114 posts tagged “movies”

I wasn't 100% percent sure about this movie until half way through it. That is when the Joes chased the Cobra operatives through the streets of Paris. That chase scene is so over-the-top absurd that it approached awesome. Seriously, SUV's that would make James Bond drool being attacked by a ninja wielding swords and a gun being chase by two guys running in Iron Man-esque suits that give them Spider-Man like abilities. That is totally silly and, therefore, a lot of fun.

G.I. Joe is not a great movie. You can argue that it isn't even a good movie. But it is entertaining, that's for sure. But the film does try to be anything else but a pleasant diversion.

This is not a subtle, nuanced film. It works in wide brush strokes and familiar tropes--the star-crossed lovers, the man looking for vengeance for his slain father figure, the cocky hero who can pretty much do anything, the comic relief sidekick.

The better actors in the cast know what they're dealing with and relax and ham it up. The lesser actors in the cast also relax and do the best job they can.

This is a mindless fun type of movie. If you are looking for a weighty film that you can dissect, examine and look for metaphor in, you will be disappointed. There are holes in this film that you can drive a Mack Truck through. But if you are looking for a fun action movie that you do not have to think for, then this is a good choice.  

 

There is a 5 to 10 minute span at the beginning of this movie where the brilliance of Pixar and the filmmakers really shine through. They show us the life of the main character, Carl Fredricksen, from a child to an elderly man. The filmmakers show us how he became the man he is--his loves, his fears, and the tragedies he lived through. This segment is both funny and sad, heart warming and heart breaking. You could give other artists 3 hours of film time and you wouldn't get the same kind of character portrait you get here. And the boys at Pixar did it all in 10 minutes--with no dialogue and no narration. That was just brilliant.

It's bravura film making. That scene alone should qualify UP for an Oscar. And not an animation Oscar, a real, honest to god, given out at the end of the show Best Picture Oscar.

The story is about dreams and the pursuit of them. This plays out in many forms. About how you shouldn't delay in chasing after the dream. That no dream in impossible or unattainable. But, also, the difference between showing determination and obssession in the pursuit.

This being said, the filmmaker create a world of magic and wonder. It is a world where the implausible becomes the reality.Where imagination is key. Yes, you could go through the entire movie and pinpoint all the things that can conceivably happen, but you won't want to. You'll want to be swept up in the fantasy.

The script and plot is intelligent and engaging. There is a lot going on in this story, and where it goes is imaginative and unlike anything else you'll see this year.

UP is a great movie. I saw it almost 12 hours ago and I still smile when I remember seeing it. It's just perfect.  

 

A film reviewer friend of mine said that this movie "was not your father's Star Trek." That is 100% accurate. But it knows your father's Star Trek, realizes how many people like your father's Star Trek, and updates your father's Star Trek with this in mind so it does it without diminishing your father's Star Trek.

For me, as good as they got, the previous Star Trek films seemed to be big-budget, much longer episodes of the TV series. This is the first that feels like a film first, franchise extension second.

You opinion of the film should be determined with in the first half hour. The wife and I were moved to tears. This could probably be due to where we are in our lives right now, but it could also be due to the skill of the filmmakers.

This is a more viseral film than a cerebral one. The emphasis is more on action that the contemplation of weighty issues. But it is a movie, not an episodic TV show. It is a different animal.

Granted, this script isn't King Lear. It manages to be complex (as plots involving time travel usually are) yet simplistic (if you've seen a movie before, you'll be able to predict events before they happen), but it works.

This film moves along quickly and is never boring. Even with the exposition laden scenes, which are a necessity considering the plot, come across as unique and entertaining.

There are nods to fans of the original series. There is a reference to a plot point in the film which should allievate any long-time fans concern about the changes to the mythology. This is not a prequel to the TV series, but rather, a sequel to the other movies.

But you still have taglines and references from the original series thrown in to please fans.  

The acting is uniformly awesome. Each actor comes to inhabit the iconic roles they were given. Especially Chris Pine. His Kirk isn't a smooth or polished Shatner-ish Kirk (until the last few frames) but rather a younger, rougher Shatner Kirk. You believe this is the man who will become the hero of the Enterprise. And Karl Urban does well at channelling not only DeForrest Kelley's cantankerous McCoy but also the kind and human McCoy as well.

The film beefs up Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov, giving each of them moments in the sun. The only bad thing about this is that it takes away moments from Bones and Scotty, which is regrettable.  

This is not to say the film does not have its flaws. The predictability is an issue. And the reliance on slapstick is very disconcerting. The goofy chase scenes and other physical comedy breaks the narrative flow. And there are plot elements that are essentially MacGuffins which are never explained (Red Matter? What is Red Matter?) 

Some people criticize the film as being an ipso facto remake of Star Wars. And I'll admit, when Kirk was fighting that weird animal on the ice planet, I was expecting him to whip a lightsaber out of his boot. But I think the similarites is that both films are sci-fi actioners more than a deliberate attempt of mockery.

However, this isn't a deep film. The creators are actively moving away from that. But if you want a fun, popcorn summer flick, then you should be entertained by this film.  

If I had to sum up my feelings about X-Men Origins Wolverine in one word, that word would be "meh". It more disappointing than downright bad.

The film is a brand extension for the X-Men franchise starring Hugh Jackman's Wolverine (I know, weren't the last three Wolverine movies too? Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk). It focuses on his history prior to joining the X-Men.

There is an artistic quality to the work that prevents it from being entirely awful. Gavin Hood has enough skill to shoot a good movie. Yet, there is a major problem of tonal changes through out. There is the Matrix-like beginning, then it shifts to more of a 1970s Clint Eastwood kind of flick, they it apes the look and style of the rest of the X-Men franchise. This results in a choppy viewing experience.

And the plot is lacking. It features two of the most annoying qualities any script can have--not explaining things properly (why did Stryker want to bond adamantium to Logan anyway?) and characters acting like idiots just to move the plot along (Gambit attacks Wolvie for no good reason right before he was going to take care of Sabretooth once and for all, conveniently allowing Sabretooth to escape).

The most annoying quailty of this film is the change in the character. In the other X-Men movies, Wolverine had the Han Solo-esque quality of being a bad man who does good things. Here, he's a good man who occassionally does bad things. You might not think that is much of a difference, but it is and it severely handicaps the character.

There are a lot of comic book characters appearing in this movie for the first time. The filmmakers do a good job of giving them all a reason for being there and not just shoving them in. This doesn't mean that they are not underused. But at least they have a plot worthy reason for being included.

The action scenes are good, inventive and exciting. And, for the most part, the acting is top notch. There are nods to a lot of the elements of the comic book history thrown in. And the plot does a good job of lining up the arrows with the rest of the franchise. This film ends about 20 years before X-Men, and does nothing to contradict that story.  

I guess you could enjoy this film if you put aside the flaws and just don't think too much about it. But it definitely could be better.

I've decided to give this review a couple days to let myself think about the movie. I saw the film on Friday, but I needed to get my thoughts in order. And I have decided I am totally bipolar about this movie.

As a comic fan, how can I not be impressed by the faithfulness of the film? Yet, as a movie fan, I found it lacking. It's a movie that what it got right, it got so perfectly right, that I can never hate it. But it's flaws are so damning that I can't love it.

Let's start with the good. The movie is not 100% faithful to the book. There's stuff added, stuff left out, and things changed. But this is as close to an exact copy we are going to get outside of the motion comic. Lines of dialog are taken directly from Alan Moore script, and scenes look like they stepped out of Dave Gibbons artwork.

You can see love and care in these moments. They almost glorify the original work, and the film does well capturing the mood of the graphic novel at these times.

The acting, with one major exception, is amazing, especially Jackie Earle Haley. He does an excellent job acting, both inside and out of the mask. He captures Rorschach perfectly.

Also great are Billy Crudup and Patrick Wilson as Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan and Dan Dreiberg respectively. They have a tough job, as they are the most subdued roles in the film, but they bring humanity and consistency to the portrayals. They might not get as much attention as the showier parts, but the excelled in what they did.

It should come as a surprise to no one that the ending was changed. However, and I might be going out on a limb here, I think the film ending works better than the comic version. It's the same style of Deus Ex Machina, but it makes more sense from a plot perspective. It is more tied into the narrative and makes more sense. The only qualm I have in it is who they use as a scapegoat, but even that makes a certain amount of sense.

Of course, since the ending is changed,, there needed to be scenes added to set up this new ending. This is where my criticisms come in. While they took such great care in transferring Moore's words to the screen, they didn't take as much care in making sure the new scenes matched in style, tone or timbre. The result is a jarring break from the action, it's like someone putting product placement in Hamlet.

HAMLET: Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy. He...

HORATIO: Yo, Hamslice, you gonna be long? I gots me a hankerin to make a run for the border!

HAMLET: Yo quiero Taco Bell?

HORATIO: Yo definitely quiero Taco Bell. You up for it?

HAMLET: Mos def!

Cut to interior if the Elsinore Taco Bell.

HAMLET: These Cheesy Gorditas are off the hook!. Now, where was I? Oh, yeah, Yorick. He hath bore me on his back a thousand times...

The only way they could have made the fact it was added more glaringly obvious is if they used a siren and a red flashing light to alert us.

But the difference in tone isn't the only thing that is jarring. You can see the hands of studio executives. who, after reading the graphic novel, were disappointed in the minimal level of sex and violence. They got  a hold of Snyder and made him amp both up.

The result is what was a scuffle in the book became an all-out fight scene in the movie. And what was a fight scene became a festival of bloody, slow motion bone-breaking where even the non-powered cast members had the ability to atomize bricks by just punching them.

And the gore quotient is raised considerably. This is not a film for the squemish. Dr. Manhattan, who's comic book move was exploding people's heads, just wasn't gross enough, I guess. Now he explodes the entire body, leaving the people next to the victim, and the walls, and the ceiling, covered in blood and offal.

And then there's the sex scene, where the movie exchanges reels with its soft core porn ripoff, "Crotchmen". The scene goes on too long, and is an uncomfortably awkward break in the narrative. I'm no prude, but the scene just didn't work from a character perspective. And a note to Snyder, the scene in the comic when the couple accidentally hits the flame thrower is meant to be a metaphor for the orgasm. It becomes pointless when you show Malik Ackerman going through the throws of the orgasm right before it.

These breaks make the Watchmen, purely as a film, kind of bad. Add to that the only back story Ozymandias gets is a 20 minute monologue (which, we all know, if exposition or a character motivation is delivered in a 20 minute monologue, that's bad writing) and that Malin Ackerman is woefully miscast and completely one note throughout the movie (meaning her acting stays the same whether she is angry, sad, happy, flirtatious, or bored), and you have some seriously negative strikes against it as a movie.

But the good part were so good, it acted as a balance to the bad. It could have been much better, great even, but as it is, it is only good--and lucky to be considered that.

I am going to try and make this a yearly tradition. Last year, I ranted about people or things that annoyed me. And, wouldn't you know it, I found ten things this year to rant about. What can I say, I'm a ranty guy.

These are just my opinions. I'm sure that I will rant about some things that people really love. You can love these things. That is your right. I really don't mean to offend anybody. But I just feel very strongly about the things on this list. So, no death threats or insults.

 

Without any further ado, here we go:

 

 

10. "Parody" films: There has been a recent trend of parody films sucking. It started last year with Epic Movie and continued this year with Meet the Spartans, Disaster Movie, and An American Carol.

The first two are from the same team that brought you Date Movie and Epic Movie, so they should be considered public enemy number one. These films are basically a collection of lame gags strung together with a flimsy plot  Strangely enough, up until Disaster Movie, these films always open at number one at the box office. Hopefully, this trend is going to end.

An American Carol was done by one of the Zucker Brothers, who brought us one of the best parody movies of all time, Airplane. It was his attempt to gain equal time for the conservative right by poking fun at the liberals. Unfortunately, he forgot to make it funny. This is a major disappointment.

An American Carol also tanked at the box office, which its creators probably thought was because of the unfair liberal bias in Hollywood. But really because it was a hamfisted hatchet job first, entertaining parody second.

Parodies are not easy to do. They require wit, intelligence and just the right touch. You can't just throw a bunch of scenes together and make it work. Which is what these people are finding out.

 

9. Santonio Holmes: I had the opportunity to watch at least some part of all the Steelers games this season (most from the comfort of my own home, as a lot of them were on national TV).

This was supposed to be the year Santonio Holmes was supposed to break out. The number one draft pick was entering his third season, the season when the good receivers are supposed to blossom.

Unfortunately, he did anything but blossom. The lasting impression I got of Holmes is one of dropped passes, routes run wrong, and stupid mistakes.

It got to such a point that when he actually did make a catch, my wife and I would say, "Wow, he finally caught one!" Like he won the lottery or something.

The Steelers have a history of having bad luck with high-round draft picks. Hines Ward was taken, I believe, in the 3rd round and has been nothing but clutch.  Holmes seems to be like fellow first-rounder Plaxico Burress and not living up to his potential while on the Steelers. Maybe Holmes will have better luck on his next team. And maybe the Steelers will just wait until the 3rd round to draft their WRs in the future.

 

 

8. Grant Morrison: I like a lot of what Grant Morrison does. I think he's a great writer. But he really isn't a great mainstream "event" writer.

I'll start with a caveat--All-Star Superman was a great book, filled with big moments and was one of the best interpretations of Superman ever.

But he seems to have been given carte blanche on that title, which is probably why it was so good. But when he has to work in the constraints of someone elses sandbox, he withers away.

"Batman R.I.P.," which was supposed to be the earth-shaking event which would turn the Bat-family of books on its ear, but instead was a chaotic mess. It was rumored that he was asked to rewrite the ending because DC wasn't satisfied with it. In my opinion, they should have stepped in much sooner.

Final Crisis was supposed to be the big event of the summer, the bookend to DC's "Crisis" trilogy. After bitching about not getting exclusive use of the New Gods (which, granted, he has a point) he gave us a rehash of an arc from his JLA run. For a big. blockbuster event with many other crossovers DC expects us to buy, we deserved more. And he was rumored to do rewrites on this one as well.

Morrison should stay to Vertigo where he can do what he wants and doesn't have to worry about continuity. He's a much better writer that way.

 

 

7. Kristen Wiig: I know I am in the minority here. Almost every magazine in the world has anointed her as the funniest woman since Lucille Ball. But I really don't find her funny at all.

Of course, one of her stock and trades is being an "annoyance comedienne" (I.E. the more annoying she is, the funnier she is supposed to be). But I didn't like that style when Borat did it, and she doesn't do it any better.

After that, she is essentially just a two-trick pony. She does that staccato monotone thing, like a surfer girl Rain Man. And she makes stupid faces and quirky body movements. Neither one impresses me.

Don't misunderstand me. It's not because she's a woman. I've seen Amy Poehler do improv and it was brilliant. And I find something I like in everything Tina Fey does. They are ten times the comediennes Wiig is, but get less press (well, maybe not Fey. She seems not to lack press ar all).

What it boils down to is that I don't find her funny. And the fact that it seems like everyone else does gets on my last nerve. In my eyes, she isn't the second coming of Gilda Radner, she's the new Melanie Hutsall.

 

 

 6. Thomas Beatie: Okay, let me just state that I really have nothing against transgender people in general. If you believe you should be a sex other than the one you're born with, you have the means to change it, and no one gets hurt in the process, I say more power to you.

But if you think you should be a man yet were born a woman, and you decide to change it, then you should leave every thing that makes you a woman behind and become a man. Thomas Beatie supposedly want to be a man. But she held on to her female reproductive organs. This causes doubt as per her motivation.

And, yes, I refered to Beatie exclusively as a female, because that's what she is-- a woman. Because if she truly wanted to be a man, believes she was a man, believes she should be a man, then she'd give up everything that made her a woman, a big part of which is the ability to bear children.

But know, she kept that. And when her wife found she couldn't have kids, Beatie decided to step in an help out and became the first pregnant "man.".

Naturally, this gained national attention through almost every news outlet, including ones that really shouldn't be covering it at all, because it is a curiousity. She gave birth and if that was the end of it, it wouldn't be as annoying.

But she is pregnant again. And she makes the announcement to Barbara Walters. Because, well, I guess all parties involved think its news or something.  And we face the possibility that this will become a reoccuring theme.

This makes me think Beatie is using the supposed freakish nature of her pregnancies as a means of self-promotion. I'm sure there will be other talk show appearances, maybe another book, and perhaps a TV deal. And that doesn't sit well with me. Having a child is a sacred, special thing. To exploit it the way Beatie has seems unctious at best. 

But, lets face it, Thomas Beatie is not a pregnant man. She is a woman who looks like a man who has gotten pregnant. This should have only been a mild curiousity the first time. The second time shouldn't have gotten any attention at all. But Beatie appears to be turing her situation it a gigantic circus sideshow just for want of attention. Yes, she should be blamed for it, but if we weren't so attracted by the whole car-wreck aspect of Beatie's sideshow, she'd slip into the obscurity she deserves..

 

 

5. Twilight: It seems the media and book publishers were really too desperate to fill the void left by Harry Potter. They were frantic to find a franchise that would appeal to both kids and adults. It appears that it has got what it wanted with Twilight. I heard absolutely nothing about the books while JK Rowling was still putting out novels. But now, it's the biggest thing ever.

And, granted, I am not its target audience, but Twilight seems to be the lamest thing ever as well.

First off, I believe vampires only should come out at night. Period. It was good enough for my parents. It was good enough for their parents. It's good enough for me.

However, the previews for the movie have the vampires wandering around in broad daylight. I understand the reason for this. After all, it is hard to have a teenage romance when the teens in question should be sleeping. But it kind of violates Bill's first law of vampires.

Other than that, based on what I've heard and read, it looks like it is goth-lite. It's goth for people who don't want to go full goth. There are pale people, a lot of shoegazing, a bit of romance, but all done in earth tones so as not to scare the squares.

And, logically, a romance between a vampire can only end two ways. Either she grows old while he stays the same age (unless they changed that vampire rule too) until her inevitable death does them part. That would be tragic and bittersweet and not at all happy, but would probably be the best option. Or he turns her into a vampire and they live forever and ever together in a perfect love, which, if that is the end result, the longer she is not a vampire the more annoying it will be (apparently, this the way Meyer went, and it happened in the 4th installment, which is another reason why the whole thing is annoying).

But, hey, I am not its target audience. It sold incredibly well and millions of people love it (to the point of obsession). Pehaps there is something I am missing, some subtle nuance, by not reading it. But I'll never know because I just have no desire to get into it.

 

 4. Brett Favre: I've already covered my annoyance with Brett earlier in this blog. Yes, the whole ordeal over the summer really seemed to show Brett's true colors. People think he was justified in throwing the tantrum and can't understand why the Packers would not just ignore the public support they put behind Aaron Rogers and take Brett back with open arms.

But Brett became a whiny baby, an indecisive wuss and a petulant child in my eyes. Heck, he is still one of the best QB's in NFL history, and is destined for the Hall of Fame, but he isn't as much of a hero as he once was to me.

But now, with a whole season of football behind us, what has Brett done for the Jets. You could say Brett made them in to a playoff contender (although, not one who could win it when it was all on the line). But, outside of last year's abberation, the Jets were in the playoffs several times in the past few years. And the man Brett replaced, Chad Pennington, led the 1-15 of last year Miami Dolphins to a division championship and a playoff spot--with arguably less talent than Brett has. Who's to say Pennington could do the same if he stayed with the Jets.

What Brett did bring to the Jets was the whole "will he retire" rigamarole that plagued his last few years with the Pack. It's started again, and it's sure to get a lot of media attention. But if he does decide to re-retire, keep a locker open for him just in case. Or have a trade waiting in the wings in case he wants to come back, only not with you.

 

3. Sarah Palin: You know, I lived through the era of Dan Quayle, and I thought that was about as low as Republican Vice-Presidential Candidates could go. Then along came Sarah.

I try to figure out the reason why McCain added her to the ticket. I hope it wasn't just because she had girl parts and Hilary Clinton had girl parts and they hoped all the people who supported Hilary because of her girl parts would switch to McCain because of Palin's girl parts.

Part of the reason probably because she was folksy. She was supposed to embody that "person you'd like to have a beer with" quality that got Dubya inexplicably elected twice. But instead of folksy she came across as a rube who you wouldn't a heartbeat away from the presidency.

She couldn't interview her way out of a paper bag. She didn't appear to be knowledgeable about foreign affairs or practically anything presidential. She used her office as governor to punish her ex-brother-in-law. And, worse of all, she winked at us during a nationally televised debate. Winked. At. Us. Let's face it. I was probably never going to vote for McCain/Palin. But if I was on the fence, that wink would have sent me permanently over to Obama's side.  

People say Palin is the future of the Republican party. If she is, well, get used to a long reign with the Democrats in power.

 

 

2. This "Chapter" of Heroes:  The Heroes season so far is like fast food TV. You consume it, and at the time you think it is good and satisfying. But when you think about it later, you wonder why you bothered taking it at all.

This was supposed to be the bounce back year, the one where they fixed all the problems that plagued the series before the writer's strike. But not only didn't they fix the problems, they developed a whole new batch of them.

It seemed fairly obvious that they had no long range plan for the series in general or this season in particular. Questions were raised that were never explained. Heroes turned to villains with little or no known motivations. Characters acted like idiots just so they could advance the plot. Other characters when through season long developments which were interesting and could have been explored further but instead they were abruptly returned to the status quo. Powers of the cast were only what the writers need that week, and changed as per their whim.

There was a major creative shake-up, the effects of which will be seen when the series returns in February. I hope upon hope that the series will be able to right itself because of these changes. Because if it doesn't, it might not remain on the air that long.  

 

1. The Hills: I think this show is proof that God exists, Because if Satan exists, then God has to exist. And there has to be a lot of blood oaths to the dark lord for this series to remain on the air and have the popularity it has.

If this was just a reality program about a bunch of vapid bints complaining that their almost perfect lives are not completely perfect wholly through their own asinine actions, it would be pretty unbearable. Because, you know, I always find people who could afford to sell me a thousand times over whining because the a-hole they are dating is, well, an a-hole so gosh darn interesting.

But what makes it extra annoying that this is a unreal reality show. The "real life" events that make up the show are obviously shot and shot over again until they get it just right. That heart to heart talk you see probably took hours to shoot because the lighting was off or there was too much background sound.

This makes the fake and phony lives of these people even more fake and phony. The result is a poorly acted melodrama masquerading as real life. I simply can't understand what the appeal is. I just hope they reach teh ceiling fast. These yahoos 15 minutes of fame has long expired.   

How bad was the The Spirit?

You could compare it to a bad community theater performance, but I had my share of those in the past and the people in it usually know they're in a stinker. So that really doesn't apply.

You could compare it to a high school performance, but the creators of that performance at least realize that they have a lot to learn about the craft and strive to better themselves.

The closest comparison I can come to for this movie would be kids playing in the backyard. The storylines are made up from whole cloth, and veer from one style to another based on what the kids think are cool. The players find the fantasy they create greatly entertaining, but everyone else would be bored.

Not only is The Spirit the worst comic book movie of all time (Howard the Duck, Batman and Robin, you may stop fighting for that title) but ranks as one of the worst movies of all time.

One of the major complements of Frank Miller's comic book storytelling was that it was "cinematic". I guess Miller took this to mean that he could put anything on the screen and it would be brilliant. He was wrong.

This film is more a collection of scene connected by a flimsy plot. The style goes from high camp, to Looney Tunes;like action, to Douglas Sirk-like melodrama to typical comic book fare. Each style shift is jarring and slaps the audience in the face.

There is no dramatic flow to the film. Miller gives us nothing to make us feel for the characters or care whether they live or die. He paints them in only the broadest of terms, and we never for once gain enough for us to become emotionally invested in them as people.

And, you get the feeling that Miller really wanted to make a Batman film, had no shot at doing that, and decided to shoehorn The Spirit into that. It really didn't work.

Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, and Eva Mendes gave some of the worst performances of their careers. Jackson was hamming up constantly and chewing up scenery everywhere he went. You'd think that Johansson would be able to do a femme fatale role in her sleep, but her take was just trying to talk lower. It was like a five year-old trying to talk like a big girl. And Mendes lacked the emotional depth her role called for.

No that the acting was all bad. Gabriel Macht did well in the lead role and Dan Lauria did well as Commissioner Dolan. You get the impression that since these guys were "smaller names," Miller was able to guide their performances more but was too star struck to do the same for Jackson, Johansson, and Mendes.

There are some shots of visual brilliance here and there, but most of them are inserted where they really don't belong which ruins their effectiveness.

I could complain about this movie all day. Heck, I can devote an entire blog post to Miller's using a photocopy of a woman's ass as a plot point. But it won't change the overall result. This movie is a failure on just about all levels, and should be avoided at all costs. Hopefully, this film ends Miller's career and serves as a wake up call for the creator.

I saw this on my internet travels (here to be exact)  and decided to share:

You are in a mall when zombies attack. You have:

1.) One weapon.

2.) One song blasting on the speakers.

3.) One famous person to fight along side you (Historical or Fictional).

What are your choices?

 

1. A Baseball Bat.  I'll go with Rich from the above link. More free range of movement, less chance of it getting stuck in someone, less chance of hurting yourself. But I'd make it a steel bat. Steel bats don't splinter and break as easily.

2. Something by Evanescence. I'd say "Bring Me To Life" but that would be a bit to self-referential to the situation at hand. Maybe "Sweet Sacrifice" or "Tourniquet"

3. Wow. Like Rich, I can't just choose one. Here are my top three:

Bruce Campbell as Ash:

 

Which really is a no-brainer.

John Wayne as he was in pretty much all of his movies:

 

I mean, let's face it. He always played a mean, onery S.O.B. He was good with guns and if he had your back, you back is had. Who wouldn't want the Duke by their side as the face down the zombie hordes.

Obi-Wan Kenobi, sometime between "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones":

 

To start, he's a Jedi, which is nice to have on your side when you're fighting zombies. The zombies get too close? A wave of the hand flicks them away. Heck, he could send a display rack flying into a group of zombies from across the mall. On top of that, he has a sword that could cut through anything. ANYTHING.

And this was a tough choice. Anakin/Vader you can't trust. Luke, Mace Windu? Not really sure how good they are. Yoda? I could fight zombies with Yoda. But I wan't this particular version of Obi-Wan. One not that far removed from the guy who was jumping up and down waiting for his shot at Darth Maul but schooled enough to kick some major ass.

Honorable Mentions: Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Dirty Harry, Wolverine, The Incredible Hulk, The Bride from Kill Bill 

Looking at this post, this might be the geekiest blog entry I ever written. And, good lord, have I written a lot of geeky blog posts.  

The wife and I, and a whole gaggle of my friends, went to see The Incredible Hulk this past weekend. The general consensus is that it was really good.

This is more a sequel to the TV show than a sequel to the Ang Lee film, which is good because the TV show "got" the Hulk much better than that previous movie.

The origin is revamped and explained very succinctly over the opening credits. It told you exactly what you needed to know without telling you what you didn't. Many comic book movies have the perceived problem of being bogged down with an origin story. If more films presented the origin this way, there wouldn't be a problem.

The acting was first rate all around, and, for the most part, better than the Ang Lee version. Edward Norton was good as he always is. Same with Tim Roth, who was badass as the bad guy even before his transformation. I was especially impressed with Liv Tyler. I kind of always thought of her acting as being kind of "eh" but she really did a good job in this film.

The only actor who I think was a step down from the previous cast is William Hurt. He did a good job, don't get me wrong, and physically he was an almost exact match with the comic version of General Ross, but he wasn't the grizzled soldier than Sam Elliot was. 

Another actor who coluld be considered a bad addition was Tim Blake Nelson as Samuel Sterns. In this film, he is a minor character. So it is kind of jarring to see Nelson ham it up on screen. But when you consider who the character turns out to be, the acting actually makes sense.

The final scene was, like the first movie, a CGI fest. But, unlike the last one, it was clear and easy to see. And exciting and with a villain who not only posed a threat to the Hulk, but also wasn't a lake.

The film is filled with easter eggs for fans of the TV and comic book, from Bill Bixby appearing on a TV screen to Stan Lee and Lou Ferringno having their cameos bumped up to small roles to Banner's dog being named Rick.

The Incredible Hulk was a great comic book movie which got right what Ang Lee got wrong.

The wife and I just came back from seeing the latest Indy. And this is what we had to say about it.

This is one fun movie.

Of course, it is updated. Harrison Ford isn't in his 40s anymore. And the movie doesn't pretend he is. And once they get that out of the way, the ball really starts rolling.

This movie is packed with fun moments. The sword fight on the moving vehicles. The fistfight in field full of ants. The swing from the vines like a bunch of monkeys.

There are a lot of, well, I guess you'd call them Easter Eggs in the film. Tips of the hat for long time fans of the franchise. Also a shout out or two to Star Wars.

The acting was great all around, but Cate Blanchett is superb. Really. Just by looking at her, you can tell what she's feeling at all times. She didn't even need dialogue.

As to problems people have with the update of the enemy and the logic behind the "MacGuffin", well, I look at it this way. The first three Indy movies reflected the serials of the time they were set in--the 30s or the 40s. This reflects the B-grade Sci-Fi films of the era it was set in--the 50s.

As for the CGI, well, that didn't bother me. Because it is pretty good CGI.

So, I had a blast. Indy 4 was a lot of fun.

Now, the trailers before Indy:

• The Dark Knight: The voice Heath Ledger does reminds me a little of Dustin Hoffman. I don't know why.
• Australia: Baz Luhrmann's (SIC) ode to his home country. It seems like a parody of all those cheesy "For Your Consideration" movie you get at the end of the year. I don't really know what its about, something about Hugh Jackman having to save Australia.
• Wall-E: Man, this looks absolutely cute and charming. Can't wait to see it.
• Hellboy II: The Golden Army: The weird thing about this is that Hellboy doesn't make an appearance until halfway through the trailer. It seem more like a sequel to Pan's Labrynth tham Hellboy. Maybe they thought they had to fool people to be interested.
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: It is a "Serious drama" about a man who ages backwards and all I can think of is Jonathan Winters character fron Mork and Mindy.
• Kung Fu Panda: It seems fun for what it is. Maybe if we see two movies this weekend, we catch it.
• Eagle Eye: This Shia trailer sneaked in on us. It has a Matrix like vibe, but in a good way.