Casino Royale

Let me start by saying I'm not a huge James Bond fan. I like the movies, but they are just movies to me. The parts I tend to like are the parts that annoy Bond purists. I don't care a lick for the intrigue, the espionage, or the politics. In fact, I'm pretty much in it for the action and the gadgets. As a character, I find Bond himself to be a bit of an ass. Which I realize is part of his charm, but it really doesn't work for me. Also, Bond has a reputation for being untouchable and invincible, the type of hero who can walk out of a firefight with his tux still nice and clean. Again, that's part of the charm, but it also means there's less tension. I'm never really worried about whether the hero is going to survive; of course he'll make it, he's James Frikkin Bond!

I also haven't seen half of them. I've seen all the Pierce Brosnan ones, and "For Your Eyes Only", "Moonraker"... I'm pretty sure I've seen at least three others all the way through, including a Sean Connery one, and that one with what's-his-name, you know, George Lazerbeak or something... and bits and pieces of several others. Okay, I'm playing dumb, but the point is, Bond has always been one of those peripheral characters that I enjoy without being "into".

So why am I even reviewing this movie? Well, mostly because KJ told me to. And because overall, I really enjoyed it. It was well-written and had some great action sequences, and I never found myself bored. Which says a lot, since my aforementioned favorite Bond element - the gadgets - are nearly non-existent in this outing. Daniel Craig does a great job as a young Bond, who is already arrogent but doesn't yet have the finesse to back it up. My biggest gripe is his appearance - he looks great in the suit, sitting at the poker table, flashing that charismatic smile - but he really doesn't look young enough to be "young Bond". And I can't stand his ears. He's got a great body, though, if you're into that, and you do get to see a rather significant amount of it.

Rabid continuity-buffs will be (well, already are - I've seen some of the boards) greatly disappointed. What with it being Bond's first job, and he's already got Dame Dench as his boss - that pretty much throws the earlier Bond films out the window. There's never been much continuity between Bond films anyway, IMO, so it's not really a big loss. I mean, it's obvious that most Bond films are set in the era in which they're filmed (or Connery would have used the internet more), so it's ridiculous to think this same secret agent has remained so young for so many decades. Each Bond film (again, IMO) is meant to be enjoyed as a film by itself - that's why they're not numbered.

WJLM Factor: 15 minutes.
WJLM stands for "We Just Lost Marty", and indicates how long into the film my brother would stop watching, having decided the movie is too unrealistic. Early in the movie, there is a beautiful chase scene - on foot, through a construction site. The guy Bond is chasing must have been an Olympic gymnast before turning to a life of crime, judging by his ability to leap over walls and climb sheer surfaces. It's like watching Bond chase down Spiderman. But it's a great scene, and one that quickly pulls you into the movie.

Anyway, if you're Bond fan, then you've already seen it. If you're not, then I don't think this movie is going to change your mind about the series. But it's worth the trip to the theater, so if you've been riding the fence, go ahead and buy a ticket. I think you'll have a good time.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

Wow, it's finally legal!

Okay, first a little backstory. Note, this is more simplified than accurate, so if you want the whole story, look it up. There's links at the end, with more info.

In 1978, Richard Donner directed the cinematic blockbuster, Superman, starring Christopher Reeve. Donner went ahead and shot footage for Superman 2 as well. However, when the time came to produce Superman 2, they gave the project to Richard Lester, and much of Donner's footage was discarded. Then, a couple of years ago, some guy put together a lot of Donner's lost footage, took out some of Lester's, and released what he dubbed the "Richard Donner" version of the film.

You have to admire a guy like this. Though he knew it was risky, he sold copies of it over the internet. But - he only charged for the price of the tape and the shipping. He refused to make any profit on the project; he only wanted to more people to see what he considered to be a superior version of the film. Well, the tactic must have worked, because now it's been officially released on DVD.

This new version does not replace the original version, in my opinion. While a lot of the changes are for the better, the execution isn't perfect. Some of the restored scenes are actually screen tests or other raw footage that doesn't quite mesh with the rest of the film. The sound might be bad in one scene, the editing my be jumpy in another, the lighting might be lacking somewhere else. So if you're just in the mood to sit down and enjoy a Superman movie, you might want to stick with the original version. The RD Cut is more of a fascinating look at how different directors handle the same story.

Now for the specific changes. Note, there's a few spoilers ahead. Granted, if you're reading this, then you've probably already seen the normal version of S2 enough times to know the importants stuff. Three Kryptonian villians find their way to Earth, Superman gives up his powers to be with Lois, etc. But even so, if you want to be surprised at the new stuff, stop reading now.

Right from the start, you know you're watching a different movie. One of the earliest scenes - where Lois investigates a group of terrorists in Paris - has been cut completely. In the theatrical cut, the Superman throws the terrorist bomb off into space, and the resulting explosion breaks the Phantom Zone villains out of their prison. In the Donner version, the Phantom Zone prison is shattered by one of the missles Superman deflected at the end of Superman 1.

Lois Lane is no longer obsessed with freshly squeezed orange juice, but her vitamin deficiency hasn't hurt her eyesight any - she makes the Clark/Superman connection much earlier in the film. She can't even wait for Niagra Falls this time, opting instead to jump out the window of the Daily Planet. Just like the other version, Clark manages to save her without changing into his tights. But once again, Lois isn't fooled for long, and soon Clark is forced to reveal his secret. Lois doesn't wait around for Clark to stick his hand in the fireplace this time. After all, she has places to go, words to misspell. Now she takes the more direct approach... she just shoots him.

"You know, Lois, if you'd been wrong, you would have just killed Clark Kent." "Not with blanks." D'oh! Apparently super-genius is not one of his powers this time around. By the way, this scene is one of the more obvious "screen test" clips. You can tell right away that it was shot at a different time than the rest of the film.

So, the Kryptonian Kryminals reach Earth, and they're a little less cheery this time around. The more lighthearted scenes have been cut, such as Ursa's arm wrestling and Non's inability to use heat vision. Actually, overall there is a lot less humor in this version of the film. Apparently Richard Lester thought that Donner's vision was too dark, and decided to throw in as much levity as possible for the theatrical release. Personally, I always thought it was cute how the bad guys changed Mount Rushmore to look like themselves. But in the Donner's cut, it's a much more grim scene involving the toppling of the Washington Monument. But that does flow better, because it leads right in to the "assault on the White House" scene.

Meanwhile, as Lois basks in the afterglow at the Fortress of Solitude, Clark (who really needs to buy a TV for his arctic getaway) decides to give up his powers. But this time he talks to his father instead of his mother. And it's a much more interesting conversation, IMO. But even better, after Clark realizes he screwed up and treks back to the Fortress, we find out HOW he gets his powers back. In the theatrical version, he just sulks around until he sees a glowing crystal. In the Donner cut, he actually gets to have one last conversation with Jor-El. It seems Papa-El had one more trick up his sleeve after all, and is able to use the last of his own power to restore Clark. And before you can say "the son becomes the father and the father becomes the son," Superman is back in action.

So, the Zod Squad invades the Daily Planet, and while there's a few alternate takes, there's not much to report here. I think they cut the line where Lois Lane's co-worker says, "The big one's just as strong as Superman!" And more humor is lost when they take out the "persistent payphone guy" from the "bad guys blow Metropolis" scene.

Now, for my favorite change in the movie. The villains confront Superman at the Fortress of Solitude. And... No stupor-ridiculous made-up powers! No "throwing the giant S symbol!" No "teleport tag!" Just a straight cut to the final confrontation, where Superman tricks them into losing their powers.

But this payoff comes at a price. For starters, the Fortress of Solitude sinks into the ground (part of Clark's punishment for using up the last of Jor-El's energy). Then, we are treated to the same silly ending as Superman 1 - instead of using a "super-amnesia kiss" to make Lois forget his identity, this time Superman feels that Ms Lane's forbidden knowledge is so important, that he uses his "reverse the Earth's rotation to turn back time" trick for that as well. Uh... were we planning on ending every Superman movie this way? Because at the end of S1 they made it pretty darn clear that this type of thing was not allowed, but Supes was doing it anyway because he loves Lois so much. Does Supes do this a lot? When else does he do turn back the clock? When his milk goes sour? When his favorite football team loses?

But the worst part is, it's not very clear just how much was changed from Superman's time trick. Did the entire movie not happen? Because even after turning back the clock, he still feels the need to return to that little cafe up North, and show up that bully who had pushed him around earlier. Okay, if he fought that guy AFTER telling Lois his identity, but he turned back time to before he told Lois, then he basically just beat up some random jerk at a cafe. "I've, uh, been working out." Uh, sure, but... who ARE you?

The important thing to remember here, is that while this is a great way to see a lot of deleted/alternate footage at once, this is NOT neccessarily how the movie would have turned out had Richard Donner completed it back in 1980. Overall, I prefer the Richard Donner cut, or at least I prefer most of the choices made. But the lack of a "clean" cut makes it much harder to watch. So while I'm happy to own a copy, I'm also glad I own the theatrical release as well, because that's the one I'll grab when I'm just in the mood to veg and watch super-beings fight. Still, the Richard Donner cut is a must-have for superfans.

For more info, check these out:

Wikipedia Article

IMDB Superman II Trivia

NeverWinter Nights 2 - First Impressions

Generally I try to avoid buying PC games when they first come out. For one thing, I rarely have a computer that will run the newest games. Also, PC game prices tend to fall a lot more than console games. I can wait a year to buy the newest PS2 game, and it might have gone from $60 down to $40. Or I can wait six months to buy the newest PC game, and it will have gone from $50 to $15.

But I'll make an exception for the NeverWinter Nights series. As a player, I was curious, but I wasn't in a hurry. But as a builder, I simply couldn't wait to see what I was going to be up against this time. I missed out the first time around; I didn't get Itropa up and running until NWN had been out for well over a year. This time I wanted to get in on the ground floor, and hopefully grab a larger player base.

Well, it ain't gonna happen.

The game is beautiful, much prettier than the original NWN. But on my computer, it runs like a molasses-covered slug dragging a cart full of anvils uphill. Which is to say, slow. Now, my computer's no powerhouse, but it more than matches NWN2's minimum specs. I hate it when companies list such bare-bones system specs. Believe me, it might run, sure, but nobody's going to want to play it like this.

The crazy part is that it runs slower than Oblivion. Oblivion, the most graphically-praised piece of eye candy to pop out of hypeville this year. Okay, I can't play either game without turning off nearly everything. But at least with all the candy turned off, Oblivion actually runs at a decent speed. It looks like a PS1 game, but it's playable. But playing NWN2 on my computer feels like I'm playing online, on the laggiest server ever.

The funny part is that the toolset actually works pretty well. I had a lot of fun making the hills go up and down using the new terrain engine. No more aztec-esque tiered hills; now we have actual slopes! And there's so many options. Five minutes in the toolset and I counted dozens of features I'd always wished for when using NWN1's toolset. But it's also a very intimidating program, with lots and lots of windows. Finally I feel justified for splurging on a widescreen monitor.

As for the game itself - I can't comment on that just yet. From the little bit I've been able to stand, it plays like the first one. It's point-and-click turn-based battle; you either like it or you don't. The interface is a bit more streamlined than NWN1's, but it takes getting used to. Most of the time it seems simpler, but occasionally I've had to look all over the place to perform certain actions.

As good as the game is (or seems to be), I still have a few minor gripes.

When it comes to D&D/NWN players, there's two extremes - roleplayers and powergamers. Roleplayers ignore the original campaign and go straight online, because the world just seems empty when it's just you and the computer. They always stay in character, because they play just for the chance to live another life for a while. Powergamers, on the other hand, enjoy getting stuff. Experience points, gold, items; it's all about the rewards. They want to make the richest, most powerful character as quickly as possible, so they can enjoy blasting their way through crowds of enemies.

Like most people, I'm a little bit of both. In my case, sometimes I'm only in the mood to kill things, and other times I'm only in the mood to play pretend with people. Unfortunatly, NWN2 disappointed me as both a powergamer and a roleplayer. Before you read the following, keep in mind that I've not had a chance to play much yet, so I might be missing some options.

Powergamers - No epic levels yet. I'm sure they'll include them in an expansion pack, along with a new campaign that requires high-level characters. They probably felt there just wasn't any need for epic levels yet. But even so, why not include them for the modders who want to build more epic worlds? It feels like they left it out specifically so that we'd have a reason to buy the next expansion. Over on GameFAQs.com, there's a FAQ listing all the feats that can be given to a character using a certain cheat. I notice that list includes epic feats. So it seems they have been programmed, just locked out.

Call me a munchkin if you want, but when I'm in a hack-n-slash mood, life begins at 20. With all the new feats and classes, sometimes there just isn't enough room in a 20-level career to build the exact character you want. For instance, I'd love to build the ultimate two-weapon swordsman. Let's see... I'd make him a Fighter/Duelist/Weapon Master... In addition to the feats required for the two Prestige classes (WM alone takes several), I'd also like Weapon Finesse, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Defense, Greater Two Weapon Defense, Greater Weapon Focus, Superior Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Improved Parry (assuming Parry isn't worthless this time around), Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Critical, Power Critical, possibly Exotic weapons depending on my weapon(s) of choice...

Actually, this would be hard to do even with 40 levels. But on NWN1, sometimes I enjoy playing with leveler mods, to see what sort of high-level monstrocities I can make. One of my favorites is the dual-kukri-weilding Weapon Master. With a pair of keen kukris, she crits on nearly every other hit. And she's hitting so many times per round, there's at least two crits per round. Once she gets the Devastating Critical feat, most battles don't take long.

Oh well, if all I cared about was high levels, I'd play Everquest. I actually have more gripes about the Roleplay side at the moment. I love the new character creation system - you have a lot more options when it comes to designing your character's face. But there's fewer hair color options than before. I have a thing for redheads, and there just isn't a good shade of red in there. It's a little thing, but I really get into my characters, and I like for them to look just right.

I also don't like that when you remove all your armor/clothing, you're still wearing a full medieval outfit. Again, not a big gripe, I just prefer a naked character look naked (well, in their underwear, anyway). You could be wearing some sort of Barbarian clothing - the kind of caveman bikini you'd see in a Conan movie - then you take it off, and underneath it you're wearing an outfit with full length leggings and sleeves. The developers probably figured that the only people who'd want to see skin are the ones using the game for cybersex. Well, they're wrong; I come across innocent roleplay uses all the time. When you RP enough, all kinds of situations happen sooner or later. But as I said, that's a minor gripe - I can always find an outfit that looks like underwear, and put it on the quickslot.

This time around, the developers hyped up the game's branching storyline, the importance of your alignment and the alignments of your companions, and how your choices affect the game's story. In other words, it's like the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic games. While it was cool playing through the KotORs twice, once for light side and once for dark, I don't feel the same about the NWN series. With NWN, once you play through the original campaign, you go and download another module to play through. So I really don't need multiple endings. Give me one really well-written ending instead. Besides, the KotORs needed replay value, since they didn't have any content beyond the main story. The NWN games offer unlimited worlds, so I'd rather they have put that energy into other parts of the game.

Besides, who's the target audience? The powergamers don't care about the plot, and the role-players are going to skip the original campaign and go straight for the online servers. Keep in mind, however, this is coming from someone who never even finished any of the campaigns that came with NWN1 or its expansions. So your mileage may vary.

A couple of more gripes about the interface - I really miss being able to right-click things and getting lots of options. It was fast and intuitive. Also, I don't care for the new inventory system. I miss NWN1's dynamic icons. NWN2's icons look so generic.

I know that overall, my first impression seems kind of negative. But really, I like the game. Once I get a computer that will run it, I'm sure I'll play the hell out of it. But do I really want to buy a whole computer for one game? Well, I've done it before, and I might do it again. But it's going to be a while. Until then, its going to gather dust on my shelf, next to its arch-enemy, Oblivion.

Almost Famous

Here's my grandfather (mother's side) on the IMDB. Whoever can link him to Kevin Bacon in the fewest steps, wins an imaginary prize.

The Grudge 2

Either you liked the first Grudge, or you didn't. I loved it; it was the first movie to actually scare me in a long time. It had a lot of material that could either be seen as scary or goofy, depending on how you watch it: Were you in the right mood, did you give it your full attention, did you turn the lights off, etc. After all, I'm not usually afraid of naked Japanese boys who meow. But the Grudge makes it work.

But the meowing boy isn't the star of the show. The Grudge, along with the Ring, introduced American audiences to the creature a friend of mine calls the "Shaky Girl" (or was that "Jerky Girl"? Either one works). The Shaky Girl is an undead girl (or young woman), with long hair that covers her entire face, who walks in an unnatural jerky style slowly but inexorably towards her victim. She can sometimes be spotted climbing down town the stairs, bending her arms and legs in inhuman ways in the process. Her chief weapon is simply fear - in fact, audiences are never shown exactly how she kills her victims, and that absence of knowledge makes her even more frightening. In addition to the Ring and the Grudge, the Shaky Girl has also been seen in the video game Fear, the movie Stay Alive (briefly), half a dozen trailers for horror movies coming out next year, and about 100 Japanese horror flicks that haven't been remade here yet. Eventually she'll be so commonplace that she won't be any scarier than Freddy, Jaws, or King Kong. But until then, I'm enjoying every one of her fifteen minutes.

Anyway, the Grudge 2 picks up right where the last one left off. It doesn't add much new to the plot, except to give a little bit of history to the ghost. I'd say there's a little less exposition this time, and a few more scare scenes. Unfortunately, the scares are pretty much the same - same shaky girl, same little boy. At times it felt like I was just watching deleted scenes from the first movie. But so? I liked the first movie enough to watch it over and over, so the "extra footage" is more than welcome.

The first Grudge was a little hard to follow for a couple of my friends, because it went back and forth in time. This one does the same, but since one time period is in America and the other is in Japan, it's a lot easier to keep them separate. The movie is pretty easy to sum up: Lots of people die. In fact,

*** Spoiler Space ***

*** Spoiler Space ***

*** Spoiler Space ***

*** Spoiler Space ***

...I'm pretty sure that every character who has a speaking role is dead by the end of the movie. Okay, there was one crazy guy playing peek-a-boo on a bus who lived, but he was just a background character. So don't expect a Freddy-esque "maybe if we bury her bones on holy ground she can't come back" type of ending. It's just two hours of people getting killed in delightfully scary (but generally bloodless) ways. ...And I love it.

ESRB and Oblivion

Just google "ESRB Oblivion" and you'll see what I'm about to rant about. To recap: Someone made a skin for "Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion", which allows you to play as a topless woman. As a result, the ESRB (Game Ratings Board) re-rated the game, changing it from "Teen" to "Mature". The ESRB has since claimed that the re-rate was not only for the nudity, but also because the ESRB "just now noticed" some gore they hadn't seen before. Whatever the explanation, the little ratings square on the Oblivion box now says "nudity" in the description.

We could spend days arguing whether or not seeing breasts could damage a child's mind. I'm generally pro-nudity, as long as it's not sexual nudity. Heck, as I write this, I've got Halsman/Dali's "In Voluptate Mors" as my desktop. Besides, Oblivion was already rated "Teen", and I seriously doubt there are many teens who've never seen a breast.

But that's not the point. The Ratings Boards have started basing their ratings not just on the content included with the game, but also on fan-created content that can be downloaded. This is flat-out ridiculous. First off, for any game that uses skins, players can make nude patches. I doubt there's a single first-person-shooter out there that doesn't have nude skins available for it. But it doesn't stop there. There are many games where skins/mods weren't even intended, but players found ways to replace character models with nudity.

Right now I'm glancing at my own shelves, and in just a few seconds I've already counted 5 "Teen" rated games that have nude patches available online. If the ESRB is going to rate games based on user-made content, then they'll have to start giving EVERY game an "M" rating. And if every game has the same rating, then of course the ratings system is useless.

The ESRB will notice this eventually. If they use Oblivion as an example, then they'll start looking at the downloads available for all the games they rate. Sooner or later they'll notice that every game is getting a "Mature" rating. (And if not, then they're just not Googling hard enough.) My fear is that they'll try to solve the wrong problem... instead of revising the ratings system, they'll try to outlaw the mods.

Lady in the Water

To sum up, it's pretty good. Not Shymalan's best, but not his worst either. I liked it better than "The Village" and "Signs", but not as much as "The Sixth Sense" and "Unbreakable".

The reason I put the summary first, is because it's hard to explain this movie without spoilers. Okay, that goes for a lot of Shyamalan's stuff. But while most of his movies have a twist in the last five minutes, this one has its twists throughout. Or rather, it doesn't have any big twists a la "Sixth Sense", but the overall plot is the movie's secret. This is why most of the trailers only show footage from the first five minutes. So anyway, if you haven't seen it, and still intend to, you can stop reading now.

There is a fine line between silly and artsy. For instance, my favorite horror movie is "The Grudge". Normally I'm not afraid of naked Japanese boys who meow; but The Grudge had the right direction, mood, lighting, pace, etc, and it made it work. However, not everyone was able to get "into" the movie to the same degree, and the result is that it either comes off silly or scary, no in-between. If you don't watch The Grudge in the right mindset - you gotta turn off the lights, give it your full attention, etc - then you're going to giggle a lot more than you jump. One of my friends said The Grudge was one of the stupidest movies she'd ever seen; later I found out she watched it with her talkative grandmother and fast-forwarded through the "boring" parts.

Lady In The Water is the same way. If I were to tell you the story straight out, you'd think I was describing an animated Disney film. It is a movie about a fairy tale, a bedtime story that turns out to be based in reality. The characters even identify themselves with characters in the fairy tale, to the point that the movie even makes some in-jokes about how stories are written. Think "Wes Craven's New Nightmare". And these were my favorite parts of the movie. The writer in me loves jokes about dialogue and exposition.

The main character, Cleveland (played by Paul Giamatti), plays his part like a young Richard Dreyfus in "Jaws". He was very entertaining to watch, except for the fact that Cleveland has a stuttering problem. But that's just one of my little pet peeves; I never could stand watching Porky Pig cartoons either. Shyamalan himself has a fairly large role in this one, and he does a good job.
The movie starts out quickly. I was expecting Cleveland to ponder the mysterious swimmer for half the movie before he ever saw her, but 10 minutes into the movie they're already on speaking terms. It was a bit unbelievable how quickly Cleveland accepted he was in a supernatural situation, and it was even stranger how everyone he told immediately believed him as well. But that's nitpicky, and we're all tired of seeing the same old "nobody believes the hero" crap movies have been re-hashing since 1958's "The Blob".

It's a very clean movie. Not much cursing (actually I don't remember any at all, but better safe than sorry), no nudity, very little blood. There are a couple of scenes that will scare the young'uns, but it's definitely not a horror movie. I'm actually a bit peeved at the cleanliness... I consider myself neither pervert nor prude, but I hate it when movies are cut for ratings purposes, rather than for art's sake. The "Lady" has several nude scenes that are shot from some very clever camera angles, but I'll never know if that was for art's sake, or to keep the PG-13 rating. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and go with art, but only because of an inside joke they make about it later.

Lady in the Water is not very deep, no pun intended. It's interesting, but not that memorable. I'm glad I saw it, but I'm also glad I saw it as a matinee.

Had a Letter Printed in KODT

Nothing big here...

I have a subscription to Knights of the Dinner Table, but I don't actually read it every month. Since I like it mostly for the strips, I don't bother until I have several issues to read in a row, so it lasts longer. The strip is generally an ongoing story, and reading a single issue by itself just doesn't go anywhere.

So typically, I'll let the issues stack up somewhere for a few months, then take them with me on a long car trip or something. Which is what we did yesterday - we took an overnight trip to Evansville, Indiana. KJ got to go gambling, and this morning we went to a really nice zoo. The Mesker Park Zoo, to be exact. It's a great place; I highly recommend it. It's part park, part zoo, and it lets you get a lot closer to the animals than most zoos I've been to.

Anyway, back to KODT... So here it is, mid-July, and I just now notice that they printed a letter of mine in the march issue. I made a KODT reference in my Itropa mod, and I couldn't resist sending them a pic. From Knights of the Dinner Table, Issue 113 (March '06), page 8:

Here's a better view of the picture I sent them:

Evil Dead 2 at the Belcourt Theater

Okay, so I've seen Evil Dead 2 more than enough times, and it's probably my favorite campy horror film. But last night I got to see it the way it should be seen: On a theater screen full of geeks, all laughing and making fun of it. At the Belcourt Theater in downtown Nashville, they have late showings of cult classics. This was my first visit, but I plan to go back many, many times in the future. People dressed up, people talked back to the screen... It's almost like Rocky Horror, only with a different movie each week.

If you haven't seen Evil Dead 2, I'm not going to waste my time explaining the "plot", only to say that it's one of the funniest, silliest, over-the-top low-budget horror movies ever made. It's one of those movies you are expected to have seen if you want to be considered hip on cult film. And therefore, if you haven't seen it before, you aren't likely to now either, you heathen. Just go back to your non-creative, uninspired life, and watch whichever insipid drama you find the least exciting; after all, excessive smiling causes wrinkles.

Besides, the purpose of this blog entry is not to praise the movie - it doesn't need my help. The theater is the real star. Those of you who live around here: if you're one of "my" crowd - the sci-fi/horror buffs who can quote hundreds of movie lines, the outcasts who didn't date much in high school yet had twice as much fun as popular kids, the collectors who display Star Wars toys the way some people display fine china, then this theater was made for you.

A Scanner Darkly

It's hard to explain this movie, especially without spoilers. There's just no way I can do it justice. It's artsy and experimental; on one hand it's eye-candy, on another it's social commentary. I keep wanting to compare it to Sin City, even though they're absolutely nothing alike.

So let's start with the reviews. When I first read about A Scanner Darkly, I was afraid that I wouldn't like the plot. Having seen similar reviews of Sin City, I prepared myself for a very pretty movie with plenty to see, but nothing I wanted to remember. Actually, the reviews kind of made it sound like an animated Dazed and Confused, one of my least favorite movies of all time.

Scanner is sci-fi, in that it takes place in the near future, and has some advanced technology. I'm really not sure why this is neccessary. The "Scanners" - Big Brother types who keep tabs on drug addicts - wear these bizzare high-tech constantly-morphing outfits to hide their true identities. Neat concept, but in the end they could have accomplished the same thing just by wearing any all-over concealing costume. I don't want my tax dollars going toward these 100-million-dollar suits when they could accomplish the same thing with a parka and a Darth Vader mask. It's not like they were disguising themselves as specific other people; they were disguising themselves as "every man".

The plot revolves around a futuristic drug, (again, it's nothing so fantastic that it had to be sci-fi), the people who are doing this drug, and the people who are trying to arrest the users. The movie's highlights are actually the drug-induced ramblings of the main characters... I guess in that respect, it is like Dazed and Conused, only this time the conversations are actually funny. It's the perfect amount of humor, too. Just enough to keep you entertained, but not enough to make drug use actually look inviting. It's a great balance - the users are the heroes of the movie, but it still manages to deliver a strong anti-drug message. At least to those of us who were paying attention.

Update: Btw, you can watch the first 24 minutes of the movie here:
http://media.filmforce.ign.com/media/670/670907/vids_1.html

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

In a word: Wheeeeeeee!

Honestly, I never expected them to make a Pirates sequel. I just felt that it was the perfect self-contained movie, and I while I LOVED the first one, I really didn't feel I needed to know what happened to the characters next. For a while I had heard they were making a prequel, which sounded sort of boring to me - I kept thinking of the Mummy/Scorpion King movies. Besides, the original Pirates is such comic gold, such a magic movie. Even if you have the best writers, directors, and actors in Hollywood, luck is still a major factor in whether your movie is a hit. I don't mean to dismiss anyone's hard work, I'm just saying that even the best-planned projects can sink under their own weight without a little luck. And so my worries about Pirates 2 were quite justified.

So how did it go? Well, for the first half of the movie, I was still a bit worried. The original Pirates had something fun every minute. But for the first 45 minutes, Dead Man's Chest only had something fun every 5 minutes or so. I was still enjoying the movie, happy to see these characters again, but I was worried that it was never really going to take off. I thought the way they kept bringing the characters back together was a bit contrived, and it seemed like a lot of useless setup unless there was going to be a huge payoff.

After an hour into the movie, I was hooked. The magic was back: humor, creative action scenes, over-the-top swordplay and lots of eye candy. I was completely entertained right up until the end. By the way, like Pirates 1, make sure you stay through the end of the credits, there's another cute little tag.

In Short, if you liked the first one, you'll like this one. I don't have to tell you to go see it; fans of the first will have seen it by now anyway. But if you're riding the fence, go ahead and buy a ticket, I don't think you'll regret it.

Now... about the ending. (Possible spoiler alert)

S

P

O

I

L

E

R



S

P

A

C

E


I didn't know it was going to be a two-parter. I'm not quite sure how I missed that - usually I pay attention to this stuff. I had heard that a third movie was already being planned, but I didn't know it was part 2 of this movie. The sudden cliffhanger ending annoyed me. Generally speaking, even when it's part 2 of a trilogy, a movie still has a definite beginning, middle, and end. In "Empire Strikes Back", the climax was the fight between Luke & Darth. In "Back To The Future 2", even though 2 & 3 were being filmed at the same time, they solved the movie's main plot point (the almanac screwing up the timeline) before introducing the cliffhanger (Doc Brown getting trapped in the past). Okay, there's exceptions... Kill Bill, for instance... but in Kill Bill, "Volume 1" was in the damn title!

But to me, Pirates 2 felt like it stopped in the middle. Yes, there is a climax when Jack encounters the (spoiler), and there is a little surprise right before the credits. But it still felt like they could have said "To Be Continued" at any point, and it would have been the same. I guess that's the mark of a successful movie, that it left me wanting more, and it's even better that we know more is coming. But I'd rather they have trimmed the first 45 minutes a little more (like have Elizabeth leave WITH Will, rather than spend so much time getting her back into his arms) , and made it one big long movie. I mean, if audiences can survive 3 hours of LOTR or Titanic, surely we can handle an extra hour of Pirates.

The other thing that annoys me: The first movie showed off the special effects of the dead people. The sequel showed off the special effects of the fish people. With this one cut in half, it looks like the third one will also be about the fish people... Come on, for a third movie, I want to see all-new bad guys! Keep in mind this is being said without really knowing anything about the third movie. I'm hoping I'm surprised.

Poseidon

The original Poseidon Adventure was an interesting study of sociology, as it relates to disaster situations. The new version is an action movie, a special effects spectacular, with little plot and lots of eye candy. If you see it with this in mind, you'll probably enjoy it. Otherwise, you'll be disappointed.

For example... In the Poseidon Adventure, there's nearly half an hour of discussion before the main characters leave the ballroom. In Poseidon, there two lines of dialogue, after which the main characters just sneak out of the ballroom. The director thought he was just cutting out some useless exposition, and he was right - but that's only because modern audiences are dumber than they used to be, and prefer to get right to the action. The original Poseidon Adventure is a great movie, but it just wouldn't fly with today's moviegoers.

That being said, Poseidon has a lot of good directing techniques, especially when it comes to tension. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that had me on the edge of my seat like this, wondering how the heroes were going to get out of their predicament. At several points in the movie, my heartbeat sped up to match that of the people on the screen. Note that I saw it on IMAX, and that probably made a lot of difference. I've seen several action movies on IMAX, but never one that seemed so suited for the format. If you have the opportunity, I highly recommend it.

A couple of problems... Poseidon was very predictable. I usually knew when a certain character was about to get killed, and I was only surprised by one death. Minor spoiler - there is a bit towards the end that was almost directly stolen from Armageddon. Also, I'm not quite sure on some of the realism, I think that more science-minded viewers will think it's silly... but this movie wasn't written for intellectuals anyway.

Despite those issues, I really had a great time. So if you like disaster movies, big special effects, and lots of tension, you should definitely consider this one. But if you're a big fan of the original, you might want to skip it.

Note

My general blog is here.
My D&D blog is here.

Firewall

Eh. Just a movie. Harrison Ford plays a computer genius (I don't buy it, he couldn't even fix the Millenium Falcon), whose family is held hostage, while he is forced to hack into bank files against his will. I've seen the same plot done a lot more cleverly, and I felt it was a waste of Ford's talent.

While the movie does add a few new elements, it also takes some liberties with reality. Okay, the average Joe won't know which stuff is really possible, and to be completely honest neither do I... but I will say that when my IT guy at work saw it, he couldn't stop laughing.

Ford does a great job as usual. I don't know if it was intentional or not, but he's also showing his age. They did a good job by not making him a normal guy - unable to jump off roofs and keep running, or use kung fu moves on the bad guys. I might add that he was one of the clumsiest characters I've seen in a serious movie.

Maybe I'm just getting more jaded as I get older, but the foreshadowing was too obvious... Early in the movie Ford picks up a toy car's remote control, and notices that it's signal interferes with the TV signals in the house. Hey, you think that might come in useful later?

Bottom line, I'm not sorry I saw it. It wasn't flat-out stupid, or boring, or a waste of time. But I will have forgotten all about it within a few days.

Silent Hill (Movie)

Warning: Spoilers Throughout

Well, it was more spooky than scary. The translation from video game to screen was the best I've seen - they took all the right elements from the game, and a lot of the shots, camera angles, sets, etc were spot-on perfect.

On the other hand, a lot of the acting was atrocious. Boromir and the Borg Queen did a great job, but most everyone else was disposable. Rose and Cybil, who had most of the screentime, were particularly bad. The voice actors from the games would have done a better job. But then, bad acting is part of the standard horror movie experience.

And while I'm on the subject of horror movie cliches, Silent Hill had more examples of "why did she do that?" than any movie in recent memory. Characters made weird decisions throughout.

Also, it seemed to cater to the dumbest members of the audience. I'm not saying that the movie was dumb, I'm just saying that every time a slightly complicated plot point would come up, the director would hit you over the head with it until he was sure you got it. The characters would have the same line of dialogue six times in a row, or they would beat you to death with the fact that there were two dimensions.

.
.
.
.

Okay, now the real spoilers:
.
.
.
.
.


I thought they were particularly cruel to Cybil. We were already led to believe she was dead after she was beaten by the cultists, and then they show that she's alive just so they can graphically kill her again. After drawing out her death so long, I was sure she was going to get rescued, but they decided just to be cruel instead. I don't need to see every second of a face bubbling and burning off to have fun at a movie.

And I didn't care for the ending. Okay, the idea that she stays in the alternate universe was cool, it's just the way it was presented that got on my nerves. They drew it out for too long, and once again, they beat you over the head with the fact it was two worlds. You knew as soon as she entered the house that she was still in Silent Hill, just by the lighting. But they kept going back and forth, husband on couch (lit in bright sunlight), Rose with empty couch (lit in grey), husband, Rose, husband, Rose, husband, Rose, until the audience wants to cry out, "WE GET IT ALREADY!!!!"

Also, it seemed like the ending was setting it up for a sequel. This bothers me, because Silent Hill doesn't need that kind of setup. If they want to follow the "feel" of the video games (or comics, etc) then each movie should be it's own self-contained story with its own set of characters. The only common thread would be the spooky ghost town of Silent Hill.

Overall I liked it, but that doesn't mean I thought it was "good". There's a lot of "bad" movies I love.

Slither

Depending on your point of view, this is either one of the greatest bad movies ever made, or just one of the worst movies ever made. Given my love of bad horror movies, you can probably guess which way I feel. It's every bit as dumb as the trailers made it out to be; but I loved every minute of it. Take some of the funniest unintentionally-funny classic horror films, add lots of intentional humor, and better special effects, and you'll see what I mean. Kind of like "Eight-Legged Freaks" or to a lesser extent "Tremors", but I liked this one better. It felt like what Tim Burton was trying to do with "Mars Attacks", only with a funnier script.

I usually hate it in horror movies when they're able to kill all the aliens by just killing the leader. "The Faculty" for instance. But in this movie it actually made sense, because the movie keeps reminding you that all the worms are just extensions of the head alien, who controls the minds of all the infected humans. That's especially cool because in an intentionally-bad movie such as this one, things really didn't need to make sense.

Anyway, you can probably tell from the previews alone if this is your cup of tea. I know not many people share my love of bad sci-fi/horror, whether intentionally-bad or not. So, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "If you are the type of person who likes that sort of thing, then that's the sort of thing you will like."

Superman Returns

After 19 years without a Superman movie... 19 years! Can you believe it? It's Superman, for cripe's sake! With all the comic book movies coming out... and Supes being THE mascot for comic books in general... How on Earth did it take so long? He's one of the biggest cultural icons in the world! I guess that tells you just how bad "Superman 4: The Quest for Peace" really was, that nobody wanted to touch the property for such a long time. I'm so glad Batman was able to recover after "Batman and Robin", I'd hate to have had to wait 19 years for "Batman Begins"...

I'm getting off track here. *Ahem*

After 19 years without a Superman movie, the series returns with huge success. And I do mean "series". Unlike Batman Begins, which starts the series over, Superman Returns is more or less a direct sequel to the Christopher Reeve movies. And it does it sooooo well. It really feels like one of the series - same musical score, same sense of humor, same feeling of over-grand fantastic-ness. Brandon Routh does a great job in emulating the Reeves version of Clark Kent. The rest of the cast reinvents their characters, and in most cases it's a great improvement. Nothing against Gene Hackman - I loved his Luthor - but Kevin Spacey is a god. And the new Lois is nothing like Margot Kidder, but she still makes a great Lois.

Okay, I'm gushing. I swore I wouldn't gush.

But here's what I really liked... the special effects. Superman needs good special effects. In the movie's best action scene, he saves an airplane from crashing. Hey, didn't he do that in the first Superman movie? Well, sure. But in the original movie, Supes grabs onto a wing, and acts like an engine. Nice, but kind of boring. In Superman Returns, he's fighting G-forces, the wings are shredding off, the tail is on fire, and so on. While the original movies made everything look so easy for Supes, this one showed how difficult things really were. Having super strength and being able to fly does NOT mean you can just grab an airplane and carry it to the ground; you're going to have to overcome a lot of laws of science.

Which is not to say the movie gets the science right. It's still a fantasy, and if you have a reasonable understanding of physics, you'll see plenty of holes. But if you're looking for holes, you shouldn't be buying tickets to comic book movies.

Seriously, the only thing I didn't like about the movie was that I saw it on IMAX. This "select scenes are shown in 3D" is for the birds. Having a flashing indicator telling you when to put the glasses on was very distracting. Also, the 3D wasn't that great. This was supposed to be the first movie shot with some new sort of 3D technology, but I was not impressed. Note, this might vary from person to person, or from theater to theater... For still images, the 3D looked like a picture from a viewmaster. Each layer of the scene looked like a 2D cardboard cutout, floating in front of the other cutouts. But when there was movement, it was just a blurry mess. My eyes simply could not focus fast enough to keep up with the action.

Where is the new technology? There's been great 3D movies in Disney theme parks for decades. The 3D in Superman Returns wasn't even half as good as the films I saw at Epcot 20 years ago. A tip, if you do see it on IMAX: don't push the glasses all the way up the bridge of your nose. Experiment with different distances from your eyes. I had to rest the glasses on the tip of my nose to see the 3D properly.

I also question their decisions of which scenes to film in 3D. There were only four (possible spoilers)... the space plane scene, the flashback with young clark running through the fields, the scene where the boat broke in half, and the final shot of Superman flying off right before the credits. I was surprised they didn't make the opening in 3D... with all the computer-rendered planets and the opening credits flying out, it seemed like a natural for the 3D treatment. And it would have been a great way blow the audience away right from the start.

To sum up, I loved the movie but hated the theater. So bring on the sequels! (And try not to screw it up this time!)

Transamerica

Warning - As with all my reviews, possible spoilers, read with caution.

Transamerica certainly treated transgenderism with more respect than most movies, but there's not a lot out there for comparison. The only other transgender-related movie I've seen recently was HBO's "Normal", which was decent but glossed over a some of the realities... for instance, there was no mention of the main character ever seeing a therapist.

Transamerica, on the other hand, did a lot more homework. The main character, Bree, was played rather convincingly by actress Felicity Huffman. So convincingly that I bet some viewers will wonder if the actress was actually male or female. (And as if to further confuse the audience, she has two full-frontal nude scenes in the movie - one pre-op and one post-op.)

It took me a long time to get used to her voice. It must have been challenging for Huffman - a woman playing someone born male trying to sound female. Makes me think of Victor Victoria. But her voice was so flat and monotone (think Daria), that she often came across as emotionless.

The plot in a nutshell: With just days to go before her gender reassignment surgery, Bree (short for Sabrina, formerly Stanley) discovers that she has a near-adult son. And he's in jail. And Bree's psychiatrist won't let her get the surgery until she resolves this loose end. So Bree flys to New York, bails him out of jail, and takes him on a cross-country drive. In accordance with standard movie rules, the boy starts out rebellious and disrespectful, until you find out about his traumatic past, and you gradually discover he's a sweet boy at heart.

Meanwhile, Bree, desperate to keep from complicating her life even further, avoids telling him that they're related, or even that she's biologically male. Of course the boy finds out about the transgendered part in a scene stolen from Mrs Doubtfire. Bree comes off as a bit of a jerk for much of the movie, but it is a movie about personal growth. Think Jerry McGuire, except Bree is transforming both emotionally and physically. The movie's final message - that the surgery won't solve all her problems - is one all transsexuals should take to heart.

The movie is a bit uneven, like it can't decide whether it's a comedy or a drama. But the humor is realistic and down-to-earth; not the over-the-top stuff you're probably used to seeing in movies involving this subject matter. Some of the scenes with Bree's family were comic gold, maybe a little too much so... it almost felt like they were trying to change the movie's tone halfway through.

Take away the transgender issues, and you've seen this movie before. Actually, you've probably seen several movies about parents reuniting with children they never knew existed, getting to know them, and trying to save them from their own self-destructive behavior. But there's a lot of other movie plots that have been way more overdone.

Overall, I thought it was an enjoyable afternoon. I don't know if I'll buy the DVD, but I am glad I saw it.

Final Destination 3

I figured I would only post if I had just seen the movie, while I'm still buzzing over it. That's the best time to review a movie - when you still have the raw emotion swirling around your brain. Wait too long, and you get influenced by other people's opinions. Also, logic starts to set in, and you start overanalyzing it. You know, "Why didn't she just go to the police?" or "Why did that truck explode?" ...the logic that, if ever actually implemented, would strip the entertainment off the movie's bones, leaving a boring (but believable) skeleton.

So it's actually somewhat fitting that my first review here is of Final Destination 3, a movie with little logic but plenty of entertainment. Well, if you're into that sort of movie.

I could easily sum up this movie in four words: "More of the same." Make no mistake, this is practically a remake of FD1. Another group of teens narrowly avoids an accident, and then gets picked off by Death one by one. But who cares, right? If you've seen the other two, you know what the movie is really about: Seeing what new, creative, and gory ways the FX artists can kill people. And on that, it delivers.

I'm not going to try to justify my love of bad horror movies here. Slasher films are a great time for rebellious teens, and a guilty pleasure for those same people once they grow up. I was never a rebellious teen, but I've always loved bad horror.

But back to the movie. FD1 was innovative - Freddy, Jason, Michael Myers all have their weak points, but what do you do when you're being stalked by Death himself? How do you prevent getting killed by "bizarre coincidence?" The death scenes were both graphic and creative, and the subject matter made it one of the most frightening of the slasher genre.

FD2 may have had the same plot, but it did throw in some creative twists - most notably the relationship between the new victims and the ones from the first movie. FD3 added nothing new to the series. It could probably have been a direct-to-video release, if not for the high-budget death scenes. The slayings in FD3 are even more contrived than before. Each death plays out like a Rube Goldberg device. During some of the drawn-out ones, I kept playing the tune "Powerhouse" by Raymond Scott (the factory music in Bugs Bunny cartoons) in my head.

A couple of issues - the two generic valley girl characters were so incredibly stereotypical, that they weren't even remotely believable. Also, a lot of the scenes were drawn out to extreme lengths, in an effort to add more drama and suspense... Hey, guys, it's not that deep a movie!

This is already more space than this movie deserves, so let me sum up: It's a bad movie, but I like it.