Pocket Universe

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.

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.

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.…

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.

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.

Rhythm games like Dance Dance Revolution have been around for quite a while now. While a few can use the standard console controller, such as the fantastic Amplitude, most of them require a specialized peripheral to complete the experience: a dance pad for Dance Dance Revolution, a miniature Japanese drum for Taiko Drum Master, or bongo drums for Donkey Konga. The problem with these peripherals is that they can sometimes seem gimmicky or unnatural to use, or even somewhat unnecessary. Maybe they take some skill to learn, but more often than not, they are only good for a laugh at a party, as you watch someone jump around on a dance pad or bang on some goofy plastic drums.

So when peripheral maker Red Octane set out to make a guitar game, it is fair to be a little skeptical, thinking they would just want to whip out a quick game to sell their goofy plastic guitar. But then they selected Harmonix to develop the actual software…Harmonix, who created the aforementioned Amplitude, as well as Karaoke Revolution series. As a company, their stated purpose is “to create new ways for non-musicians to experience the unique joy that comes from making music.” So with one company making the hardware, and another working on the software, the question remained of whether Guitar Hero would end up as merely a gimmick, or as a satisfying music experience.

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?

I’m just catching up on my musical interests from the last ten years or so, and one of the songs that stuck in my head from 1996 was “Mother Mother” by Tracy Bonham. Her hit single nabbed her a Grammy nomination for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance, and the album, The Burdens of Being Upright, was nominated for Best Alternative Music Performance. The single itself seems very reminiscent of Alanis Morissette: lots of angry, angsty lyrics, the screaming chorus, and the crunchy guitar sound. It would be pretty easy to dismiss Bonham as a musician with a great single, but little else to offer the serious listener.

But there was something else that stuck in my mind: another single by Tracy Bonham, from the same album. “The One” is equally catchy, and has some nice distorted guitar work. But this song isn’t nearly as angry, and there’s something else…is that a violin I hear? Now that I think about it, I seem to remember her playing the violin in the video. The single seemed different enough that I got that old feeling I used to have, where I knew that if I bought the entire album, I wouldn’t be disappointed.

In short, I have been tremendously impressed by the album. It turns out that besides singing, she is also an accomplished violinist. (I am always impressed by a singer who is also a classically-trained musician.) But in spite of the fine instrumentation, the real outstanding element is her beautiful voice, which is alternately melodious and sensual. Tracy Bonham has the passion of Alanis Morissette (without the bitterness), the introspection of Aimee Mann, and the sultriness of Fiona Apple. It’s hard to do justice in a song-by-song review, especially in this era of iTunes’ 30-second previews. Besides the two singles already mentioned, you have other catchy, driving songs like Navy Bean or Bulldog. But you also get the mesmerizing, lyrical tracks like Tell It to the Sky or 30 Seconds or Sharks Can’t Sleep, with their slightly odd chord progressions and haunting harmonies. I’ll have to listen to the whole album a few more times to get a real feel for it, but so far, it holds together extremely well.

This may seem like overkill for an artist whose last hit single is almost ten years old. As it turns out, my purchase was a little more timely than I had previously thought: Following her 1996 release, she had another album in 2000, Down Here, and just released her third full album in June of 2005, Blink the Brightest. (She even has a couple of songs with the Blue Man Group, if you’re in the mood for a little electronica.) Apparently I just missed her appearances on The Tonight Show and The Late, Late Show. And wouldn’t you know it, she also has a blog! It’s nice to get into an artist from a while back, and find out that she’s still making music, albeit slightly below the radar. At this point, I’m really looking forward to delving into her subsequent albums.

Update: If you want more than a 30-second sample, you can download full-length MP3s of some songs at her official site. These are low-bitrate versions, but you should be able to get a feel for her musical style. Listen to “Mother Mother” at the very least.

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.

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?

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

Andy’s Rating: one notch above Tolerated It (5/13)*

One reviewer described Open Water as “Jaws meets The Blair Witch Project,” and I would generally have to agree with that assessment. It is accurate in several respects: The movie has a very small cast, and it focuses almost entirely on them; it was filmed with a low budget on what appears to be video or 16mm film stock; and it relies primarily on atmosphere and anticipation to scare the audience. And like The Blair Witch Project, it will probably cause audiences to get nauseous from the shaky camerawork. Since the majority of the movie takes place with two divers stranded at sea, the camera is set very close to the surface of the water, bobbing up and down as you watch the couple struggling for life. If you have a weak constitution, you may want to sit a little further away from the screen. It’s not like you need to study the eye-popping computer graphics anyway.

Because of the subject matter, the movie is very claustrophobic, which just heightens the intensity. The filmmakers are reasonably creative in providing some variation on the standard eye-level surface-of-the-water shot, but they really don’t have much to work with given the subject matter. One sequence in particular is very effective at ratcheting up the tension, where what you don’t see is scarier than what you do see.

The problem is, it’s just not very interesting. While the claustrophobic nature of the film does a lot to frighten you and make you nervous, it doesn’t do much to entertain you or provide moments of relief. They float in the water, they argue for a while, they think they see a shark, they worry about the shark…and then you get a few shots of villagers playing around a fire, which actually does very little to alleviate the tension. As a result, you are just exhausted by the end of the movie.

That might not be so bad if there were a point to the story, but there isn’t really. The plot is just a delivery mechanism for the tension, and in that respect, it works well; It just doesn’t aim any higher than that. It might be okay if the characters were a little more interesting, but they really aren’t. Eventually, I was actually hoping a shark would eat them, just to provide some resolution to the bickering and anticipation. Once I reached that point, it was just a matter of waiting out the conclusion of the story. I’m glad I saw it, but I really can’t see any reason to see the movie again. It was just tiring.

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

It all started when I borrowed a friend�s Nintendo GameCube, and he included his Nintendo WaveBird wireless controller. Until that point, I had never really thought about getting a wireless controller, since they were all third-party controllers which never looked or felt quite the same as the original corded controller. But the WaveBird is notable in that it is the first (as far as I know) first-party wireless controller (in other words, the first wireless controller released by the company itself). As such, it looks and feels almost identical to the original controller. That�s when I realized how nice a wireless controller could be, especially with kids running around.

So I started looking for a good wireless controller for the PlayStation 2, but every one I found still looked vastly different from the original Dual Shock 2, widely considered to be the best videogame controller ever created. I heard good things about the Fountech AirStyle controller, which was a little difficult to track down, and ended up being a little pricey. It worked pretty well, except I had some issues with lag (especially when playing Amplitude), and it seemed very sensitive to position in order to work well. I ended up having to sit with the controller facing the console most of the time in order to avoid any dropouts. So, a pretty good controller, but not up the the standards of the WaveBird.

Which brings me to the Logitech Cordless Action Controller. As you can see, it looks very close to the Dual Shock 2, although it is designed slightly differently. However, the overall size is about the same, and the color is a very nice black, as opposed to the dull grey of the previous Logitech wireless controller, which was also much larger. I haven�t put it through its paces with Amplitude yet (since I�ve been spending all my time with the Burnout 3 demo), but it has worked flawlessly so far, with no dropouts no matter how I sit or where I position the controller. I haven�t tested the limits of the range, but it is supposed to work as far as 30 feet away, although I can�t imagine when you would need to go farther than that. And unlike the WaveBird, the Logitech controller has vibration feedback, which is also nice. Battery life is 50 hours with vibration on, and 100 hours with it off. You can read more about it in this excellent review at IGN.

At the moment, the controller is on sale at Amazon for only $30.39, with free shipping, which is a good ten dollars off the going price at Best Buy. (Make sure that know the difference between the Cordless Action Controller, and the earlier (and much uglier) Logitech Cordless Controller. In case you�re not sure, look for the little blue oval in the center of the controller.) If you have a PlayStation 2, I would highly recommend picking up this controller. It works brilliantly, and I don�t think I�ll be going back to a wired controller ever again.

Andy’s Rating: Really Liked It (10/13)*

Here’s the deal with Alien Vs. Predator: They take the premise, and they run with it. Honestly, it just works. It works in the same way that Aliens worked, and in the same way that Alien: Resurrection didn’t work. Allow me to explain…

At its core, Aliens worked because you had a writer and director (James Cameron) who believed in the characters and the world they lived in, was able to pay tribute to the first without copying it, and was able to come up with new ideas without stomping on the established mythology. Resurrection was obviously written as a fanboy’s dream (in that case, Buffy creator and scribe Joss Whedon), but although it had some good ideas, it was a little too clever for its own good, and managed to ruin some of the great ideas from the original. (To be fair, the stillborn (pun intended) third act was due more to the art direction and director than to Whedon’s script.)

From the opening credits of Alien vs. Predator, you can tell that the creators are intimately familiar with the legacy that they are building upon. The story manages to pay homage to the Alien saga and the Predator…uh, duology…simultaneously, without diminishing any of the source material. Notably clever: This movie is a prequel to the Alien quadrilogy, but a sequel to the Predator movies. Information about the Company and their motivation is given. The backstory of the Predators is fleshed out. And yes, even the Aliens are explained somewhat (although there is still no explanation for the Space Jockey). As the story progresses, the intensity builds in large part due to the viewer’s knowledge of the other films; it is very similar to Aliens in that respect. There is mystery, discovery, and once the primary conflict is revealed, it progresses in a very satisfying way.

Yes, it is a fanboy movie, and yes, it is a movie for people who want to see two mythic creatures locked in battle. But the director (videogame-adaptation hack Paul W.S. Anderson) and writers (Dan O’Bannon and Ronald Shusett, returning for the first time since the original Alien) managed to come up with an original, interesting story, and they commit to it fully in this film. If you don’t come away feeling satisfied, then you must take your moviegoing a little too seriously. I honestly don’t see how anyone could come away from this movie without a smile on his face.

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

The concert ended at 11:00, and now we're stuck in the parking lot. While we're driving, here's the set list from the second half:

Tom Sawyer
Dreamline
Secret Touch
Between the Wheels
Mystic Rhythms
Afterimage
Drum Solo
Resist (acoustic)
Heart Full of Soul (acoustic)
2112 (Overture, Temples of Syrinx, Grand Finale)
La Villa Strangiato
By-Tor and the Snow Dog
Xanadu
Working Man (last verse in reggae)
(encore)
Summertime Blues
Crossroads
Limelight

In all, a nice set, with a few surprises. (Before playing Between the Wheels, Geddy noted that they tried to pull out some of their favorite songs that they hadn't played in a while.) I did miss The Big Money though, but I guess you can't have everything. Another fantastic concert, but honestly, did you expect anything less?

Edit (7/10/04): A few more notes from the second half: During the last chorus of The Temples of Syrinx, Geddy sang the following lyrics (approximately):

Arrrr, we are the pirates,
Of the Temples, of Syrinx,
Our pirate treasure,
is buried within our hold,
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

And then in the mddle of La Villa Strangiato, there was a quiet part where Alex played the guitar and started singing along, but he just started making weird noises like, Err err err ee ooh ooh wah wah ree rah doo doo doo….” Then he went into a little pirate monologue which I will try to approximate here:

Its tough being a pirate captain,
because you have to make sandwiches for all the other pirates.
Whatll you guys have?
Four pastramis on rye,
two BLTs,
and maybe we can get a cup of grog to go along with that.
Well blow me down!”

And it went on like that for a while. On the video screen, they showed a split-screen shot of Alex on the left side, and Neil on the right side, where Neil was trying not to laugh during the obviously improvised monologue. It was a nice touch. The acoustic songs were great too, with Neil coming in in the middle of Heart Full of Soul. And as I also noted above, they played and sang the last verse of Working Man in a reggae beat. I didnt even mention the cool video introduction and closing, or the retrospective parts during or in between the songs, but I guess youll have to see the show yourself if you want to find out about those!

Okay, let's see what I can remember from the first half:

Overture 2004 (instrumental from the first 6 albums)
The Spirit of Radio
Force Ten
Animate
Subdivisions
Earthshine
Red Barchetta
Roll the Bones
Bravado
YYZ
The Trees
The Seeker
One Little Victory

I think I might have forgotten something, but that's a pretty close approximation. The first instrumental was pretty amazing...they played part of Finding My Way, Anthem, Bastille Day, A Passage to Bangkok, Cygnus X-1, and Hemispheres, then rolled into The Spirit of Radio. And don't worry: I'm handling the drumming duties for our section.

Well, they'll be back soon, so I'd better sign off! I'll have a final report after the show!

Edit (7/10/04): Yeah, I did forget a few things. I went back and added the following to the set list: Overture 2004 title, Earthshine, moved Bravado from before Red Barchetta to after Roll the Bones, and added YYZ (how could I have forgotten that one??). Another part I remembered, they started playing some of Day Tripper at the end of The Trees. So I think that�s it for my notes from the first half; now to add a few things to my notes from the second half.

Andy�s Rating: Loved It (13/13)*

As you may or may not know, the original Spider-Man is one of the few movies in recent memory to garner my coveted 13 out of 13 rating. With that level of anticipation, it seemed impossible that Spider-Man 2 could live up to the nearly impossible standard set by the first movie. But somehow, it manages to at least equal the first movie, and in many ways, it surpasses it. The best analogy I can make is comparing Star Wars to The Empire Strikes Back: Both are brilliant movies in their own right, but Empire manages more action, more depth of character, more twists, and is generally regarded as a superior movie to the first. I am confident that the same will be said of Spider-Man 2 years from now (if it isn�t already).

Comparing Spider-Man 2 to The Empire Strikes Back may seem like unwarranted praise, so let me bring it down a notch or ten by comparing it to another famous sequel: Superman II. Believe it or not, Spider-Man 2 actually shares many plot elements with the disappointing Superman sequel, with the crucial difference that Spider-Man 2 actually does everything right. Without giving away too much about Spider-Man 2, let me explain some of the reasons why Superman II is so bad, and by extension, you can conclude why Spider-Man 2 is so good.

For example, the secret identity: In Superman, a sort of love triangle was established between Superman, Lois Lane, and Clark Kent. Clark loves Lois, Lois loves Superman, and…well, Superman is Clark. But when Superman gives up his powers to be with Lois, he also gives up what makes him Superman, and the result is a bland, uninteresting character who doesn�t wear glasses, doesn�t hunch as often as Clark, wears more sweaters, but still gets beat down by any passing redneck who wants to take a shot. Yet somehow, Kal-El appears confused by this turn of events, thinking that maybe he could give up being Superman without, you know, actually having to give up the powers and stuff. And Lois spends a lot of time with the �I still love you” schtick, even though she knows (and the audience knows) that it just ain�t true.

Now, compare this to Spider-Man: Sure, the relationships start off the same in the first movie, but by the end, you actually have Mary-Jane falling in love with Peter instead of Spider-Man. But now, his sense of responsibility keeps him from being able to tell her of his love. So already, the relationship is much more complex than anything that Superman II can dream of. I won�t give anything away about how things develop in the second movie, but let me give you something to think about: Most superheroes have a secret identity, granted. But which identity is the real person? With Superman, Clark Kent is the façade, not the man. Superman is Superman (or Kal-El, if you prefer). Batman may pose as billionaire Bruce Wayne, but we all know that he is more Bat than man. But with Spidey, Peter Parker is the real person; Spider-Man is just an alter-ego. When you realize that key difference that separates Spider-Man from most other superheroes, you can begin to see what makes Spider-Man 2 so different from other superhero movies.

There are other elements from superhero sequels that you will see in this movie, but they are consistently well done, and the filmmakers never cop out and cheat you out of an ending. (If you�ve seen Superman 2, you know what I�m talking about.) Suffice it to say that the end of Spider-Man 2 sends the story spinning off into interesting new directions, and I am fascinated to see what they do with the next film. So set your calendars for Friday, May 4, 2007, which is the release date for Spider-Man 3.

So, what else can I say about the movie that hasn�t been given away by the trailers? Call me sentimental, but there was actually a moment in the movie when I started to tear up, and it wasn�t something that you would expect to be so moved by. The characters in the movie are uniformly fascinating, the humor is somewhat stronger than the first movie, the action sequences are even more elaborate (although they do seem to be less frequent than in the first film), but most importantly, the emotion and drama are brilliant, and elevate this movie to its high point atop my movie ratings scale. I would recommend this film both for superhero fans and non–superhero fans. It really is that good.

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

Andys Rating: Tolerated It (4/13)*

Honestly, I dont know where to start with this review of The Chronicles of Riddick. I guess Ill start with the good, get that out of the way, and then move on to the bad. On the positive side, the effects in this movie are truly spectacular. Huge mile-high spaceships lumber across the screen, with stylish heat and haze, exhaust, blown-out highlights, and thousands of smaller ships circling around the behemoths. As far as the epic scale of that portion of the movie, you really cant fault it. Technology has reached a point where virtually anything you can conceive of can be put onto the screen.

Its just too bad that people like David Twohy conceive of such mindless crap. Its amazing that Hollywood can churn out a $120-million B-movie. I mean, Pitch Black was a B-movie, but it was relatively small in scope, and the story revolved around a few characters. The Chronicles of Riddick tries to be epic, but just ends up looking pretentious and overblown. I mean, it is so pretentious and self-important that it makes Dune look folksy. The architecture of the alien race (more on them below) is taken straight out of Tim Burtons Batman school of design, with numerous gargantuan human forms anchoring the sets. In Batman, it looked cool and gothic; here, it looks…well, I dont know if gothic is the look you should go for when designing a spaceship. Now in some parts, the stylisicity works very well, like on the planet that anchors the middle third of the movie. But you forget about it after seeing all the steel-and-chrome spaceships 1000 times and the beginning and the end.

Heres the part I cant understand: At some point, this movie was just words on a page. So how did it ever get past that point? Listen to this: You have an evil alien race of Borg rip-offs who are half-dead instead of being half-machine. And what are they called? Necromongers. Honestly, there is a movie where the aliens are called Necromongers. It would almost be forgivable, but they keep referring to themselves over and over again. Thats not the monger way!” For necromongers, you keep what you kill.” And on and on. Then there is the high-security prison, on a planet where it reaches 700° in the daytime. So whats the name of the planet? Crematoria, in the Igneon system. Im not making this stuff up. Oh, and it turns out that Riddick is a Furian, a lost race that has some sort of special powers. Get it? Fury”? Furian”? See, he gets really angry, so…ah, whats the point? Really, couldnt the writers have come up with more creative names? Couple that with the poor dialogue, and its like the movie was written by a junior-high schooler.

To sum up: I paid nothing for the movie, and Im still upset about it. Well, on second thought, it may be worth nothing, but not any more than that. Unless you have someone willing to pay you the value of two hours of your life, I would recommend avoiding this movie.

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

That may not sound very interesting at first, but let me provide a little more detail: The store in question is run by a raccoon. I needed the shovel to dig up fossils and other artifacts, and to bury fruit to grow new fruit trees. And on occasion, I can bury money to grow a money tree. And this entire world exists on a GameCube game called Animal Crossing. (Well, except for the part about rushing home from work; that was in the real world.) Intrigued? Read on….

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

Went and saw Kill Bill Vol. 2 today. Taken as separate movies, I have to admit that Vol. 2 is not quite as good as Vol. 1. Taken together, however, Vol. 2 provides about as satisfying an ending as I could think of for this epic film. Less violence and more talking, but honestly, it would be hard to match the frenetic kinetic pace of the first film. If you’ve seen the first one, then nothing should keep you from seeing the second.

Unfortunately, I had not seen this memo until after I left the theater, but it’s worth noting if you haven’t seen the movie yet. Personally, I’m hoping they’ll let me sneak back in later tonight and catch it. It may be nothing, but I have to be sure.

Update 4/26/04 00:01: I stopped back by Century 22 tonight, and sure enough, they let me back in to see the end. The actual end of the credits was just an outtake from the first movie, and not a plot twist as I had originally expected. However, there was one little interesting twist somewhere else in the end credits. Sorry to be so cryptic, but you’ll have to see it to understand.

Andy’s Rating: Really Liked It (10/13)

I went and saw Hellboy a few weeks ago, and I have to say that I really enjoyed it. I don’t want to give away any major plot points, so I’ll keep my review somewhat short. Surprisingly, the character of Hellboy serves as the emotional center of the film, not just the action hero. Despite his appearance, he is just a working-class superhero, and therein lies much of the appeal of the movie. He doesn’t have the heroic, larger-than-life qualities of a Superman or a Batman; he’s just trying to get through the day…it’s just that his day usually involves dispatching assorted Lovecraftian baddies. In that respect, you feel a little more empathy towards him. There is a little Hellboy in all of us.

But what make the movie really enjoyable are the over-the-top action sequences. The characters and villains are drawn with large, almost archetypical brush strokes. The design of Hellboy typifies this, with his bright coloration, his prominent facial features (granted, most of which are shared by the actor, Ron Perlman), and of course, the comically oversized Right Hand of Doom. And without getting into too much detail, the other heroes, villians, and assorted beasties are similarly exaggerated and unearthly. Consequently, the action sequences are a grand spectacle. For this reason alone, the movie is worth seeing. But beyond that, the movie is a great superhero romp, it has a little bit of everything, and it is just plain fun. I highly recommend it.