Wheel of Morality, turn, turn, turn. Tell us the lesson we should learn.

We often think of Disney movies as being made for children, but when you start boiling down the plots to the absolute basics, you can't help wondering just how appropriate they really are.

The Little Mermaid: A spoiled, selfish princess has everything she could possibly want, except the physically impossible. Her desires cause damage to an entire society and force her father to sell everything he has, including himself. All is made right when the person who bought it all is murdered.

Beauty and the Beast: Family repeatedly trespasses, commits bestiality.

Dumbo: Misfit takes revenge on those who mocked his deformity.

Aladdin: Thief and con man forces slave to do his bidding so that he can charm his way into the palace and into the heart of the princess. After he gets everything he wants, he "frees" the slave and thinks that they are friends.

The Lion King: A spoiled prince runs away from his problems, and expects everyone to welcome him with open arms even though he deserted them for years.

Peter Pan: Children sneak out of the house, torment a disabled man.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame: Man with physical deformity learns that he is a person just like everyone else...as long as he doesn't expect to get the girl at the end of the movie.

Bambi: Boy has dead mother and absentee father, grows up to murder a rival for a girl's affections.

101 Dalmatians: Animal hoarders steal puppies from other animal hoarder.

Marry Poppins: New nanny, who is suspiciously well-known in the chimney sweep community, teaches children to resent their father for working to provide for them, eventually causing them to spark a riot when they don't get their way.

Avatar

Wow. That really sums it up. Wow.

I know everyone is probably sick of hearing about Avatar, but we went to see it today, so you get to hear about it one more time. It reminds me of Terminator 2 and The Matrix, in that it took ideas that weren't really new and put them together in a new way with spectacular visuals to create something that feels ahead of its time. Remember when you saw the morphing effects in T2 or bullet time in The Matrix? These are old hat now, but at the time they were revolutionary, and they both changed the future of movies. That's how I felt leaving the theater today. I feel like I saw something special and that everyone else is going to spend the next few years trying to catch up or copy the style.

Was the plot the most original? No, not really. Some of it might even be cliched. You've probably heard some of the comparisons by now: It's Ferngully. It's Dances With Wolves. It's 90% of all undercover/spy movies ever. Those are all valid comparisons, but Cameron builds on these familiar themes, constructing a mille-feuille of layer after layer of world building, character, emotional investment and visuals far too stunning for me to even try to describe here. The end result is something pleasingly familiar, yet altogether foreign.

Yeah, "wow" pretty much describes it.

Public Enemies

We went to see Public Enemies the other night. I'm not going to review it too much other than to say that I definitely did like it.

What I did want to talk about was this feeling that I couldn't shake throughout the movie, a feeling that I'd seen this before. It's not that I've seen the story of John Dillinger previously, but rather that it seemed like Michael Mann was remaking Heat as a period piece. (I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, just that I observed it.) I know I'm probably over-simplifying this, but let me give you a few examples of what I'm talking about.

vs.

Spoilers for both Public Enemies and Heat from this point on.

Of course, the most obvious similarity is the theme of bank robbery where the similarities go from the very general, machine gun fights outside the banks, all the way down to the very specific, a robber tells someone during a heist, "We're not here for your money. We're here for the bank's money."

In each film, Mann assembles big name stars as the headliners and then populates the rest of the film with other famous actors or character actors so that just about every scene leaves you saying "Hey, isn't that..." or "I've seen that guy before."

Two actors who usually don't share top billing play a criminal with a distinct sense of honor and a lawman who becomes obsessed with catching him to the point of being self-destructive. While these two actors do share the film, they share only a single scene together before the final showdown.

The criminal is always noting the bad ideas that the other robbers have and describes his philosophy about what to do and what to avoid to stay safe. He eventually gets involved with a young woman who gets inside his defenses and exposes the humanity underneath. Unfortunately, the feelings he has for the woman cause him to go against his better judgement and specifically violate the philosophy he outlined earlier in the film. In both cases, this leads to his downfall, and our criminal is not the type to be taken alive.

I'm sure there are others things that I've forgotten now, but stylistically, thematically and even in plot, the similarities between the two movies were quite striking. As I said at the top, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that I had a hard time not thinking about this while sitting in the theater.

Have any of the rest of you seen this, and did you notice the same thing?

You Know You Want To Watch This Too

Throughout history, mankind has asked one question more than any other: "Why am I here?" We need a sense of purpose to feel fulfilled; we need to feel as if we are part of something larger. Individuals have come up with their own answers, but never has a single event or a single theme been able to unite us all.

That, my friends, is about to change. All of modern technology has been building to this, the pinnacle of this or any other civilization. Yes, I speak of Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus.

Why are we on this planet? So that this can be made and so that we can watch it.

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

I know it's difficult to wrap your mind around this if you are just learning of it, but let's consider just a few of the glorious things we see in this trailer.

1. Lorenzo Lamas
2. Debbie Deborah Gibson
3. Not just a shark, a Mega Shark
4. Giant Octopus
5. Mega Shark and Giant Octopus fighting each other
6. The octopus is so giant that it destroys an oil rig
7. And slaps a fighter jet out of the air
8. The shark is so mega that it attacks what appears to be a battleship*
9. And the Golden Gate Bridge**
10. And a commercial airliner--in flight
11. One or both of them appear to destroy a submarine
12. Something is making the smoke monster sound from Lost

The movie comes straight to DVD later this month and it may or may not*** be at the top of my Netflix queue waiting for the release date.

*I can only hope this leads to a "It sank our battleship!" line in the actual movie. Movies this bad need lines that awful.
**The bridge, people! It jumps up to take a bite out of the bridge. Can sharks in any other movie do that? No, they aren't Mega enough.
***Oh yeah, it is.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Pro and Con

Con: The title.

Pro: Stuff blows up.

Con: Computer graphics when Sabretooth runs on all fours.

Pro: Fight scenes.

Con: Attempt at a plot failed miserably.

Pro: Attempt at a plot is just a way to justify action sequences.

Pro: Deadpool*

Con: Deadpool*

Pro: Introduced to new mutants

Con: Most new mutants are basically cameos and are often very different than comic versions.

Pro: I've always liked Gambit's power.

Con: Why doesn't Gambit have an accent?

Pro: Did I mention stuff blew up?

Con: Holding arms out while looking up at the sky and screaming. (Did Wolverine just find out Padme was dead?)

Pro: Jackman and Schreiber seem to have put a lot of effort into getting into shape for the movie.

Con: What did they do to [actor's name held back for spoiler] in the escape scene with the kids? That scared me.

Pro: Most of the action was over-the-top and unrealistic. (In a movie where a guy pops metal claws out of his hands, that's allowed to be a pro)

Con: Wolverine butt

Verdict: Bad, but not so bad that it wasn't still fun.

Random note: I realized after writing this that X3 also got a pro/con list instead of a real review, but even that was more thought out than this one.


*I can't really explain that one without a lot of spoilers and an attempt at explaining the plot and it's really not worth it.

Watchmen

Alan Moore's celebrated graphic novel, Watchmen, has often been referred to as "unfilmable", and for years it had seemed as if that might be true. There had been several unsuccessful attempts to get an adaptation started over the years, but now Zack Snyder has brought it to the big screen. Is it completely faithful to the comic? Not completely faithful, but about as faithful as can be expected. 

I really enjoyed the film. The flashbacks to the early years of the Minutemen, Osterman's accident and Vietnam were handled very well. Snyder wove info from "Under the Hood" and other sections of the comic into the movie deftly and was able to provide the backstory and bring to life the alternate 1985 that Moore and Gibbons first created. The casting was excellent and the acting is quite good, but the real stand-out, in my opinion, was Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian. (With the minor exception of the fact that he is supposedly 22 in the 1940 flashbacks and who are they kidding, he fit the part perfectly.) 

It's not all perfect, however. There were some things that did bother me. While the look of all of the times and settings was excellent, President Nixon just looked absurd. The obvious prosthetic nose and massive amounts of makeup were distracting every time he was on screen. I don't mind changes from the source material, but changing the name of the second group of costumed heroes from Crimebusters to Watchmen. The change made it seem as if they didn't believe that the audience could comprehend that the title of the film came not from the name of a group of crime fighters, but from the question that it asks. The thing that bothered me the most was Snyder's (over)use of slow motion. Just as he did in 300, Snyder uses slow motion and freeze frames in every action sequence. the technique can be used both to emphasize the action and to replicate the panes of the comic source material, but when it is used so often it becomes distracting. I'd had enough of it before the end of the first scene of the movie and by the end I felt like it was the only move he knew for action scenes and that asking him to do anything else would be like asking Zoolander to turn left.

If you could only choose one and asked me whether it would be better to go see the movie or read the comic, I would tell you without hesitation to pick up a copy of the graphic novel and start reading now. Fortunately, the world doesn't work that way, and we get to have the comic in its original form and the movie counterpart we were told we could never see.

I'm Not Dead and Other Bits of Useless Information

Since you aren't all privy to all of the email, IM or other conversations I've had with some, but not all, of you, I figure I should post an update answering some of these questions.

Q: Yo, you dead?
A: No, despite my eating habits, I am still alive. The inactivity on this site is not the result of my departure from this life, but thank you for your concern.

Q: Have you given up your blog completely?
A: Are you kidding? I just forked over ten bucks to keep this snazzy URL. That would be like spending money on Netflix and never watching or returning your DVDs...You know what; let's move on.

Q: Are you going to post again?
A: What do you think you're reading now? Ok, maybe I shouldn't berate the few readers I have left. Will I post other things again? Yes. Will I post on a regular basis? Well, don't hold your breath for the 3-5 days a week stuff anymore.

Q: You haven't posted 3-5 days a week in a couple years, if ever.
A: That's not a question. Now shut up.

Q: Why aren't you posting anything?
A: Multiple reasons. First, I've had this blog for over 4 years now. I've only got so much to say, and there's only so much I am willing to discuss in a place like this that is quasi-anonymous and not remotely private. Second, my job has been getting more demanding as time goes on, and recently, I changed positions (sort of) making things even more demanding. This all means that I don't have much in the way of mental capacity to think of things to say. Rest assured, when I think of something to post about, you'll see it...assuming I have time to write and can write coherently.

Q: So, anything exciting going on in your life?
A: Not really, no. Unless you want to discuss lot release and need by dates, I'm a boring conversationalist.

Q: Have you at least seen any good movies recently?
A: Actually, yes. We went to see Coraline last weekend. If you haven't seen it, please do. It's great.

Q: What about TV?
A: The usual. Lost, BSG, Good Eats, etc. I did give up on Heroes part way through the first half of this season. It was so bad that I've cancelled the TiVo season pass for it. It could suddenly turn into the best show ever, and I'd never know. We did get an HD TiVo for ourselves for Christmas and have discovered that the ability to watch movies and old TV shows instantly using Netflix and TiVo is a great thing. We've watched lots of Alfred Hitchcock Presents that way.

Q: Read any good books?
A: Yes, I have. I have a soft spot for fantasy and I started reading Brandon Sanderson after hearing that he was going to be finishing The Wheel of Time. I've read Elantris and all three of the Mistborn books and recommend that fantasy lovers do the same. Now, in preparation for this fall's (scheduled) release of the last WoT novel, I'm rereading all of the Wheel of Time books. Of course, that's around 9000-10000 pages (or around 3 million words) of the same author, so we'll see how that goes.

Q: Some of these don't really sound like questions people have asked you.
A: Again, please put your submission in the form of a question.

Q: People didn't really ask you all this stuff, did they?
A: No, it was mostly the things about if I had quit or if I was ever posting again. It did give me a chance to have a conversation with myself and give updates on several things, though.

There you have it. You're now all up to date with my life. If you actually read this far, you have my thanks and my apologies. As a reward, feel free to throw out a topic for discussion. I'll probably ignore it, but you never know; you just might end up with a long-winded diatribe on it. I may be busy, but I'm still opinionated and wordy.

"New Direction" Earns Two Thumbs Down

Ok, Siskel has been gone since 1999, and Ebert hasn't been on the show for a couple of years due to health reasons, but the final demise of the show they created is very sad. I may not always agree with Roger Ebert's reviews. There have even been times when I wondered if he was insane based on his opinions, but there is no doubt that he, like Gene Siskel was, is a man who loves the movies*. That is what made the show great in its heyday. These were two guys who loved movies talking about the movies. In the pre-internet days, they were the superfans out there going to early screenings and telling you what they thought. They were the ones telling you that "yes, these are the good movies showing near you, but here is something you may not have heard about." The millions of film sites on the web today (for better or for worse) wouldn't be the same without the influence of this program. They were critics, yes, but they were also fans who loved what they were doing and just wanted to talk about it. That's why Sneak Previews/At the Movies worked.

Ebert recently wrote a great piece about the show, which covered it from conception to now. I highly recommend it, and I sincerely hope that even if it ends up with a new name in a new place, that the show and the thumbs will return once again.



*This has little to do with the article, but I just wanted to mention it anyway. Roger Ebert and I share an alma mater, and every year he returns to Champaign and puts on a film festival with what he considers to be "overlooked" movies. I always talk about going, but something always gets in the way (time, money, not caring about the movie selections for that year).

The Dark Knight

I loved Batman Begins and have been waiting (im-)patiently since for the sequel. Today, that wait was over.

I will freely admit that when I first heard that Heath Ledger was going to play the Joker, I was skeptical. I will also freely admit that I was wrong. Really, really wrong. This is not the same Joker we've seen before. He isn't Jack Nicholson being Jack Nicholson in makeup. This Joker isn't funny. He's the Joker comic fans know who is a psychopath and when he makes one of his jokes, he's the only one laughing.*


I don't want to give away too much about the movie, so I'll just make a few more points before saying a couple spoilerish things in the comments (that way spoilers won't just show up in your RSS reader).

If you are planning to see this, hit the bathroom first and go for the small soda. It's a long 152 minutes when you get the 72 ounce mega-jug.

I'm still not sure I love the character of Rachael Dawes, but Maggie Gyllenhaal does a much better job than Katie Holmes did.

Don't expect a nice tidy back-story like you got for previous versions of the Joker. Much like in the comics, his story changes depending on who he tells it to. I think I like it that.

Aaron Eckhart was perfect as the "white knight" Harvey Dent and the counter-point to Batman's Dark Knight.

I love that Nolan never really gives us an answer as to whether it's ok that Batman is a vigilante and breaks laws or whether his mere existence creates the new version of criminal like the Joker. It's a morally gray area and we have to figure it out for ourselves.

When you see the mayor of Gotham, what pops into your head: "It's (a) Batmanuel! (b) Luis or (c) Richard Alpert"?

Before the movie, the were trailers for the new Terminator movie (good trailer, not sure if I care about the movie), The Spirit (ok trailer, not sure if I care about the movie), Watchmen (great trailer, and I really want this movie to be good.)

*Unless you were in a theater like the one we were in where people were so used to the Joker being funny (funny ha ha, that is) that they laughed no matter what he said. I kept wondering if they were really aware of just how crazy the guy was. This was scary crazy, not funny crazy.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

I managed to escape just a little early today, and we went to catch a late matinee of Hellboy II. It's no secret that I love Hellboy. I loved the first movie, loved all the comics I've been able to get a hold of, including the BRPD comics without Red. (You have great storytelling that combines pulp noir with mythology from all over the world, secret organizations, and a big red smart-alec demon with a huge right hand made of stone. What's not to like about the comics?)

Guillermo del Toro, who returns to direct his second Hellboy film, is the perfect choice to helm the series because he has an eye for the fantastic unlike any director working today. The creatures he has created for the Hellboy films (as well as those in Pan's Labyrinth) look as if they had just crawled out of a dream...or nightmare. (This is why I really look forward to seeing what he can do with The Hobbit.)

As with the first film, del Toro worked on the story with Mike Mignola, the creator of Hellboy. The story, this time, revolves around a prince of elves who wishes to break the truce with humans that has held for years and restart an old war, exterminating humanity once and for all. As he strikes the first blow, the BRPD is brought in to investigate. Where it goes from there, I'll allow you to see for yourself. The story itself works as more than just a way to move from one (admittedly impressive) action- or visual-heavy piece to the next and is strengthened by the fact that the characters are written to show their humanity even if they aren't really human at all.

David Hyde Pierce is hardly missed as the voice of Abe Sapien (this is no knock on DHP, he declined the offer to come back and didn't even do publicity for the first film because he thought it really was Doug Jones' role, not his.), and John Hurt's return as Prof. Bruttenholm is welcome even if it is relatively brief. Seth McFarland (of Family Guy fame) joins the cast as the newest member of the BRPD team, Johann Kraus. Really though, the movie belongs to Perlman who is again pitch-perfect as Hellboy.

The movie isn't without it's flaws, but they are ones I was willing to overlook for something as enjoyable as this was. If you liked the first one, I would certainly recommend this one as well.

WALL-E (and other movie-going things)

We went to see WALL-E last week, not long after returning from a trip to my parent's house. Before I got a chance to post about it, a thunderstorm knocked out our power and left us in the virtual dark ages sans lights, air conditioning and, most importantly, internet access.

I could tell you all about the movie and whether I liked it or not (I did), but let's face it: You can find a review of WALL-E anywhere and if you haven't seen it and don't plan to see it nothing I say will really make a difference.* What I can give you that no one else can is the remarkable story of some of the people with whom we shared a theater.

We had hurried to make sure we made it to the 11:00 showing, and by the time I bought our tickets (for the 11:30 show because I'm no dummy) and got in line at the concession stand it was around 10 after. Since we went to the movie early in the day and WALL-E was showing on three separate screens, the crowd was pretty sparse even though it was summer. There may have been 15 to 20 people in the entire theater, but that didn't bother me, I'd much rather have the place to myself than sit next to a stranger.** Most of the people were there with small children***, but our story will focus specifically on a woman who was there with (what I assume to be) her granddaughter.

They sat uneventfully through the movie, and were directly in front of us as we filed out. They tossed their trash into the waiting can rolled out by the employee who was waiting to clean the theater, and, following close behind, we did the same.

"Oh hang on," the grandmother said, digging through the trash, "I want to show them this."

She pulled out the cup for their Pepsi Freeze (a sort of slushy, partially frozen thing...kind of like a Squishee one might get at the Kwik E Mart) and proceeded over to concession stand. Needless to say, I was intrigued and fortunately since we had nothing to do but stand around while waiting for the third member of our party to extricate herself from her seat and actually leave the theater, we got to find out what was going on. It turned out that the frozen beverage had a piece of popcorn in it. "Wait," you might say, "a piece of popcorn? Inside the open cup? Like what might happen if one is eating popcorn in a dark room while holding a cup with a large opening?" And of course, that isn't at all what happened, since the people filling the cup clearly filled it about halfway, took it to the popcorn machine and dropped a piece in and then continued filling it. Fortunately, the people at the concession stand weren't nearly as judgemental as the rest of you, so they happily gave her a refill in her freshly recovered from the trash cup. As we stood, still waiting, the granddaughter came trotting back to the trash can and came away with their popcorn bucket, emptying it of the few remaining kernels.

"Did she just..."

"Oh yeah. She sent her back for the bucket."

"Are you sure she didn't just bring the bucket and dump it out.?"

"No she got it out of the trash."

"But it was in the trash."

"Yes, it was."

By the time we were finally ready to go, they were strolling out of the lobby and into the parking lot carrying a freshly refilled Freeze cup and bucket of popcorn. Which brings me to my question for all of you:

At what point does something officially become trash and become unsalvagable? Me, I think I share Jerry Seinfeld's opinion that adjacent to refuse is refuse and that eating it means you've crossed the line between man and bum, but I guess not everyone feels the same way. Obviously they didn't.



*To make it short: It was very good, just as one might expect from a Pixar movie. I wasn't sure how they'd pull off the sizable chunks of time in which it was all robots who really don't have much dialogue, but it worked quite well. It doesn't come close to being as wonderful as Ratatouille, but considering my feelings for that one, I think it's probably unfair for me to try to make that comparison. Also the short before WALL-E is probably my favorite one shown in front of any of the Pixar movies. Anyway, just go see it, you'll be glad.

**Or behind a stranger. Or in front of a stranger. Really, pretty much anywhere within a 5 seat zone of a stranger.

***Since there were actually three of us, one could argue that we also there to take a child to see it, but that would be rather impolite even if metaphorically accurate.

What's Happening Now?

We just got back from seeing the newest M. Night Shyamalan movie, The Happening. I'll try to discuss it without spoilers to begin with, but any full discussion will require some spoilers. I'll give warning before I get to that point, though.

As the movie begins, there is something happening. I know this because they tell us repeatedly. In fact, it appears to be an event that's happening. Whatever this event is, it seems to make people stop talking, walk backwards and then commit suicide. The movie follows Elliot, a science teacher played by Marky Mark, and his wife, played by Zooey Deschanel, as they try to escape from whatever it is that's happening.

The first problem is that the acting highlight of the film is Marky Mark. John Leguizamo? Really bad. Zooey Deschanel? Simply horrible; her emotions never changes throughout the entire film, and I don't even know what to call the one she shows. Even if the delivery were better, I'm not sure it could have saved the dialogue they were required to say. There are times when you watch a movie and you realize that it just isn't connecting with the audience emotionally. This was certainly one of those times. Mass suicide: not supposed to be funny. When there are touching scenes involving families being torn apart or people dealing with loss, the audience should feel touched.

That's not to say it's all bad. There were moments in the movie, that really worked. Here and there, I felt the tension that we were supposed to feel the whole time or
could see the way he was building toward something or was surprised by developments. Unfortunately, these few moments were not enough to balance out the others. I had a good time going to the theater and watching it, but it doesn't change the fact that this really was not a good movie.

Now, to things that can only be discussed with spoilers. Those of you who haven't seen it and don't want to be spoiled, should probably stop now. (and since I don't know what people will say in the comments, you might want to avoid those too)


A little spoiler safe space...



Really, that is our big bad guy in this movie? Plants? This idea is fairly bad on its own, but it is made even worse by some of the things it causes. Trying to "stay ahead of the wind." I know chase scenes seem obligatory in movies like this, but running from the wind?

The video of the zoo keeper feeding himself to the lions, in addition to being just awful looking (to the point that most of the theater laughed at it), didn't make much sense. So, the zoo keeper was affected by the toxin, but no one else around him was or most people were, but one person was not affected and decided to record it with their camera phone and send it to everyone else? Wasn't anyone in a panic and trying not to die, yet? Apparently, not enough to keep them from sending this new really cool video they saw.

I was definitely caught off guard by the people shooting the two boys with Elliot. The idea of the panic that was caused and that people would turn against each other, while not breaking new ground, was one of the better and better executed ideas in the movie.

One thing that did work well were many of the sequences in Mrs. Jones's house. Specifically, when Elliot was trying to find her and came upon the room with the doll. That scene was Shyamalan really playing to his strength and slowly building tension. Unfortunately, it had almost nothing to do with the actual story.

One of the worst things about the film is that many of the best things about the film were the comic relief scenes. Unfortunately, there was not enough tension to make us need that relief.

After seeing Unbreakable, Signs and The Village (I have yet to see Lady in the Water), I was one of the people who defended the movies. When people pointed out their flaws, I said, sure but what about this scene or this idea, always focusing on the positive aspects. After seeing The Happening, I think my days as apologist are over.

Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Yesterday we went to see Indy 4 for Melissa's birthday. Unfortunately, it's a hard movie to review. It has a lot of baggage before it ever gets started that will make people's opinions tilt one way or the other. There is no way to look at the movie without looking back at Raiders or even looking back over the 20 or so years since The Last Crusade came out.

You know what: If you aren't ready for total geek mode, you might want to turn back now, because you are about to reach the point of no return. So, before I get into that, I'll give you my recommendation: If you want to go see it, go see it. Don't go in expecting to see Raiders again, but go in expecting to have fun. Many people like it, many people don't. I liked it and would be glad to see it again.

Going in, I was excited yet skeptical. I knew it wasn't going to be Raiders again. Nothing else is Raiders of the Lost Ark. Even Han Solo has a hard time being as awesome as Indy in his first film. Likewise, I was aware that Harrison Ford had aged. Everyone does, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to see Indy become older. He is supposed to be young and practically invincible. Harrison Ford is well into his 60's now, and I didn't know what to think of the possibility of an older Indy who couldn't do everything he used to do. The doubts all went away the first time I saw him put on the hat. The feeling of nostalgia took over, and it was time to just go along for the ride. Ford is Indiana Jones. Even in his 60's, he still makes you believe that he can do whatever it takes to keep important artifacts out of the hands of the movie's evil group (i.e. Nazis, cultists, Russians).

The not so good:

One thing that the films have always been good at is stretching the believable as far as possible, but never too far. Indy would get into a situation that seemed inescapable, but with a wave of the writer's deus ex machina wand, a way would appear. It would never work that way for you or me, but this is Indiana Jones we're talking about here. Early in the film, however, he was put into a situation that served no real purpose for the story, and the way of escape provided was absurd even for Indiana Jones movies. It bothered me when it happened and continued to distract me for a while.

There were a few other things I had issues with as well, but none were truly major. Much as I was in the previous paragraph, I am going to be intentionally vague to avoid spoiling things for anyone who hasn't seen it, but hopefully those who have seen it will know what I am discussing. The biggest of the issues was the central theme of the movie. It took me a little while to decide that it really wasn't too much of a departure from the other films, which used religious, mythical and supernatural issues as the back drop for the story, but that it had just taken a different turn when dealing with them. I realize this was a real problem for some people, but for me the issue was more temporary and then I adjusted my suspension of disbelief to accept it. Other issues included Shia and the monkeys, moving car swordfights, and the fact that we have apparently reached the point where the humor in the film needed to included repeated hits to the crotch.

The so-so:

Cate Blanchett, who seemed to be to big of a name for the part, was ok as a villain, but was certainly no Belloq or Toht. Then again, thinking back on The Last Crusade, I realize that there were villains, but I remember them more as faceless Nazis performing the role of antagonist than anything resembling a true villain.

The good:

I was certainly skeptical of Shia LaBoeuf as a new major character, but The Beef turned in a solid performance and was a welcome addition to the group.

Once Karen Allen and Harrison Ford were back onscreen together, their chemistry (which mostly involves arguing) was back to what made them by far the best couple in any of the Indy movies (which is probably why they are the one to be in 2 movies).

As is the case with all of the movies, the best part is Harrison Ford stepping into the role of Indy. He wears the rogue's smile as easily as he wears the fedora. He is smart, adventurous and always gets the girl. An entire generation of boys grew up wanting to be him, and now that those boys are men, they can continue wanting be like Indy when they grow up, even if that means never growing up.

Things Learned When ABC Family Played All Three The Cutting Edge Movies in a Row

That The Cutting Edge 2 and 3 exist

You can make the same movie repeatedly without changing almost anything.

The law of diminishing returns.

The wealthy over-indulgent father in the original movie is John Locke with a creepy mustache that is far more frightening than anything he has encountered on the Lost island.

Anyone who can skate, regardless of the type of skating, can become an Olympic pairs figure skating champion if given enough time...like two or three months.

People who fall in love at the 1992 Olympics will marry and have a child that is in her mid-twenties by the 2006 Olympics.

Olympic pairs skating is much like professional wrestling: To win you need to have a really cool finishing move.

It only takes one shared character to make a movie a sequel, and it doesn't matter if the same actor plays the role.

Just before a couple goes on ice, there is a 90% chance that one or the other of them is confessing their love of the other for the first time.

We're only one more direct-to-video or cable sequel away from the inevitable Cutting Edge/Air Bud crossover.

Sleep All Day. Party All Night. Never Grow Old.

I'm sure all of you out there have been wondering exactly what my thoughts were on the new Lost Boys sequel now that the first trailer has been released. What's that? You didn't know there was a trailer? Well, here you go. Anyway, back to those questions you had. What exactly did I think when I saw the trailer? I'm glad you asked, here are my thoughts in approximately the order they happened during the trailer.

• The trailer's debuting on MTV. Not a good sign.
• Ok, prepare yourself because this is probably going to be bad, and whatever you do, don't let nostalgia get the best of you and get your hopes up.
• Ugh, this looks like every other lame teen horror movie they try to push on us.
• "Your sister's a suck monkey." 21 years later, Edgar Frog's still got it.
• Whoa, Corey Feldman hasn't aged that much. For a second, I thought some of the footage of Edgar was from the first movie.
• Obviously between 24 and DUI arrests, Kiefer wasn't available, so they got someone that sorta looks and sounds like him to deliver the "No, but seriously...We're vampires."
• Don't get your hopes up, it's just a direct to video movie.
• Edgar's moved up from running their parent's comic book store to making surfboards? At least he's still hunting down blood suckers.
• Wait, we see Edgar Frog in the trailer, but what happened to Alan? Or was he there, but so much older that I just didn't recognize him?
• Ooh, "Cry Little Sister" is in the trailer. Nostalgia rising. Cannot resist.
• Edgar: "Let's go kill some vampires." Stop it, I don't want to care about this.
• D'oh! Too late. I'm gonna be mad if (when) this movie stinks.

You Spread Misery and Frustration Everywhere You Go

The guys from movie podcasting site Battleship Pretension have a special message for all the people out there who talk during movies. Click here for 2 minutes or so of chuckle-inducing audio. (Found on today's IMDB Hit List.)

Oscar Thoughts

I'll probably be unconscious long before any of the big awards are given out. After all, it's time for another dose of Robitussin with codeine fairly soon.

However, I just saw Ratatoullie win for Best Animated Feature and feel the need to point out that Brad Bird is a genius. Also, I was really hoping to see Norbit win an Oscar.

I haven't seen many of the nominees, but if I had to guess, I'd expect Daniel Day-Lewis and There Will Be Blood to drink the milkshake of all the other nominees.

Cloverfield

I've got a million other things to talk about (ok, four or five), but this is what's on my mind now despite those other half written posts: We went to see Cloverfield tonight.

I'm going to guess that you've already heard about it, since the marketing campaign has been hard to escape since the first teaser was attached to Transformers what seems like years ago. They've tried really hard not to tell too much about this movie, so I'm not going to spoil it for you here. The story involves a handful of New Yorkers who are throwing a going away party for their friend, Rob, when something happens. We gain details at the same time they do, learning that some sort of monster type thing is attacking the city. As they flee the scene we run along with them, as the entire film consists of the footage on their home video camera (shot mostly by Hud, the friend who is scared to death and therefore can't stop talking or filming and who serves as what little comic relief there is). To avoid giving away too much, let's just go with a summary of the good and bad of the film.

Good: The film is entirely different from most giant monster movies. It is from the perspective of a few people, none of whom are truly important in the grand scheme of things. Since they are just regular people, it's the job of the writer, director and actors to convince us that we should care about them. And they succeed, not by making us care about Rob's job in Japan or who's in love with whom, but by making us one of them.

Good: Having the film shot on the handheld camera gave a realism to the film that traditional filming would not have managed. That made the difference between watching these people running for their lives and feeling like we are all running for our lives.

Bad: Having the film shot on the handheld camera produces some weird motion effects while running, turning around or doing any of a million other things. If you are at all prone to motion sickness, you might want to take a Dramamine before going. We've been out for a while, and I'm still feeling like I could puke at any moment. (Fortunately, this issue is balanced by the relatively short run time of the movie.)

Good: The film captured the true horror of a situation like that. Sure the monster is scary, but the reality is that you don't have a clue what's happening. Everyone is screaming and talking at once. No one knows what to do next. Nothing is truly safe because you don't know if you are heading into an area that's even worse than it was before.

Bad: If you want answers, this is not the movie for you. (If you want answers, you should also pretty much avoid anything with J.J. Abrams name on it.) They aren't going to tell you what happened to people A, B and C. They aren't going to give you details on what that monster is or where it came from or how to kill it.

Good: Then again, looking at that last point a different way, the movie doesn't rely on a lot of exposition, so...they don't give you details on what the monster is or where it came from or how to kill it. Writer Drew Goddard stated that they specifically avoided having the scene with "the scientist in the white lab coat who shows up and explains things like that." There may be hints or guesses as to all of these things, but if you are running scared and just trying to survive, do you really care about these details?

Good: Which brings us to the monster itself. If you've gotten this far in the post hoping I would tell you what the monster is, you've wasted your time for two reasons. I'm not going to spoil things for you, first of all. Second, I don't know how to tell you what it is. Do we see it? Sure, but we see it as the people who are running for their lives see it, in bits and pieces as it moves and attacks and doesn't bother stopping to pose for pictures. It's not really like anything I've seen before. Sure it's kind of recognizable as being like this or like that, but it is its own new entry into the pantheon of movie monsters and only time will tell if it manages to become iconic like many of the others. (It's not just looks that determine this. After all, King Kong is just a big monkey and Godzilla is an overgrown T. Rex, neither one a particularly cool or clever idea on its own, and they are by far the best known/most beloved of the giant movie monsters.)

Bad: The movie avoids a lot of monster movie/disaster movie cliches. Unfortunately, there are a few that it just can't pass up. People do stupid things despite all common sense because it makes things more exciting. People don't die when they should because we need them for just a little bit longer. In a movie that tried so hard to avoid the norm, these moments stand out more than they should.

I'm not saying that it's a perfect movie. It's far from it. However, if you love monster movies, this is a great choice. You'll not only get that but also a movie that is intense and lets you see just how horrific being caught up in a situation totally outside of your control can be and captures the fear and confusion of being there. The people in this movie seem real. They are your friends, neighbors, brothers and sisters. You care about them, not because the filmmakers want you to, but because these people are you, and you have to survive.



Also in the good category, but not so much related to the movie itself: The first teaser for Abrams' Star Trek film was attached. It's just a teaser, but it really did make me excited about seeing it, even though I'm not truly a huge Trek fan.

More from the phone

The movie's over. It's time to go get a haircut.

Having a day off of work is exciting. Maybe I should do it more often.

Don't worry, I'm not going to keep updating like this all day.

Posting from the phone

It's just before noon on Friday. I am at the theater waiting for The Simpsons Movie to start.



That is all.