veiled allegories on the dangers of NAFTA. (Groo helps build a bridge which leads to all the low-paying job going across the river. Yawn.) In a move matched only once in the history of my collecting (more on that later), I dropped the title.

Over the years since, Groo began appearing in limited series and I would sample from time to time. Some were good, some were better, some were boring. But thankfully, none reached the level of tedium that had driven me away. So, eventually, I started buying all the new ones when they came out again. But then came my experience with the aforementioned “Special”.

Basically, the main story is an all-out attack on two groups of people: doctors and priests, both of whom are held up as examples of greed. The doctors are attacked for not trying to cure disease because there’s more money in people being sick than in making them healthy. This is obviously meant as an attack on the “health care system”, except it actually directly attacks doctors themselves. Even most of the people foolish enough to think that “Sicko” is an accurate documentary don’t think that it’s the doctors who are the problem. I’m not even going to dignify the childish attack on clergy with a proper response. It’s too pathetic and simplistic.

I cannot think of a worse way to celebrate twenty-five years of Groo. I don’t think there are many fans who would say that they read Groo for the biting social commentary. They wouldn’t find it if they were looking for it, anyway. The early (read “good”) stories didn’t have much in the way of social commentary and the ones that did were very broad and light, not cemented to specific issues of the day. (Like that NAFTA one. Hardly a universal issue able to stand the test of time.) It’s one thing to write a story that questions the validity of war in general, quite another to write about a king (who had less support of the people than his brother, but got to be king anyway) who wages an unpopular war (without even “having a plan”). Subtle and timeless, eh? That’s the premise of the follow-up mini-series by Evanier, et. al. (I no longer believe Sergio is involved in the stories at all, they have none of his touches).

Here’s what I did with the first two issues (the only ones I bought):

I had a lot of fun doing that, but I don’t think it’s the kind of celebration they had in mind.

But then there’s that other momentous occurance I mentioned. This one goes back to that other shocking moment in the history of my collecting: the day I took “The Legion of Super-Heroes” off my list.

You see, the Legion is the real reason I started collecting comics. It started with Ambush Bug. I read the original mini-series around the same time I was first reading Groo. Loved it. Bought the “Son of Ambush Bug” series and started getting his older appearances. Then I got DC Comics Presents #59, where Ambush Bug ends up in the future and Superman brings him in with the help of the Legion of Substitute Heroes. This led to me getting the Legion of Substitute Heroes Special. Which led to my collecting the real Legion, starting with Keith Giffen’s first run.

The Legion became the backbone of my collection and collecting Legion comics was the main thrust of my efforts. One of my favorite items in my collection is my copy of Adventure Comics #353 (featuring the death of Ferro Lad) autographed by the late artist Curt Swan. I was actually trying to get every single appearance, no matter how fleeting. (One Legionnaire seen in a thought bubble? Good enough for me!)

Then the Legion had a moment similar to Groo’s shark jump: Legion Volume 4. The Legion at that point had been kicked around a bit too much by the DC powers-that-be. John Byrne had been allowed to do away with Superboy which, as he had tried to warn everyone, left a huge gap in Legion history. Various attempts to fix the continuity errors were tried, but each seemed to make things more complicated. By the time Volume 4 began, the first series to be without longtime writer Paul Levitz (who had moved up to management), the editors felt things had to be cleaned up. New creative team of Keith Giffen (artist/plotter) and Tom & Mary Bierbaum (plot/dialogue) had already decided to “age” the Legion, taking them away from their teenage (or at least “young adult”) roots and basically plop them into their thirties. Now they were forced to completely re-write Legion history without the convenience of a reboot. Good heavens it stank. It was a shock to me, who up until then had practically worshipped Giffen, to see him fail so spectacularly with a series with which he had been so successful in the past. (I still consider Levitz & Giffen’s “The Great Darkness Saga” to be one of the best comic book story arcs in the history of the medium.)

So, I dropped the book. The day I walked into my local comics shop and said “take the Legion off my list”, you could have heard a pin drop. Andy, the store owner, was flabbergasted, but it had to be done. I couldn’t even make it a year into that quagmire that Giffen and the Bierbaums had foisted on the world. Subsequent research has indicated that things only got worse. The Bierbaums, comic book fans and friends of Giffen, were not good writers. They engaged in all sorts of fanwank while simultaneously destroying any kind of fidelity to the essence of the Legion the series had left. It’s been debated as to whether this era was truly a reboot or not, but I never considered anything that happened after the history reworking began to be valid. (Just a quick hint of that era’s storylines: longtime female character reveals herself to be male - longtime boyfriend says it doesn’t matter, the Earth blows up because of pollution, a group of teenage Legion clones are found, character who died but was brought back from the dead in the sixties is shown to have been dead all along, etc., etc., etc.) Eventually, dwindling sales convinced DC that it was time to start over. The first complete reboot began.

But not the last. After gaining some traction with the “Zero Hour” edition of the team, things degenerated again and the Legion was once again started over from scratch, this time a complete rethink with the Legion some sort of youth anti-establishment movement. This approach didn’t work, so Supergirl was brought in to add a bit of sex and star appeal, but that wasn’t working much either, so DC decided to try something that I honestly didn’t think they had the guts or clear-headedness to try. They brought back Jim Shooter.

Who’s Jim Shooter? I don’t really have the time to go into all the details of his long career in comics, but here it is in a nutshell. Jim Shooter is one of the most significant figures in the history of comics. He came to prominance during the late seventies when he was named Marvel Comic’s Editor-In-Chief, replacing Archie Goodwin. The impact he had during his tenure cannot be denied.

He ruled Marvel with an iron hand, unwilling to allow even the biggest names to coast or rest on their laurels, all the while fighting with corporate brass to make things better for the creative teams. Shooter was a lightning rod for complaints. Marvel unwilling to give Jack Kirby his original artwork? Blame Shooter. No royalties on comic books sold? Blame Shooter. The “New Universe” is crap? Blame Shooter. Well, maybe you can blame him for that to some degree. The thing is, Shooter tended to take the hits for unpopular stances held by Marvel management because that was *his job*. Behind the scenes he pushed like crazy to get artists their pages back. He put together a royalty package almost as soon as he got the EIC job, but upper management refused until DC did one first. And management also crippled the New Universe by giving Shooter so little money he couldn’t attract top talent to the line.

But Shooter also put an end to the writer/editor and severley cut back on editors just giving their titles to their editor buddies. This allowed creative teams to thrive who were not a part of Marvel’s editorial department. It’s no coincidence that the Chris Claremont/John Byrne X-Men, Byrne Fantastic Four, Frank Miller Daredevil, Walt Simonson Thor and the Bob Layton / David Michelinie Iron Man all happened during Shooter’s watch. He spearheaded company crossovers with the Secret Wars series. And he oversaw the company as it pulled itself out of near bankruptcy.

Eventually, of course, he was fired. Too many fights with management over Shooter’s preference for the creative people instead of the bottom line and too littel support from the creative people who felt he was squeezing them dry for every last penny. He went on to form Valiant Comics utilizing characters from the then-abandoned Gold Key line of comics like Magnus, Robot Fighter and Turok, Son of Stone. It was a huge artistic and financial success and only went south when Shooter was ousted after fighting with his business partners. They immediately sold the company to Acclaim (the video game people) and both companies had crashed and burned within a few years. Shooter then started Defiant Comics (main title Plasm) and then Broadway Comics (main title Powers That Be), but neither got off the ground. He remains a divisive figure in comics; respected for his accomplishments, but reviled by many - often those who never even worked with him.

But what’s all this stuff about the creative and editorial control of Marvel Comics? What does all this have to do with the Legion?

You see, before he became chief-high-muckety-muck at Marvel, before he became an entrepreneur and a pariah, he was a thirteen-year-old kid sending in stories to DC Comics. What separated him from the hundreds of other kids doing the same thing is that Superman editor Mort Weisinger saw his ability and actually gave him work. Shooter began regularly contributing stories of the Legion of Super-Heroes for their title, Adventure Comics (including the aforementioned “Death of Ferro Lad” storyline), sticking with the series until the end of its run in Adventure. When Shooter tried to re-enter the comics industry a few years later, he found the atmosphere at DC didn’t quite fit his temperament and, instead, he took up with Marvel as a writer and an assistant editor, eventually leading to his taking power as EIC.

Well, in the years since leaving Marvel, Shooter has tried to return to the Legion on at least one occasion, pitching to former Legion writer then head of DC editorial Paul Levitz the idea of “Jim Shooter’s Last Legion Story”, a mini-series that would take place during the original continuity. Levitz loved the idea, but it had to be scratched when Shooter’s name caused too many waves at DC (which by then was populated by a lot of talent that had worked at Marvel under Shooter).

But now things are different and Shooter has returned to the Legion. DC head honcho Dan Didio originally offered Shooter the opportunity to either reboot (again) or to tell his “Last Legion” story and use that as a springboard. To his credit, Shooter chose neither. Feeling that Legion fans have been jerked around enough, he agreed only if he picked it up where it was, just as any other new creative team member would.

And it’s been brilliant so far. I don’t mean the “transcendant” type of brilliant. It’s not “edgy”, it doesn’t “break new ground”. It simply takes the Legion as they are and tells great stories with them. While burdened by a less-than-ideal backstory inherited from his predecessors, Shooter has nonetheless been able to instill it with a sense of the true Legion, the guys I remember; imperfect, but heroes at their core. It’s been a joy to read and it’s been great to feel good about the Legion again after all these years.

Here’s hoping he can keep it going at this level. I’ve been sucked back into series only to be disappointed before. (*cough* Wonder Woman *cough*)

So what’s the answer to regaining my loyalty? Be true to yourself, honest with your readers and don’t betray the characters you’ve been entrusted with, no matter who created them.

In researching this posting, I read a fascinating interview with Shooter (it can be found here) where I learned that these two stories coincide. When Sergio Aragones first created Groo, he took it to Jim Shooter at Marvel. Shooter gave him the go-ahead, intending it to be the first series from Marvel’s creator-owned line Epic comics. Aragones was eventually sweet-talked by Pacific Comics and took Groo there. When it finally came to Epic after Pacific’s collapse, there was a dig at Marvel in the first page concerning how they weren’t willing to let Sergio own the character when he was first created. It seems that Evanier lacked class even back then and things have only gotten worse since.

Well, as I am most likely never going to finish last year’s reviews, I thought I’d at least post the list of what I *did* watch last year. (For this year’s list, check the link to the right.) I would still like to write these reviews, and maybe I will, but for now, here’s how things shook out for the end of 2007:

AUGUST (cont.)
220 - Dune (1984)
221 - Club Dread
222 - The Dukes of Hazzard
223 - Puddle Cruiser
224 - Super Troopers
225 - Beer Fest
226 - Caligula
227 - The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

SEPTEMBER
228 - National Lampoon’s Pledge This!
229 - Live and Let Die
230 - Dodgeball
231 - Home on the Range
232 - 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
233 - The Reluctant Dragon
234 - Lost World: Jurassic Park
235 - The Love Feast
236 - Reno 911: Miami
237 - The Brothers Grimm
238 - The Little Shop of Horrors
239 - A Mighty Wind
240 - The Fox and the Hound
241 - Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
242 - Good Luck Chuck
243 - Asterix & Cleopatra
244 - Super Mario Bros.
245 - Blondie’s Blessed Event
246 - Metropolis
247 - My Cousin Vinnie
248 - Napoleon Dynamite
249 - Umer the Tourist in Star Trek
250 - Live Free or Die Hard
251 - Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
252 - Pinocchio
253 - The Extreme Adventures of Super Dave
254 - Fletch
255 - His Double Life
256 - Outland
257 - Godzilla: Final Wars
258 - Dragonslayer
259 - The Black Cauldron
260 - The Village
261 - Jail Bait
262 - Beyond the Valley of the Dolls

OCTOBER
263 - Saw
264 - Battlefield Earth
265 - Hulk
266 - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
267 - Lilo & Stitch
268 - Glitter
269 - Hot Lead and Cold Feet
270 - Starsky & Hutch
271 - The Astounding She-Monster
272 - Dungeons & Dragons
273 - Trading Places
274 - Beauty & The Beast
275 - The Doors
276 - 2069: A Sex Odyssey
277 - Old School
278 - Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star
279 - The Dark Crystal
280 - Cocktail Hostesses
281 - Oliver & Company
282 - National Lampoon’s Vacation
283 - The Louisiana Purchase
284 - 2001: A Space Odyssey
285 - The Jungle Book
286 - Arthur
287 - Spawn
288 - The Lone Wolf and His Lady
289 - Little Caesar
290 - Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas
291 - The Fugitive
292 - Cutie Honey
293 - Topper
294 - The Haunted Mansion

NOVEMBER
295 - Sleeping Beauty
296 - Orgazmo
297 - Death Race 2000
298 - Psycho
299 - A Shot in the Dark
300 - DuckTales: The Movie
301 - Angels in the Outfield
302 - Take the Money and Run
303 - The Living Daylights
304 - Sky Patrol
305 - Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask)
306 - Dick Tracy
307 - Dick Tracy vs. Cueball
308 - Dick Tracy’s Dilemma
309 - Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome
310 - Flubber
311 - The Wrong Guys
312 - Kingdom of the Spiders
313 - Eegah!
314 - Mitchell
315 - Catalina Caper
316 - Hobgoblins
317 - The Brain That Wouldn’t Die
318 - Elf
319 - GoldenEye
320 - A Christmas Story
321 - The Hunchback of Notre Dame
322 - Soul Plane
323 - Footlight Glamour
324 - Murders in the Rue Morgue

DECEMBER
325 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
326 - Raiders of the Lost Ark
327 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
328 - New York Stories
329 - Lady and the Tramp
330 - And Now for Something Completely Different
331 - Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
332 - It’s A Wonderful Life
333 - The Phantom
334 - Steptoe and Son
335 - Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
336 - Hot Rod Girl
337 - Pocahontas
338 - Mr. Bean’s Holiday
339 - Dick Tracy Returns
340 - Scrooged
341 - Night Shift
342 - Lara Croft: Tomb Raider
343 - Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life
344 - Make Mine Music
345 - Double Indemnity
346 - Godzilla vs. Megalon
347 - Scrooge (1935)
348 - Carry on Spying
349 - Strange Brew
350 - 101 Dalmations
351 - The Pink Panther
352 - Mary Poppins
353 - The Great Rock & Roll Swindle
354 - Enter the Dragon
355 - Atlantis
356 - Superman Returns
357 - Batman Begins
358 - Scrooge
359 - Jaws
360 - Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl
361 - Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
362 - Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
363 - Casino Royale (2006)
364 - Tarzan
365 - Made for Each Other

*Whew!*

That exhausted me just typing it! Anyway, next time, I’ll run down my awards for the remaining months and the overall awards for 2007. Then I’ll get back on that horse and start reviewing again, just not *every* film I saw last year. I definitely want to hit the “themed” reviews I intended to get to, like the Broken Lizard films and the contrast/compare between Superman Returns and Batman Begins. Hopefully time will allow me to do at least that.

The Russian “Spice Girls”:

Blestyashie!

(or Blestyashchie or Blestyaschie or even the original Блестящие).

10 Reasons Not to Buy Blu-ray
(no matter what’s happened to HD-DVD)

1. Unfair practices
This is why Sony was able to “win”. They sold the PS3 at a huge loss in order to make sure that Blu-ray was included in the package. They didn’t even care that doing this led to them basically losing the video game market for this generation. (Keeping Blu-ray out would have meant the hardware could have been much cheaper, therebey giving them a fighting chance they never had as things turned out.) But even with disappointing sales vs. the XBOX 360 and (especially) the Wii, the PS3 was able to trounce the sales that HD-DVD was able to accumulate on its own. Every measure shows that regular (non-gaming) consumers bought HD-DVD players at a significantly higher rate than Blu-ray machines. But gamers bought enough PS3s to more than make up the difference and they bought movies for it (because, frankly, there’s been precious few games worth playing on the thing). So, essentially, thanks to what amounts to a practice of dumping (that would get you sued if you used it to drive a competitor out of business in, say, the microchip market), the “next gen” format has been chosen by a bunch of gamers rather than the general public who will have to live with it.

2. Sony can’t spell
Blu? Blu? Sheesh.

3. The law of diminishing returns
Unlike in the jump from VHS to DVD, the difference between a DVD (particularly once its upscaled) and either Hi-Def format is minimal. Don’t be fooled by the sales guys who will say that the difference is night and day, it isn’t. On a huge-screen TV shown side to side, maybe you will see a difference, but popping a standard DVD into your player and watching it on any reasonably-sized screen, few people are going to look at it and say “man, that looks terrible”. And what good is Hi-Def on your portable player, your car player, the small TV in your bedroom? Useless.

4. An industry that conspired to “get it over with”
Well, maybe not conspired. I have no reason to believe collusion was involved. But when everyone from techwankers like The Digital Bits to Warner Bros. and Netflix chooses Blu-ray *not* because it is the best technology for consumers or the industry as a whole but because “it’s going to win anyway”, it’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The average consumer seemd to prefer HD-DVD. The sales of standalone players seems to support that notion. But there was *never* a level playing field, as too many “big guns” backed Blu-ray exclusively. Had all major studios (even leaving Sony out) supported both formats, the results would have been different. Disney support alone could have tipped the scale, as families generally opted for the friendlier prices of HD-DVD.

The thing is, you should worry when the industry gathers together to kill one side of a competition in the marketplace. Competition is good. Competition drives prices down and forces the participants to do all they can to make their product better. Now, there’s no reason to.

5. Stupid name
Blu-ray sounds more like an old Golden Age super-hero than a technology to take seriously. “Look out, here comes the Blue Ray! ”

6. Never let the people with all the guns and all the money be the same people.
Out of context, I assure you, but the notion is the same. By allowing Sony, a company who is increasingly more about content than about technology (since they’ve lost so much ground there) to be the ones defining the technology, you take it out of the hands of those who produce only hardware and put it in the hands of those who have a vested interest on both sides. I, for one, prefer it when my technology comes from technology companies and my movies come from movie companies.

7. Disney’s shameful practices
Now, I love my Disney movies, but the disgraceful way they have been pushing Blu-ray is practically criminal. Rather than utilizing all the great new features of Blu-ray (that’s sarcasm, there really aren’t any), they have, instead, purposely left stuff off of their DVD releases in order to tout the “Blu-ray exclusive” material. There’s no reason that the DVDs of Cars and Ratatouille couldn’t have had the same commentary tracks that their Blu-ray counterparts did. Heck, Ratatouille barelay had any more extras than Meet the Robinsons and MTR got a commentary track. But Pixar films appeal to a more tech-savvy audience than standard Disney fare and I think the Disney brass wanted to push those customers (the ones most likely to early adopt new technology) towards the Blu-ray, while punishing those not ready or willing to adopt the format.

8. It’s all going away, anyhow.
If the industry is to be believed, we’re all going to be downloading all our media content in the years to come. There are some who say that the only reason Microsoft chose to support HD-DVD was to perpetuate the “war” and keep people from adopting either format, just so that digital downloads would be the ultimate winner. There’s some validity to that argument. After all, if Microsoft *really* wanted HD-DVD to succeed, they would have made an XBOX 360 model that was HD-DVD compatible out of the box. That would have matched Sony’s scheme and, with a much larger library, could have tipped the scales.

9. Sony can’t be trusted
Sony has poven one thing over the years: they can’t be trusted. Don’t forget that these are the guys who crippled people’s computers with their anti-copying technology. They are also the guys who tried (and failed) to push minidiscs and UMDs on consumers. And we know from the way they’ve handled the PS3 that they can’t even be trusted to stay true to the backwards compatibility of Blu-ray. After all, they dropped PS2 support from the low-end PS3 when they felt it was causing people to keep buying PS2 games instead of the more expensive PS3 titles. Who’s to say in three years when Blu-ray *still* hasn’t grown past 10% of the marketplace in disc sales, they won’t phase out backwards compatibility to “push things along”?

Also, as noted, Sony doesn’t really have a great track record with introducing new technology. The last really “new” item that Sony introduced was the Walkman and they dominated the portable music market for years. Of course, they handed that away to Apple with their ridiculous refusal to support mp3 files, so that’s gone. Letting Sony “win” this battle may ultimately mean that the two sides were fighting over who gets to be the next laserdisc. *

10. Don’t get railroaded
It’s bad enough that we’re being forced into “digital transmissions” that few people want, but to try and force a new, generally unneeded format onto a public that doesn’t want it is a waste of time and energy. I find it hard to believe that the general public is ready to move back over the $20 price point for a standard DVD just because it’s in Hi-Def. Oh, the videophiles will, but most people don’t even see the difference. Particularly if they have an upscaling DVD player. So most people won’t buy it until the prices are as low as DVD or they are forced to (because the studios stop making DVDs). What that means is, either the public is forced to support a format they don’t like, or Blu-rays return to the current status quo. The first option is an insult to consumers and the second does nothing to help studios make more money now that DVD sales have flatlined.

And if you are interested in getting into Hi-Def media, you can forget about those regular price drops and great free movie and buy-one-get-one-free sales. Without a competitor, you can expect Sony to pull back on most of their promotions, as they were only meant to keep you from going HD-DVD. they figure you’ve got no choice but to move “up” to Blu-ray now.

Prove them wrong.

****************************************

*Note: Remember, laserdiscs were a very successful product for many years, despite never capturing a significant portion of the home video market. While Beta died because the average consumer didn’t want it, the high-end user also bought and used laserdiscs for its many advantages. The same may happen now. DVD may continue to be the format of choice, while Blu-ray becomes the choice of the high-end user; never the mainstream format, but something that keeps chugging along.

The question anyone who sets themselves out to critique movies is guaranteed to have to face is: can you do any better? If you are Roger Ebert, for instance, we have Beyond the Valley of the Dolls on hand to answer in a resounding “no”.

Me? I went to film school. Here’s the proof, the last film I made as a student in the Rochester Institute of Technology “Film & Video” program, back in 1989.

It’s called “The Ring” and is actually the end-of-semester joint project of my team, Ambrosia Productions. (The freshman class was split into teams, so as to foster the ability to work with others.) We worked out the story together and the basic look and feel of the film. I acted mostly as director and the entire thing was edited by me (my favorite part of filmmaking) at home in my living room (where I am sitting and typing this today).

Anyway, I enjoyed my time making movie at RIT, not so much going to school. We parted ways completely within the year and higher education and myself agreed to disagree. (Of course, I work at the University of Rochester School of Nursing these days, but I have pledged to learn as little as possible, I swear.)

Carry on Nurse is the first entry in the “Carry On” series that really establishes what the future installment would be like. Although Carry On Sergeant laid done several of the ground rules (group of disparate characters thrown together, etc.), the cheekiness and generally bawdy air that permeates the series begins here.

The story is typical Carry On silliness, revolving around the troubles of life in the British National Health Service. Even more than the previous film, this one establishes the anti-establishment tone of the series (the previous one being more about towing the line). This allows us to sypanthize with the patients’ problems, cheer their wacky shenanigans, yet still see them get their commupance.

To my mind, though, the most significant development is the inclusion in the cast of Joan Sims as Student Nurse Stella Dawson. Not to say anything against Carry on Sergeant’s lovely Shirley Eaton (who returns in a similar role here) and very funny Dora Bryan, but Joan Sims was made for the Carry On films. Unlike the previous pair, she seamlessly fits in with the guys, rather than being something for them to react to or with. For the “reacting to” type, that is left, again, to Hattie Jacques, who establishes the stern persona of the Matron to strong effect.

Among the men, Kenneth Connor gets the best material, as usual. His tough, but injured, boxer couldn’t be further removed from his timid hypochondriac from Sergeant. Again, Kenneth Williams also stands out, his bookworm who finds love gets plenty of solid laughs. But there’s still plenty for other series stalwarts Charles Hawtrey, Terence Longdon and Leslie Phillips.

And special note should be made of Wilfrid Hyde-White (making his only Carry On appearance). His Colonel, a needy and troublesome patient in a private room, keeps things lively and his personal commupance is one of the sassiest in the series (and the origin of a long-standing gag).

Carry On Nurse is where the Carry On series really begins. Although it would get saucier and the regular cast would change, all the pieces are in place. And there are few entries that do it as well, either.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home was, box-office-wise, the apex of the Star Trek film franchise (although The Motion Picture sold more tickets). It’s amazing to think that this is the only Trek film to have grossed more than $100M at the box office. This is particularly notable today, when just having a Happy Meal toy practically guaranteed $100M.

At the time, I was quite happy with Star Trek IV and it was pleasant to recognize that it’s mostly still true. I have become a bit less accepting of the “foolish humanity” aspect that runs throughout the film and has only become more prevalent in popular sci-fi in the years since. Fortunately, although it is ever present, it is not particularly hard pressed in Voyage Home.

The biggest difference between this film and all other Star Trek films is that Voyage Home was intentionally produced, fundamentally, as a comedy. Yes, there’s drama. Yes, there’s action. But most of the situations and interactions that the Enterprise crew find themselves in are structured to maximize the humorous nature of there “fish out of water” condition.

The story is rather slight. It revolves around a gigantic, powerful “Probe” that comes to Earth, casuing massive destruction along the way. (Yes, another one.) This time, it appears to be trying to contact someone on the planet, without the slightest recognition of humanity’s presence. * In a desperate attempt to save mankind, Admiral Kirk and the Enterprise crew (now on board the commandeered Klingon ship dubbed the “Bounty”) travel back in time to find humpback whales, the species, extinct in the future, that Spock has determined is the one the Probe is seeking. But it’s in the details of how they accomplish their goals that the humor is found.

Mostly, the humor still works today. Much of it is that aforementioned “fish out of water” stuff, and that’s always solid. But there is a good bit of gentle fun poked at the Star Trek franchise, as well as normal, light comedy. The mix is strong and credit for that goes to Leonard Nimoy (who co-created the story), Harve Bennet and Nicholas Meyer (who did virtually all of the work on the screenplay despite not getting full credit).

Due to William Shatner’s television commitments, Leonard Nimoy again stepped into the director’s shoes for Voyage Home and it’s a much stronger entry than his first. Nimoy worked best with light comedy, as evidenced by his strong work on 3 Men and a Baby and he plays to his strengths here.

The cast is on target, but I don’t feel they were all used to their best advantage. Shatner gets a lot to do as Kirk and Nimoy gets some good scenes as Spock (particularly in his interaction with his parents), but I feel that DeForest Kelley is shortchanged, as his contributions as McCoy are not nearly as significant or noticable as his position in the cast warrants. James Doohan gets better stuff as Scotty, making this one of his most notable performances in the role. Everyone else just has dribs and drabs. They’re all quite good, they just don’t get much to do. As usual, Mark Lenard and Jane Wyatt as Spock’s parents Sarek and Amanda make the most of their screen time, really highlighting their significance within Star Trek lore. (Although it’s unfortunate they couldn’t find a way to present them together. It’s amazing to me that they only appeared on screen together in their first appearances, the episode “Journey to Babel”.)

There is only one significant new character, Dr. Gillian Taylor, a marine biologist who has taken care of the two whales that Kirk & Co. are trying to rescue. As played by Catherine Hicks, she proves to be a strong addition to the cast, moreso than many others who have filled similar roles. She seems a viable love interest for Kirk, the only one, frankly, besides Carol Marcus.

Overall, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home deserves its reputation as one of the strongest of the Star Trek films. The balance of excitement, drama and comedy is a rare example of truly pushing the boundaries of sci-fi. Far too often, filmmakers and show runners today feel the only way they can entertain an audience or get a point across is to hammer the audience over the head with it or drape it in as much pathos as possible. The Voyage Home (and the best of Star Trek) succeeded because they looked beyond the boundaries of their small, built-in audience and made something that can be enjoyed by anyone.

* This is yet another example of my biggest sci-fi pet peeve: the superintelligent race that can’t figure out that they should talk to us.

Hey, everybody! (There’s still someone out there, right?)

Anyway, you may have noticed that since I came to the realization that I wasn’t going to come close to catching up on my film reviews by year’s end, I kind of gave up writing. Not watching, mind you. I actually made it to exactly 365 feature-length made-for-theaters films in 2007. (Last film, 1939’s Made for Each Other.)

Things just got real busy at work and at home, so I could never find the time to do the reviews justice. But I intend to keep swatting away at them once things clear up a bit. I will also be keeping track of my 2008 films, but no goals or anything this time. My progress through 2008 will be interspersed through my 2007 reviews whenever I feel like I have something to say or a new film deserves a mention. In particular, I will be posting more and more about my current TV watching habits, as TV-Shows-on-DVD have become something of an obsession. (Heck, I bought The A-Team!)

So, today, I’m going to mention the two shows that have been most interesting to me over the last couple of months.

First, there’s Battlestar Galactica. Not the current, so-tied-to-today’s-politics-noone-will-care-in-ten-years series, but the original that inspired it. It all started with this past Summer, when I found myself reading a lot of different books. I had bought a few and had dug out a bunch of old ones, one of which was The Cylon Death Machine. I reviewed it for my illustrious host, theLogBook.com and it made me want to see the old series. Thankfully, it coincided with the DeepDiscount semi-annual sale, so I got the complete series (Cylon head packaging and all) for a song.

Anyway, I’m about halfway in and I can honestly say that it’s lived up to my expectations, so far. The stories were strong, the characters interesting without being too clever and the interactions seemed realistic, yet not so tied to reality that they lose their otherworldliness. Of course, a lot of the effects (particularly the practical ones) don’t hold up, but the space scenes sure do. And it’s just a great cast with a great story to tell and a striking look that not even the current series can match. (Too many normal suits.) Of course, I’m aware that the series is supposed to lose its spark as it goes along, but from what I’ve seen, it would have to *really* stink before it could make me question my purchase.

The other show that has been diverting me is Attention Please, a 2006 Japanese comedy/drama based on a popular manga of the same name. I’ve wanted to get my hands on a reasonably priced Japanese TV show for a while and when the good folks over at HKFlix had a sale a few months ago, I got this one, along with the TV special follow-up.

Attention Please tells the story of a group of young women training to become flight attendants. The focus is on Misaki Yoko (pop singer Aya Ueto), a tomboy who joins the airline because a boy she likes tells her he’d like to see her in a uniform. As you may guess, this is not really a valid reason to choose a career and Yoko soon learns this. But in the world in which she finds herself, she soon faces challenges that make her want to be more than what she is. She also makes friends (and enemies).

It’s all pretty standard stuff, but, boy is it fun. Aya Ueto literally bounces across the screen, particularly in the early parts before Yoko starts to learn decorum. As the central figure, she’s very successful at making the audience cheer her successes, pity her mistakes and hate her enemies. (I actually found myself yelling “You bitch!” at the screen after one particularly nasty thing a rival did to her.)

The rest of the cast is just as good. Nishikido Ryo is a bit sleepy as Shota, an engineer whose own struggles in life (he has a medical condition that prevents him from fulfilling his true dream of being a pilot) prove both a puzzle and an inspiration to Yoko. Ryo has real chemistry with Ueto and the nebulous nature of their relationship fuels a good portion of the show.

Also noteworthy are Misaki’s two friends, Yayoi (Aibu Saki), who harbors feeling for Shota herself, and Yuki (Otsuka Chihiro) who, in contrast to Yoko’s overconfidence, is constantly battered by her feelings of inadequacy. Then there are the three objects of Yoko’s difficulties: Saori (Uehara Misa ), a rival student who harbors her own problems, Asou Kaoru (Fueki Yuko), a senior attendant and Miss Mikami (Maya Miki). Miss Mikami is the girls’ instructor who, as a former “star” air attendant, tries to teach the girls what it takes to serve in the air.

They are balanced by just as wide a range of male characters. There’s Shozo (Asano Kazuyuki), Yayoi’s father who’s a bit too obsessed with air attendants, Tsutsumi (Koizumi Kotaro), a pilot-in-training with as many problems as the girls, and Mr. Dazai Shinichiro (Inoue Jun), the slightly off kilter head of the attendant school, who is responsible for Yoko getting into the training in the first place. (He had a good feeling about her.) But I really liked Kohinata Fumiyo as Captain Sakurada, the veteran pilot whose quiet but firm demeanor serve as an inspiration for all. His slow, deliberate attempts at romancing Miss Mikami were bits I looked forward to in every episode.

I honestly haven’t seen a television show in years that pulled me in as quickly and as fully as Attention Please did. I was looking for a quirky Japanese TV show and I got that. But there was so much more to this show than I ever expected, it’s one of the most pleasant surprises I’ve ever experienced (when it comes to television). There’s even a kick-ass rendition of “Oh Pretty Woman” by Kimura Kaela that serves as the closing credit theme.)

It’s certainly not for everyone. The lack of an English language track will deter some and the subject matter will turn away others. But for those willing to give the unconventional a try, they can’t go wrong with this one.

So, that’s it for current TV trends in me-land. Next up we pick up the 2007 film review with Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Next “normal” post, I’ll discuss the glory of Russian pop music and the horrors and joys of my re-connecting with my film school days. Here’s a taste:

Easily one of the most over-rated films of the psychedlic era, I found Easy Rider to be ponderous, slow, boring and ultimately empty, without any point to hold the whole mess together.

I suppose if I, like so many fans of the film, first saw it stoned, I might have a different opinion. The plot, such as it is, sees Wyatt (co-screenwriter Peter Fonda) and his sidekick Billy (co-screenwriter and director Dennis Hopper) traveling the country by motorcycle. Along the way, they pick up skeevy lawyer and potential free spirit George Hanson (Jack Nicholson), face a lot of hostility from “straight” America *and* the hippies, before finally making it to their goal: New Orleans and the historic whorehouses found there.

This is definitely a case where the destination is not worth the journey. As Wyatt becomes disillusioned with his view of America throughout the trip, the story becomes more and more disjointed, but not in a way that seems to mean anything. It’s just visual exposition for the sake of it. Hopper’s direction is strong, as he’s always had a god visual sense, but it’s wasted on astory and on characters that do not hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. (But must have been mind-blowing while stoned.)

The performances are fine (particularly vibrant is Nicholson in the role that broke him out of his Roger Corman-based career), but, again, of no true utility as there’s no real story or statemtn here. With the whole thing deteriorating from the moment the film starts, the famous ending actually lacks impact, as Wyatt and Billy have already proven themselves to ultimately be losers, anyway. They may not have deserved their fate, but they did nothing to prevent it.

In fact, the only thing that held my interest for any length of time was spotting choreographer/singer/actress Toni Basil in a small role as one of the prostitutes. Ever since I saw her in the Monkees’ film Head*, I’ve had a bit of a minor obsession with her sporadic acting career and I hadn’t noticed she was in this before. She’s striking enough to hold her own opposite the brooding Fonda and is one of the lesser-known highlights of the film.

I’m no hophead and I have little patience for films that glorify the rampant drug use of the late 1960’s/early 1970’s, but I can still enjoy a period film when it is worthy of being enjoyed. Easy Rider does not deserve its following, as it is shallow, muddled and, ultimately, not truly entertaining to one with a clear mind. That it helped usher in the era of self-indulgent independant film is another knock against it. While it was good that filmmakers were able to be more personally expressive (even in blockbusters), when your template is something as dismal as Easy Rider, it’s not surprising that so many of the then-celebrated films that followed it are all but forgotten today.

* Note: She’s not the only connection between Head and Easy Rider, of course. Head was co-written by Nicholson and both films were produced by Bert Schneider. The money to make Easy Rider apparently came directly from the money collected to make Head, so we never would have gotten the one without the other. (Whether we’re ahead of the game for all of that, I cannot say.)

The Sword in the Stone is the last Disney Animated Feature to be released during Walt’s lifetime. Although The Jungle Book would still have a strong influence from Disney, he did not see it to completion (no doubt adding to the causes of the four year interim between the films, the longest since the notoriously difficult development of Sleeping Beauty and a harbinger of longer gaps between films until the Disney Renaissance).

The Sword in the Stone certainly has the Disney stamp on it. From the whimisical nature of its version of the Arthurian world to the obligatory talking animal, Merlin’s owl Archimedes, it’s a textbook example of how Disney used to bring classics to the big screen.

Everything is prettied up from T.H. White’s original book, with most of the darker tones eliminated in favor of not-quite full-blown whimsy. But the book was always the lightest of White’s Arthurian texts, so it really doesn’t change the feel of the material that much.

The animations are some of the strongest of the era, so much so that animators would use scenes from Sword as templates for films as far ranging as the aforementionedThe Jungle Book to The Black Cauldron. The animations of Merlin and Arthur transformed into animals presage the more anthropomorphicized animals of the 70s and are extremely effective at portarying the animal in question while maintaining the overall effect of the character in question. (This is particularly impressive in the Wizard’s Battle between Merlin and Mim, as they change continuously and into a wide variety of creatures, never losing their essence.)

The songs were the first done by the Sherman Brothers, Robert and Richard and, while not their best work, they are clear indicators of the wealth of more significant songs they would write for Disney and others for films such as Mary Poppins, The Jungle Book, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and The Aristocats.

The voice cast is particularly strong, led by Sebastian Cabot’s narration and portrayal of Sir Ector and Karl Swenson’s Merlin. The three boys who portray Arthur are sufficiently similar sounding to make the portrayal sound consistant. (Helped by the portrayal of Arthur as being right at the age where his voice changes.) The other major performance is from Martha Wentworth, who imbues Madame Mim with a down-to-earth gusto not really seen in previous Disney villains.

And the story is ultimately faithful to the classic Arthurian Legend, taking place as it does during his youth, when there is greater available leeway for vamping. Even sillier aspects such as Merlin going to (modern day) Bermuda don’t seem too far out of place. All in all, The Sword in the Stone is Disney-fication done right. An adaptation that neither loses sight of its goal as a family entertainment, nor the basic elements that made the original work.

The Star Packer is one of John Wayne’s early, early westerns and, as such, is as formulaic as they come. It features Wayne alongside regular sidekick George ‘Gabby’ Hayes, with whom he made fifteen films from 1933 to 1943, although this time he’s the baddie. It tells the tale of stranger who comes to town and decides to take on the local bad guys, blah, blah, blah.

It’s pretty good for the kind of low-rent picture that it is, but there’s nothing really exciting about it. In fact, the only really notable thing is the chance to see Hayes as a villain and the many stunts performed by notable stunt man Yakima Canutt, who also plays Wayne’s indian sidekick, Yak.

Otherwise, it’s formulaic and dull. John Wayne fans will enjoy it for what it is, but others will be stunned with how wooden he was in the early days. It’s actually hard to see at this point what made John Ford think he was the man for Stagecoach, the film that would really start Wayne’s career. So, if you’re a fan, see The Star Packer for its historic value, in not, it’s one you can give a miss.

Hold that Co-ed must have seemed at the time to be an innocuous little comedy about a Governor, Gabby Harrigan (John Barrymore), and his attempts to win a seat in the U.S. Senate. He does this, in typical 1930’s style, by buying the electorate. In this case, he uses the power of his office to aid the State University football team, going as far as to hire professionals to come and play for the team to insure victory.

The “Co-ed” of the title is one Marjorie Blake (Marjorie Weaver), a girl brought onto the team because she can kick the ball better than any man. She, the paid players, an many other payoffs are all there to help Harrigan beat back a rival bid by fiscal conservative Maj. Hubert Breckenridge. (This is the 30’s, so naturally, Breckinridge, the Republican, is played as a fool for believing in things like not spending government money to help a college cheat at football.)

Everything comes to a head when the State University is set to play Clayton University, on whose board of trustees Breckenridge sits. Harrigan challenges him to a bet whereby if Clayton win, Harrigan will withdraw and if State U. wins, Breckinridge will withdraw. Again, this is the 30’s so, naturally, Breckenridge is bullied into accepting, despite the fact that it flies in the face of the lawful election of the people’s representatives.

I suppose in those days, when people were being trained to become more and more dependant on the government through FDR’s various programs, this sort of abuse of power was something that could be chuckled at. Looking at it after seventy years of such abuses, with a government growing ever larger and the populace ever more demanding of government solutions to even the smallest of their troubles, I find it harder to do so. This films stands as a memorial to the age when the people willingly turned their lives over to Uncle Sam and did so with a smile on their faces.

On top of that, the songs are lousy, the jokes aren’t funny and I honestly sat there just waiting for Barrymore’s Hannigan to get his ass thrown in jail like he deserved. Of course, it never happened. Watching Hold that Co-ed was one of the most irritating, aggravating and downright awful times I have ever spent on a film. With all the films that have been lost to decay over the years, why couldn’ they have lost this one?

It’s always a crap shoot when you go to see a free preview, so I had no expectations when I went to see Hot Rod. I suppose that was to it’s benefit. Expecting nothing, I was pleasantly surprised to find a pretty well crafted film that provided a higher than expected level of laughs, as well as very little in the way of annoyances.

Hot Rod tells of Rod Kimble (Andy Samberg), a young man who has grown up trying to emulate his daredevil father by engaging in all kinds of small-scale stunts in and around town. Simultaneously, he is trying to earn the respect of his step-father Frank (Ian McShane), a belligerent man who Rod thinks will only accept him if he best him in personal conflict. Rod’s dreams of one day beating the crap out of his stepfather are dealt a blow when it is revealed that Frank has a heart condition and not long to live. Rod decides to performa a huge stunt, raise the money for Frank’s heart transplant and then beat the crap of him. The rest of the film deals with the ups and downs of Rod’s plans, all while he tries to win over Denise (Isla Fisher), a girl he grew up with who is currently engaged to a weasel named Jonathan (Will Arnett).

The film is much better than the plot synopsis would suggest. While the situations may not be that inventive, screenwriter Pam Brady and director Akiva Schaffer have carved out an interesting group of characters that they have instilled with an appropriate level of depth and humor.

Credit must go to the filmmakers, since none of the performances are that memorable. The only one that really stands out is McShane, who uses all the gravitas earned in his time on Deadwood to sell Frank as a man Rod would respect enough to want to beat up. Sissy Spacek has a nice little part as Rod’s mother, but gets very little to do, yet does it well. Thankfully, only Arnett’s Jonathan seems unnecessary, as his entire subplot is a waste of time. We know Denise will end up with Rod, so why bother spending screentime on it that could be used elsewhere?

The film moves along at a decent pace and doesn’t allow itself to wallow in the typical self-pity sequences too long. Again, I would like to commend the film for escewing anything really irritating like the “gross-out” humor that is so “popular’ these days. There’s a bit, to be sure, but it is mostly confined to the extremes of Rod’s injuries. It all resolves itself quite satisfactorily and with a reasonable bang.

Hot Rod is not going to be the next Old School or Anchorman. It’s not going to launch Samberg to another level of stardom. (He should have hooked up with Judd Apatow if he wanted that). But it’s nothing to be ashamed of. It’s a nicely done comedy with plenty of good laughs and a timelessness that means it won’t seem dated in five years. It’s also something he can build on, perhaps finding that real breakthrough next time.

XXXXXXX@hotmail.com wrote:

Can someone please tell me what is going on? I go to the web site one day and everything is fine. I go in another day and I am banned. What is the deal? I have written twice now and have never heard back. If I am to be banned, I would like to know why. If not, I would like to know why I keep being told that I am.

What is going on?

…

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:59:38 -0400
From: XXX@XXXXXXXXXXXX.com
To:XXXXXXX@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: MayBeSpam: (Jim Hill) : On again off again banning

Philip –

Jim here. At this point, I’ve sent you multiple messages in response to your queries. But your Spam filter (or something to that effect) always stops them. So it’s a zero sum game for me to keep sending you the full-blown explanation.

But — just in case this explanation does get through this time — you got banned from JHM because, a month or so back, you made a rude, cheap shot remark. While I am a big fan of free speech and all that, I am not a big fan of rude people. So until you can learn how to disagree with other people’s opinions without going out of your way to be excessively disagreeable … You’re going to have to find some other website to note on.

Sorry about that,

j

…

Frey wrote:

Well I certainly have been checking my email and spam filter looking for a response, but this is the first to get through. The IT guy in me makes me wonder if there isn’t something wrong with your web site or hosting services that could explain both the problems with your emails and the oddness of my apparent “unbanning” that comes and goes.

Anyway, I’m not sure what I could have said that would be construed as a “cheap shot”, but I still feel that some sort of warning would be in order before banning people. I think that, given the fact that you do not respond directly to the comments made on your Web Site, it is difficult to tell where the line is and when one has crossed it. I certainly don’t feel that *I* have gone out of my way to be excessively disagreeable. It’s a fact that I often disagree with you and would often voice that opinion. It’s your Site and you can ban whoever you want to, but I think it indicates an extremely thin skin if you can’t take a hit now and again, “cheap” or not. Again, I’m not sure what I said that got your nose out of joint, but I’m fairly confident that I wasn’t crude or abusive (I rarely am). Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe I went way too far withut thinking. That happens in the instant response world of the web. Another reason why a warning would be nice. (i.e. “Please do not use that sort of language. While I appreciate your opinion, abusive language such as you used in “X” will not be tolerated. Further similar instances will result in a ban.”)

That is how you build a community. Again, it’s your Site. You make the rules. I won’t deny that this experience (the only time I’ve been banned from *any* Site) has made me think less of you. One would hope that someone who sets themselves up as an expert could better handle the inevitable negativity they receive from placing themselves in the public eye.

Well, good day to you, sir.

-
–
Philip R. Frey
a.k.a. ‘Rhindle The Red’

…

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:32:05 -0400
From: XXX@XXXXXXXXXXXX.com
To: XXXXXXX@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: MayBeSpam: (Jim Hill) : On again off again banning

Philip –

How typical. Now I’m the one with the thin skin? Have you actually looked at what’s regularly posted about me over in JHM’s TalkBack section? I’ve got a hide like an elephant. Strong critics don’t bother me. Rude jerks do.

In your e-mail, you want to brush this all off as something that said in the heat of the moment, that you should be forgiven because things like this happen ” … in the instant response world of the web.” I say life is too short to have to deal with rude jerks who — once they offend — try to explain away and/or justify their behavior.

This isn’t a free speech or First Amendment issue, Philip. You took an unnecessarily cheap shot in JHM’s TalkBack section, going out of your way to be offensive. So now you have to pay the price.

Think of this as an object lesson. Try and learn from it so that — in the future — you don’t wind up getting bounced from any other website.

And a “Good day to you, sir” too.

j

…

RE: MayBeSpam: (Jim Hill) : On again off again banning
From: Philip Frey (XXXXXXX@hotmail.com)
Sent:Wed 9/26/07 10:27 PM
To: JimHillMedia (XXX@XXXXXXXXXXXX.com)

Yes, I have read what has been posted about you and I’ve noticed a lot of people get banned. I would say that somebody who can’t take a criticism or a few pot shots (I can’t say whether mine in particular was a cheap shot or not since you still haven’t told me which comment upset you) has a thin skin. I, on the other hand, do not. I have never backed away from criticism, no matter how harsh. Not even yours. So, am I turning this on to you? Well, you’re the one who banned me when I don’t think I deserved it, so, yeah, I guess I am. That’s kind of the point. I think you’ve overreacted and you think you haven’t. That’s the very nature of a difference of opinion. I haven’t tried to “explain away” or “justify my behavior”, I just stated that I don’t usually use abusive language but that (again since you haven’t told me what upset you) I can’t swear to it. And, yes, it is possible that I may have and if that were the case and you had brought it to my attention, I would have apologized. But as you have chosen not to let me know exactly what I said, I find it difficult to do so.

I also never claimed it was a free speech issue. You brought that up (twice now). I believe I specifically stated that it is your Site and you are free to do what you want. I am not trying to get back in your good graces or get myself unbanned. (I don’t think I asked for that. Right from the get-go all I wanted to know was what I had said and why it had crossed the line.) I am just pointing out my personal opinion of how one in the public eye should conduct themselves when faced with adversity. You are, of course, free to disagree.

The fact is, when I was first banned, I was surprised. I really didn’t know what I could have said that would warrant it. As you stated, there’s a lot of stuff on your talkback and I didn’t think I had said anything that was outside of the parameters that I saw.

Then I wrote to you asking why I was banned. I did not hear back. (Yes, you say you wrote. I’m sure you did. I didn’t receive it.) When I noticed that I appeared to *not* be banned anymore (because of that weird glitch I mentioned earlier) I though “well, I suppose he just banned me as a knee-jerk reaction and changed his mind when he read my note.” Of course, that turned out not to be the case. Oh, well. It doesn’t really matter to me in the end.

And whether you believe it or not, I do appreciate you taking the time to write to me, even if we’ve done nothing to convince each other of our different viewpoints.

-
–
Philip R. Frey
a.k.a. ‘Rhindle The Red’

And….I never heard back again. There is certainly no reason why he should. He thinks he did the right thing and that he’s got a “thick skin” and I think he’s a little weasel who refuses to face legitimate questioning. (And, no, I never used phrases like that on his Site, no matter how many times I may have thought it.)

What really got me about this whole thing is that he treated me like a child. Attempting to explain to me the way things are despite the fact that I made it quite clear that I didn’t need such explanations. It kind of explains his disregard for his critics over at his site. Since *he* knows everything (after all, he’s an insider), *they* are obviously just ignorant of the facts. They can’t see how disastrous the Pixar acquisition was. They don’t understand why “Tarzan” failed. He does. So, on the Site at least, he doesn’t feel the need to actually respond to anything. Oh, he’ll make the occasional symbolic response. (Like this recent answer to a question about single-disc DVD releases - “Given that I am regularly accused by JHM readers of being far too tough on that Emeryville-based animation studio, let me say — right from the get-go here — that this single disc thing isn’t Pixar’s fault.”) No one accuses him of being “tough”. They accuse him of outright distorting the facts to support his comments.

Perhaps he’s just bitter over the fact that he predicted doom-and-gloom in the Disney/Pixar relationship (See here for an example of him being certain that the relationship would end with Cars), that he just can’t abide good news on that front. He’s got a real blind spot. He seems to actually believe he is being even-handed when he leaves out facts and figures or mis-quotes people or takes statements out of context in order to make his points. This is what he never really responds to. As recently as September 3rd, he was still claiming that Disney was disappointed in Ratatouille’s performance. No one else in the industry is saying that. In fact, the news seems to be nothing short of spectacular, given its amazing performance overseas (which Jim neatly sidesteps by writing that last article before the film had even opened in most countries) and even a potential Best Picture Oscar bid. This is not a film anyone is disappointed with except, apparently, the handful of people Jim knows at Disney whom he allows to speak for the entire company.

It’s not like Jim doesn’t understand what it’s like to have one’s motivations misconstrued by the “powers that be”. After all, he was kicked out of Disneyland for giving unauthorized tours that conflicted with Disney’s official ones. It caused a bit of a backlash at the time, with Jim claiming he was being targeted for pointing out “negative” stories about Disney. Apparently informal tours run for churches, school groups and the like are allowed all the time. Of course, none of them are selling these tours to individuals through a travel agency as Jim did, but he failed to see the distinction. He also claimed that he was eventually going to release a CD or podcast that people could listen to while doing a walk through the park, but like so many series on his blog, he’s never completed that, either. Seems to me he’s probably learned that it’s more difficult to actually create something than it is to talk about things other people create. He never mentions the audio tours anymore.

Ah, why go on? There’s no point trying to reason with people like him. And, of course, he’s a fool anyway, since it was far too easy to re-register under a new name and I can still post whenever I really want to. (I won’t say what that new name is, of course. I’m sure I’ll upset his delicate nature on my own soon enough and get banned again. Or maybe he’s clever enough to figure it out on his own. But I doubt it.)

All in all, one of my more interesting online experiences.

Boy, I’m really catching up, aren’t I? About three weeks ago, I resigned myself to the fact that I wasn’t going to get the 365th review up by the end of December 31st. It just ain’t gonna happen. But rather than simply relive my mind of the pressue of feeling the need to play catch-up for the rest of the year, it kind of made me…just…stop. Not completely, of course, but I haven’t felt the urge to post for awhile. I hope to get back on track (I’ve been watching films all the while), but who knows how far into 2008 it will be before 2007 is completed.

Anyway, July (my goodness, that long ago?) was another short month, dominated by the Superman and Batman films, so the awards kind of reflect that.

Best Supporting Actor
Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor in Superman (1978), Superman II (1980) and Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980/2006).
Tough choice between Hackman, Marlon Brando and Jack Nicholson, but I had to go with Hackman for the natural ease with which he played Luthor. he’s even decent in Superman IV (but not enough to get a nod here). An iconic performance that puts him at the top of a list of very distinguished previous and subsequent Luthors.

Best Supporting Actress
Diana Rigg as Tracy Di Vicenzo Bond in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969)
One look at her and one can understand why a man like Bond would be interested. But it is the complexity with which she portrays Tracy that Rigg shows why a man like that would marry her.

Best Director
Richard Donner for Superman (1978) and Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980/2006).
I’ve said enough about how great Donner’s work on the Superman mythos was, but it’s worth noting (and rewarding) again. That even the hacked-together, shambolic creature that is the ‘Richard Donner Cut’ of Superman II could be so entertaining shows that he knew what he was doing and that he and Tom Mankiewicz should have been left alone to get on with it.

Best Actor
Christopher Reeve as Superman in Superman (1978), Superman II (1980), Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980/2006), Superman III (1983) and, yes, even Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
Reeve’s performance as Superman is, of course, a paragon of how to bring a comic book character to life. But what seems to have been forgotten over the years is that he was a really good actor as well as an icon. Showing the depths of Clark Kent throughout the four films (there *is* some in IV), Reeve created a characterization that will stand the test of time.

Best Actress
Michelle Pfeiffer as Selina Kyle / Catwoman in batman Returns (1992)
So, something for the Batman films. Margot Kidder was the only person I considered other than Pfeiffer and, while she is great and still the definitive Lois, Pfeiffer was able to elevate Catwoman as a character and came off great in an otherwise uneven film.

Best Film
Superman (1978)
The first serious super hero film and still the best.

And…
Worst Film
Batman & Robin (1997)
Tough call bewteen this and Superman IV, but Batman & Robin doesn’t have *anything* going for it. Superman IV, at least, has Reeve and Hackman.

Jabberwocky was Terry Gilliams’s first solo outing as a director, following his collaboration with Terry Jones on Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Filming from a script he co-wrote with Charles Alverson, Gilliam spins a rather personal tale around the “nonsense poem” by Lewis Carroll.

The story revolves around Dennis Cooper (Michael Palin), and apprentice…cooper (barrel-maker), who finds himself on his own following his father’s death. Denounced for being a “stocktaker” instead of a craftsman, Dennis heads to the city to make his fortune so he can marry Griselda (Annette Badland), the portly daughter of Mr. Fishfinger (Warren Mitchell), a money-grubbing merchant that Dennis idolizes. Once he makes his way to the city, he encounters a wide variety of characters, from a jealous husband (Bernard Bresslaw) to master cooper, Wat Dabney, who has fallen on hard times (Jerold Wells) to a group of fanatics and their leader (Graham Crowden). He eventually makes friends with a knight’s squire (Harry H. Corbett) and finds himself staving off the attentions of the princess of the realm (Deborah Fallender). When King Bruno (Max Wall), at the insistance of his right-hand-man Passeldewe (John Le Mesurier), announces a tournament to choose a champion to destroy the monster harrassing the country, Dennis finds himself acting as squire and must face the beast and his own potential.

Of course, it is that last part that serves as the only real adaptation of the original poem on view. The rest is fairly typical Gilliam, lot sof commentary on commercialization and man’s inequality towards his fellow man. Dennis, for instance, is put upon by everyone. His father doesn’t care for his focus on business practices. Mr. Fishfinger only cares about Dennis if he’s saving him money. Grizelda never really cares for Dennis at all and the Princess only takes an interest in him because she thinks he’s a Prince. His only real friend is the squire, and even he is willing to use Dennis to further his enamorous ends. (It is the squire’s scheme for getting out of sitting an all-night vigil that leads to his own death and Dennis having to go on the hunt in his stead.)

Anyone who’s seen Gilliam’s later films such as Time Bandits or, especially, Brazil, will recognize this relentlessly depressing outlook on life, where even a standard-issue happy ending is twisted into an unhappily-ever-after. It would not be until The Adventures of Baron Munchausen that Gilliam would learn that happy endings aren’t that bad (and become all the better a filmmaker for it).

But it all starts here in Jabberwocky. Gilliam establishes his modus operandi: distill aspects of literature, pop culture, etc. (especially myths) into a new form that still retains a semblance of the old. Here he is ably assisted by a couple of Monty Python alums; Palin, of course, but also Terry Jones in a small, but memorable role as an early victim of the monster. (Even semi-Python Neil Innes shows up.) The rest of the cast proves just as able, all instilling their characters with a vibrancy that makes each one stand out, despite the large number on view.

Gilliam didn’t have a lot of money to spend on this film, even compared to Time Bandits a few years later. And while this shows if you look too closely at some of the effects, Gilliam was really quite remarkable in the way he was able to divert the eye away from the weaknesses of his visuals, instead being absorbed in the detailed costumes and outrageous characters. This is never more true than with the Jabberwock, itself, which is clearly a kind of large puppet, but proves to be impressive on screen. When the imposing figure of the Black Knight (Dave Prowse) faces off against the beast, it’s as realistic as anyone could ask for, even in this digital age.

Time has been pretty kind to Jabberwocky. Due to its lack of topical humor and its broad themes, it doesn’t feel dated compared to some other films of the day. As I said, it looks its age because of the advances in effects work, but that doesn’t mean it looks creaky or unconvincing. Gilliam’s camerawork ensures that we don’t see the seams, so they can’t prove a distraction. Performances are great and the story surprisingly compelling, given the minimal source material to draw from. Ultimately, though a bit of a downer in the end, Jabberwocky is a ripping great tale, one that fans of Lewis Carroll should definitely seek out, but that others can enjoy just as much.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service introduces George Lazenby in the role made famous by Sean Connery, James Bond. It would prove to be Lazenby’s only outing as the secret agent, but not because of a lack of quality. It’s true that Lazenby is a bit of a drag on the film (it was his first major acting role after a career as a model), but he mostly acquits himself well. And everything else about the film is to the highest standard. From the most emotional story of the film series (at least prior to the Casino Royale remake) to the gold standard of Bond girls, Diana Rigg, only Lazenby keeps it from being the unquestionable best film in the series. If either Connery or Roger Moore were in the top slot, it undoubtedly would be. With Lazenby, though, it’s still right up near the top.

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is, of course, “the one were Bond gets married”. I don’t think I’m giving anything away when I say that it doesn’t end well. But those unfamiliar with the film or the book may be surprised at how it does end, showing that one can be shocking without being crude or sensationalistic.

What makes OHMSS so strong is that the love affair between Bond and Tracy Di Vicenzo (Rigg) doesn’t come off as manipulated or trite. In the book, it is an even more significant relationship, as Bond’s cold-heartedness is firmly established at that point. But even in the looser film series, Bond never quite reacted to a woman in this way before or since. He’s affectionate and my harbor some feelings for these girls, but Tracy really grabs him and it is to Lazenby’s credit that he makes it all real. Frankly, I’m not sure Connery could do it. He was always so rough that the “Taming of the Shrew” aspect to the story might have come off too harshly. Moore could do it, naturally. But Lazenby is at his best in these parts of the film.

Where he doesn’t come off quite as well is with the action scenes. While Connery could bulldoze his way through a fight sequence and Moore would glide smoothly through even the most complicated choreography, Lazenby always seems to be a bit out of his depth. Even the one liners that Connery gave such bite and rolled off Moore’s tongue seem flat coming from Lazenby. But, again, it’s not that he’s that bad in even the worst parts. He proves himself more than capable and would probably have grown into the role had he not stormed off feeling exploited. (I could only wish for such exploitation.)

In support, OHMSS boasts an excellent villain in a post-plastic surgery Ernst Stavro Blofeld, played with bravado by Telly Savalas, and his lethal henchwoman Irma Bunt, played with devilish malice by Ilse Steppat. And, of course, the usual crew of M (Bernard Lee), Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell) and Q (Desmond Llewelyn) are on hand to provide continuity. I’d also like to highlight a personal favorite actor of mine, George Baker (perhaps best known as Tiberius in I, Claudius), whose Sir Hilary Bray serves as the basis for Bond’s academic impersonation. * Although the main part is confined to a very short scene, Baker actually overdubbed Lazenby’s lines throughout Bond’s impersonation of Sir Hilary, a substantial part of the film. And I would be remiss if I didn’t highlight the entertaining bevy of girls that Bond meets at a mountain retreat, each with their own personalities and a few future names in the mix (including Space: 1999’s Catherine Schell and Absolutely Fabulous‘ Joanna Lumley).

But the shining star of the film is Diana Rigg. She is able to embue Tracy with real emotion and a strength of character that had not really been seen in the films up until then. ** Although tied to her father’s money, she seems to be truly independant, as if she could give it all up in an instant if called upon. She comes to love James for the man he is when she is with him, not the man who does the extraordinary things he does. And when push comes to shove, she gives as good as she gets, even if she’s not on the level of Rigg’s other great character, Emma Peel, in the fisticuffs department. She’s the total package. The ultimate Bond girl. The one who got him.

As for the other staples of the Bond series, the action sequences are also up to par, with OHMSS offering some of the most thrilling of the series. Things would, of course, go seriously off kilter in this respect eventually in the series, but here things are kept more realistic and, therefore, more believable. There is humor throughout, but, as with Lazenby’s one liners, it seems a bit strained.

But, as hinted at earlier, where this film really shines is in its drama. The story of James and Tracy is, of its very nature, tragic, but strong. They don’t come across as two-dimensional characters brought together as a plot device. Their romance seems natural and makes all the sense in the world. Tracy really seems to be the kind of girl that could change James; could make him give up the life to which he has become accustomed. That is the strength of the film; the relationship between these two people. And you can’t say that about any other film in the series. That’s the reason this one stands alone, apart from the rest, not because of the incidental issue of its lead actor. And that’s the reason that if you see no other James Bond film in your life, you need to see On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

* Baker would later parody Bond in the character of Jamus Bondus on the sitcom Up, Pompeii.
**It’s a pet peeve of mine that producers inevitably tout how “strong” the women in the recent Bond films are, as if they were breaking the mold every time. Rigg is the first “real” woman in the Bond series, and still the best.

Song of the South is a 1964 Walt Disney production that has never seen the light of day on home video in the United States due to issues of political correctness. Is the film broad and offensive in its treatment of black Americans? Not particularly. The problem seems to come down to two basic misundertsandings (intentional or not). For one, there seems to be a persection that this film puts a happy face on slavery with the character of Uncle Remus. The second comes from the portrayal of Br’er Rabbit, Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear as sterotypical blacks with many negative connotations included. There is some small validity to both of these issues, but not enough to justify the “lost” status of this gem from the Disney vault.

First, the issue of slavery. The problem with this argument is that the film does not take place during slavery. Uncle Remus is a free man, as evidenced by the fact that he chooses to leave at one point in the film. That, frankly, should be enough for anyone. He’s there because he wants to be, because he likes it there. Now, it’s true that even after the abolition of slavery and the end of the Civil War that things weren’t always rosy for the former slaves. In fact, things were often still terribly bad for them, left in a position where they were free, but still not able to leave their situation. But it is also true that some had it better than others and were happy enough with their circumstances. Is it a bit fanciful the way things are portrayed in Song of the South? Yes. Is it totally unbelievable? Not at all. And that’s all the license you need in Hollywood as far as I’m concerned.

As for the stereotypical portrayal of the animated characters, I’ve certainly seen a lot worse in once-mainstream fare. Try taking a gander at Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs if you want to see outrageous stereotypes. (And even that one isn’t so bad that it should be locked away forever.) If Disney had strayed too far from stereotype, he would have destroyed the essen