Pocket Universe

In keeping with my long-standing tradition, I am summarizing what I know about Wall•E from the previews I have seen. I actually wished I knew less than I already do; I loved the completely barren teaser, but now I know about some of the other spaceships and characters in the movie. But I’m getting ahead of myself.…

1. Wall•E is voiced by the legendary Ben Burtt, one of the original Star Wars Nine.
2. He is all alone on Earth, the last of a series of robots tasked with cleaning up the waste that humans have left behind. (Side note: I will forgive the preachiness if I see him cleaning up a mountain of Toy Story 2 DVDs…or better yet, Blu-ray discs.)
3. He meets a female robot (called Eve?) who shows up in a sleek white spaceship.
4. Wall•E and Eve hold hands and have other misadventures on Earth.
5. He tags along when the spaceship leaves Earth unexpectedly.
6. There is a romantic zero-G cruise around the spaceship.
7. An obese man is wearing a traditional white sailor’s uniform.
8. Apparently, Wall•E gets stuck in an assembly line, and ends up wearing makeup.
9. There is some interstellar city or space station.

Okay, I think that’s about it. From what I hear, the trailers don’t really give away anything about the plot, so I am curious to see the actual movie. I am also cautiously optimistic, though not nearly as excited as (apparently) everyone else in the world.

No, not the game…apparently director Joseph Kosinski is slated to direct the sequel to the 1982 film “TRON”, described by some as one of the best movies ever made. The script for the new movie will be written by Eddie Kitsis and Adam Horowitz, two writers for “Lost.” Since many current animators were inspired by “TRON” (including John Lasseter of Pixar), I am excited to see what they come up with for the new movie. I will be disappointed if Bruce Boxleitner doesn’t at least get a cameo.

Andy’s Rating: Loved It (13/13)

The 1980 cult classic Flash Gordon has been re-released on DVD this week, with a new remastered transfer and 5.1-channel Dolby Digital sound. I thought it might be worthwhile to post a quick review of the movie for those who either aren’t familiar with it, or don’t appreciate it.

I once had a discussion with a good friend of mine, where he criticized Flash Gordon as a terrible movie. I defended it as intentionally campy; the entire premise of the movie (and, by extension, the original comic and serial) is so laughably outrageous that the writer decided to exaggerate everything to emphasize the humor of the situation. The drama scenes are completely overacted, the romance proceeds at a breakneck pace, and the mortal threats to Flash are numerous. (I haven’t counted lately, but I believe that, during the course of the movie, Flash is believed dead no less than twelve separate times.)

When I was thinking about this review, I thought that if you look up the word “campy” in the dictionary, you would see a picture of Flash Gordon next to it. Then I realized that I was wrong: Perhaps the best example of camp is the Batman television show that aired from 1966 to 1968. If you have ever seen that show, it is very much cut from the same cloth as Flash Gordon. The premises are outrageous, the drama is overplayed (thanks in no small part to Adam West), and the humor is very tongue-in-cheek. Where else but on Batman would you find a utility belt that contains shark repellent? So instead of being the most campy show ever, I realized that Flash Gordon will always play second fiddle to Batman.

Then I looked at the extra features on the DVD, and saw an interview with the writer of Flash Gordon, Lorenzo Semple Jr. And I discovered something truly amazing: Not only did Semple write the screenplay for Flash Gordon, but he also wrote 16 episodes of Batman, and was the script consultant for another 58 episodes.

And suddenly, it all made sense.

Watch Flash Gordon again. Understand that, yes, the writer is aware of how goofy the storyline is. The effects are sometimes dated, and the costumes are often outlandishly exaggerated. Flash Gordon cheats death easily, and often. And the script vacillates between excruciating drama and lowbrow humor. However, the plot is terrifically entertaining, the soundtrack by Queen is inspired, and the supporting cast reads like a Who’s Who of British thespians. And most importantly, the story captures the pure joy of a galactic emperor doing battle with a quarterback from Earth. If you haven’t seen Flash Gordon lately, it’s time to watch it again.

As many of you probably know, last Friday was the thirtieth anniversary of Star Wars. And while many claim that Star Wars opened at their local theatre on May 25, 1977, it actually only opened on 32 screens nationwide, simply because that was all the theaters they could book at the time. I have always claimed that it was at my local Century 22 theater on opening day (although I didn’t see it until at least August), and I am pleased to report that my memory has been proven correct in this fantastic article about the release of Star Wars, and its significance to the culture and the movie industry.

Andy’s Rating: one notch above Liked It (8/13)

I loved Spider-Man, and I thought Spider-Man 2 was even better. It had action, drama, romance…but most importantly, it had great character development. What else can you say about a movie where Spidey is missing from the entire third of the film, and the villain is in hiding, but you are still emotionally invested in the story? But earlier in the day, before seeing Spider-Man 3, a nagging thought crept into the back of my mind: “What if Spider-Man 3 isn’t as good as the other two?” As it turns out, my Spider-Sense was right. Spider-Man 3 is not only a confused mess, but it also ruins much of the character development from the previous two movies.

First, let me get the good stuff out of the way: Visually, Spider-Man 3 is…oh, who am I kidding? Even that part isn’t good. Sure, there is a lot of action, but even then it doesn’t compare to the previous two films. Stylistically, this movie feels like it was done by a completely different director. Both the previous movies (but especially Spider-Man 2) had many of Sam Raimi’s trademark visuals: quick zooms, skewed camera angles, whip-pans, and comic-like transitions. However, there is none of that to be seen in Spider-Man 3. Danny Elfman’s themes are present, but the score itself was done by some hack. (Okay, maybe he’s not a hack, but I didn’t care enough about the music to include his name here. After two movies with music by Elfman, anyone else sounds like a hack.) The opening credits of Spider-Man 2 had a recap of the previous movie using artwork by renowned comic artist Alex Ross; 3 has still shots from the first two movies. But hey, at least the special effects were good. I liked the Sandman almost as much as I did back in 1999, when he starred in The Mummy.

So here’s the real meat of the problem: There is just too much going on in the plot. I don’t mean that the plot is complex; I mean that there are a ton of different characters all introduced at once, and you never really care about any of them. They just seem to be trotted in when convenient, then mysteriously vanish when they are no longer needed. You have the Sandman, an escaped criminal with a shady past and a possibly altruistic motive; Eddie Brock, Daily Bugle photographer and competitor to Peter Parker; Gwen Stacy, classmate of Peter Parker, daughter of the police chief, and also dating Eddie Brock (at least I think so; it was mentioned in passing in one scene, then never referenced again); and this is in addition to the regular interactions with Mary-Jane Watson and Harry Osborn. You never really get to know any of the new characters on any but the most superficial.

But even that might be excusable, because of the relationships already established from the first two films, right? Wrong. Fresh off the new relationship from the end of Spider-Man 2, Mary-Jane and Peter are happy for about two minutes of screen time. Then for no reason at all, Peter “I’ve loved her since I was a boy” Parker and Mary-Jane “He’s the one person who was always there for me” Watson suddenly can’t communicate with each other. She gets fired from her show, and then complains to Peter, “You don’t even know how I’m feeling!” But of course, that’s understandable, since she doesn’t actually tell him that she got fired. And Peter never asks so much as a “What’s wrong?”, so it’s understandable that MJ would be upset. So the first half of the movie rolls along with the two of them being mad at each other, when here in the real world, two people who cared about each other so much would have made a quick phone call and figured out the miscommunication in about ten seconds.

Note that I’m not talking about some dumb “How come women never communicate their feelings?” complaint; I’m talking about serious flaws in characterization, for the sole purpose of creating conflict and moving the plot along. (Okay, maybe that’s two purposes.) When you get this emotionally involved with these characters, it is jarring to see them behave completely irrationally. The great thing about Spider-Man 2 is that all of the conflicts there (Peter has no money, can’t tell MJ how he feels, is hated by Harry) flow naturally from the events of the first movie. They took what happened in the first movie and said, “Okay, in the real world, how would a person deal with all of this? Who would he turn to? What would he take comfort in?” But in this movie, they ask questions like, “Okay, what if Peter and Mary-Jane just stopped communicating altogether, and a symbiotic life-form came along that feeds on negative emotions, and then made Peter act like an idiot for half the movie?”

That’s another problem with the movie: The plot is centered around Peter’s “dark side” coming out, as his lust for revenge (and the aforementioned symbiote) cause him to abandon his values. During these parts of the movie, Spider-Man loses his everyman status, and the audience stops identifying with him. So he becomes the rage-fueled vigilante, and lets his aggressive tendencies take over. But even then, that would be fine. It would be a source of conflict where the audience is concerned for Peter. But instead of leaving it at “rage-fueled vigilante,” they take Peter and turn him into “emo kid who is overly confident and has started wearing eyeliner.” And he’s not even the brooding bad-boy that everyone is attracted to; he’s the goofy trying-to-be-bad–boy that everyone laughs at…except for the times when they do think he’s cool. Personally, I would have liked to see Peter as hot-tempered, and maybe looking really worn out and ragged. Mess up his hair, make his eyes a little more sunken in…something to show that this symbiote is taking its toll on him. But combing his hair down and giving him eyeliner? I’m sorry, but that just looks dumb.

So Peter is taken over by this thing, but then he starts to break free. Then suddenly, Mary-Jane breaks up with him, sending him back down into a shame spiral and back to goth-land. Meanwhile, the audience is exhausted, with no relief in sight. Peter continues down this road, and even goes to a very, very dark place that seems completely unjustifiable (I’ll leave some things for you to discover on your own), before finally breaking free of the creature’s influence. But of course, Peter and the other characters are left with the emotional scars (if not the physical ones) of Peter’s actions, and suddenly this group of characters can’t stand to be around each other, which is loads of fun for the audience to watch. Nothing like a movie where everyone hates each other to lighten the spirits.

Then a bunch of stuff happens, and a bunch of other stuff happens. The villains are vanquished, and Peter is left to clean up the emotional damage he has inflicted over the course of the movie. So what does the audience get for all this effort? They get to watch two characters (I won’t say which two) wordlessly share a moment together, and you get the feeling that maybe everything will be all right, but probably not. Oh, and then the movie ends. No feel-good fetish shots of Spider-Man swinging across the New York City skyline, where he knows that even if his life has problems, he has the sheer joy of being Spider-Man to make up for it. Instead, you have Peter Parker realizing that he has done a lot of mean crap to a lot of people over the course of the movie, and he probably won’t ever be able to make up for it. The End.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go watch Spider-Man 2 again, and try to forget the third movie.

Since I’m going to see Spider-Man 3 at midnight tonight (technically 12:10), I thought I would summarize everything I know about the movie from what I have seen from trailers and reading preview information. Hang on, because this will probably give a lot away:

1. Spider-Man is in it, and wears a black suit.
2. At one point, Peter Parker is falling, and trying to catch a ring (presumably an engagement ring for Mary-Jane Watson).
3. Spider-Man falls through the gaps in a crane at some point.
4. Spider-Man tries to punch the Sandman, who dissolves before he gets hit.
5. Venom is in it.
6. Peter Parker tells Aunt May that he is proposing to Mary-Jane.
7. At some point in time, Peter Parker says the words, “My suit.”

Well, there it is! With all that information, the film practically writes itself. Personally, I would have been happier not knowing anything about the movie, but there you go. I guess slamming your eyes shut whenever you see Spider-Man can only get you so far. I’ll have a full report on the movie tomorrow.

Andy’s Rating: one notch below Really Liked It (9/13)

After watching Blade last week, I was looking forward to Blade II, especially when I realized that it was directed by Guillermo del Toro. (He directed Hellboy as well as Pan’s Labyrinth, which was nominated for several Academy Awards in 2007, including Best Foreign Language Film and Best Original Screenplay.) The end result is a movie that improves and builds upon the original, but still lacks that essential something that makes it a really great movie.

Andy’s Rating: one notch below Really Liked It (9/13)

Back in 1998, it seemed like everyone was trying to reinvent the vampire genre, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which I can’t recommend highly enough) to the BBC series Ultraviolet. In that tradition comes Blade, a story about a half-human, half-vampire who makes it his mission to hunt down vampires. While he should be a full vampire, Blade (or the Daywalker, as he is known to his enemies) keeps a partial human identity by injecting himself with a strange mixture of garlic and other elements, which keeps his darker side at bay. Meanwhile, the vampire families maintain a truce with local politicians, where they agree to keep a low profile in exchange for relative safety from attacks. But when a rogue vampire arrives with a plan to take over humanity, Blade has to intervene to stop him.…

Today Apple announced three revolutionary products: a widescreen video iPod with a touch screen, a phone, and a revolutionary internet communication device. The twist is, all of these are the same device: the iPhone. I’ll let you read all about it on the site, but basically it’s a small device running Mac OS X that has full iPod capabilities (including a CoverFlow view), a phone with a great user interface that syncs with your contacts on you computer, and a Safari web browser, Google Maps, email, and other widgets like stocks and weather. Oh, and it has a two megapixel camera built in.

It looks really, really nice, and as someone who has always been unhappy with my cell-phone user interface, I am excited about getting a device that actually has a good interface for making and receiving calls. It also fades the music automatically when a call comes in, lets you conference multiple callers together, provides non-linear access to voicemail, and gives you full access to Google Maps, including satellite views and direct dialing of found locations. (During the keynote, Steve found the nearest Starbucks, then called them and ordered 4000 lattés to go.) Add to that a full web browser, and I think I may need to switch carriers. I wonder if I can get out of my contract early.

You’ve been waiting for it for a long time, and since I am posting movie reviews more frequently now, I suppose I should finally reveal my movie rating scale. To fully explain it, let me start with a little background information.

Andy’s Rating: one notch above Really Liked It (11/13)

Back in 2001, Shaolin Soccer was released, a wildly fantastical movie about a man who uses martial arts to play soccer. Written, directed, and starring Stephen Chow, it was enormously successful, and became the highest-grossing Hong Kong—made movie in Hong Kong. Shaolin Soccer was known for its almost cartoonish use of special effects, and Chow continued that tradition with his follow-up, Kung Fu Hustle, which proceeded to break the box-office records set by the previous movie.

Andy’s Rating: one notch above Really Liked It (11/13)

After buying the DVD of Sergio Leone’s classic western The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, a friend commented to me, “I don’t know why you’re so excited about that movie. It’s not even that great of a movie. It’s just a spaghetti western.” But the facts don’t lie: At the time of this writing, the IMDb ranks The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly as not only the greatest western of all time, but the fifth-best movie of all time. It is also on Time’s list of the 100 greatest movies of the last century, and is considered by Quentin Tarantino to be the greatest movie of all time.

As you hopefully know by now, the new Star Wars DVDs are out this week, and for the first time ever, they include the original theatrical release versions of each movie. Unfortunately (and for reasons which might be complete lies), the theatrical versions are taken from laserdisc transfers instead of new film transfers, so they are non-anamorphic and not in Dolby Digital. But hey, it’s better than nothing, and likely the best we’ll ever get.

But this post isn’t about that. Have you ever wondered what is different between the original versions and the 1997 and 2004 editions? Well wonder no more, thanks to Star Wars (not A New Hope; see the changes for more information), The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. It is also notable that they even list the more controversial changes that Lucas has not previously admitted to, such as trimming shots of Imperial soldiers being hit by laser blasts, made to tone down the violence somewhat. Even I was surprised by the number of changes to each of the movies, and I could probably rattle off fifty changes to each movie just off the top of my head. Take a few minutes and check them out.

I haven’t yet written a review of Pirates of the Caribbean, but since I’m seeing the sequel tonight, I thought it would appropriate to offer my thoughts on the first movie, subtitled The Curse of the Black Pearl. As a huge fan on Disneyland in general, and the Pirates of the Caribbean ride specifically, I thought it was a horrible idea to make a movie adaptation of the ride. I scoffed at the movie poster when I walked by it on the way to work, and I expounded at great length to anyone who would listen that making a two-hour movie that was very loosely based on such a fantastic ride was a worthless proposition. However, since I am such a big fan of the ride, I would often say, half-jokingly, “I either need to see the movie opening night, or never see it at all.”

I didn’t see the movie opening night, or the next week, or the week after that. After maybe a month had gone by, and the glowing reviews kept pouring in, curiosity got the better of me and I went to see it late one Saturday night. As it turns out, I was right: I should have seen it opening day.

When making a movie adaptation from other source material, either television shows, video games, or even theme park rides, there are two main problems that usually ruin the film: either taking the source material too seriously, or not taking it seriously enough. You have your tongue-in-cheek adaptations like A Very Brady Movie or Starsky & Hutch that choose to poke fun at the original, downplaying it as kitschy or comical, and thus alienating their potential audience who loved the originals. Or you have adaptations that try to reinvent the story and play it deadly serious (comic-book movies are notorious for this), taking all the fun out of the story and ignoring everything that made the original so good. But from the opening shot of Pirates of the Caribbean, I knew that the creators had struck a perfect balance between respect and fun.

The movie opens with a ship, enshrouded in mist, sailing through what appear to be dangerous waters. On the bow is a little girl, singing “Yo Ho, Yo Ho, A Pirate’s Life For Me” in a melancholy voice. In that one moment, you see a movie that is playing the story straight, but still gives a nod to the audience by making a reference that fans of the ride would appreciate, without ruining the tone of the story. Several other homages are interspersed throughout, and it is amazing how well the events of the movie are matched to the ride. Even the main plot fits perfectly with the vague narration from the ride, which tells of an evil curse that strikes “the greedy beholders of this bewitched treasure.” But again, in each case the reference works with the film, instead of jarring the viewer and taking them out of the story.

The importance of Johnny Depp’s portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow can not be overemphasized. In thinking about how to portray his character, he hit upon the idea of pirates as the rock stars of 14th century. Thus, his behavior and speech patterns borrow heavily from Keith Richards. Sparrow comes off as cocky, slightly tipsy, yet inexplicably charismatic. But most of all, and fitting with the rest of the movie, he is always slightly bemused. He just appears to be having fun.

Visually, the film is stunning. The action setpieces never seem forced, yet seem to come up relatively frequently. But the most ingenious visual element is the skeletal pirate crew. Perhaps as a nod to the pirate skeletons in the ride, the cursed pirates of the film appear normal in ordinary light, but appear as ghastly skeletons in moonlight. This leads to many of the most interesting visual moments of the film, as characters are partially or full bathed in moonlight at key moments. Later in the film, this illusion is even used as a key plot device, once again very cleverly.

In short, Pirates of the Caribbean works simply because it is fun. Sure, it is a big, blustery epic action movie full of action sequences and high drama and plenty of pirates. But more than that, the characters seem to be enjoying their predicaments, without degenerating into actors winking at the camera and mocking themselves. This is a movie that aspires to be a theme park attraction, and in that, it succeeds beyond anyone’s expectations, especially mine.

Andy’s Rating: one notch above Really Liked It (11/13)*

How do you follow up Superman, the father of the modern superhero movie and arguably the greatest superhero movie of all time? Do you perform a complete reboot of the franchise as they did in the comics, where you ignore what had come before and retell the origin story? The first four Batman films touched on Bruce Wayne’s origins only briefly, which left them the opportunity to go back and tell that story in Batman Begins. But with a backstory that was done so well in Superman, there was no such gap in the mythos that needed to be filled in. So what is the best way to approach a new Superman film?

In the case of Superman Returns, you respect the story that has come before, and build off of it. Far from ignoring the previous movies, director Bryan Singer embraces them (well, at least the first two). Strictly from a plot perspective, Superman Returns continues where the previous films left off, and follows directly from those events (albeit with a gap in time that is explained in the story). There are many references to the first movie, but in most cases, it would be incorrect to refer to them as homages. After all, if something happens to you, and you mention it again ten years later, would you consider that an “homage” to yourself? No, that would simply be consistency of character. In the same way, the characters in Superman Returns are consistent with the first movie; they just happen to be played by different actors.

I was initially unsure about Brandon Routh in the role of Superman, but he quickly falls into the role. He even sounds like Christopher Reeve, which is a nice touch. Kevin Spacey is similarly brilliant playing Gene Hackman playing Lex Luthor. The arrogance, the vanity…all of the characteristics that Hackman brought to the role, Spacey plays to perfection. The only real standout different is Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, but frankly Margot Kidder was miscast as Lois Lane in the original film, so Bosworth is a breath of fresh air as a driven yet sympathetic reporter. In the minor roles, Parker Posey is a decent substitute for Valerie Perrine, and Kal Penn is passable is his role of Guy Who Looks At Something Off-Camera While Luthor Makes A Speech.

But besides the characters and plot, Singer kept all of the little touches from the original Superman movie. The most important one, and honestly the one that makes Superman Superman, is the original music by John Williams. Where appropriate, his themes were used, which just resonates with the nearly thirty years of cinema history. Even the opening credits were done in the same style, which to me is just fantastic. It would be tempting to try to improve upon the credits, but why mess with perfection? All the other little moments are there too: “Look, up in the sky!”, wondering why Clark looks so similar to Superman, the pose from the cover of Action Comics number 1, being faster than a speeding bullet, some of Superman’s lines about air travel…even a throw-away line by Lex Luthor from the first movie was referenced in this one. And Marlon Brando! Marlon Brando as Jor-El! Again, from the first movie, but it is used to thematically tie this story together.

If I can fault the film on a few aspects, I would have to say that I needed less “man,” and more “super.” Sure, I understand that in this post-modern society, we need to deconstruct our heroes, from the Dark Knight to Watchmen to Astro City, and even Spider-Man. But Superman has always been iconic and idealized, representing something greater than ourselves. It is hard to ground him in reality without making him seem…well, grounded. As I mentioned in my review of Spider-Man 2, you can focus on the human side of Peter Parker because that is who he is, and Spider-Man is just an alter-ego. But with Superman, that is who he is, and Clark Kent is the costume that he wears. So when the movie starts examining his humanity (or technically, his Kryptonianity), it makes him seem less noble and more petty. I mean, if you are Superman and you stand for truth, justice, and the American Way, are you going to sit around spying on Lois Lane and pondering the future, or are you going to go out and catch bad guys? You don’t have to be born under a red sun to know the answer to that one.

Even going beyond that storyline, there simply weren’t enough scenes of Superman being super. Again, taking Spider-Man 2 as a counterexample, you saw plenty of scenes with Spidey and Doc Ock fighting on a building, on a speeding train, saving people, delivering pizza…even though the story was driven by Peter Parker, you got enough Spider-Man to tide you over until 2007. But with Superman, the scenes of Superman were less dense. Don’t get me wrong, the action setpieces were great when they were onscreen; I just wish there were more of them, and more variety. It just seems like they hit the marks they needed to hit, without going over and above and delivering some action that was truly unique and amazing.

And finally, it seems as if much of the fun was drained out of the movie by the end. Instead of ending on the big feel-good action scene, the epilogue dragged on for far too long, and left the viewer (or at least me) on a bit of a down note. There must be a way that the writers could have gotten their point across about Superman, without making the last half-hour of the movie feel like a wake.

But overall, these complaints are overshadowed by everything that Superman Returns does right. They really did not throw away a single thing that worked from the first movie, and added some modern touches that still gave proper respect to the Superman film heritage. And really, it’s just nice to see Superman up on the screen again. Hopefully it won’t be another nineteen years between this movie and the next.

Andy’s Rating: one notch below Loved It (12/13)*

Look, I’m not going to lie to you: I never bought in to the concept behind Cars. I mean, come on: talking cars? So there’s no people, and every is just a car? To me, that just sounds like an excuse to make all the silly little car puns that you see in the commercials, and to show off Pixar’s fancy new chrome and candy-apple-red textures. And the idea itself just didn’t sound compelling. I was convinced that this would be the first Pixar movie to not do as well at the box office, receive less critical acclaim, and send Pixar crawling back to Disney, begging for a deal. (Granted, that was before the big merger.) In short, I thought this would be the first Pixar movie that would cause everyone to say, “Okay, maybe they can make a bad movie.”

In short: Boy, was I wrong. More specifically, I was really, really wrong. At the very least, Cars is on par with the other Pixar releases. In fact, would say that I probably liked this movie more than half of the other Pixar films, which is saying a lot. (Some day I will go back and post my historcal ratings of past movies, but until then, trust me, they’re all pretty high up there.) Just to get this out of the way, there is nothing wrong with the visuals of the movie. Everything looks spectacular and clear and glossy and just as good as previous ones…better in many ways, since many of Pixar’s characters suffer from that plasticky look (e.g. Monsters Inc.). And as for suspension of disbelief, I got over that after maybe ten minutes or so. Sure, it’s strange to think of cars watching other cars race, but we watch other people in footraces, so I guess it’s not that odd. And yes, all the little clever car jokes are in there, and they’re never too gratuitous or goofy.

But honestly, the star of this movie is the story. Now, I usually try to keep my reviews fairly spoiler-free, and this one will be no exception. But to really explain why I liked this movie so much, I will have to spend some time discussing the themes of the movie, and maybe some don’t want to read that before seeing it. In deference to those readers, I will continue this review on the next page.

STAR WARS!

STAR WARS STAR WARS STAR WARS STAR WARS STAR WARS STAR WARS STAR WARS!

Okay, so you�re still not sure if you want to see Serenity? Well, if you go to this page, you can legally stream the first nine minutes of the movie, just enough to give you the general premise, and whet your appetite for the rest of the film. You can thank me later.

Remember how I was going to write a review of Revenge of the Sith? Well, I kind of never got around to it. But in the process of reading reviews of Serenity, I found this article by Alexandra DuPont at Aint It Cool News, where she reviews both Serenity and Revenge of the Sith.

I think Im not very good at reviews, because Im always very vague, so as not to give away any significant plot details. At some point, Ill try my hand at a spoiler-filled review of Serenity, just to see if I can get my opinion across through concrete examples instead of vague references. But in any case, her review of Revenge of the Sith is the one I wish I would have written, and her review of Serenity is almost completely spot-on as well. If you have seen each movie, then it is worth spending the time to read.

Andy’s Rating: one notch below Loved It (12/13)*

In 2002, with two television series currently airing (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and its spinoff, Angel), creator Joss Whedon decided to start another television show. But instead of exploring the gothic-action-horror-comedy-romance of his other two series, Whedon set his sights on that most beloved of genres, the sci-fi–western. And so, he created Firefly, which followed the exploits of a renegade crew exploring the edge of space 500 years in the future. With two successful series already under his belt, how could this Academy Award–winning writer (look it up) possibly fail?

As it turns out, the show failed quite spectacularly. Through a combination of changing time slots, overzealous network executives, and the questionable decision to air the episodes out of order (the pilot episode, which provided much-needed backstory, aired as the final episode), Firefly was cancelled after only 11 episodes. Blame it on television’s current attitude toward shows that aren’t an immediate success, or to the viewing public’s limited acceptance of both science fiction and westerns. But for whatever reason, the series was shut down before it really got a chance to blossom.

So it was quite a surprise when, one year later, another studio decided to fund a movie adaptation of the series. The movie would eventually be called Serenity, the name of the ship that Captain Malcolm Reynolds and his crew travel on. It would also become the first film directed by writer Joss Whedon (although he had written others in the past). So, if the series faltered so quickly, how well would a movie version fare at presenting a compelling story, while providing some sense of closure?

If all goes according to plan, I will have a review of Serenity this week. For those of you who don’t know, here is the synopsis:

Joss Whedon, the Oscar®- and Emmy- nominated writer/director responsible for the worldwide television phenomena of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, ANGEL and FIREFLY, now applies his trademark compassion and wit to a small band of galactic outcasts 500 years in the future in his feature film directorial debut, Serenity. The film centers around Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, who now ekes out a living pulling off small crimes and transport-for-hire aboard his ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew who are the closest thing he has left to family—squabbling, insubordinate and undyingly loyal.

For more information about the movie, including trailers and production notes, check out the official site. If you haven’t already, pick up the DVD set of the complete series, read the three-issue comic miniseries, and look for my review coming soon!

The Sin City love-fest continues with this interview with Frank Miller. He really sounds like he loved the directorial experience, and he and Rodriguez got along really well together. It�s refreshing to see this kind of energy and love for the filmmaking process coming out of pseudo-Hollywood.

As a side note, I would also highly recommend Eisner/Miller, a fascinating series of discussions between Frank Miller and legendary comic artist Will Eisner. The two were very good friends up until Eisner�s death, and their discussion of the history and state of comics is fascinating.

Before you buy Sin City on DVD next week, you may want to read this Robert Rodriguez Interview at IGN, where he talks about the two-disc Sin City special edition that he is currently working on. Some of the planned special features sound incredible:

The real DVD should come out fairly quick, [and] it�s the one that will be obviously the double-disc set with all of the goodies on it. I mean, it has all kinds of stuff on there—I have a 20–minute Film School, a new Cooking School, Sin City Breakfast Tacos, and my favorite feature: when people watch DVDs, they complain ‘oh, the only thing about home entertainment is you miss that audience experience.� Well, the best audience is in Austin, especially for a movie that was made there. We showed the premiere with the actors there in a 1500–seat theater, and they would go crazy and Sin City got a big reaction. I recorded the audience in 5.1 so if you�re watching the DVD and you want to see it with an Austin audience on premiere night, you just click a button and they�re all there going ‘aaaah!� so it�s really cool.

Quentin, when he was directing his sequence, he just let the tape roll when we were shooting, and the sequence taped for an hour, so there are some 20-minute uninterrupted takes. You see him wander in front of the camera and talk to the actors, and [he�s] directing and you hear the whole sound of the set. It�s like you're sitting right there on the set seeing the movie being shot from the point of view of the camera that�s shooting the movie, uninterrupted, and it�s really cool. You feel like you�re right there, and you get to see what it�s like to work with Quentin and the actors and how the movie actually gets made. [And] he will do a commentary on his section.

So, if you don�t want to spend the $15 or whatever this current version is going to cost, you might want to wait for the feature-packed special edition. By the way, it looks like it will also have each of the three storylines broken out into individual mini-films, so you can watch them separately (as they were originally published in comic form), or edited together as one movie. Of all of today�s directors, I think that Robert Rodriguez is taking the best advantage of the DVD medium as film school.

Lately, among other podcasts, I�ve really been enjoying Adam Kempenaar and Sam Hallgren�s Cinecast. You can also check out their blog (which I have linked to in the sidebar), but definitely download their podcast. Although I definitely disagree with some of their opinions (The Hitchhiker�s Guide to the Galaxy and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory come to mind), I generally find them a lot of fun to listen to, and respect their opinions. In particular, I always learn something from their weekly Top Five list (top five comic-book movies, top five onscreen duos, and so on). If you enjoy movies, they are definitely worth adding to your weekly lineup.

Now that Revenge of the Sith has been released, I obviously need to write a review. However, it is difficult to review the final movie of the saga without placing it in the context of the other five films. Therefore, I think it’s time that I present my definitive reviews of each movie in the Star Wars Saga, presented in order from Episode I to Episode VI.

Having recently watched The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones (I’m going to eschew the double-colon titles as much as possible) in preparation for the latest film, I will review those first. However, I will be reviewing them as if I had not seen Revenge of the Sith yet, so any plot inconsistencies will be pointed out, even if they are later resolved in Revenge of the Sith. Those retroactive improvements will be mentioned in that review.

After reviewing Episodes I–III, I will watch and review Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. I had not expected it, but Revenge of the Sith actually made me want to go back and watch the Original Trilogy again. As far as praise goes, that reflects well on this latest installment.

And a final side note for sticklers: Observe that even the IMDb refers to the 1977 film as “Star Wars,” not “Star Wars: A New Hope” or “Star Wars: Episode I: A New Hope.” As far as I am concerned, “A New Hope” is a subtitle, not the title of the film.

In case you have some free time, you might want to browse this archive of Star Wars early drafts.

After seeing Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith last night (more on that later), I noticed what looked like a familiar face in the cast. I looked him up today, and I was correct: The character of Tion Medon is played by Bruce Spence, who you may remember as the Gyro Captain in The Road Warrior (and, incidentally, a very similar character in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome).

More importantly, his role in the Star Wars saga complements his other recent roles: the Trainman in The Matrix Revolutions; and the Mouth of Sauron in the extended edition of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. As far as I know, this makes him the only actor to be in the Matrix trilogy, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the Star Wars saga (and, specifically, in the final film of each). Prior to that, we had only Christopher Lee (in both Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings) and Hugo Weaving (in The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix). I had really hoped that Lee would end up in The Matrix, or Weaving would end up in Star Wars, just to complete the circle. But it ends up that Bruce Spence achieves that honor after all.

Andy’s Rating: one notch above Liked It (8/13)*

After 25 years of development, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has finally made it to movie screens. It seems only appropriate, considering it has already been (among other things) a radio show, a book, and a computer game. (Incidentally, you can now play the computer game online, and interested parties can read some background info about its development.) It is also worth noting that each version has been substantially different from the others. So, with that in mind, how does this version hold up in comparison to the others?

According to rumor, Song of the South may actually be released to DVD in 2006! Take it with a grain of salt, but it sounds reasonably plausible to me.

Apparently, Halle Berry showed up at the Razzies to accept her award for Worst Actress of the Year. Nice to see another Hollywood star who doesn�t take herself too seriously.

So many of my favorite things in one article!

Who knows if these are all true or not, but this list of Star Wars Trilogy DVD Changes is interesting reading nonetheless. There are even pictures included to corroborate some of the listed changes. Among the most ludicrous is that the actor who played Jango Fett in Episode II will redub the voice of Boba Fett, along with the voices of all the stormtroopers! Come on…is that really necessary? Take everything your read with a grain of salt, but I�d bet that 95% of them are true.

Andy�s Rating: Loved It (13/13)*

Through a convoluted series of events, I attended a 10:50 pm showing of Spider-Man 2: The IMAX Experience. The audience was understandably sparse, and there were a few technical glitches during the film. Specifically, the movie stopped just as the opening credits began to roll, and didn�t resume for another ten minutes or so. Then later, about a third of the way into the film, the same thing happened again, for maybe ten or fifteen minutes. But in both cases, the movie resumed from about the point where it stopped, and I was immediately drawn back into the experience.

Those issues aside, this has to be the greatest moviegoing experience I have ever had. Technically, the picture and sound were flawless. IMAX uses some sort of proprietary process to enhance the original 35mm prints up to 70mm quality, and the result is spectacular. I sat about two-thirds of the way back, in the dead center, and the movie still occupied a 90° field of vision horizontally, and almost my full vertical field of vision. (It didn�t go up to the complete height or depth of the IMAX screen, because of the 2.35:1 widescreen aspect ratio of the movie.) I actually had to look around to see details in the various corners of the screen. The detail was incredible; I had no visual indications that the picture had been blown up. Also, unlike some IMAX screens I have seen, the screen was flat, not curved, so the picture was not distorted at all. It�s like seeing a movie up close, but without any of the blurriness, film grain, or neck aches associated with sitting in the front row of a regular film. It was just completely engrossing.

If you read my earlier review, you already know what I think of Spider-Man 2 as a movie. I�ll just add that it loses nothing on the second viewing. Seeing everything again only magnifies what makes the movie great: the pacing, the story, the anticipation of character interactions instead of special-effect setpieces. I was continually enthralled with the story, and truly excited to see what would happen next, even though I had seen it all before. The characters were all played very well, and you have to admire the emotional twists and turns which provide the great dramatic highs and lows to the story. I can honestly find nothing wrong with this movie. If you get the opportunity to experience it in IMAX, I would recommend taking it. I can�t even imagine HDTV providing nearly this level of quality.

* a more thorough explanation of my movie rating system will be provided at a later date