365 Films A Year!

Here we see Eddie Murphy absolutely at the top of his game. He would never be this consistantly good again. Playing multiple roles as well as a dynamic and engaging lead, this one is all Murphy’s show. Arsenio Hall, best known as a talk show host, is along in support and does well with his own multiple characters. It makes one wonder what he could have done if he had pursued acting more diligently.

The story is standard romantic comedy fodder; rich Prince of a foreign land (Murphy) tries to escape an arranged marriage by going to America to find a woman he can truly love. Formulaic? Sure. Father who doesn’t understand his son? Check. Prospective father-in-law obsessed with his daughter marrying money? Check. Jerk boyfriend? Check. Mistaken identities? Check.

But none of that matters. Murphy holds it all together and his cast makes sure even the most cliched character feel legitimate. There’s even a sly callback to Murphy’s earlier Trading Places that always makes me chuckle. The only thing keeping this from being for absolutely everybody is a high level of nudity and some bad language. (One suspects they added that stuff to get an “R” that would have been expected of Murphy in those days. They add nothing.)

Carry On Sergeant (1958)
Carry On Nurse (1959)
Carry On Teacher (1959)
Carry On Constable (1960)
Carry On Regardless (1961)
Carry On Cruising (1962)

In these early films, the basic formula that would drive the Carry On series was developed.

Sergeant is probably the strongest of these early efforts. Being the first, it’s the only one that isn’t trying to recapture something. Nurse is close (and really starts the formula rolling), but doesn’t have a clear plotline to hold it together. (A sign of things to come.)

I despise Teacher. As a stand-alone film, it might have worked, but I watch the Carry Ons for the main actors and in Teacher, it is clear that we are supposed to side with the kids.  The adults are set up as the bad guys, petty and obsessed with corporal punishment. We are supposed to chuckle at the naughty children and, ultimately, see them for the little darlings they are.  Well, I don’t buy any of it.  They deserve every punishment they get and more.  It is only a lazy script that allows them to get away with their nonsense and all the sentimental claptrap in the world won’t make up for it in the end.  This one is the most far afield of any of the Carry Ons and one of the few I only watch when I’m watching them all.

Constable is a much better return to form.  It also features the debut of Sid James, who would become, to many, the face of the Carry On films.  Sure, the plot is weak (new officers forced to go out before they are ready because of an outbreak of illness), but it allows for a lot of the same type of humor that populated Sergeant.  James is also at his least lascivious here and it works out to be an excellent entry overall.

The first of the real slapped together Carry Ons, Regardless, tries to mil the formula before its fully cooked, so to speak.  An “odd jobs” business gives an excuse for putting the Carry On crew into a wide variety of situations.  There’s little but the agency to hold it together and it would have worked better, perhaps, as a short TV series than as a film.  Still, there are good laughs to be had and it doesn’t run too far against the grain, like Teacher.

Cruising sees the cheekiness level starting to ratchet up, though James is still not the center of it.  The biggest piece missing in this one, to me at least, is Joan Sims.  As in Sergeant, there is a part ideal for her, but which is filled by Dilys Laye, who just doesn’t have the chops of Sims. Everyone else does a nice job and Cruising comes off as a solid entry, if not particularly memorable.

Original review of Carry On Sergeant.
Original review of Carry On Nurse.

The Sting is an old-fashioned movie made at a time when films were getting grittier and grittier, I think the fact that it is a throwback is part of the reason it holds up better than a lot of its contemporaries.

Paul Newman and Robert Redford play off each other beautifully and (as part of the plot) the audience never knows if they are really working together or not. They make every possibility completely believable. Redford is the lead, but without Newman, it would fall apart.

The supporting cast is also excellent with great performances by Robert Shaw, Charles Durning, Harold Gould and many others. The music is great and the look and feel is impeccable.

But, of course, it is David S. Ward’s brilliant script that makes The Sting. Clever without ever being obnoxious, complicated without ever being impenetrable, it is one of the greatest pure scripts in the history of film. Director George Roy Hill deserves credit for bringing it all together, but a script like this is easy to screw up (see The Sting II) and difficult enough just to make workable. But this one never misses a step.

Speaking of female flesh, that’s also the main draw of Barbarella. The difference here is that I’m pretty sure it was meant to be a comedy and the over-the-top nature of everything gives Barbarella the kind of wackiness needed to make it a must-see. Jane Fonda looks great, the soundtrack is trippy, the sets and costumes as colorful as they get. Say whatever you want about the logic of the story, it’s certainly interesting to watch from start to finish and filled with quotable (if nonsensical) dialogue.

A personal favorite, this one.

Original review.

Okay, so I was making my way through my HD DVD collection when my cat gave birth to kittens. Naturally, that day I had to watch Cat People. Frankly, it’s not that good. Sure, Nastassia Kinski is gorgeous and Malcolm McDowell proves why he was the go to guy for creepy in those days. But the story is a mess and the relationship between Kinski’s Irena and John Heard’s Oliver Yates doesn’t resonate as it needs to. Annette O’Toole’s Alice Perrin (also quite attractive) comes off as a bit of a simpleton in her obvious desire for Yates; another botched relationship.

Overall, if you want to see some nice looking female flesh, there’s plenty for you in Cat People. If you want an actual story, look somewhere else.

The earliest adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle’s seminal “dinosaurs in modern times” story, this one does a nice job of simplifying the story, while adding the kind of romance and interpersonal difficulties that audiences demand. The special effects of the dinosaurs (by Willis O’Brien, later of King Kong fame) are quite impressive for the day, but (unlike those of Kong) don’t retain the same level of power after all these years.

Wallace Beery makes a fiery Professor Challenger, an appropriate portrayal for this force of nature. While the romantic leads (Lloyd Hughes and Bessie Love) are fine, they are more forgettable, as is the rest of the supporting cast. It’s Beery and the dinosaurs that stick in the mind.

Worth a viewing for those who’d like to see where the throughline to Jurassic Park began.

Yes, Twin Peaks counts. Even if I *didn’t* count TV movies (including pilots), which I do, I watched the European version, which has an ending and everything. (That’s right, the whole thing wrapped up in under two hours.)

Anyway, the greatness of the original Twin Peaks pilot film still proves true after all these years. The quirky characters and strange sense of humor never fail to entertain me. I particularly enjoyed watching the relationship between Dale Cooper and Harry Truman grow. With the exception of Bobby, James and Donna, not much of the supporting cast gets much chance to shine, but they all make ample use of their minimal airtime. Watching it again after all these years (I recently got the Gold DVD set), I realised how much I missed them all. The story is set up well, but in the European cut, it ends far too abruptly and is distinclty unsatisfying. It still works, but this was meant as a show launcher and it just can’t hold up as a standalone work.

Fire Walk with Me is a bit controversial because, rather than pick up the strands of the cliffhanger ending of the show, it instead showed the events leading up to the death of Laura Palmer. Much of the humor that carried the series (as well as most of the supporting cast) is missing here. The opening sequence with Chris Isaak and Kiefer Sutherland is pretty much a hoot, though. Isaak’s Special Agent Chester Desmond couldn’t be more different than Dale Cooper, yet they clearly work in the same league. And I was always tickled to see the “Sam” (Sutherland) that Dale warns Diane not to go to.

As a separate musing on the nature of Laura Palmer’s descent into darkness, Fire works. As an ending chapter to one of television’s most enigmatic series, it is sorely lacking. The music’s nice, though.

This one really should have been better than it was. The idea is great and I can tell that it probably kicks major ass as a stage show. But as a film it is sorely lacking.

The one, true highlight is Jennifer Hudson who, despite the film’s failings, deserved her Oscar. In fact, if I have one major complaint it is that the film needed to focus on her *more*. She’s the only character you come to care about, as everyone else is selfish to the point of being blind to everything around them. Eddie Murphy was good (maybe not Oscar good, but solid) and Danny Glover brought his usual gravitas to the table. Everyone else was utterly forgettable (except when I was out and out hating them). Beyonce shows again why she needs *very* specific roles, tailored to her, in order to succeed. She just doesn’t have the acting chops to fill a role like the one she is handed here. She drowns in any scene opposite Hudson or Jaime Foxx.

The songs are okay, but not terribly memorable. Again, they probably work well on the stage, but on a film, a song needs to be more original and less of a pastiche of classic song stylings. (Spectacle will only take you so far in the movies.) I also found the staging of the songs odd, as they often flowed from “in character” singing to “musical-style exposition” singing. The shifts were often jarring and it was difficult to tell whether I was just hearing a song or should be listening for plot points.

There have been better done grim tales of the music industry and those looking for depth and originality should look elsewhere. But if you want to know what a breakthrough performance looks like, watch Dreamgirls for Jennifer Hudson. Her performance alone is worth the price of admission.

Probably the wackiest take on Sherlock Holmes ever devised (certainly amongst those put into theaters), this Dudley Moore / Peter Cook creation is also notable for a large cast of notables and the insertion of some classic Cook/Moore bits into an otherwise remarkably accurate adaptation (despite the comedy). Also, Moore’s score which he perfomed himself entirely on the piano.

Original review.

Overlong in its original form, I watched the “restored” edition and I didn’t think the new material added anything of value. There are some good performances in the film, particularly Kirk Douglas’ powerful creation in the lead. Laurence Olivier, Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov are also excellent as the powers that be (or the powers that want to be) in Rome. (I’m a sucker for Roman political intrigue.) But Tony Curtis is woefully out of place and Jean Simmons never seems like the slave girl she is meant to be. Herbert Lom (of Pink Panther fame) is almost unrecognizable in a small, but vital role.

The film plays fast and loose with history (as these films usually do), but gives the essence of the story proper breadth. Action sequences are well staged, but tend to go on too long. Despite being directed by Stanley Kubrick, he tended to disown it and I think he’s correct. This is clearly Kirk Douglas’ film and wouls have ended up pretty much the same no matter who he had put behind the camera.

Worth seeing. A classic in its day, but simply doesn’t hold up as well after all these years.

This one is still a bit too hard to watch, even at its ridiculously short length. Shot merely to give Walt Disney a breather (both artistically and financially), it was just what the studio needed, but it provides little of the entertainment that I need today.

Original review

I never tire of the original film, but as the years go by, I am less and less amused by the musical remake. The habit that Lane and Broderick have of aping the original actors grates the more I see it. What I have said before, however, is still true. All the new bits and the expanded characters work well. I find the new Ulla much more fun and her storyline keeps the new film from being a complete rehash. Still, much of the remake works, it just never comes close to the brilliant original.

Original review of The Producers (2005)
The first double review of both films

There are very few movies that I can watch as easily and as readily as Zelig. Even Broadway Danny Rose, my favorite Woody Allen film, requires that I be in the correct mood. Zelig is a perfect creation and always goes down well.

Original review.

These four straight-to-video films were compiled from episodes of the animated TV series Ewoks and Droids. The Droids films (Pirates and Treasure) work the best because Droids had story arcs and these movies basically represent cut down and reworked versions of two of the storylines. (There was also an honest-to-goodness Droids TV movie, The Great Heep, that I will be watching later.) Ewoks, on the other hand did not have these kinds of extended storylines. That being said, Haunted Village does use several related episodes (revolving around the witch Morag), so it holds together better than Tales, which is obviously still episodic in nature.

None of these movies works as well as the original shows. For one thing, the music from the original series have been tossed aside in favor of much more generic and repetitive music. This is particular aggregious in the case of Droids, whose music was originally composed by Stewart Copeland and is some of the best I can remember from 80s cartoon shows.

But the stories are still good and are fun for younger audiences. I understand the desire to package this stuff in a more easily digested format. My only hope is that these compilation films won’t prove to be the only way we can enjoy this material.

Watching this right after Monsters, Inc. really made it clear how limited the animation is in this film that utilizes imagery direct from the Dreamcast video game. That being said, the story is still quite immersing and I get pangs of regret that because Sega won’t be making any more episodes after Shenmue II, I’ll never see how it all turns out.

Original review.

Original review

Here’s the short review: Star Trek stinks. Bad story, poor acting, inaccurate representation of the Star Trek universe. What it has is excellent special effects, lots of flashy action sequences and pretty people in all the major roles. Undiscerning audiences, eager for a “hot” Star Trek have been dazzled into ignoring the many, many defects. In years to come, I believe this film’s reputation will sag. More importantly, they have laid a foundation of sand that will cause future sequels to sink.

Now, some specifics:

• I can see Nero going back in time and killing Kirk’s father and a few others causing changes in Kirk’s life and those around him, but how does it cause Starfleet’s technology to change so completely in around thirty years?
• If the Vulcan’s are such an intelligent and knowledgeable race, why does it take thirty-five attempts before the Vulcan punks try calling Spock’s mom a whore? You’d think they’d try that one right away. They must really suck at “Yo Momma” contests.
• Why does Pike make Kirk first officer? There’s no reason besides giving the film a convenient way to make Kirk captain. After all, Pike was in the process of sending Kirk on an extremely dangerous, unlikely-to-work practically suicide mission. Is *that* the time to name a guy first officer? No. It makes no sense.
• Isn’t it convenient that the last piece of the classic Trek crew (Scotty) just happened to be stationed on the planet where Nero dumped Spock (conveniently placed close enough to where Kirk lands to rescue him)?
• Speaking of that point, I don’t care how much emotional turmoil he might be in, the real Spock would’ve just thrown Kirk in the brig. There was no reason to jettison him from the ship except, again, for the convenience of the writers.
• Why didn’t they just cast Mike Myers as Scotty if all we were going to get was an imitation of Myers from So I Married An Axe Murderer?
• Uhura is reduced to little more than a Mary Sue in this film. She not only gets to be Spock’s “bit of stuff”, she also has “the bestest hearing in all of Starfleet!” I guess just being a competent Starfleet officer isn’t enough in this day and age.
• Why, when confronted with the news that Nero has changed time, causing him to never know his father, is Kirk not determined to fix the time stream, rather than take it as it is? They all seem remarkably accepting of this new reality (destruction of Vulcan and all) rather than determined to fix it. This despite the fact that practical time travel has been clearly demonstrated.
• There seems to be a need for these characters to be exceptional right from the get-go. The original crew gained their reputation through experience. But in this film (in addition to “super hearing” Uhura), Sulu is an expert swordfighter (despite the fact that he says he’s studied *fencing* – like in the show – he fights with a broadsword in the convenient duel), Chekov can do the one impossible transporter move that is needed (but strangely isn’t the one to make the *second* tranporter breakthrough of the film), and Scotty is a brilliant engineer that Starfleet somehow didn’t notice (again so he could be in the one place he needs to be at the one pint he needs to be there). Even Kirk is not immune. Apparently he has a genius level intellect (something never hinted at in the original show). Only McCoy comes off unscathed by this nonsense. I kept expecting him to cure a plague in five minutes or something.
• The cast is universally bland. This includes, sadly, Leonard Nimoy, who seems to be doing an impersonation of Spock, rather than actually acting. None of the new principals has the screen presence of the original cast. I was particualrly disappointed in Eric Bana, a great actor who I loved in Troy and really liked in the flawed Hulk. His “angry miner” character lacks the power of a villain like Khan.
• The music is awful. There’s not a single theme that hooks you, like the scores for the better Trek films (II/IV) or any Star Wars films. Michael Giacchino does well with atmospheric music, but these kinds of films need scores that speak to the movie, able to evoke memories of the film just by hearing them. There’s nothing like that here.
• The direction is shoddy. It’s that quick-cut / jump around stuff that gives me a headache most of the time. Abrahms needs to learn how to tell a story with proper pacing.

Just about the only think in this film that I liked was the effects. There’s no denying that Industrial Light & Magic did their usual bang up job on the visuals. As I said, I actually burst out laughing twice: when the Nokia commercial came on and when Spock and Uhura have their “moment” before Kirk and Spock beam over to the Romulan ship. I would have respected this film more if the filmmakers had had the guts to truly reboot things, rather than giving themselves the backdoor of the time travel/alternate universe nonsense. (Frankly, I’m sick to death of Star Trek time travel stories.) As it is, it fails to maintain the spirit of the original show while simultaneously failing to stand on its own without the crutch of the original seires to hold it up.

I think the flashy visuals and “hot” young actors has gotten everybody worked up to the point where they don’t recognize the film’s very serious flaws. Without the Star Trek name and the iconic characters associated with it, I don’t think this film would be getting the critical response it is. It is truly a case of the Emperor having no clothes and not enough people willing to admit to it.

Speaking of films that *have* aged poorly, there’s Smokey and the Bandit, a true product of the 1970s if ever there was one. When I was a younger person, I enjoyed this film a lot. In the years since, I’ve become less sympathetic to the “rougish criminal” type epitomized by the charming Bandit (Burt Reynolds). He and his pal Snowman (Jerry Reed) cause a lot of damage and put a lot of people’s lives at risk just for their stupid bet. (Yes, I know it’s a comedy, but I just don’t have a stomach for that stuff any more.) It doesn’t help that the film portrays *every* *single* cop as pretty much an incompetent idiot. The once exception is Jackie Gleason’s Sheriff Buford T. Justice, whose dogged pursuit of his son’s runaway bride (Sally Field) is just as reckless as the Bandit’s actions, so is just as celbrated by the film. (Even the Bandit pays his respects to the Sheriff by the end.)

That being said, there is some great dialogue in the film. Burt Reynolds plays off both the Enos father/son duo (Paul Williams and Pat McCormick) and Sally Field to great effect. Gleason and his idiot son (Mike Henry) also provide lots of great moments. Truly, it is Gleason who still comes off the best in this day and age. He may be misguided (and a bit of a bigot), but he’s always entertaining and you never want him to shut up.

Much of the film still works today, but it is the relentless CB talk that really dates it. This was during the height of the CB craze and it’s a bit too much to take nowadays. (The notion that there is not *one* person on the CB airwaves that isn’t willing to put themselves at risk to help the Bandit is also a bit hard to take.)

Still, the performances bring it through and it’s still worth watching, if only to see how amazingly sexy Sally Field was at a time when most people still thought of her as Gidget or the Flying Nun.

One of my favorite films when I was a kid, it still makes me laugh consistantly whenever I watch it. (Which, until I got the HD DVD recently hadn’t been for *years*.) This was Steve Martin at his early wackiest (which I kind of miss) and co-writer/director Carl Reiner shows why he was the best collaborator in the business, able to elevate whoever he was working with. (He didn’t do so well on his own.)

I particularly remember that it was this film that made me enamored of the (still) adorable Bernadette Peters. Despite her well-endowed nature, she’s the perfect example of a beautiful innocent. There’s little in the way of true support, as the film focuses so exclusively on Martin and Peters, but there are plenty of great performances in the smaller roles. Jackie Mason, Bill Macy, M. Emmet Walsh, William Schallert and both Carl and son Rob Reiner give memorable turns.

The wacky, nonsensical nature of the film means that it hasn’t aged at all. There’s nothing in this film that screams “late 1970s” except maybe the costumes and the disco scenes, but even those aren’t *completely* out of place in 2009.

The Jerk is no longer my favorite Steve Martin film (I think it’s The Man With Two Brains or possibly All of Me), but it’s still a great entry from one of the most versatile talents in the industry.

One of the lesser-Pixars, this one is still a great film in its own right. (In fact, it’s *much* better than most of Disney’s output over the last ten years and most of Dreamworks output, period.) It lacks the epic scale of most Pixar films, but still delivers an entertaining story and appealing characters.

Original review

Always loved these movies. I’m aware that there’s some negativity towards II, but I find it to be pleasant, funny and it has less of the off-color material that keeps the original from being truly family friendly. (And with this franchise, I feel that’s the way to go.) There’s no denying, however, that it is the original that is the truly groundbreaking film and a classic to this day.

Original review

I was a bit down on this one when I first saw it, actually preferring Chicken Little. In the time since, it has become my favorite latter-day Disney Animated Feature. I think it’s the best since The Emperor’s New Groove at least, and maybe since The Lion King. Again, no, it’s not perfect, but it hits all the right notes, is a rollicking good time and I always enjoy watching it.

Original review.

I’ve always had a soft spot for this one. My main problem with the film is that George Lucas tries to tell far too large a story for its running time. Everything else about it; story, characters, effects (mostly) still work well. A bit of an underrated film, but no classic.

I go into greater detail in my original review.

Overlong, stretched beyond the limits that the premise could hold, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is *very* loosely based on Ian Fleming’s only non-James Bond fictional work, the children’s novel of the same name. From the original novel we get the name of some of the main characters, the car and a few loose (and unimportant) plot points. Instead we get a bloated film shoved full of decent musical numbers (with songs by the Sherman Brothers), but little of the excitement of the original book.

Dick Van Dyke is fine as Caractacus Potts (no “mockney” here) and Sally Ann Howes fills her love interest role just fine. The most notable performaces, though, go to Benny Hill as a toymaker and the leaders of a despotic country, Gert Fröbe and Anna Quayle as Baron and Baroness Bomburst.

Produced by Bond series producer Albert R. Broccoli, I spent most of the time playing “spot the Bond connection”. In addition to Fröbe (best known as Goldfinger), Anna Quayle appeared in 1967’s Casino Royale, Desmond Llewelyn (”Q”) plays Coggins, the man who sells Potts the car, and the script is by children’s author Roald Dahl and Ken Hughes, who was one of the five directors of Casino Royale. The script also had additional material from longtime Bond writer Richard Maibaum. There were, naturally, also many other crew members who worked on Chitty and various Bond films.

Overall, a disappointment. Maybe someone will remake this one some day, as a striaghtforward adaptation could be quite fun.

Dick Tracy (1945)
Dick Tracy vs. Cueball (1946)
Dick Tracy’s Dilemma (1947)
Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome (1947)

After four highly successful movie serials in the 1930s starring Ralph Byrd as the comic-strip detective, Dick Tracy returned in this series of four hour-long features. At first, the role was filled by chisel-faced Morgan Conway before Byrd was brought back for the third and fourth films. Byrd really was the definitive Tracy, even returning to the role one more time for a 1950s TV show. Conway does well enough, but he lacks the charm of Byrd. He was too gruff.

That being said, Cueball is probably the strongest of the four features. Like all four, it’s “Noir Light”, but with enough grit to hold the audience and enough humor to keep things from getting too grim. Dick Tracy is too formulaic, perhaps as it was intended to re-introduce Tracy in more traditional surroundings. (In the serials he was portrayed as a G-Man, instead of a cop.) Also helping Cueball stand out is Ian Keith as Tracy’s actor friend Vitamin Flintheart, perhaps one of the most accurate page-to-screen performances I’ve ever seen.

The return of Ralph Byrd makes the second two pictures feel much more “correct”, but the writing does drop a bit from Cueball. Dilemma is too straightforward, but has some good stuff, including a return engagement for Vitamin and Jimmy Conlin as the “blind” pencil salesman Sightless. The biggest problem with Gruesome is the central plot of a fantastic “immobilizing gas” that seems out of place in a Dick Tracy story. This one is saved by a stellar performance by Boris Karloff as the titular Gruesome, proving he could hold the screen just as well away from his regular horror surroundings.

In all four, support is given by Lyle Latell, who proves an excellent choice for the well-meaning, but somewhat bumbling, Pat Patton. Tracy’s girl, Tess Trueheart, is played by Anne Jeffreys (who would go on to a long career) in the Conway films, which gives his a bit more continuity. In Dilemma it’s Kay Christopher and in Gruesome, it’s Anne Gwynne (who was a bit of a scream queen back in her day). All three were solid, but unexceptional in the role.

Fans of Dick Tracy or film noir shouldn’t miss these. They are great pieces of meat-and-potatoes cinema when people who “knew what they were doing” could crank out quality entertainment with apparent ease. No, they aren’t masterpieces, even the flawed kind like Warren Beatty’s Dick Tracy from 1990. But they are entertaining.

Disney’s most recent animated feature and the last of the “CGI-era”. Not bad, but a bit too formulaic for my tastes. With hints of everything from Toy Story to every road-trip/buddy-film you’ve ever seen, this one never really succeeds in defining itself. It may look better than, say, Chicken Little, but at least that earlier film stands on it own. It’s not surprising that I would feel similarly about this film as I did about Pixar’s Ratatouille, given that both films had their original directors yanked and underwent massive reworking before release.

The basic story is that a little dog named Bolt (John Travolta) is the star of a TV series where he plays a super-dog. But he believes it to be real and when he gets out, spends the rest of the film trying to find his owner Penny (Miley Cyrus). Along the way he kidnaps an abandoned cat, Mittens (Susie Essman), and befriends a hanmster in a ball, Rhino (Mark Walton). The parallels to Buzz Lightyear (and for Mittens, Jessie the Cowgirl) are obvious and overplayed. In fact, I found myself wishing they had tossed out the entire “find your true self” storyline and just made a movie about a superdog. The opening sequence (meant to be an episode of the show) was my favorite part and I think they should have just rolled with it. (Something comparable to The Incredibles could have resulted.)

Also, the whole story is set in motion by a network bigwig who demands that the Bolt show become more edgy to attract the young adult demographic. I simply don’t buy *any* network suit with any kind of experience wanting to cater to the 18 – 35 year-olds with a show about a super dog.

In the end, it *was* entertaining. Rhino, in particular, provides some great moments. It does have a good soundtrack (yes, even the Miley Cyrus/John Travolta song from the end is good). Kids will certainly love it. But it just doesn’t have that extra something that will allow it to stand the test of time.

Two films made by James Garner following his success on the television show Maverick. In both of these films he plays a similar type of character; a stranger who wanders into a mining town and helps them through their troubles. For the most part, Sheriff is the better of the two. Garner’s first character (a wanderer “on his way to Australia”) is more sympathetic than the second (a womanizer on the run from a woman he promised to marry). Although Gunfighter’s Suzanne Pleshette is attractive, Sheriff’s Joan Hackett is more fun and the relationship between her and Garner more natural and believable.

That being said, both are excellent examples of comedic westerns from before Mel Brooks blew the lid off the genre with Blazing Saddles.

This one has quickly become my second favorite Terry Gilliam film (behind The Adventures of Baron Munchausen) and I like it more and more each time I see it. This time it was on the recent Blu-ray release and it looks even better than I remember. (Not all films stand up to the Blu-ray test. Some just show the cracks in the corners.) This is the film that sold me on Heath Ledger and I’ll probably never like Matt Damon this much again. (Or at all, for that matter.) And, good heavens, could Monica Bellucci be any more achingly gorgeous or deliciously evil? Great additional support from Lena Headey, Peter Stormare and Jonathan Pryce.

Original review

The Nude Bomb (1980)
Get Smart, Again! (1989)
Get Smart (2008)
Get Smart’s Bruce and Lloyd: Out of Control (2008)

The “Get Smart” movies are a Masters Class in “Lowered Expectations”.

First, The Nude Bomb. I remember absolutely loathing this movie when I first saw it because it jettisoned the storyline of the original series and charted its own territory. Now, many years and about a thousand “reboots” later, I can appreciate this film for what it gets right and hate it less for what it gets wrong.

Wrong is Agent 22 (instead of 99), PITS (instead of CONTROL) and some sort of demented fashion designer in charge of KAOS. Right is Don Adams. That’s all it needs to hold me. Even in the “wrong” surroundings, Adams could bring Maxwell Smart to life and it is for his performance that the film is worth seeing.

Of course, it’s even better when he can do it in the “right” surroundings, as he does in Get Smart, Again!, the made-for-TV movie that saw the return of just about everyone from the original series who wasn’t dead. Picking up where the series left off, it succeeds in updating the premise without ignoring (or insulting) the past. While not pitch-perfect in its humor, it’s darn close and the best “Get Smart” since the end of the series. (The short-lived 90’s series had its moments, but… no.)

Get Smart, the reboot starring Steve Carell, was not something I was looking forward to. Although Carell is probably the best person for the role, I’ve always felt that there was too much Don Adams in Maxwell Smart for another actor to portray him. (Much like Sgt. Bilko or Andy Taylor) But while I felt that the movie was a major disappointment, it was ultimately not the portrayal of Max that gave me the most trouble.

It was the film itself. Too much action, not enough jokes. Max and 99 never really click on-screen, they just sort of come together because they’re supposed to. (Contrast that with Max and 99’s first scenes in the original series pilot. They crackle.) And while I suppose that a film about espionage was bound to have some jokes about the then-President, couldn’t they think of at least one *original* joke? (Let’s see…stupid…check…reading to kids in a crisis…check…unsophisticated…check…misspeaks…check…cowtows to the veep…check…) And how can you waste a character like Sigfried and an actor like Terrance Stamp? The best thing I can say about this film is that it didn’t ruin *everything*. And now that the pieces are in place, they may be able to make a decent film next time.

But that next time is *not* Bruce and Lloyd. This dainty little straight-to-video tie-in film has even less to do with “Get Smart” that the film it is spun from. In the final case of “lowered expectations”, this actually works in its favor. Since it doesn’t even try to be like the old show in any way, shape or form, it is free to do its own thing and it does that…okay. No, it’s not that good. But there are some chuckles to be had and Jayma Mays is on hand to do her Anna Faris impersonation again. I ended up liking this more than the theatrical film precisely because it is what it is, not trying to be something else.

Much maligned in the day, I’ve always had a soft spot for this one. In the days before I earnestly collected comic books, I had significant quantities of only three titles in my meager collection: Atari Force, Groo the Wanderer and Howard the Duck. My Howard collection only existed because I liked the film so much.

After many years, it finally appeared on DVD and I watched it in full for the first time since I rented it with my cousin years ago while I visited him in Cleveland. (It seemed the thing to watch.) I was surprised at how many inappropriate-for-children jokes there were (and nudity!). Having seen it mostly on a taped-off-television VHS, I had honestly forgotten about most of it.

Still, Tim Robbins is fun in an early role, Leah Thompson could really work that 80’s hair and Jeffery Jones gives a great performance as the “mad scientist” whose body is taken over by the Dark Overlord.

Is it a great piece of cinema? No. Is it fun? Yes. Did it gross twice as much as Punisher: War Zone did twenty-two years later? Hell, yeah it did.

Saludos Amigos (1942)
The Three Caballeros (1944)
Make Mine Music (1946)
Fun and Fancy Free (1947)
Melody Time (1948)
The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949)

During World War II, much of Walt Diney’s production was given over to propoganda films, leaving Walt shorthanded for his feature films. So he basically turned the features over to the teams usually working on shorts. They would string these shorts together (sometimes with a story link, sometimes without) and create a feature. The six films made during this period (the so-called “package films”) fall into three categories: the “Our Friends in South America” films, the “Junior Fantasias” and the “Double Mini-Features”.

Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros were ostensibly made to improve relations with South America. They both feature live action footage as well as animation and cover various parts of South America, introducing these locales to North American audiences. Saludos is more a straightforward collection of stories, while Caballeros has the advantage of Donald Duck providing a narrative throughline. While Saludos has some nice bits, Caballeros features great songs, entertaining “shorts” and some truly breathtaking visuals. It also has the titular caballeros themselves; Donald, Jose Carioca (a parrot from Brazil) and Panchito (a rooster from Mexico). The three are great and I never understood why they didn’t utilize them more in the years that followed.

If I seem biased here, I’ll admit that The Three Caballeros has always been my favorite Disney Animated Feature. Where else do you see Donald Duck chase skirts for over half an hour?

Make Mine Music and Melody Time both use the same basic premise of Fantasia, in that they are visual adaptations of various pieces of music. Make Mine is, perhaps, the better of the two, with solid entries like “Peter and the Wolf” and “Casey at the Bat”. Melody, on the other hand, is lots of smaller stories like “Johnny Appleseed” and “Pecos Bill”. There’s also a return of Donald in “Caballero” mode in “Blame it on the Samba”.

Neither are very engaging and it’s easy to see why they never get special treatment. While entertaining to a degree, neither is that special.

Lastly, there’s the two-fers. Now, in the case of Fun and Fancy Free, both stories (”Bongo” and “Mickey and the Beanstalk”) were originally developed as features in their own right. “Beanstalk” in particular has some great visuals that could have benfitted from a bigger budget and more screentime. In fact, like many of the segments in these “package films”, “Beanstalk” was later released as a stand-alone short and I think it works better in that context than as a part of a collection. “Bongo” (the tale of a circus bear who goes into the wild) is utterly forgettable.

The Adventues of Ichabod and Mr. Toad makes no pretense of connecting the two disparate stories, so it’s not surprising that they stand alone pretty well, too. Neither stick too closely to the source material (both cleaned up a bit for the kiddies) and as a result neither has the impact of the originals. Just as with Alice in Wonderland, though, the designs for both stories are excellent, so fans of the originals should at least see them, even if they will find themselve dreaming of a more faithful adaptation.

Original review of Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros
Original review of Fun and Fancy Free
Original review of Melody Time
Original review of The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad

The last hurrah for stop-motion in general and Ray Harryhausen in particular, Clash takes the visual style out with a bang. Its long development time meant that it seemed dated even when new, but I remember really enjoying it then and it is still effective today. Does it stand up to modern CGI? No. As I said, it didn’t even look state-of-the-art in 1981. But as time has passed, it can be judged in a greater context and it holds up.

Harry Hamlin is big and bold, just as a sword-and-sandal hero should be. Judi Bowker is drop dead gorgeous as Andromeda and the gods are all a hoot as they squabble and fight amongst themselves (primarily Laurence Olivier, Maggie Smith, Claire Bloom, Ursula Andress and Jack Gwillim). Burgess Meredith, Sian Phillips and Neil McCarthy are all solid in support.

As reworkings of ancient legends go, this one does a nice job of conflating multiple stories into a cohesive whole. I’ve certainly seen worse. It will be interesting to see if the 2010 remake can up the visuals, but not lose the film’s heart.

I’ve said it before, there’s only one animation studio these days that can give Pixar a run for their money as far as consistant quality is concerned and that’s Blue Sky Animation (Ice Age, Robots). At the same time, though, Dr. Seuss adaptations have not had a good track record. But I figured that if anyone could do it properly, it would be Blue Sky and I was right.

First, the casting was excellent. Jim Carrey redeems himself as far as Seuss is concerned by making Horton a believable (if over-the-top) character. Steve Carell does the same with the Mayor of Whoville. Both plots are significantly extended for the film, but not in ways that contradict the original material like the two live-action movies. The animation is great, really looking like Seuss despite being in 3D and it is all fluid and exciting.

If I have one complaint its that Carol Burnett’s Kangaroo is a bit too harsh and the citizens of Horton’s jungle a bit too bloodthirsty, but that can’t ruin an overall excellent adaptation.

My expectations were set so amazingly low for this parody of 300 (of which I am such a massive fan that I *had* to see this) that I actually enjoyed it a bit. Just a bit, mind you. Sean Maguire does an impressive job recreating Gerard Butler’s King Leonidas and there are some good bits from Kevin Sorbo, Diedrich Bader even Carmen Electra. But as it is with all of these films that consitute the major career of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, they just don’t know how to construct a film properly. If they had focused completely on 300 (with additional material from other sword-and-sandals like Gladiator or even Spartacus if they have any sense of history), they could have had something. As I have stated, I *love* 300. But I also recognize how deathly *serious* it is. It’s ripe for the picking. That these guys could aim at so perfect a target and still miss overall, just shows how little they have to offer.

National Lampoon’s Vacation (1983)
National Lampoon’s European Vacation (1985)
National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989)
Vegas Vacation (1997)
National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie’s Island Adventure (2003)

Well, this series certainly runs the gamut, doesn’t it?

I put the success of the original Vacation down to four main factors: John Hughes’ brilliant script, Harold Ramis’ dead-on direction, Chevy Chase’s virtuoso performance as patriarch Clark Griswold and Lindsey Buckingham’s kick-ass theme song, “Holiday Road”. Not that the supporting cast has any slouches in it, either. Let’s see: Bevery D’Angelo, Anthony Michael Hall, Dana Barron, Randy Quaid, John Candy, Eugene Levy, Imogene Coca, Christie Brinkley, Eddie Bracken and even Jane Krakowsi. Not a misstep in the bunch. Does it go over the top? Maybe a bit. But always in the name of keeping things funny and lively. A true classic.

The second film, on the other hand, is a clear example of sequel-itis. Following too closely in the original’s footsteps, NLEV fails to chart any original territory of its own. Replacing the kids with new actors is fine, but none of the new characters can match those in the first film. Even Eric Idle (usually good for a laugh or two in small roles) falls flat. Lackluster direction and only half of a Hughes script. A failed attempt to recapture the magic. But there is one good thing about the fact that this film performed decently at the box office: it led to a third film.

Frankly, Christmas Vacation is the wonder of the series. Jettisoning the “road trip” angle (and “Holiday Road”), CV is, at heart, a traditional Christmas flick. What amazed me is how John Hughes (who returned to pen this one alone) was able to deliver this feel-good, heartwarming film without in any way compromising the basic nature of the Griswolds. The new kids (including a young Juliette Lewis) are joined by a returning Randy Quaid and the grandparents; John Randolph, Diane Ladd, E. G. Marshall and Doris Roberts. Also great in very small parts are Nicholas Guest (Christopher Guest’s brother) and Julia Louis-Dreyfus as obnoxious yuppies. This one is everything I hoped it would be, much to my surprise.

Vegas was, therefore, inevitably going to be a letdown from that previous high, but still managed to be a decently entertaining film. The fourth set of Griswold kids lack any kind of memorable quality (though Marisol Nichols as Audrey was pretty darn cute). Randy Quaid is back, as is “Holiday Road” and Christie Brinkley, still looking fine fourteen years later in a sly callback to the original film. This is the film European Vacation *should* have been. Not great, but good enough.

But European Vacation can thank Christmas Vacation 2 for keeping EV from being the worst film in this series. A “Vacation” film without the Griswolds? (Or most of them anyway.) The only notable thing about this made-for-TV film is the return of the best Audrey, Dana Barron. She looks great and is at least somewhat entertaining to watch. Randy Quaid does his best to try and eke something out of the Cousin Eddie character, but it just proves why characters like this one work is *support*, but not in the lead. Ed Asner, Fred Willard, Stephen Furst and Eric Ide (Yes, again. Reprising his earlier role.) are wasted and add little. This one’s worth watching only if you’re watching them all, like I did.

Overall, the Vacation series is more hits than misses and even the weakest of the “proper” series is worth a viewing.

Okay, this one is a bit of a favorite of mine. Not a great film by any stretch, but a perfect expansion of Norm MacDonald’s snarky characterization from Saturday Night Live. All of his trademark bits are in here (except references to the Germans) and he comes off well. This is a vehicle designed for him and he takes advantage of it. Artie Lange is great in support, as is Jack Warden in one of his last roles. Also proving he wasn’t past it is Chevy Chase, brilliant as the gambling-addicted doctor.

I put off watching this one for a while, as I wasn’t sure I could take it. But after seeing Apocalypto, I was convinced that this would be good, and it was. Yes, it is bloody and savage. Yes, it is unflinching in its portrayal of the Passion. But there is humor and there is heart and there is great storytelling here.

The cast is superb (particularly James Caviezel as Jesus) and the visual splendor and attention to detail can pull you in. Of course, that attention to detail extends to the brutality inflicted upon Jesus, but that is necessary to convey the depth of the horrors he endured.

It’s not going to convince any non-believers, but it is masterful storytelling, no matter your faith (or lack thereof).

Glen or Glenda (1953)
Jail Bait (1954)
The Lawless Rider (1954)
Bride of the Monster (1955)
The Violent Years (1956)
The Astounding She-Monster (1957)
The Bride and the Beast (1958)
Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)
Night of the Ghouls (1959)
The Sinister Urge (1960)

OK. Are *any* of these films the “worst ever made”? No. Even the worst one on this list (probably Night of the Ghouls), is better than Manos, the Hands of Fate. And Bride of the Monster is actually pretty well done.

One thing you can say for Ed is that all of his films are watchable. There’s very little of the clock-checking, looking-around, when-is-this-going-to-be-over stuff that you get with really bad films (like Superman Returns).

As I’m not going to go into detail on all of these, a few awards to sum up:

Best film: Bride of the Monster
Best Actor: Gregory Walcott (Plan 9)
Best Actress: Loretta King (Bride of the Monster)
Best Bela: Bride of the Monster
Best use of music: Plan 9 from Outer Space
Most original plot twist: Jail Bait
Most misleading title: Jail Bait
Most surprising guest appearance: William Benedict (Bride of the Monster)
The You’ll-Go-Far-In-Italian-Films Award: Steve Reeves (Jail Bait)
The I-Can’t-Believe-Ed-Didn’t-Write-Or-Direct-This Award: The Astounding She-Monster
Hottest Leading Lady: Charlotte Austin (Bride and the Beast)
Most disturbingly attractive: Jeanne Fontaine (The Sinister Urge)
Best episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 utilizing an Ed film: Experiment #613 – The Sinister Urge

Sublime masterpiece by Steven Oedekerk as he blends himself into footage from the 1970s Hong Kong actioner Hu hao shuang xing (aka Savage Killers aka Tiger and Crane Fist) while telling an original story. Not all the jokes strike gold, but it hits more often than it misses and when it hits, it’s as good as it gets.

Original review.

*Very* loosly based on the comic book of the same name, Wanted is visually exciting and did hold me throughout the film, but ultimately proved to be too formulaic for my tastes. The characters were unappealing and the story derivative of a thousand previous “revenge” films.

Worth watching for the effects, but little else.

I’ve always liked these two adaptations of the television show Doctor Who, despite the coolness with which they are often received by some fans. Peter Cushing’s Doctor (actually named “Dr. Who”) is every bit as valid as any other actor who followed in William Hartnell’s footsteps. (At the time, the entire concept of the Doctor as a “Time Lord” had not been invented. To hold that against the film is just silly.)

Yes, both stories needed to be trimmed down for the theater (especially the second, which is based on a six part serial), but neither jettisons anything of importance, instead boiling the stories down to their essence.

Cushing is great in one of his few non-horror roles of the day. He is ably supported by Roberta Tovey (a more age-appropriate Susan), Jennie Linden (Barabara – now also Dr. Who’s granddaughter) and Roy Castle (as a more comedic Ian) in the first film and by Bernard Cribbins (Ian replacement Officer Tom Campbell), Jill Curzon (Barbara replacement Louise, Dr. Who’s neice) and Tovey.

The effects on both films are solid for the day and not only easily outstripped anything the show was doing at the time, I think the effects in the second film are more believeable than those in the current (2005-present) series of Doctor Who.

Worth seeing by any fan of Doctor Who or 1960s sci-fi in general.

Original Dr. Who and the Daleks review.
Original Daleks’ Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D. review.

Frothy little Bob Hope vehicle, it’s a perfect example of why he was so successful for so long. He is able to portray his bumbling (basically incompetant) wannabe detective with enough idiocy to make an audience laugh, but with the heart to make them root for him anyway. His trademark wisecracks and asides are in full force and he is ably supported by a stellar cast including love interest Dorothy Lamour, heavies Peter Lorre and Lon Chaney Jr., and “proper” detective Alan Ladd. (Of course, Bing Crosby has a cameo as well.)

Like all the best parodies, this one has a solid plot that could easily be a regular noir film if the jokes were stripped out. An excellent example of Hope in his prime.

The Incredible Hulk (1977), Hulk (2003), The Incredible Hulk (2008). Three very different approaches to the same basic material. After all these years, and despite advances in technology, the original TV movie on which the famous series was based is still the best of the lot. The theatrical films each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Ang Lee’s artistic direction on the 2003 film is undermined by his muddy storytelling and angsty father/son nonsense. But the 2008 followup, while adhering more to the mood of the TV show, has an even sillier plot and the cast lacks the gravitas of the first. I also feel that the creature in the first film was more accurate than the later one.

But the TV movie is practically perfect. The only place where it really falls down is the silly Hulk makeup (big forehead!) that would be abandoned for the series. You can’t fault the script, which adheres to the tragic nature of Banner’s condition while extrapolating a story that better fit a weekly TV series. Bill Bixby is perfect and his sad non-romance with Susan Sullivan has all the heartwrenching truth that neither Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly nor Edward Norton and Liv Tyler could match. Even Lou Ferrigno, a definite non-actor at the time, gives a great performance as the beast who just can’t understand what’s going on around him.

As for the Hulk’s enemies, in the 2003 film at least Sam Waterson is able to imbue his General Ross with an underlying nobility that is sadly missing from William Hurt’s empty shell of a character. But then, Nick Nolte in 2003 was a cliche of a failed father figure while Tim Roth at least had some oomph as the eventual Abomination. None can hold a candle to the one-two punch of the TV movies nemeses: Jack Colvin’s iconic Mr. McGee and Banner’s own obsessions.

Hulk tried to carve out new territory for the character with only minimal connection to the show. The Incredible Hulk (2008) did a lot more to tie in, but still fell far short. The definitive Hulk remains Bixby/Ferrigno.

Woody Allen’s first film (script only), What’s New Pussycat is an interesting entry. Originally written as a vehicle for Warren Beatty (the title was actually a catchphrase of his), he was replaced by Peter O’Toole when Allen’s character started overshadowing Beatty’s. Lots of crazy, wacky shenanigans from not only Allen and O’Toole, but also Peter Sellers as a crazed physchiatrist, Capucine as the object of his affection and Paula Prentiss as a stripper with problems. Romy Schneider keeps it all hanging together as O’Toole’s girlfriend/fiance. Woody was notoriously annoyed at the production and kept producer Charles K. Feldman at arms length on their next collaboration, Casino Royale. But it stands out as a classic example of that nutty 60s comedy sensibility.

A mix of every “crew stuck out in space” movie you’ve ever seen, heavy on the Event Horizon. Some nice visuals and decent enough performances, but not a surprise or interesting twist in the whole darn thing. Predictable to the end.

I guess I was into revolutionary filmmaking at this point, because here’s another one. This time, it’s Toy Story, the first completely computer generated feature film. A solid story that surprises with its depth and different take on the family film, it’s the movie that built an industry.

The biggest surprise, then, is that Toy Story 2 surpasses the original in almost every way. With an even more emotional story, yet just as much comedy and fun, TS2 is a marvel. (And one of the few animated films that can get me all choked up. That “When She Loved Me” sequence gets me every time.)

Buzz Lightyear, on the other hand, is a rare example of Pixar caving to the demands of merchandising. This has as much to do with Toy Story’s original status as “Disney’s Toy Story” as it does with Pixar’s weaker position back in 1999/2000. This traditionally animated straight-to-video film is basically the launching pad for the Buzz Lightyear of Star Command animated series. For the film, they got Tim Allen to return to voice Buzz and the story, while not groundbreaking in any way, is still fun and serves as a decent intro to the series. Worth a look for Pixar completists (there’s an opening sequence animated by Pixar) and fans of Buzz.

Original Toy Story review
Original Toy Story 2 review
Original Buzz Lightyear review

Not much I can say about this film that hasn’t been said a thousand times before. Diametrically opposed to director George Lucas’ other famous sci-fi story, THX-1138 is a minimilaist masterpiece filled with great performances and a classic storyline that shows the dangers of government run rampant.

Original review

Jurassic Park was a truly revolutionary film in its day. The first to use extensive CGI creatures alongside real-life actors, it helped immensely that it was a great story put together by an all-star creative team. Based on the book by Michael Crichton, directed by popcorn-movie icon Steven Spielberg, music by John Williams and with groundbreaking effects by Industrial Light and Magic, it not only broke new ground, it holds up perfectly well today. The thrills, action, comedy and even bits of the book’s original philosophy all coalesce into the perfect summer blockbuster. No surprise that neither sequel can come close to measuring up.

The sequel, however, (despite much of the same team returning) is surprisingly bad. Spielberg’s apparent need to make this one a “message film” gets in the way of the excitement and the fun that made the original so strong. It doesn’t help that Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm (so vibrant in support in the first picture) simply can’t carry the sequel. Ultimately, it’s just as blatant a “sequel-for-the-sake-of-it” as Jaws 2 (which Speiberg pulled out of because he couldn’t see it working).

This makes Jurassic Park III a surprising return to form for the series. JPIII never tries to be anything more than a formualic sequel and that works in its favor. Since the audience doesn’t have to pretend that there’s any depth here, it’s easy to just sit back and enjoy the ride. I wasn’t crazy about some of the storyline decisions and the film’s unwillingness to kill sympathetic characters hurts it, it’s still a lot more entertaining than The Lost World.

Original Jurassic Park review
Original Jurassic Park III review

During Disney’s dispute with Pixar, they made production deals with a bunch of different animation studios in hope that lightning would strike twice. Vanguard Animation (a British studio) produced Valiant, the story of a pigeon during WWII. With its stellar cast (Ewan McGregor, Ricky Gervais, John Cleese, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Laurie, Tim Curry, Rik Mayall…) the film delivers a solid bit of classic British storytelling. It’s a real throwback to the “army life” pictures that were so prominant British cinema in the 50s and 60s. No doubt it is this positive portrayal of military service that led to its generally negative reception from critics.

My original opinion was pretty blah on Valiant, but it grew on me over time. It’s now one of my perennials, something I can just pop in and watch anytime.

Original review
My second take

Parody series kicked off by a movie known for being more successful than the film it was parodying (Scream). Launched by the Wayans Family (primarily by Shawn and Marlon, who co-wrote and star and Keenan Ivory, who directed), the series was handed off to David Zucker (of Airplane! fame) after two installments.

The first is still the best, with solid comedy that fits the genre and (and this is important to a parody, kids) a solid storyline. As you might guess by the quick turnaround, the second film seems forced and cannot recapture the magic of the first. With the change of direction, the third film takes on more “serious” horror films and again seems to find its footing. The fourth is probably dipping into the well one too many times.

That being said, all four have some really good material in there, you just might have to wade through a lot more duds to find them in the even-numbered installments. Besides that, all four focus on the inimitable Anna Faris, who came to prominance with the first film (she was so unknown that she didn’t even appear on the original theatrical poster) and has carved out a nice career for herself since. (Okay, I’m crushing a bit here.)

The Wayans(es?) are solid in their two outings, Regina Hill provides some additional continuity to the series and individual highlights are Shannon Elizabeth in 1, David Cross in 2, Charlie Sheen in 3 and Bill Pullman in 4.

Previously I have mentioned that Airplane! was ultimately responsible for many of these horrible “parodies” that keep showing up, but really it all comes down to the fact that Scary Movie gave careers to co-writers Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, who simply will not stop making them. Please, someone stop them.

Original review of Scary Movie 3

Original review of Scary Movie 4

Not the strongest entry, marred somewhat by the fact that the film on view, This Island Earth, is mostly pretty good. I think this is part of the reason that the SOL crew isn’t affected badly at all by the film, stunting the power of the entire premise. Still, an interesting one-off that allowed Best Brains to stretch a bit and the perfect slice of MST if you don’t have time for a regular episode.

Original review

Mike Myers’ tribute to the comedy spy films of the 60s kind of lost steam after the first, brilliant film, but the secondary characters pick up the slack. It’s the bad guys that pull us through Spy and Austin’s dad gives us the emotional center for Goldmember. I’ll still never forgive them for ruining the well-crafted love story of the first film, but what can you do? Watching them again I’m struck by how much better Beyonce is in her first film role than Heather Graham, who theoretically should have been much better than she is. Neither, of course, holds a candle to Elizabeth Hurley, who is both ravishing and endearing as Austin’s true love, Vanessa.

Ranking the films, Man of Mystery is, naturally, first. Goldmember comes in a solid, but distant, second. (Mainly because of the father/son storylines, the “Hollywood” Austin and the presence of a Ming Tea song.) Bringing up the rear is the disappointing Spy Who Shagged Me, which never quite comes together (despite some great bits and a brilliant performance by Rob Lowe).

If rumors of a fourth film are true, they better not punk out on Scott Evil’s character arc (really the best part of the overall trilogy).

Still my favorite movie of 2007 (although 300 gives it a run for its money). It isn’t 100% successful at reviving the classic Disney “princess” motif, but its darn close. It only misses perfection because of a few vestiges of its earlier incarnation as a “Shrek”-like sendup before it found its true voice. Still, the great songs, production values and performances from the *entire* cast make this one a classic.

So my nephew was staying with me and he wanted to see Temple of Doom, since it was the only one his father hadn’t bought for the family. Maybe it was watching it with an eleven-year-old or maybe just that it grew a bit on me, I was able to enjoy the bits I liked and tolerate the bits I didn’t more this time. I still don’t like it overall, though.

Anyway, I always watch the Indy films in chronological order, so I figured I might as well watch the rest as well. I still can’t decide whether I prefer Raiders or Last Crusade (they have different strengths) and my enjoyment of Crystal Skull has not diminished. (Side note…Crystal Skull was my first Blu-Ray. It hardly sold me on the format like 300 did on HD DVD. Three and a half months later and I have exactly five Blu-rays – and thirty or so HD DVDs.)

Here’s my original review of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Here’s my original review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

And just for fun…

Here’s my review of Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Adaptation

I know this one has a bad reputation and there’s no denying that they hadn’t quite got the style down yet at this point (subsequent episodes of the TV show have been more polished), I still found this to be an entertaining piece of Star Wars Expanded Universe fiction. Certainly better than any book in the “Legacy of the Force” series.

Here’s my original review, where I go into much greater depth.

What more can be said? A classic, ground-breaking film. It may not be perfect, but it’s still damned entertaining and looks great. My eleven-year-old nephew (who I would have thought wouldn’t be impressed by the relatively primitive effects since he won’t watch black & white Doctor Who episodes) absolutely loves it. He actually watched it twice one weekend; once with me and once on my PSP (because he’s thinking of getting one). As for me, I will always remember seeing it in the movie theater and being absolutely blown away by it all. While I’m glad there’s finally going to be a proper sequel, it can never approach the newness of the original film.

A stunning achievement by director Mel Gibson, Apocalypto recreates ancient Mayan civilization while still managing to tell an engaging story for any audience. Beautifully shot, built to incredible detail and with a cast of people-you’ve-never-heard-of, you really get a sense that you are watching another civilization and not just a Hollywood recreation. This is another one I saw first on Blu-ray and I’m not sure if that influenced me, but I found I couldn’t stop watching and I needed to watch all the extras and hear the commentary immediately after finishing.

After watching the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode featuring James Bond parody Operation Double 007, which starred Sean Connery’s brother Neil Connery, I learned of this *other* film that featured Neil in a Bond-like role. Since that time, I have tried to find this movie, finally getting it a few weeks ago. (The timing was perfect, as I was – and am – in the middle of a James Bond kick.) But, unlike the first film with its many Bond-related actors, this one only has Richard Kiel (Jaws) and Harold Sakata (Oddjob) with the added “value” of Peter Graves, obviously phoning it in for a quick paycheck. Unfunny, nonsensical and not even enjoyable on a so-bad-its-good basis.

Still my favorite Pixar film. I recently acquired the Blu-ray of Cars and it’s the first film that really shows the value of the format, at least to me. (I could see every individual car in the stands!)

Original review here.

Violent scene after violent scene, without a valid story behind it. Monica Bellucci is radiant as always, Paul Giamatti is full of gusto and Clive Owen is…well…Clive Owen. The comedy falls flat and the action is too far over the top and revels in its violence too much to take the film’s anti-gun stance (yes, it’s an anti-gun film) seriously.

Amazingly unfunny movie given the cast. Let’s see…Peter Riegert, Diane Lane, Teresa Ganzel, Ann Dusenberry, Robert Culp, Titos Vandis, Fred Willard, Olympia Dukakis, Robby Benson, Richard Widmark, Christopher Lloyd, Julie Kavner and Henny Youngman. All that talent and *nothing*. Well, not *nothing*. I laughed exactly *once*, when Diane Lane (17 years old, but playing 14) leaves her boyfriend and says “Let’s face it…you’re impudent.” An old gag, but it works. That’s what the film needed: more gags. Jokes. Things at which I could laugh. They seemed to be trying to mine that Airplane! sensibility; taking it all so seriously that it would just naturally be funny. But the Kentucky Fried team knew to throw in plenty of jokes, just to *play* them straight. As ripe for mocking as the three films styles here are (70s relationship films, women empowerment films and “real” cop movies), they’re played *too* straight. It’s just not funny.

So, you can watch this film for a variety of reasons. If you want to see a nice performance by Peter Riegert. If you want to see Diane Lane that freakin’ young. If you just want to see the lovely Ann Dusenberry and Teresa Ganzel. But, for heaven’s sake, don’t watch this film if you want to laugh.

Following their theatrical reworking of TV bits And Now for Something Completely Different, Holy Grail marks the first real foray into film for the Monty Python team and they nailed it. Spreading the parts out perfectly amongst themselves (I don’t know how they knew Graham Chapman was the perfect leading man – it doesn’t come through on the show – but they did) they poke fun at the absurdities of the Arthurian legend while staying faithful to them as well. As a bit of an Arthurian fan myself, it’s my favorite retelling. Great songs, solid sketches, classic material all round.

Woody Allen’s second proper film and the one that would define his early work. Take the Money and Run is actually a bit more high concept than his later works, but this one, with it’s focus on the neuroses of the “Allen character”, sex jokes and wacky interstitial humor defines Allen’s comedy in the time before he changed everything with Annie Hall. And even if it is hopelessly of its time, it’s still funny after all these years. (And you gotta love Howard Cosell’s work!)

One of the few films that can actually claim to be both groundbreaking and great in and of itself. Of course, while it re-wrote the rules of film comedy, it *is* somewhat to blame for the laziness of filmmakers that followed in its footsteps. (All too evident today in those “Fill-in-the-blank Movie” films in which, honestly, only the original “Scary Movie” series is any good at all. But back in 1980, this type of humor was fresh and the “Kentucky Fried” team of Jim Abrahams, David Zucker and Jerry Zucker knew what to do with it. Brilliant lead performances by Robert Hays and Julie Hagerty supplemented by the career re-defining performances by Lloyd Bridges, Robert Stack and, especially, Leslie Nielsen.

What’s perhaps the most interesting is to see how the film broadsided the Hollywood community. Actors, producers, studio men…none of them knew what to make of this thing and it was one of the biggest box office hits of the day (at very little cost). As you could say about most groundbreaking products, they couldn’t see it when it was coming right at them.

Yes, it’s more Larry the Cable Guy. This time, it’s his film debut, Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector. Released just a couple of months before Cars, this is Larry in safe waters, dipping his toes in theatrical films. His character, though not called “the Cable Guy” in the film, is basically his on-stage persona with little change. Later films would stretch him a bit, but this one gives him easy passage and Larry is able to take full advantage of that.

Smaller roles are filled with a variety of experienced performers, the filmmakers wisely surrounding the inexperienced Larry with a veteran cast. Included in that list are notable actors David Koechner, Thomas F. Wilson, Joanna Cassidy, Joe Pantoliano and Megyn Price. All fill their roles ably. Relative newcomer Brooke Dillman plays Larry’s new inspecting partner and holds her own against his strong personality.

Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector isn’t a comedy for the ages. It doesn’t re-write the rules of comedy. It doesn’t raise human consciousness or show us our hidden foibles. It’s just a straightforward funny movie.

Much better than I expected when I first saw it, Troy has held up over time. An obvious attempt at a more “modern” approach to the sword-and-sandal film, it succeeds because of how it tackles the basic plot. Rather than dramatize the historic tale or creating a fake “truth” (like King Arthur), it tells a story that *could* be true and could naturally have led to the myth as it developed. Great performances from everyone, anchored by Eric Bana’s Hector. It never succeeds in making Brad Pitt’s Achilles entirely sympathetic, but I’m not sure it wants to. Interesting decision to basically make Paris a coward. The “director’s cut” I watched this time on HD DVD is probably too long. I didn’t see anything that justified the added length. Even with the unnecessary extension, it’s a strong film.

After re-watching Troy, I decided to watch 300 again. While Troy attempts a new approach, 300 delivers it. The look and feel of 300 is unlike anything to precede it and gives the film a visceral power that Troy simply lacks. Despite its original take on the story, Troy is still a traditionally shot film. Beautiful, but traditional. 300 throws all the rules out the window, recreating Frank Miller’s graphic novel with alarming fidelity (while expanding it just enough to flesh out a theatrical film). Over the top? Yes. And gloriously so.

As a side note, I was surprised to note Vincent Regan’s appearance in Troy. Appearing in that earlier film as Achilles’ right hand man, I can’t help but wonder if that experience led to his casting as the Captain in 300. Similar parts on paper, but so different on film. A neat connection between the two best modern examples of the sword-and-sandal genre.

The full review of Troy can be found here.

(Note the dig at 300 – which I hadn’t seen yet. I’m eating those words.)

A full review of 300 (the one I was writing last year, but never finished) is forthcoming.

Not only the best Star Trek film, the best Star Trek, period. Showcases the major Trek characters perfectly, fixing errors in their characterizations evident in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Features the best non-Star Wars special effects from ILM during that era, including early CGI work from Lucasfilm’s Pixar division. Of special note for the wonderful work by Ricardo Montalban, who at the time was typecast as Mr. Rourke from Fantasy Island. This film reminded people of what he was capable.

A disappointing film that shows that the series was already running out of steam. The decision to veer into science fiction territory with a “doomsday device” was wisely seen as a mistake and this film’s plot thread was not picked up in the next, Revenge of the Pink Panther (which was something of a return to form). Short on true plot and far too dependant on pure slapstick, even the series’ usually reliable supporting cast doesn’t pay off as Lesley-Anne Down, Leonard Rossiter and Richard Vernon are wasted on characters with little to offer.

Big props on both of these films. King Kong, of course, is the groundbreaking film that set the stage for just about every effects-laden film that came after it. Seventy-five-plus years later and, while we may see the seams nowadays, the effects shots are still just as engaging and effective as ever. Two lousy remakes have done nothing to diminish its stature.

Son of Kong, coming mere months after the original, is an amazing achievement, given the time frame involved. Yes, the story is an obviously contrived one, meant to simply satiate the public’s desire for all things “Kong”. But that being said, it doesn’t really come off as *too* contrived. The story picks up where the first one left off quite naturally: with Carl Denham in terrible, terrible trouble over the damage Kong caused. He’s also filled with real remorse over doing what he did to Kong. The filmmakers even get points for not simply following the formula and making Denham’s inevitable love interest just a Fay Wray clone. If anything, she’s the anti-Fay Wray. Helen Mack’s Hilda is dark, somewhat down on herself, yet with a steel will that Wray’s Ann Darrow lacks. Watch the scene where Hilda stares down her father’s killer. Ann could never do that. There’s no greater compliment I can give Son of Kong than to point out that I feel like seeing it almost every time I watch King Kong. If that’s not the best a sequel can hope for, I don’t know what is.

Larger review of King Kong can be found here.

Larger review of The Son of Kong can be found here.

I liked this film the first time I saw it, but it didn’t have much impact on me. It was when I got the HD DVD that it really took hold of me for some reason. Maybe it was the immersiveness of the French countryside or the beautiful visuals that enhance the comedy. Or maybe it’s because Emma de Caunes is so radiant and standard DVD didn’t do her justice. Whatever the reason, it’s become a perennial; a movie I will often pop in just to watch on a lazy day, like re-living a vacation I never took myself.

Like Behind the Music on steroids, The Filth and the Fury documents the short career of the Sex Pistols from the band’s point of view (if skewed a bit towards John Lydon). Chock full of information and bits and pieces of 1970s pop culture, there’s no better way to get a feel for what England was like during the time. It may not be the most accurate documentary of a band (it ignores the band’s history after Lydon leaves, for example), but even if you don’t come away knowing everything *about* the band, you get the sense that you know *them* just the same.

A fuller review can be found here.

Very nicely handled animated adaptation of Tolkien’s classic book by Rankin-Bass. I like the casting (even with a German wood elf) and think the songs were reasonable extentions of the poems from the book. Complaints are few. I wouldn’t have cut out the Arkenstone or made the late reference to The Lord of the Rings. (The Hobbit, after all, was a very successful stand-alone book for decades before the sequel appeared.) I didn’t miss Beorn. The US-production/Japan-animation blend works really nicely, giving The Hobbit a look that’s different than the usual output of either country. A really nice effort.

Originally shot for the Disney television series The Wonderful World of Color (formerly Disneyland, later The Wonderful World of Disney) as the three-part story “The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh”, this was released in Europe (and later to television and home video) as Dr. Syn, Alias the Scarecrow starring a robust Patrick McGoohan as Dr. Syn; humble vicar by day, leader of a band of smugglers by night. Although the original character from the book series was more dastardly, Disney molds the tale into an engaging story of people fighting the good fight against an oppressive government (tied neatly into the American Revolution to help appeal to US audiences). McGoohan and the supporting cast (including George Cole, Michael Hordern and Geoffrey Keene) give everything the proper weight and keep things lively throughout. Although the conversion from television to film leaves out many details and causes issues with the pacing (including a ridiculously sudden conclusion) it’s still an excellent example of Disney’s 1960-era British output. (See The Three Lives of Thomasina, also from 1964, for the softer side of McGoohan.)

Wild, wacky and wa-a-a-a-a-a-ay over-the-top, Flash Gordon is a frothy mix of stunning visuals and unable-to-suspend-disbelief old school special effects. Saved by a remarkable fidelity to the source material and, perhaps, the greatest supporting cast ever assembled for a comic strip adaptation. (I mean, c’mon: Max von Sydow, Brian Blessed, Ornella Muti, Topol, Timothy Dalton, Peter Wyngarde, Richard O’Brien, William Hootkins…) Of course, it would have helped if the leads (Sam J. Jones as Flash and Melody Anderson as Dale Arden) were more than cardboard cutouts, but the cast really *supports* them. Jones may not be able to make Flash look like a hero on his own, but when Dalton’s Prince Barin gives him his support, you buy it. And I haven’t even mentioned its greatest contribution to entertainment: the wicked cool soundtrack by Queen. “Flash! Ah-ah! Savior of the Universe!”

In an era when Hollywood tended to alter the source material drastically when adapting from the comics medium (think Captain America aka DA Grant Gardner, carrying a gun, but no shield), Li’l Abner is a remarkably accurate depiction of Al Capp’s characters and settings. Based on a story by Capp himself, I suspect he took a greater hand in the film’s creation than most comic strip or comic book creators did in adaptations of their works. Jeff York and Martha O’Driscoll are practically Capp drawings come to life. They portray the Abner and Daisy Mae of the time (slimmer, less caricatured) perfectly. The story would seem to come straight off the comics page, with cliffhangers and wacky hijinks galore. Also noted for an appearance by the great Buster Keaton as Lonesome Polecat. The size of the role in this “B” picture may have been something Keaton should have considered beneath him, but I like to think he saw how perfect he was for the role and chose to play it anyway. He certainly milks his every scene for all its got. And you’ve got to hand it to the production crew for re-creating Dogpatch so convincingly on what must have been a shoestring budget.

The film which gave the “Frat Pack” its name shows why it was so significant. Although the story is a bit formulaic, it hits every note with perfection. You really feel for these guys. You want Mitch to get together with Nicole. You feel really bad for Frank (the Tank) because he’s so thrown by the married life, but still loves his wife and is devastated by her dismissal of him. And right from the get-go you *know* that Bernard is all bluster and loves his wife and kids. Subtle performances in an un-subtle comedy that fit perfectly. A rare sight.

The original The Pink Panther is an amazingly mediocre film that launched the popular series. As is well known, this film is actually a vehicle for David Niven and Peter Sellers’ Inspector Clouseau is only a supporting character (and in less than half the film). The comedy is uneven, with Sellers’ bits being the obvious standout (so it’s clear why Clouseau became the lead in the series instead of Niven’s Phantom). As for Niven, he is unconvincing as the suave, womanizing thief. He seems incapable of the things he supposedly does and utterly ridiculous cut into his stunt double’s actions. (An unintended type of comedy, no doubt.) I also have a problem with works that glorify thieves. They need to really give me a good reason to sympathize with them, but The Pink Panther never shows why I should *want* the Phantom to get away. He deceives the trusting Princess (who inexplicably aids him in the end with no reason to do so), his girlfriend is Clouseau’s faithless wife (she’s also unappealing in her vulgar two-timing) and he shows no hint of true remorse for the life he leads. No thanks. Give me A Shot in the Dark any day over this. (Or even Inspector Clouseau, for that matter.)

Witless Protection shows that there is a strange dichotomy at work of Larry the Cable Guy becoming a progressively better actor in progressively worse films. Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector was a classic case of a stand-up comedian taking his act onto the big screen in an obvious (yet funny) star vehicle. Delta Farce showed that Larry was beginning to transition beyond just being Larry the Cable Guy on film, but lacked an all-important ingredient in a comedy: a significant amount of laughs. Witless Protection is a formulaic “Odd Couple”-on-the-run comedy that only stands out for *not* having Larry and the girl fall in love. Even fewer good laughs and a resolution that just feels wrong drags it down. Saved somewhat by a bizarre turn by Joe Mantegna of all people. But Larry is getting better. He really emotes in several places here. If he ever gets a decent script, he’s going to surprise some people.

Phantom of the Paradise is a bizarro musical/horror blend that mixes Phantom of the Opera and Faust (with a hint of The Picture of Dorian Gray). It was one of Brian De Palma’s earliest mainstream works and I’m amazed he ever worked again after this. (Oddly fascinating though it is.) *Everything* is over the top, from Paul Williams’ songs to the visual style to most of the acting. (Williams, in the role of the Phil Specter-ish record producer Swan, is actually quite strong until the preposterous conclusion.) Worth seeing for the sheer “what-the-hell?” nature of it.

No, not that one.

I’m talking about the disastrous “relaunch” of the Hollywood Stock Exchange. For those of you unfamiliar with HSX (as it’s called), it is what is known as a “Prediction Market”. In a Predition Market, players buy and sell stocks, bonds and derivatives based on various aspects of popular culture. There are markets devoted to film like HSX, but also markets devoted to sports or music or just about anything else on which industry people would want to be able to guage popularity.

At HSX, MovieStocks are based on films themselves and close at a value equal to one H$ for each million the film takes up to its fourth weekend of release. So Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, for instance, closed at $332.11, since it was at $332,109,171 after the fourth weekend. When a film closes, the StarBonds for the director and the actors who appear in that film adjust to match their “Trailing Average Gross” (or TAG), which is the average total gross of the actor or director’s last five films. Again, that value equals one H$ for every $1M in the TAG. The maximum TAG value of a film is $250, even if it makes more than $250M. So George Lucas’ TAG is $250, since he has only three films covered by HSX (the three Star Wars prequels) and each of them made over $250 Million. Then there are derivatives, such as an item that closes at one H$ for every episode that a particular television show airs before being cancelled or how close a particular film comes to a goal during its opening weekend.

The point of all of this is that market forces (the people playing and buying the films and actors they think will succeed while selling or shorting those they think will fail) can give studios a good idea how those films will perform in the real marketplace. They pay for this kind of information (details deeper than those seen by the players) in order to best plan their sales and release strategies. HSX has proven pretty reliable. I’ve often been shocked by how poorly some films perform on HSX only to see those low expectations bear out when the film finally opens. Of course, there are always surprises. No one really saw The Blair Witch Project coming and The Dark Knight was a real shocker this year. (I mean, everyone knew it would do well, but really…)

As a fanatical box office watcher (I have Box Office Mojo bookmarked), I had a lot of fun playing that game. I played it once about ten years ago for around 18 months and managed to build my portfolio up to around H$65M. (You start off with H$2M.) But I eventually stopped and then about three years later started up again. This new portfolio currently stands at $473,394,053. I was in the top 4,000 (I think) – the 94th percentile out of hundreds of thousands of players. I felt confident I would cross the half-billion mark by the end of the year. I can’t tell you how many times I pulled people aside and said “Hey look! I made $2M today!”

But no more. A recent redisgn of HSX has left it a sloppy mess. They’ve made all of the organization parts of the game more cumbersome. I can’t even see my entire portfolio on one page anymore. But this thing that has killed it for me is that they’ve taken to focus off the exchange. Bonus H$ are given for — get this — “Schmoozing”. That means posting on the blogs or message boards, playing games or answering poll questions. And it now keeps track of this stuff, too. I saw one guy who had made H$300,000 from Schmoozing. I used to fight hard to earn H$300,000 through careful investing. It was an important part of my week. (I always used to set aside time on Mondays and Tuesdays to deal with the MovieStock closings and StarBond adjusts.)

I suppose I should be thankful that the HSX people have decided that the world needed another god-awful “Web 2.0″ networking site. It took up a lot of time and mental effort and I was tiring of it a bit anyway. Maybe they weren’t making enough money with the old model and had to try something to turn the tide.

Who knows?

Who cares?

All I know is that it’s not for me anymore. So I felt I needed to write this quick obituary to say goodbye to a formerly beloved pasttime.

Oh, well.

Now I’ll never see that half-billion.

There are two things about which I have been very vocal when it comes to Star Wars. First, that the prequels are not only “better than people think”, but also that they are actually good, full stop. Second, that the vast majority of the Expanded Universe is a tiresome, repetitive, derivative pile of crap. So, where does Star Wars: The Clone Wars land in this equation? Thankfully, on the side of the prequels. It has a lot more in common with George Lucas’ second trilogy than it does with the myriad of comics, novels and video games that make up the bulk of the material (if not the profit center) tagged as “Star Wars”.

For one thing, it unashamedly knows the true intended audience for Star Wars: children. Just as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the most comedic and straight-up fun-loving Indy film, The Clone Wars is the most specifically aimed-at-children mass market Star Wars product since the Droids and Ewoks cartoons of the eighties. (Both of which I like, by the way.) Director Dave Filoni knows his Star Wars and strives to keep things on track.

For another thing, The Clone Wars tends to ignore much of the establish Expanded Universe material concerning the nature and specific actions of the Clone Wars themselves. Now, EU hater that I am, I don’t approve of this just because it contradicts the events of the EU, but because it signals that the upcoming The Clone Wars television series (like the prequels) will not be held back in its storytelling just because someone else has already covered similar territory. After all, even if The Clone Wars is a box office disappointment (as it seems it may be), it will be seen by more people than read any Star Wars book or comic. The creators of the film and series should not be tied down to material that would be incomprehensible to their intended audience.

These are the kinds of things that I appreciated in the prequels. It implies an interest in “the audience” (in the abstract) without a sycophantic desire to cater to “the fans”, as so many other media franchises do.

So I approve of the approach taken. But that doesn’t necessarily mean I’ll enjoy the final product. After all, I think it’s great how the people behind the current Doctor Who revival have gone about their work, but I’ve mostly disliked the results. Again, it’s fortunate that The Clone Wars works for me, with mostly just nitpicking to be found.

First of all, the big question: the visual look. Lucas has stated that he was inspired by the look of the old Thunderbirds “Supermarionation” puppets and, thusly, the characters have a look that suggests they are carved models. Some reviews have described their movements as “stiff”, but I would say they are “stylized”. Mostly, they work. After years of watching Pixar films, it did take some getting used to. But after a few minutes, I easily settled in and found it no more distracting than watching a stop motion production like the old Rankin-Bass TV specials. Only in a few places where the characters walking animations seemed unnatural did I think the style harmed the film. Basically, if they smoothed those more casual moments out, I’d have no complaints about it at all.

The film’s plot is deceptively simple: Anakin Skywalker and his apprentice are sent on a search for the kidnapped son of Jabba the Hutt to try and smooth things over with the Hutt clan. Meanwhile, Count Dooku and his forces try to cause a rift between the Hutts and the Republic. But it, like the Invasion of Naboo from Episode I, is merely a framework for a grander scheme masterminded by the Sith. More than just an excuse to string events together, it serves as a focus for the relationship between Anakin Skywalker and his young charge, Ahsoka Tano. It performs that function well and the relationship between the two Jedi is actually given more screen time to develop than Anakin and Padme received in the main films. This basic plot also gives plenty of opportunities for more scheming from Dooku and a bit of a focus on his follower Asajj Ventress, a Sith-like character from the previous cartoon series and other EU projects.

Performances are strong pretty much across the board. Obviously, the few returning actors (Christopher Lee as Count Dooku, Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu and the ubiquitous Anthony Daniels as C-3PO) have their characters down pat. Returning from the old Clone Wars 2D cartoon are James Arnold Taylor as Obi-Wan Kenobi and Tom Kane as Yoda. Both are fine, but are really just doing impressions of other actors, so don’t stand out. Matt Lander, on the other hand, does not try to imitate Hayden Christiansen as his Clone Wars predecessor did. As such, he gets to define the character for himself and ably stakes out different territory than Hayden. This is less true for Nika Futterman, whose Asajj Ventress is a bit less complex than the previous incarnation, and Dee Bradley Baker, who takes on the voice of the clones, who actually are more differentiated here than in the main films. In both cases, the new voices are similar enough to the originals to mesh well, but don’t stand on their own. Ashley Eckstein voices the only completely new major character, Ahsoka. She successfully establishes the young Jedi trainee, without making the introduction seem forced.

There’s a lot of humor in The Clone Wars and, judging by the consistent laughs I heard from the audience, it’s not just my opinion that it feels natural and not just interjected for its own sake. Most of the humor comes from two sources: the dim Battle Droids and the young Rotta (son of Jabba) the Hutt. The Battle Droids are in full, goofy, Episode I mode and their simplistic brains are utilized to their full effect. And the baby Hutt proves the source of a great deal of legitimate humor, not just the kind you’d expect from a Nickelodeon or Dreamworks film. (All right, I’ll say it. Poop jokes.) There’s some of that, of course. (He *is* a baby, after all), but there’s lots that isn’t quite so base.

And I think it goes without saying that the action sequences (and there are plenty of ‘em) are strong, easily standing up with most of those from the series proper. The lightsaber duels are not quite as thrilling, but at least they don’t go way over-the-top, as the Tartakovsky series did, instead keeping things in line with the films.

But don’t let me imply that The Clone Wars is not without its problems. The easiest one to spot is that the film never quite completely kills the sense that it’s just three episodes of the upcoming television series edited together. It’s not as bad as those made-for-video movies hacked together from episodes of Droids and (especially) Ewoks, but the three episode structure is still clearly there: Anakin and Obi-Wan fight a battle, Anakin and Ahsoka grab the baby Hutt, Anakin and Ahsoka return the baby to Jabba. Three episodes, three acts of the film. Neat, tidy, but all too obvious.

The other major complaint I have is with one of the characters introduced in the film. If you’ve been watching the media attention, you know who I’m talking about; Ziro the Hutt, Jabba’s uncle and the most disturbing* Star Wars character of all time.** Unlike with Jar Jar, this time I totally get the problem and agree that the character should have been approached from a different angle. If you haven’t seen the film, let me set the stage. Picture Jabba the Hutt, only painted purple and pink, with feathers on his head, heavy make-up and sounding like Truman Capote. Yes, it’s just as hideously garish as you are thinking and I couldn’t wait for each respite from his on-screen presence.

But the one that hurt the film the most in my eyes was the music. Kevin Kiner may be a fine composer in his own right, but his music for The Clone Wars just doesn’t feel like Star Wars. I get the idea that Lucas and Co. were interested in making the film feel different than the primary saga, but this stuff goes too far afield. No 20th Century Fox logo I can live with. No opening crawl I can accept. But those strange sounds where beautiful John Williams music should be could’ve killed the deal. Thankfully, The Clone Wars doesn’t rely on Kiner as much as the original films rely on Williams, so it’s not a complete ruiner. I couldn’t help but think how much better a guy like Jeremy Soule (who did the music for the Star Wars: Bounty Hunter video game) would have been. He could do something completely new, but that fit in with the proper Star Wars themes.

The rest of my complaints are nitpicky kinds of things: the aforementioned animation glitches, the “newsreel” opening being a bit too much, too many nicknames (Ahsoka calls Anakin “Sky Guy” twice – twice too often.), etc., etc. Overall, Star Wars: The Clone Wars is a pleasant, entertaining spin-off from the Star Wars series. As long as they keep in mind what the film is (an action-adventure for kids), there is plenty of enjoyment to be had for fans and non-fans alike.

*That’s the word my nephew and I decided on: disturbing.
**And that’s including a humanoid green rabbit and a guy who drinks through the top of his head.

Yes, I know it seems like this is turning into an “obscure music” blog, but other stuff will be coming soon. But for now, more little known “hits” from my music collection!

Following up from last week’s look at Spinal Tap-related band Lenny and the Squigtones, we take a gander at a band that actually pre-dates Spinal Tap by a few months, mining similar ground.

In 1983, Adrian Edmondson wrote and starred in a film as part of The Comic Strip Presents…. series that followed the trials and tribulations of a heavy metal band as they attempted to go on tour. Also in the band were two of Edmondson’s fellow Young Ones alumni, Rik Mayall and Nigel Planer. Also on hand were Edmondson’s wife Pamela Saunders and her comedy partner, Dawn French.

What separates Bad News from Spinal Tap is that Tap is always presented as stupid, but still good music. Michael McKean, Christopher Guest and Harry Shearer did nothing to hide their considerable musical talents. Edmondson & Co., however, do everything they can to look as bad as humanly possible. Still, Edmondson, who wrote the songs (”Bohemian Rhapsody” excepted) shows his skill by being able to skewer the genre so completely.

So watch these with an understanding that they *really* are bad, because they are meant to be.

Here’s one that can’t be embedded: Warriors of Genghis Khan.

So you may remember Lenny and Squiggy from Laverne & Shirley (played by Michael McKean and David Lander), but did you know they also formed the a recording group that released an album in 1979? You can read more about the history of the group (including its unexpected association with Spinal Tap) by reading my original review of the album here.

They performed a few songs on the show, but the best stuff is on the album. Not that you can easily get it. It’s never been released on CD.

So, I’m going to try to update the blog more often and I thought one way to ensure that it happens is by instituting regular (or semi-regular) features. First up is “New Music Monday”.

So, you’ve heard of Queen, right? Big, oversized, operatic rock band known for hits like “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Flash”? But have you heard of the greatest Japanese Queen tribute band of all time, Kween?

I though not. So let me introduce you to one of the awesomest* bands in the world.

*Yes, “awesomest” is the only word that truly conveys how awesome Kween is.

Here’s anothe mini-epic from my days at the Rochester Institute of Technology Film & Video school.

This one is entitled Bloodsword and tells a heartbreaking tale of bad luck, destruction and the loss of innocence. Or maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it just fulfilled a requirement to tell a narrative story. Either way, it’s just ripe for a $100M Hollywood remake.

I put Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull at the same disadvantage I give most sequels; I watched its illustrious (and not so illustrious) predecessors. I always watch the Indy films now in chronological order starting with Temple of Doom. (This has the advantage of getting the bad one out of the way first.) But as time got closer, I hadn’t gotten to the other two, so I would up watching both Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade after getting home from work as I killed time waiting for the midnight showing of Kingdom. Yes, it was like 1999 all over again and I was there watching a beloved series being revived after more than a decade. And my reaction was the same: I loved it.

Now, that’s not to say that it is a perfect film. Kingdom suffers from a lack of…well…gravitas. It’s something that is also missing from Temple, but to a greater degree. Temple’s mysticism is pretty much completely made up, while the underlying stories for Raiders and Crusade were based on real, existing myths and stories. The central story of Kingdom is also made up, but calls upon various diverse myths, so it’s not as bad.

Of course, like the better Indy films, Kingdom also has its character moments. Indy’s relationship with his young traveling companion, Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeaouf), informs much of the early part of the film and his reborn relationship with Raiders leading lady Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) informs much of the second half. While both are emotionally satisfying and consistant, neither has the resonance of Indy and Marion in Raiders or Indy and his father in Crusade. And there is no viable replacement for those memorable supporting characters like Sallah or Marcus Brody. The closest is the dubious George “Mac” McHale (Ray Winstone) and the brain addled Professor Oxley (John Hurt). (Jim Broadbent’s Dean Stanforth is just a glorified cameo; not even as significant as Brody in Raiders.) Temple at least had Short Round. As for the primary villain, Commie Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) serves her purpose and is reasonably well matched to Raiders‘ Belloq and Crusade’s Donovan (though they both outclass her in various ways).

Harrison Ford pretty much falls into the part of Indiana Jones as if no time has passed since 1989. The years hang well on him and they seem natural. Indy was never a superman, so Ford and Indy’s aging never seems like weakness, just business as usual. The only other holdover from the original films is, of course, Karen Allen. She, too, seems to have fallen back into character with ease, despite an even longer interval. She’s still lovely and her interactions with Ford still have zest, if lacking in the same level of sexual tension from days of old.

Sly references to the previous films (and The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles) are kept to a minimum; just enough to remind us of the series’ history without smashing the audience over the head with it. While previous knowledge of the earlier works adds to the enjoyment of Kingdom, it is by no means required.

Somehow the film seems less “Spielbergian” than the previous three. Spielberg has stated that he tried to return to a style of filmmaking from which he has moved on, but he seems instead to have suppressed his natural style. Composer John Williams, on the other hand, is at ease as the lead actors. He has said that the Indy and Star Wars films are fun for him because he can get back into the feel quickly and he certainly is on form with his score for Kingdom. Again it is the time period that provides the biggest difference with the older films, as the era brings with it rock & roll sequences where appropriate (while the original films were practically devoid of period music).

Amongst the fun there are other missteps. There is a bit of Commie-baiting from a pair of FBI agents that seems to be there only because the filmmakers must have felt they were required to put it in. It serves no purpose within the story and is dropped without another mention almost immediately. The film also lacks a really strong set piece, like Raiders‘ Well of Souls or Crusade’s Grail room. There are some scenes (particularly early on) that I think were intentionally shot studio-style to evoke the feel of 50’s films, but end up looking rather cheap. Also, the decision to make most of the film’s effects practical causes the CGI elements to stand out more than they otherwise might have.

On the other hand, Kingdom is a much funnier movie than the previous three films. It mines the sci-fi B-movie territory made possible by its 1950s setting to great effect without losing the high action that is the series’ trademark. I actually asked myself at one point if the film wasn’t being too funny, but I decided as long as it actually was being funny and not just painfully trying to be, it was fine.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is not a return to the glory of the previous highs of the series. With so many years in between and so many of the original cast and crew either retired or no longer with us, it was unlikely it could ever be. But it is a solid, entertaining outing that does justice to its characters while delivering the thrills, scares and laughs that an audience looks for in its popcorn fare. It proves that Indy is a character that can continue on, even if most of his personal emotional journey was resolved long ago. And it does what the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies first set out to do: take a film landscape littered with dark, depressing dramas and low comedies and show that fun, exciting thrill rides can still work, even after all these years.

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 seemed 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 barely 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 proven 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.