Blogorium Review: Jurassic World

 Jurassic World is a pretty good movie and a great example of corporate filmmaking at its best. That is to say that it reflects the kind of movie that fulfills all quadrants, offends nobody, and coasts along on enough charm that it does not bore or annoy audiences. Just don't think to hard about it, and you'll be just fine. It's weird, because I feel strange saying that I thought it was enjoyable. I've watched the Screen Junkies debate and I watched Red Letter Media's Half in the Bag review, and to be perfectly honest, I can't mount a defense of any of the problems raised about Jurassic World. The characters are barely one note, the contrivances and narrative conveniences are at time embarrassing, and yeah, there are plot holes you could drive a truck through. I'm not even going to try to defend the movie from the type of criticisms I'd normally hold it accountable for. I can't. By the same token, I've tried to talk myself out of the fact that I did enjoy it, and it's not sticking.

 Let's get the elephant out of the room right away: I don't view Jurassic Park with rose colored glasses. I feel like that's important to point out, because I didn't watch Jurassic World through the lens of nostalgia. I think Jurassic Park has some fun moments, mostly the suspenseful ones, but have always felt like most of the characters are broadly drawn cartoons who dress in such a way that you can easily tell their toys apart. I'm the weird person who still kinda likes the mostly terrible The Lost World, even though I just watched it again, and yeah, it's still pretty bad. The "Spielberg does Godzilla" part still makes me laugh, because it's such a stupid, audacious way to close out that movie. But I didn't really care about seeing Jurassic World. I wasn't interested at all, and when I did see it, my thought process was "what the hell, I just watched The Lost World yesterday, and it can't be worse than Jurassic Park III." And it's not. Unlike just about every review, I'm not going to say that Jurassic World is better than the sequels but not as good as Jurassic Park, because I don't hold the first one in the same standard as most people. Bear that in mind as we move forward, because your mileage may vary.

 For starters, I guess I do like the premise: Ingen finally got its shit together and John Hammond found somebody to reopen the park. His name is Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan), and he's immediately not like the usual sleazy businessmen you've seen in the other Jurassic movies. He's one of those carefree billionaires who is managing the money and taking care of Hammond's vision, but mostly just wants to show off that he's almost finished his helicopter lessons. He leaves the actual running of the redubbed "Jurassic World" to Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), who is a numbers, spreadsheet type that thinks of the dinosaurs as "assets" and is concerned about the bottom line and appeasing investors. In other words, the character we're probably not going to like but since she's a main character, she'll eventually see the error of her ways, right? Eh... maybe not so much. Back to that later. Claire is supposed to be hanging out with her sister (Judy Greer)'s kids, but she doesn't have time and foists precocious Gray (Ty Simpkins) and moody teen Zach (Nick Robinson) on her assistant Zara (Katie McGrath). They have VIP passes, so they can go anywhere which is a good way for us to see the park. It beats seeing the control room, which is where comic relief audience nostalgia surrogate Lowery (Jake Johnson) works. (He bought a Jurassic Park t-shirt on Ebay and has dinosaur toys on his work station).

 Anyway, nobody cares about the characters, because there's a new dinosaur. Like, a new, genetically modified dinosaur that never existed, and as dumb as Indominus Rex ends up being a lot of the time, but reason for her existence is actually a pretty sound one. In the universe of Jurassic World, the park reopened two years after Jurassic Park (well, actually they completely rebuilt it, as we find out) and it's been a tourist attraction with a cruise ship that takes people to Isla Nublar every day since then. Claire is explaining to investors from Verizon (no, really) that after twenty years, the allure of dinosaurs has started fading, and they want something new. Audiences want something they've never seen, something scary, so Dr. Wu (JP alum BD Wong) cooked up the I-Rex, a mystery hybrid that has super powers. We'll also come back to the convenient super powers later. The reasoning behind creating the new dinosaur plays like a commentary on moviegoers today. I mean, the novelty of seeing dinosaurs in a movie has pretty much worn off, so lets make them bigger stronger faster scarier. More CGI. More mayhem. Jurassic World the movie is the proof that Claire the character isn't wrong: people went in droves to see it.

 Indominus has been raised in her paddock, alone ever since she ate her sibling, and Masrani wants Claire to have ex-military consultant Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) to check it for security before the consider opening it to the public. Claire doesn't like that because of course they went on a date when he started working there and of course it didn't work out because she's into designing itineraries and he's into the Matt Foley school of living life. But he's Chris Pratt so we mostly like him and he's capable and manly and cracks jokes, etc. He cares about the dinosaurs and has raised a pack of Velociraptors from birth and is their alpha. Just in case we don't get that, their names are Echo, Delta, Charlie, and, uh, Blue. I guess maybe they thought audiences might not understand why a raptor was named "Bravo" or maybe the network said they couldn't use it, so it has blue markings instead.

 The raptor subplot is actually a lot less stupid than the trailer made it look, because Owen just barely keeps them in check for most of the movie. It's established early on that they accept him as the alpha, but only to a degree. They listen to him, but he still has to roll under the closing gate to get out of their pen when he saves some idiot who falls in. They know he's not like them, but he's their alpha, so it's a tenuous balance. You've seen the part in the trailer with the motorcycle, but that happens because he's following them as they follow the scent of the I-Rex, and that happens as a matter of last resort. Mostly thanks to subplot we didn't need in this movie character Hoskins (Adventures in Babysitting's Vincent D'Onofrio). His "lets militarize dinosaurs" contractor guy feels like a leftover plot thread from the abandoned John Sayles draft of Jurassic Park 4 with the human / dinosaur hybrid Dirty Dozen*.

 But anyway all of these characters have to converge so of course the kids are out in a gyrosphere rolling around when the I-Rex gets loose and Claire has to evacuate most of the park while the Asset Containment Unit gets slaughtered. See, the I-Rex can mask her thermal signature if she wants to, so she tricks them into thinking she's not in her cage and Owen can see how dangerous she is when she eats a fat slob red shirt (seriously, this dude has a tie that's not on straight, a barely tucked in shirt, and a safety hat that's tiled at an angle: he's clearly getting eaten from the moment we see him). I-Rex goes on a murder spree, killing everything, in a once again reasonably explained way. Owen correctly points out that having been raised in captivity with no contact at all, Indominus Rex has never encountered other dinosaurs (or anything) before, and doesn't know its place in the food chain. And they really don't want her to find out.

 Anyway, dumb kids somehow go "off road" and Claire and Owen have to find them. Hoskins takes over the control room, and everything goes straight to hell. This leads to the disaster part of the movie, where people die horrible, horrible deaths. Like, I was surprised how horrible in some instances. There's one character whose death is wildly disproportionate to their behavior in the movie, unless being inattentive means you should be pecked apart by Pterodactyls and then swallowed alive by the Mosasaurus, the Sea World-like attraction. I mean, the dude who grabs his margaritas while running doesn't even get it that bad. He might not die at all, and there's no way he ordered both of those drinks for himself, if he ordered them in the first place. There are people who totally deserve to have their arms bitten off or to be dino-stomped or Pterodactyl impaled**, but there's dome disproportionate brutality going on. Maybe director Colin Trevorrow had a bad vendetta with somebody or just hates Mary Poppins or something.

 Well, now's as good a time as any to transition into the "why people think this movie sucks and I can't even argue with them" part of the review. I'm going to start with two pieces of dialogue from the dumb kids who are only in Jurassic World because the movies are ostensibly aimed at kids (and not their 30-something parents who saw Jurassic Park twenty years ago). I'm going to slightly modify what they say to point out what incredible plot conveniences they introduce, but if you're SPOILER averse, you might as well skip ahead to the last paragraph.

 "Hey, do you still have those matches neither of us ever mentioned at any point before now even though we just got away from the I-Rex by jumping into water?"

 "Do you remember that time we fixed up Grampa's car which would totally mean we can repair this Jeep we found in the old Visitor's Center from Jurassic Park and then drive back?"

 Putting aside the fact that any theme park that offered a "gyrosphere" attraction without a guide should have a way to bring said gyrosphere back when the park is unexpectedly closed, those two lines are indicative us just how lazy the writing in Jurassic World is. They both happen within five minutes of each other, and I think they were hoping we'd be too caught up in fact that "hey, it's the old Visitors Center! I remember Jurassic Park! Omg!" to really think carefully about how contrived those plot points are. Almost as contrived as Indominus Rex, who is white (except when she's not), can mask her thermal signature (once), pulls out her own tracking device, and is part Raptor. How do we find out she's part Raptor? Someone in the movie has to say it. In fact, here's what Owen says:

 "No wonder they didn't tell us what's she's made of: she's part Raptor..."

 This happens at the end of the motorcycle scene, when the Raptors find I-Rex and, even though she's never seen a Velociraptor before, she begins communicating with them. Guess there's a new Alpha. Oh wait, that's also something Owen says. The Raptors of course turn on Owen and Hoskins men and kill them, and then go all the way back to their paddock to chase Claire and the stupid kids who are sitting in a truck that the boys for no apparent reason won't close the back doors of. It's one of the many, "wait, what?" moments that Jurassic World hopes you won't ask questions about, like "where did the other helicopter pilot go if Masrani and the helicopter are still on the island?" or "wait, wasn't the Mosasaurus attraction further away from the main park area?" or "would you really stop to comfort a dying dinosaur when there's nothing you can do to help at all and you're searching for two children that may or may not be in mortal danger?" Yes, the last question is the closest scene Claire has to a humanizing moment, and it may be the only dinosaur in the entire movie that isn't CGI, but if you give it a moment's scrutiny, why does it need to happen?

 And yet, I didn't really mind while watching it. Yes, in retrospect, the film compounds so many lazy, convenient, or "we hope you're not paying attention to this" moments that you probably won't even remember the loose plot thread they leave for the next Jurassic sequel (hint: BD Wong). Does it really matter what happened to Lowery? Eh, I didn't even think about him in the last scene. In truth, most people are only going to remember the final battle, and to Jurassic World's credit, it takes the humans out of the equation and goes for full on dino fight. And it's a pretty good fight with a great (if implausible) conclusion. You'll be excited, you won't care about product placement - I mean, have you been to a theme park? Is the Jimmy Fallon scene really that out of place? - and if you loved Jurassic Park, you might even cheer when T-Rex makes her grand return by crashing through a Spinosaur skeleton. Take that, Jurassic Park III. You never forget that everybody hates you. I'm sure there's tons of press material where producers and the director and four writers talk about making the fans happy, and that lip service is expected, but this movie was created by committee. And to be honest, for what it is, it's better than it has any right to be. I cannot pretend that it's a well constructed, well thought out film, but Jurassic World gives you what you came for. If you're the nostalgic type, there's a chance you might like it even more than I did. It's not really the best or the worst, which I know the internet hates, but that's how it is sometimes. Every now and then you get a mostly happy middle, and for reasons I can't quite fathom, Jurassic World was entertaining, in spite of itself.



 * I am not making that up.
 ** Although, if we're picking nits, one was done in The Lost World and the other was the original ending of the film before Spielberg took T-Rex to San Diego.

Quick Review: The Shark is Still Working - The Impact and Legacy of Jaws

 If you're the kind of person who reads about movies online (and I certainly hope you are, because otherwise you wouldn't be reading this), you've probably heard about The Shark is Still Working: The Impact and Legacy of Jaws. Chances are you heard about it a few years ago, wondered if and when you'd get a chance to see it, forgot about it, heard about it again, then forgot about it again, and then recently heard it was going to be an extra on the 37th Anniversary Blu-Ray Special Edition of Jaws: The Movie That Ruined Summer Movies Forever.

 Is that a fair characterization of Jaws? Not really, but since it comes up almost every time people mention the slow decline in quality of "Summer" movies, in large part because people get tired of talking about George Lucas and Star Wars, which was the other movie where marketing and promotion factored in as much if not more than the film itself. Of course, Jaws and Star Wars are both entertaining movies that make movies like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones look like the garbage they are. I chose those two films coincidentally, of course. If I had seen a Transformers film one could argue I should substitute that for either film listed above, but I haven't and won't.

 So before you badger me about getting off on a tangent about the relative quality of "Summer" movies today vs. 30+ years ago, it is worth noting that this exact argument figures into The Shark is Still Working. Not in great detail, because there isn't much in The Shark is Still Working that approaches the phrase "in great detail," but it is a fun and comprehensive overview of Jaws. And by comprehensive I mean that it covers nearly everything you might have ever wondered about Jaws.

  That includes a brief look into the making of (with some discussion of Laurent Bouzereau's The Making of Jaws), voice-over actor Percy Rodrigues' role in the trailer narration, Peter Benchley's book, the poster art, the locations used in the film then and now, the story behind the U.S.S. Indianapolis monologue, Steven Spielberg's reaction to not being nominated for Best Director, interviews with nearly every surviving cast member, crew member, and Universal pictures executives, Jaws Fest, memorabilia collectors, John Williams explaining the shark theme, a beach that uses the theme to warn swimmers to get out of the ocean, the film's impact world-wide, the marketing, what happened to The Orca (and The Orca 2), what happened to Bruce the Shark, how CGI would ruin Jaws, interviews with fans including Eli Roth, M. Night Shyamalan, Greg Nicotero, Tom Savini, Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, and Bryan Singer, and tributes to Martha's Vineyard locals who appeared in the film (both living and deceased).

 This doesn't cover everything you see in The Shark is Still Working, which is narrated by the late Roy Scheider and features Steven Spielberg, Richard Dreyfuss, and Scheider prominently. It's quite impressive for a fan made documentary to manage to bring together nearly everyone involved in the film (especially since quite a few major subject are no longer with us) but I had the distinct impression that there was so much to cover but not enough time to give it all proper attention. As a result, The Shark is Still Working jumps around from subject to subject before viewers really have time to settle in on the significance of what's being discussed.

 Now, I'm not saying that The Shark is Still Working should be Never Sleep Again: the Elm Street Legacy. That's a four hour overview of the entire Nightmare on Elm Street series that covers nearly anything you can think of in detail. The Shark is Still Working is 101 minutes long and manages to cover many bases, and much of what director Erik Hollander and writer James Gelet find was new to me. I don't wish to diminish what The Shark is Still Working accomplishes, but my honest reaction was that it covers as much Jaws ephemera as humanly possible but generally speaking doesn't go into depth about most of it. It's a very entertaining documentary and has some fantastic interview subjects, and the footage of Spielberg watching the Academy Award Nominations is worth the price of admission alone. (Spielberg tries not to be upset that Jaws is nominated for Best Picture but not Best Director, and his faux-disappointment masks the face of a 27 year old genuinely feeling slighted for his efforts).

 Getting back to where my review begin, the concept of Jaws laying the groundwork for Summer Blockbusters (including the repeated statements of Smith, Roth, Singer, and Shyamalan that emulating Jaws' impact weighed heavily on their own careers) is in The Shark is Still Working. But like many other elements of the Impact and Legacy of Jaws that bear more investigation, it only touches on the issue. The Shark is Still Working may not end up as the "Be All, End All" documentary about Jaws, but it is a fine conversation starter. Considering that you get this and Bouzereau's The Making of Jaws as extras on the Blu-Ray for a movie you should be buying anyway, that's a pretty good way to see The Shark is Still Working after all these years.

A Quick Note from Blogorium Headquarters

 Greetings to all readers in... internet land? (It doesn't have the same ring to it as TV Land, now does it?) Well, the Cap'n is hopping in between non-Blogorium related jazz, including my non-Blogorium job. Yes, it's true, the Cap'n cannot live off of the Blogorium alone - or at all. I don't make any money writing this, which is either a point of pride or something I'm too foolish to have capitalized on at this point. Take your pick.

 At any rate, I have to run off here shortly and will need to be up bright and early tomorrow morning to keep things running here at Blogorium central, so today's entry gets the short straw today. But don't worry, I'll make it up to you later this week.

 It's probably for the best, because after watching Alien twice this weekend (the 1979 theatrical cut and the 2003 "alternate" version Ridley Scott put together for the Quadrilogy) with both commentaries available, I have some thoughts about Prometheus, including the TV spots that continue to give away more information than I think I want to know. There's a lot of speculation out there, and the Cap'n will be adding his, with the benefit of some specific images from Alien and Ridley Scott's own words about the Space Jockey, the Derelict, Ash, and his desire to explore certain aspects of the Alien universe. All of them seem to feed into Prometheus, what we know about the film (which isn't much) and what we think we know isn't the case. Anyway, it's not going to hurt things for me to have to wait until Thursday to get to that.

 In the meantime you'll find a Retro Review tomorrow, a Video Daily Double on Wednesday, and then thoughts on Alien and Prometheus Thursday as we head into the film's release next week.

 Additionally, I'm mulling over when to bring back What the Hell Week, as I've decided to check out four or five films that under normal circumstances I'd avoid like the plague (one of them is This Means War) and maybe that's where a full examination of the Saw series will land. Or I might hold that off until closer to Summer Fest, which is still up in the air with respect to date and location. I was going to hold it after the 4th of July, and Friday the 13th makes sense, but nearly everyone I know is going to see Neko Case on the 14th, which takes away a prime day of Fest activity. Also, I'm torn between schlock-heavy or focusing on some really creepy horror films that have gone largely unseen since the Nevermore Film Festival.

 Well, I'm being summoned, so all this and more will be addressed soon. Until then, send in your suggestions of what you'd like to see for Summer Fest. I'm still not ruling out this year being the "Remake" Fest...

Summer Movies (and What Purpose Do They Serve?)

 As you may have noticed, in my review of The Avengers on Monday, I spent some time comparing the film to other "summer movies" / entertainment / etc. Because I wanted to focus on The Avengers as a film (eventually), I left out a lot of why I think its place in with respect to other "summer" fare is helpful. I compared The Avengers to the 2009 Star Trek reboot by JJ Abrams because both films are heavy on personality, entertainment, and flash while adeptly masking the limitations of their respective plots.

 Star Trek and The Avengers are not the norm for the May-to-August run of movies, when people have the most free time and are more likely to go to a nearby multiplex with the family, plop down $50 on tickets and concessions, and escape from reality (and the heat) for two hours. Movies are, by nature, escapism, and while Marvel super heroes and space adventures as escapist entertainment, I give them a little more credit than what passes for "movies" most summers.

 Let's step back quickly and explain how "summer" movies differ from the rest of the year: generally speaking, studios are looking to make movies that bring in the maximum amount of profit while costing as little as possible. Some directors are more than happy to oblige this, some are more interested in telling captivating stories, and there are a few that are capable of doing both. The group that falls in the middle usually see their films released at the end of the year, somewhere between September and December*, in the lead up to "Awards Season," the period between January and March where critics, guilds, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences determine which film was the "best" of the previous year.

 There's a reason that most of those films all seem to have been released during the same period and rarely the summer beforehand. Even less likely are the films released in January and February, the unofficial "dumping ground" for movies that the studios have no faith in recouping their cost. In March and April, there's a slow build of excitement for the big "blockbuster" films coming in May (now the official kickoff of "summer" movies), and a studio might take a risk and release something early to test the waters (John Carter is a good example, both of Disney testing the waters and also of how it didn't work).

 How far back does this go? While you could argue that "spectacle" movies have been a staple of Hollywood since they started competing with television, it's fair to say that the modern trend began with the success of Steven Spielberg's Jaws in 1975, followed by George Lucas' Star Wars in 1977. From that point on, studios increased their attention on releasing big budgeted "blockbuster" movies during the summer to capitalize on a willing public. After this point, the summer releases become more laden with sequels and we're beginning to get to the point that many film purists complain about where the "product" begins to outweigh the picture, and movies like Jaws 3D, for example, become regular releases.

 That's not to say that all summer movies were dispensable cash-ins: it's fair to point out that Apocalypse Now, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Blade Runner, Aliens, Die Hard, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Do the Right Thing, and Big were all summer releases**, among many others. The increased desire for summer entertainment provided a number of fine releases, along with sequels to horror movies, action films, comedies, and science fiction. Some were successful, some weren't; remember that Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin were all released in the summer.

 Actually, let's take a look at something, because while I don't want to hang it all on Batman Forever, after Jurassic Park in 1993 things get a little shaky with respect to the "big" summer movies.

1994: Speed, The Lion King, True Lies
1995: Batman Forever, Die Hard with a Vengeance, Apollo 13(?) (that or Judge Dredd)
1996: Mission: Impossible, The Rock, Independence Day
1997: Batman & Robin, The Lost World, Men in Black
1998: Godzilla, Armageddon, Saving Private Ryan (or Lethal Weapon 4)
1999: Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, Wild Wild West***
2000: X-Men, Mission: Impossible 2, Gladiator (or Space Cowboys)

 And now we get to a point where it's a lot harder to pick the top three...


2001: The Mummy Returns, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, The Fast and the Furious, Planet of the Apes, Moulin Rouge, Shrek, AI: Artificial Intelligence, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, Jurassic Park III, American Pie 2, and Rush Hour 2.

 Let's leave it at that, because after 2001 it gets much more difficult to narrow down the films vying for your attention. This is not to say that I didn't leave out choices for earlier years - I did - but not nearly as many as I would be doing if I wanted to continue past 2001. Actually, it looks like I don't have to hang it all on Batman Forever necessarily, because of the movies listed in 2001, the only one I even vaguely enjoyed was AI, which is the least "summer" of the releases.

 Bear in mind that I consider The Mummy to be a perfect example of modern "summer" entertainment, in that it has all of the qualities studios check off when making a list of what audiences "like": action, jokes, appealing leads, special effects, stunts, name recognition (title), genre recognition (similar to Raiders of the Lost Ark template), and even some creepy horror for that demographic. The Mummy balances all of this well without taking too many risks and is accordingly a fun movie that doesn't leave much of an impression when it's over. If you prefer, you could substitute Independence Day and generally have the same description.

 Anyway, somewhere along the line, let's say with Godzilla or Armageddon, the need to appeal to as many audiences as humanly possible became more important that if the movie was watchable. Godzilla is generally remembered as a movie of shameless ad placement, gaudy soundtrack, bad acting, dumb action, and a nonsensical plot. That's if people remember it at all. It was heavily advertised as an "event" and didn't live up to it at all. From that point forward, instead of learning the lesson, studios increasingly made movies where the spectacle was more important than the movie itself, to the point that the number of movies that make you groan outnumber the ones you remember being very good.

 This isn't going to turn into some polemic about how movies today aren't any good or that summer entertainment is almost always garbage designed to get people in theatres to watch movies based on board games or toys... well, okay, let's look at Battleship as compared to say, The Avengers. Not fair, but so what?

 The Avengers is based on four (or five) movies that preceded it all derived from Marvel comic book characters. It joins together four studios: Universal, Paramount, Disney, and Marvel, stars all of the lead characters from each of the previous films (released in 2008, 2010, and 2011) and is written and directed by Joss Whedon, whose only other feature length motion picture is Serenity, a spin-off of a cult sci-fi-western hybrid cancelled by Fox a decade ago. It's a risky proposition, even if you have the utmost faith that everything can go right. It did go right, massively so, which is a good sign for risk taking moving forward.

 Battleship's trailers proudly proclaim "From Hasbro the Company That Brought You Transformers," is based on a board game that it bears no resemblance to other than the fact there are battleships. Its cast includes a pop star (Rihanna), a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit model (Brooklyn Decker), one of the vampires from True Blood (Alexander Skarsgård), the guy Universal is hoping you don't associate with John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), and Liam Neeson (Liam Neeson). That covers most demographics ages 18-30, has name recognition, and has tied itself to Transformers, a series of movies that people don't seem to like but they still go see the new one every time Michael Bay cranks one out. Battleship is from the writers of Whiteout and Red (Jan and Erich Hoeber) and the director of Friday Night Lights, The Kingdom, and Hancock (Peter Berg). To be fair, Berg also directed The Rundown and Very Bad Things, two movies I happen to really like. Call me cynical about audiences, but I expect that people will flock to Battleship whether or not it is any good as a movie.

 In the interest of fairness, I must admit that I am excited about a Ridley Scott movie that increasingly looks like a prequel to Alien (Prometheus) and Christopher Nolan's third foray into Batman (The Dark Knight Rises). It's hard to argue that despite the fact that Nolan's Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Inception are surprisingly clever movies disguised as "spectacle" that I am not buying into the hype for the second sequel to a recognizable brand name comic book character that is, in itself, a reboot of Warner Brothers Batman films from 1989-1997. Similarly, despite the fact that I haven't enjoyed but a handful of Ridley Scott films since Gladiator (let's say Matchstick Men, Kingdom of Heaven, and American Gangster) that I'm excited to see Prometheus based on its (denied) connection to the Alien series, which has been MIA since 1997, unless you count those terrible Alien vs Predator films.

 I am also interested in seeing Piranha 3DD (sequel to a remake), Moonrise Kingdom (based entirely on its director, Wes Anderson), To Rome with Love (new Woody Allen), The Bourne Legacy (sequel / reboot), Total Recall (remake), The Expendables 2 (sequel), and a wary curiosity about Dark Shadows (TV remake), Men in Black III (sequel), and while I don't plan on seeing them, The Amazing Spider-Man (reboot), and G.I. Joe - Retaliation (sequel). I never saw the first G.I. Joe, but then again I hadn't wanted to watch a Fast / Furious movie until Dwayne Johnson joined the cast.

 On the other hand, I can't say I have any desire to check out What to Expect when You're Expecting, LOL, The Road, Snow White and the Huntsman, Chernobyl Diaries, Madagascar 3, Rock of Ages, That's My Boy, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Madea's Witness Protection, Savages, Ice Age 4, Ted, Neighborhood Watch, Step Up: Revolution, or The Apparition.

 The Cap'n isn't representative of most moviegoers, so I can totally understand why people will be seeing these movies even if I don't feel the need to. Despite knowing a number of people who are going to see Dark Shadows because Tim Burton directed it, I can't get over the fact that I haven't liked any of his movies since Big Fish. And I've seen all of them. After a certain point, you have to wonder if it's necessary to keep subjecting yourself to disappointment or to just stay away. I have the feeling The Expendables 2 is probably going to disappoint, but I want to give it a shot to see if Stallone and company learned from the mistakes made in first film. I like to risk it sometimes, but a lot of what I'm seeing this summer doesn't feel like it's worth it.

 But that's this summer, and not every summer. Who knows, maybe one year I'll be back every week like in 2008, where the Cap'n and friends saw just about every major release, from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to The Dark Knight to Hellboy II: The Golden Army to The X-Files: I Want to Believe to The Happening, a movie so terrible that it stops being bad, becomes good, stops being good and goes back to bad and then becomes confoundingly hilarious. Actually, looking at that list, The Dark Knight was the only movie that wasn't disappointing, unless you count the stunned silence that followed The Happening. They were the only movies I saw more than once that summer...

 Well, 2010 then! Yes, that's it! Iron Man 2, Inception, Predators, The Expendables, MacGruber, Get Him to the Greek, Dinner for Schmucks, The Other Guys, and Piranha 3D. That's a little bit better. Not great, but I do remember a few of them beyond the initial viewing, which is more than I can say about The X-Files: I Want to Believe or Godzilla. While I consider The Mummy to be a perfect example of "summer entertainment," that doesn't mean I want to watch variations of it, like Van Helsing, and I see a lot more Van Helsings out there than The Avengers and Star Treks...



* There is a second "blockbuster" season that happens between Thanksgiving and New Year's Eve, although not to the degree that the summer releases have.
 ** Just in case it comes up, I am aware that Blade Runner was not a successful summer release, nor were The Thing and Tron.They still tend to be smarter than most of what passes for "popcorn fare" these days.
*** It's worth pointing out that The Sixth Sense, American Pie, and The Blair Witch Project weren't on as many people's radars at the beginning of the summer.

Blogorium Review: The Avengers

 When I think of "Summer Blockbuster" movies, I tend to think of the 1999 remake of The Mummy. It's a big, loud, dumb, action packed movie with plenty of special effects and wafer thin characters. When I say "big," I mean the scale of just about everything: the fight scenes, the chases, even the jokes are elevated to a massive level. Rachel Weisz is introduced as he character knocks down every shelf in a library. It has a little something for everybody, including something for the horror fans: it's hard to argue that the scarabs who tunnel under your skin and eat your heart or the pre-Arnold Vosloo Imhotep are there for the kiddos or the romantics who came to see Fraser and Weisz trade barbs before falling in love. It's an entertaining, if inconsequential, film that does exactly what it sets out to do, throws in some (for then) state-of-the-art special effects, and sends audiences home happy.

 The Mummy is what I assume people mean when they say "it's not supposed to be Hamlet - it's just a movie!" Of course, I haven't seen the Transformers film*, which is where this argument comes up with every successive sequel. It's what I gather I'll be hearing from people who go to see Battleship, this year's Transformers surrogate. That's fine, I guess. Gone are the days when "summer" movies meant movies like Batman Returns or Jaws or Raiders of the Lost Ark were the norm, when John and Jane Q. Public would go to movies that didn't need to be as close to "lowest common denominator" studio concocted and market tested product as humanly possible. Where movies like The Dark Knight or Inception aren't a rarity. Okay, so Mission: Impossible: III and Star Trek and even Iron Man also qualify. Let's not be so myopic here, but my point is that playing it safe pays off and doing something a little risky (and Batman Returns or Alien 3's relative failure may have fed into this) was something you wouldn't need to wait a few years between.

 Which brings us to The Avengers, the culmination of Marvel Studios' four year project to make a film for Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), and The Incredible Hulk (Eric Bana, no wait, Edward Norton... no, wait...) before bringing them together with Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) under the leadership of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) to save the world. In The Avengers, the threat is Loki (Tom Hiddleston), introduced as "Loki! The brother of Thor!" by Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), in case you missed Thor last summer. That would, by the way, probably be a bad idea, but don't worry, Marvel isn't going to leave you in the dark at the beginning of the movie. That might make you leave.

 So I don't want anybody thinking that I didn't enjoy The Avengers. I did. I enjoyed it a LOT more than The Mummy, which is an unfair comparison but helps frame how I feel about how The Avengers functions as entertainment and the reaction to the film. I've seen it twice now, and I liked it more the second time than the first. It's a film that plays like gangbusters with an audience, so I totally understand why people are throwing around words like "amazing" while other reviewers are reacting in comparably hyperbolic ways to bring them back to Earth.

 The first time I saw The Avengers, I was caught off guard by just how "Whedon-esque" The Avengers is. I don't want to repeat too much of what I said last week, which covers what most of audiences know of Joss Whedon versus what his die hard fans have come to expect, but even I wasn't expecting The Avengers to be as "quippy" as Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Serenity. Almost every character has a moment where they make a clever, scathing comment that undercuts tension or action or a speech made by someone else. Most of them have several, and I'm not just talking about Downey's perpetually snarky Tony Stark, who has a nickname for every member of the team. Even the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) gets a line in that is, apparently, often drowned out by the laughter from what happens right before he says it (the line, for anyone who didn't hear it, is "Puny god.")

 At first, I didn't know how I felt about it. Being a semi-dedicated Whedon-head**, once it happened a few times, I understood that this was going to be a film where stakes were maybe not as important as they could be. Then again, that's fine: if you've seen any of my other reviews for these films, Jon Favreau, Kenneth Branagh, and Joe Johnston also muted any serious sense of threat to their respective outings. The Avengers are "hopelessly outgunned" but not in such a way that Tony Stark doesn't continue to threaten Loki right before a Chitauri*** invasion of Manhattan. The film was enjoyable, but I had reservations about how I felt about the lack of "stakes," even when a supporting character died and another character turned "evil" early in the film. Rather than meaning much, it just made sense. That's a good way to address two characters we kind of know but who have to this point played minor roles in other films.

 See, the more I write about The Avengers, the more it seems like I didn't enjoy it. Nothing is further from the truth: I'll probably see it again, maybe even this weekend. I highly recommend it to people tired of insipid "summer entertainment" and I think it's great that parents are bringing their kids (or, more likely, vice versa) and that the whole family seems to be loving it. This is a movie that can comfortably show trailers for Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, and Pixar's Brave beforehand and not one of them seems out of place. It's a movie for geeks, for families, for casual moviegoers, and people just looking to have fun at the movies. Clearly its box office receipts (which, as you know, is the only way you know a movie is any good****) support the idea of its universal appeal. It is a LOT of fun, and I really want to emphasize that.

  The more I think about it, the more appropriate it is to compare The Avengers to The Mummy AND to J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. The Mummy I use as a sort of superficial concept of what "summer entertainment" means, in that it is successful in trying to reach all of the target demographics while also being vaguely enjoyable but also mostly forgettable once you're finished with it. It's why the film works so well on Saturday afternoons, when it seems to play on television. It doesn't require you to pay too much attention, but you'll have a good time and be able to get back to what you're doing without much trouble.

 Star Trek, similarly, is a more successful version of this. It's accessible both to Trekkies***** and people who know of Star Trek but haven't necessarily been following the series or films. The direction is assured, the film moves at a brisk pace, the cast is fun, and it delivers laughs and thrills in equal measure. I continue to argue that despite the fact that the Star Trek reboot is a very entertaining film, it doesn't have much - if any - of a plot. It does such a fine job of making you not notice this fact that nobody really seems to mind, and I'm cool with that.

 The Avengers is sort of like that, in that it gets by on such good will with what it does right (the levity, the excitement, the humor, the character interaction), that you don't really mind the first half dragging after Loki steals the Cosmic Cube (er, Tesseract******) until Thor shows up. We spend time catching up with Tony Stark and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), we see Black Widow in a scene that should make fans of Buffy or Dollhouse very happy, we meet the new guy playing Bruce Banner and enjoy the fact that Marvel finally nailed the Hulk's alter ego, and as usual, Steve Rogers doesn't have much to contribute.

 I know. I was mean to Captain America in that review, but aside from one great line ("There's only one God, ma'am, and I don't think he dresses like that") he doesn't get to do much but shout orders. Well, there's the other nice moment when he finally gets a pop culture reference (at the expense of Thor) that's a good laugh during an exposition scene. Captain America doesn't play much of a role in his fight scene with Loki - Iron Man swoops in and saves the day, and I don't really understand why the whole "Thor's hammer vs. Cap's shield" manages to end a fight in the woods after the God of Thunder steals Loki from S.H.I.E.L.D.'s jet.

 But look, I'm thinking about this too much. And I'm not saying that maybe I shouldn't, but like Star Trek, most people just don't care. And I'm okay with that, because if you're going to get behind "summer entertainment" in the way people are getting behind The Avengers, it's vastly preferable that it be something this well made. This much fun. Joss Whedon knows exactly how to put the right pieces together to make a movie that plays to as many people as possible without pandering or dumbing everything down, and now he has a massive platform with which to demonstrate it. I totally understand why people LOVE this movie, and I understand why some critics are so frustrated that people are willing to overlook so much of what isn't "perfect" that they see. Both sides have a point, even if they're reaching a little too hard to prove what the other is "missing."

 Where am I? Well, like I said, I'll be seeing it again. I enjoyed it that much and think a third time is worthwhile. I'm comfortable with the film's strengths and faults in equal measure and to be honest, the former outweigh the latter in all the ways that count. Since I can't fathom why I'd see Battleship, The Avengers is going to be my "summer entertainment," as Thor and Fast Five were last year. Things will get dark and moody with Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, and (hopefully) Looper in the coming months, but I'll be happy to have some fun with Earth's Mightiest Heroes in the meantime. You should too.







* After The Island, Michael Bay and I got to a point where it made more sense for us to spend some time apart. Not being able to follow the incomprehensibly edited and shot robot action scenes in the trailers made the decision to sit out the last seven years of his output easier.
** That's what you call yourselves, right? I mean, you aren't all just Browncoats, right?
*** Interesting tidbit I missed during the credits - the Chitauri named "The Other" is played by Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel alumn Alexis Denisof.
*** On the off chance you have never read one of my reviews before or anything else from this blog, I would like to point out that this statement is intended sarcastically.
**** Sorry, Trekkers.
****** I must admit that I'm a little confused why The Cosmic Cube isn't called "The Cosmic Cube" in The Avengers, and is instead repeatedly referred to as "The Tesseract." At first I thought it was to avoid explaining what a "Cosmic Cube" would do, but when you introduce Thanos as the stinger for the sequel and don't say his name (the lady sitting next to me asked her boyfriend "who's he?" and he didn't know) then I think you could get away with just calling it The Cosmic Cube.

Retro Double Feature Review: Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Batman Returns

 This is a true story of one of the coolest (and when you think about the age-to-film relationship, strangest) double features I've ever been privy to in theatres. The only other double feature that springs to mind in the same ballpark is Death to Smoochy and Panic Room, and considering I saw them as a young adult, the edge still goes to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Batman Returns.

 Here's the brief back story: My parents were going to a dinner party or... something. I'm not really sure, but it was the kind of social function that a 13 year old and his 11-going-on-12 year old brother would stick out at. They decided it was best to take us to Waverly Place, home of a multiplex that's not a gym, buy tickets for two movies playing in close proximity to each other, and let us walk from one screen to the other between them.

 Why Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Batman Returns? Well, there's a good chance we'd already seen Batman Returns when it opened, so they figured we'd be okay watching it again. We both liked Batman, after all, so that one made sense. Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Okay, I don't really know. Maybe the PG13 didn't worry them too much, maybe the comedy looked fairly innocent - I mean, it's a Valley Girl who learns she's the next in a long line of vampire killers. It had Luke Perry and Donald Sutherland and Paul Reubens. And Rutger Hauer - I mean, we'd already seen Blade Runner, even if we didn't understand it, so we knew most of these actors. It was a comedy about vampires, and the other options at the time were Universal Soldier, Mom and Dad Save the World, Boomerang, A League of Their Own, and Cool World*. Maybe the times just lined up right.

 This is going to sound odd, but I don't blame my reticence on watching the series Buffy the Vampire Slayer on the movie of the same name. I actually like the movie, or at least with the last time I saw it all the way through, which was probably ten years ago. Maybe it doesn't hold up, and maybe (okay, almost certainly) the series aged better than the film, considering it's Joss Whedon's unfiltered version of the Buffy mythos. Still, I have a fond place in my heart for the goofy charm of Kristy Swanson fighting Rutger Hauer at the prom, or of Paul Reubens losing his arm and his prolonged death scene (which extends beyond the credits).

 Whedon fans are well aware that Fran Rabel Kuzui and Donald Sutherland did some serious tinkering with his original screenplay, taking the story less seriously (or at least, overplaying the "tongue in cheek" aspects). The series was designed to reset perceptions about Joss Whedon's character, and it seems like the movie now has a bum rap (it has a 32% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 5.3 rating on IMDB). I enjoyed it enough in the theatres that there's a copy of Buffy the Vampire Slayer around here somewhere on VHS, and now I want to watch the film again...

 At the end of Buffy, we walked across the lobby and waited for Batman Returns to start. Since it came out almost a month before, we must have seen the film before, but I honestly can't remember what the reaction to seeing it a second time was. Instead, I frequently drift instead to The Nightmare Before Christmas, a movie we was in the same auditorium a year and change later**.


 I really had to think carefully about Batman Returns, because while I know that was the movie we walked across the lobby to go see, it just didn't make sense. My lingering sensation of Batman Returns is that it's a Christmas movie - that's when the film is set, Burton adopts his muted visual palette to include snow caked Gotham City and transitions the visuals to match the frigid tone of the film. Yes, Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) is sexually charged, and the Penguin (Danny DeVito) is appropriately animalistic, but after Batman Returns begins on a Charles Addams inspired pre-credits sequence with the Cobblepot family (Paul Reubens and Diane Salinger), the film takes a persistent, emotionally frozen turn that bothered audiences.

 This is all the more surprising because Batman Returns was released in June of 1992, in the middle of the "Summer Season," where it seems the least appropriate. I genuinely had difficulty reconciling my memories of Batman Returns as a movie (tonally, at least) with when I saw it on the big screen. It didn't seem possible that Warner Brothers would want to release a "winter" movie in the summer, but they did. Batman Begins makes sense, as does The Dark Knight, which are movies piping with steam or basked in sunlight. Even the cartoonish Batman & Robin, with Mr. Freeze as the villain, feels more appropriate to release in June than Batman Returns.

 Speaking of appropriate, I mentioned in my Army of Darkness Retro Review that there was a semi-stringent policy about what the young Cap'n could and could not see during my teenage years (Army of Darkness and The Crow: "no", Pulp Fiction: "yes"), but having seen both films now over the years, Batman Returns is thematically more "adult" in tone than the exaggerated Army of Darkness. It's a continuation of themes of disfigurement, abandonment, and psychosis from Batman, and one could argue as "dark" as the ending of Edward Scissorhands, which I also saw at a young age. One might argue that in the late 80s and early 90s, what was considered "family friendly" was a little more lenient in terms of violence and disturbing content, which might explain the eccentricities of people around my age.

 Either way, I still watch Batman Returns, still enjoy it more than any of the other cinematic iterations until The Dark Knight, and also plan on watching it again soon. In fact, I might stage a "double feature" event for both films so that everyone can enjoy the "related by Paul Reubens, mostly" pair. Let's pencil that in sometime soon, shall we?


* By the way, I'd say by 1993 we'd seen all of those movies, save for Boomerang and probably Cool World. We saw A League of Their Own at Mission Valley. I'm pretty sure I didn't see Cool World until high school, and to be honest I sort of wish I had never seen it.
** Which is, by the way, how that the film was much more kid-friendly and less frightening than I hoped it would be. Once I moved past that initial disappointment, I was and remain a huge fan of Tim Burton and Henry Selick's stop motion masterpiece.

The Bloodied, 800lb Gorilla in the Room...

 Long time Blogorium readers (in all of its forms) have probably noticed that the Cap'n has been very quiet about something I'm usually hyping like crazy this time of year: Summer Fest. In fact, this week should be the ramp up to Summer Fest 4: Cap'n Howdy vs. Giant Sharktopus, with lots of details about the schedule, where Summer Fest is going to be this year, and the "theme" nights I teased in the spring.

(Newer readers might want to check here for a full history of Summer Fests, coverage of films, and photos of previous horror / comedy marathons)


 The lack of Summer Fest coverage has been the source of some questions, and I'm afraid that the news I have isn't going to ease concerns. Because of work and scheduling issues, Summer Fest 4 isn't happening this weekend. We're going to be missing our 4th of July holiday weekend marathon because I'll be working all of the weekend and can't devote the kind of attention that I'd like to.

 It's a shame, because I'm not exaggerating when I say that I have one of my favorite line-ups ever for this year. What I hope to do is to put off Summer Fest until later into July or August, when things might be a little less crazy. In the meantime, I'll be putting up lists of possible marathons you, the reader, can have at home. If you want to try one out, write up the films you watch, and send them to the Cap'n, I'll be happy to post them as part of Summer Fest coverage.

Stay tuned for some suggestions, and I'll try (on a limited scale) to provide some reviews of horror and horror comedies during the week and over the weekend when possible. I have a stockpile of rare, obscure, and forgotten horror flicks from the 1980s, as well as a handful of titles I've been longing to share on the Blogorium.

Blogorium Review: Thor

I'm of two minds when it comes to reviewing Thor, because as much as I want to convey to readers that the movie is not only watchable, but eminently better than the garbage passing itself off as "summer entertainment" year after year, I also feel a responsibility to point out that half of the film is much better than the other. I feel this is directly attributable to Thor's director, Kenneth Branagh.

Branagh, whose output varies from the likes of Dead Again to a remake of Sleuth, is best known for his Shakespearean films - Henry V, Hamlet, Love's Labours Lost, Much Ado About Nothing, and As You Like It (as well as appearing in Othello) - and the influence of the Bard on his adaptation of the Nordic-God-Turned-Marvel-Comic-Hero is apparent throughout the film.At least, part of the film.
 
  In the realm of Asgard (one of the nine cosmic realms), Odin (Anthony Hopkins), King of the Gods, is preparing to step down and enter Odinsleep - his period of hibernation - but first must decide which of his sons to hand the throne of Asgard to. His oldest son, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is brave, if stubborn, whose rule may be undermined by a sense of entitlement. His youngest son, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) spent his life living in the shadow of Thor, and while his mischievous nature is recognized, his desire to win Odin's approval is evident. When the Frost Giants invade Asgard and try to steal back the Casket of Ancient Winters (their power supply), Thor disregards Odin's wishes and travels to Jotunheim with Loki, Sif (Jaimie Alexander) and The Warriors Three - Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), Fandral (Joshua Dallas), Hogun (Tadanobu Asano) - in tow to destroy the King of the Frost Giants (Colm Feore). Furious, Odin strips Thor of his powers and orders Heimdall (Idris Elba) to banish his son to Earth.

 And that's the first half hour or so of Thor. That doesn't take into account astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), her advisor Dr.Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and assistant Darcy (Kat Dennings), who discover Thor while searching the deserts in New Mexico for wormholes (or, as the film insists on calling them, "Einstein-Rosen bridges*"). No sooner have they found the brash, unruly son of Odin than Mjolnir, Thor's hammer, also falls to Earth and is discovered by S.H.I.E.L.D., headed up by Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg), who continues to appear in all Avengers-related Marvel films.

 The New Mexico part of the story, including a well-staged action sequence involving Thor, the S.H.I.E.L.D. team (including an extended cameo by Jeremy Renner, who will play Hawkeye in The Avengers**), is unfortunately the half of the film that doesn't really work. It's clear that Branagh is more interested in the Shakespearean power play at hand in Asgard, where Loki assumes power as Odin collapses after banishing Thor and proceeds to manipulate events in order to keep his older brother from ever returning. What happens on Earth, the place where Thor learns humility and earns his "God of Thunder" powers - which should be the most important part of the film - takes a back seat to Asgardian politics.

 Portman and Skarsgård are wasted in roles that serve no purpose: Jane Foster's developing romance with Thor never really makes sense because there's no story arc to support it. Selvig seems to exist in order to bridge Norse mythology to the story at hand (as is evidenced by the many times Skarsgård is forced to mention or read tales of the Viking Gods during the film), and for one good scene where he (badly) lies about Thor's identity to free him from S.H.I.E.L.D. captivity. There's also the after credits tease, but I'll get to that in a minute. I have no idea why Kat Dennings is in the film at all, as Darcy contributes nothing to the story unless the three screenwriters (plus two credited "story" writers) felt the pressing need to have three people discover Thor.

 Gregg is, as usual, fine as the "been there, seen that" second hand man of S.H.I.E.L.D. This time, he's on his own (Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury doesn't show up until later), and makes a credible Earth-bound foil for Thor, I guess. Since Thor pretty much gives up on beating goons after failing to raise Mjolnir, it's hard to really say. Again, the Earth-bound business feels perfunctory, second to the far more interesting Asgard story.

 Branagh seems to be more comfortable with Hopkins, Hiddleston, Hemsworth, Elba, and Renee Russo (who I didn't even recognize as Odin's wife Frigg) and the power struggle between father and sons. It's as though he's reveling in a pulp fiction twist on King Lear, and the film comes to life during throne room conversations. That's not to say that the Asgard half of the film isn't without its problems, though - another Branagh idiosyncrasy pops up that further confuses the narrative.

 Audiences have some idea when they are introduced to Loki that he's supposed to be the villain: his posture is slightly stooped, his hair is slicked back and his sullen, sunken eyes just scream "bad guy waiting in the wings!" But when the time comes for Hiddleston to shift from younger brother with an inferiority complex to full on baddie, Branagh doesn't convey that. This shouldn't be surprising: Branagh also devoted as much of his Hamlet as possible to give nuance to Claudius, typically portrayed as the moustache twirling villain. And there's something to be said for nuance, for giving a villain dimensions, or even to make him sympathetic, but Loki is such a muddled antagonist that he's never a genuine threat for Thor.

 In fact, Loki doesn't actually behave in a villainous manner until the after-credits sequence (directed by Joss Whedon, it turns out), where Selvig is summoned by Nick Fury to examine the Cosmic Cube. This brings me to another problem that isn't Branagh's fault, per se, but more attributable to Marvel Executive Producer Kevin Feige: the "set-up" effect.

 To be fair, Thor integrates Marvel characters (specifically Avenger-related) in a less intrusive way than say, Iron Man 2: there are small asides that indirectly mention Tony Stark and Bruce Banner; there's the aforementioned "Hawkeye" scene, and The Cosmic Cube is their way of anticipating the Captain America film to come. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect is that Thor on Earth isn't really about Thor among humans, but as laying the groundwork for The Avengers, right down to the last thing he says to Agent Coulson before leaving for Asgard.

 Okay, so I've nitpicked Thor as a way of addressing why there's a small (but vocal) backlash against the film online, so why do I think it's better than most summer entertainment? Well, the Asgard sections of the film are very good, as is the battle with the Frost Giants. Hemsworth and Elba are both great; Hopkins hasn't been this watchable in a while, and while they don't make much of an impact in the story, Sif and The Warriors Three have a natural chemistry with Thor that hints at a stronger relationship than we see in the film.

 The film is also funnier than this recap might suggest, and the laughs are much needed considering how much "fish out of water" plot is glossed over. The effects are impressive, particularly the Bifröst and bridge of Asgard. More to the point I feel the need to stress that there actually IS a story in Thor, which is more than I can say for a lot of "summer movies." It may not be the perfect comic book movie, but if you don't mind the imbalance of interest on Branagh's part, there's a lot to enjoy in Thor.





* I mention this because Ain't It Cool News, of all places, has an actual astrophysicist that breaks down the science of Thor here, and it seems like while the name is appropriate, it's really just a fancy way of saying "wormhole."
** I mention this because Coulson never actually uses his Avengers moniker, so either you know about the casting or are enough of a Marvel fan to know why he chooses a compound bow over sniper rifle. Or both, I suppose. Otherwise, it's just "hey, why is Jeremy Renner in this movie?"

The Cap'n Presents: Adventures in Projectioneering (Part Four)

Sometimes, being a projectionist has its perks, although by the end of this story you might wonder how much of a "perk" it really turned out to be. One night, while I was working for a local multiplex, a few friends thought it might be fun to stick around after the theatre closed and watch one of the fourteen films playing*, and much to my surprise the assistant managers in charge that night gave it their blessing.

"Lock the doors when you leave," they said, and then took off. Maybe I got the pass because two of the people stick around were also employees, and another was a former employee, but I was genuinely not expecting this endorsement after the "Summer of Sam" incident**.

The only non-employee who came by (and who had a habit of simply wandering into the projection area when I was at work) wanted to see God's Army, an all-Mormon film playing at our theatre. For some reason, we were the only theatre playing the film in the Southeast, so busloads of Mormons would arrive to see the film, and it played for quite a while considering its status as a low budget independent film released late in the summer of 2000.

Now, I didn't really want to stick around and watch God's Army, so I struck a bargain with out interloping visitor: we'd watch a double feature instead. Here's where the question of how much of a "perk" staying after hours is, because despite the fact that we had access to a number of presumably better films, the double feature everybody settled on was The Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps, and The Replacements.

Why? I can't honestly say I remember; for the life of me, I can't figure out how three die-hard horror fans couldn't find anything better playing at that theatre than those two films. Some cursory searching into the films released on July and August of 2000 indicates that while our choices weren't, *ahem*, "good", we could have done slightly better than what we picked. Admittedly, I think we'd already slogged through Hollow Man, Bless the Child, What Lies Beneath, Loser and The In Crowd***, but considering that Scary Movie was still playing and that John Waters' Cecil B. Demented was probably playing there, I cannot fathom why we'd pick such a milquetoast pair of features.

The proof is in the pudding: during The Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps (a really boring, not-very-funny sequel to a movie that wasn't great in the first place), the only thing I can remember comes not from the film but from the enjoyment two employees took in being able to smoke in the auditorium. While I remember a little more about the Keanu Reeves / Gene Hackman / Rhys Ifans starring The Replacements, a film I imagine most people don't recall in any fashion (it involved a rag-tag team of football substitutes and, um, well, that's what I can remember; that, and it was "harmless"), what stands out is again what happened surrounding the film. Of the five people hanging around to watch the film, two of them wandered off, one fell asleep, and two of us were left to watch the movie.

It wasn't the last time we'd come in and watch a lousy movie in 2000: I can recall seeing Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2, Highlander: Endgame, Urban Legends: Final Cut, Bedazzled, and Little Nicky, to name a few. It was, I believe, this period of time, from 1998 to 2004**** or so, that the Cap'n earned the reputation of "will watch anything," a reputation I am unable to live down to this day. What we never did again was stick around "after hours" to watch any more bland, generic Hollywood comedies, or anything else for that matter.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, I never did see God's Army. I don't regret this oversight in my cinematic quest for knowledge.



* There are sixteen screens, but I'm leaning in the direction of having two screens for one or two marquee titles.
** The employees gathered together for a pre-screening of Spike Lee's Summer of Sam, only to make it 2/3rds into the film when the manager cut the projector off and told us he wanted to go home.
*** Looking back at what came out, the summer of 2000 may have been the weakest time to ever have unfettered access to a multiplex.
**** For the record, I think that ended during a group outing to see the wretched Alien vs. Predator.

Little Boxes on the hardwood, little boxes made of...

well, cardboard, I guess. For all the Cap'n knows, they could be ticky-tacky. If one takes the definition of ticky tacky ("shoddy material, as for the construction of standardized housing"), I suppose you could actually say they are made of ticky tacky. And most of them look the same.

That, as many of you can guess, is the problem. I'd love to tell you about all the movies I've watched since class ended and I moved in, but I honestly can't remember which box has what movie. I only just found the box with the Torchwood and Doctor Who blu-rays, and I think I learned how to use the DVR (we'll find out if Weeds is on it tomorrow), but On Demand doesn't work for some reason and Chiller (the all horror channel) also doesn't want to load. Cheesus crust!

Other than that, things are good. I was surprised to come back from an internet blackout to see that Ridley Scott is directing this Alien prequel thingamabob and that Spielberg is remaking Harvey. Both of these struck me as very odd and unnecessary, but the Cap'n has been wrong before.

---

I think before dipping into the "Vault", I mentioned that my days of used books and more were winding down. This is true; in fact, my last day of enjoying "McKayflix" will be Thursday, so if you have requests, now is the time to get them in. Trade credit is light but I can buy them on your behalf for a later date. Just let me know.

The split is one more out of "that's how it has to be" than "what either would prefer": I can't work the schedule they need and they don't have positions for seasonal employees. It's okay though, I'll still find ways to keep the filmic updates coming your way, and hopefully I should have a ton of material to sort through in the three weeks between the end of work and the beginning of school.

---

If I get this DVR thing working correctly, I might even start reviewing stuff I'd never use trade credit on, or check out, and definitely not buy. Having spent very little time perusing the twenty or so movie channels to record from, I couldn't give you specifics, but those lesser-tier HBO and Showtime channels are airing just about anything.

---

Finally, I saw this on Saturday night and thought it was cute:

It's Not Going to Be a Good Week.

"Perhaps someone will make a brilliant movie out of it."

That's what director John Landis told Bloody-Disgusting while confirming that, yes, he is in the process of selling remake rights for An American Werewolf in London. To Dimension films. Of Cursed fame*.

While I'm not willing to go quite so far as to say this can't be a worse idea than An American Werewolf in Paris** (from Dimension's sister-corporation, Buena Vista), this is the remake I've been dreading. The one I knew was coming but really hoped someone would have the good sense to say "no, let's leave that one alone."

And the kicker of it is that John Landis is essentially giving his stamp of approval by selling the remake rights. Worse than that, based on the above quote, he implies that there's something to be improved on the original, which I totally disagree with. I happen to hold An American Werewolf in London in that "brilliant" category, not simply as a horror comedy but as a movie that works from beginning to end. It doesn't feel dated at all and the very practical special effects hold up to this day. The music selection is inspired, the jokes are great, and the dream sequences are truly bizarre.

Lightning doesn't strike twice like that, I'm afraid. I'm sure state of the art computer blah blah blah will make the wolf look cooler, but it won't look like it's in the room. That's what is so wonderful about the "transformation" sequence: it's all happening right there, in a brightly lit room, in front of you. The trickery is handled so well that to this day it hurts to watch David's bones crack and stretch. The werewolf in Piccadilly Circus may be a little limited, but damn if that carnage isn't fun. I've had to rewind that part of the film too many times because I'll be laughing so hard I miss something.

But there's a "brilliant" movie to be made out of this. More brilliant than the original, which is lacking in some way. I mean, if you want to remake An American Werewolf in Paris and make it not suck, I say go for it. But leave my werewolf alone. I guess we can look forward to The Howling*** redux next. Le sigh.

---

Despite nearly every critic shitting on Transformers: Who Needs a Plot?, a bagizillion of you saw it, proving to Michael Bay and the studios that they can keep making idiotic crap and you'll go see it because "why not? GI Joe isn't out yet!" It's no wonder they keep pumping out garbage remakes and mindless movies, because people will flock to them. And then they'll tell me how "Friday the 13th is really actually pretty awesome, especially if you're a fan of the series" and I'll call Shenanigans on that bullshit.

I'm on the record hating Halloween for the dumb decisions Rob Zombie made, but at least he made some dumb decisions with good intentions. There is NOTHING in Shit Coffin worth giving you a "So You Won't Have To" review. From the terrible Blue Velvet reference that opens the movie to the arbitrariness made painful by self aware "explanations" to the characters you want dead from the moment you meet them or the fact that if Jason is NOT in fact a pot farmer then it's awfully convenient he just lets those pot plants grow RIGHT BY WHERE HE LIVES and then kills anyone who goes near them. They couldn't even make the trade from sack to hockey mask feel important. He just picks it up off of the ground.

Look, there aren't a lot of die-hard Friday the 13th Part 3 fans out there, but I guarantee you that if you come over here and watch it with us, you'll see immediately how badly Shit Coffin misunderstands the series "Formula."

But by all means, keep watching this crap. Keep giving millions of dollars over to people so they're validated in thinking you morons will watch anything. That way, when I'm having a particularly bad day (as today was), the Cap'n will never run out of targets to hurl abuse at.


* For those of you who aren't Cranpire and (rightly) don't remember Cursed, it was the movie that Kevin "Scream" Williamson and Wes "Scream 2" Craven were making after Scream 3, but was so bad the Weinstein brothers had it recut and further crappified before dumping it unceremoniously.

** I really don't blame anyone for forgetting about An American Werewolf in Paris. That movie sucks donkey nards.

*** Speaking of which, feel free to open the "Which is better: The Howling or An American Werewolf in London?" debate. It's a totally fair argument for either side.

Bad News, Everyone!

The Greensboro Summer Fest Massacre Part 2 will most definitely not take place in the Apartment of Solitude. The Cap'n has been given his marching orders by a landlord keenly interested in renting the place out for more money (so interested that he snuck in a For Rent sign while I was at work and won't return phone calls).

While this may not be news to most of you, the unfortunate part is that the new apartment the Cap'n thought he'd be moving into is suddenly not available, so I have a week and a half to avoid being homeless. I'll be hitting the pavement tomorrow in order to avoid this, but considering the time limitations, it may come to the point where beggars can't be choosers. I'm not really thrilled about that since a large living room was a big priority and the no-such-luck apartment met that criteria.

Apologies in advance if things are a bit cramp-y come July 2nd.

Speaking of which, we are starting on Thursday, July the 2nd of 2009 with a field trip to see Drag Me to Hell, followed by night one of Summer Fest shock-o-rama. They will continue, pretty much unabated, until sometime late Sunday night, July 5th. The list of films is nearly finalized and when (if) I know where it's happening, I'll put everything together in an official bulletin.

---

Very quickly I'd like to address something I've been noticing online. Since Ghostbusters arrived on Blu Ray this past Tuesday, buzz online has included lots of griping about the amount of grain in the picture. Having recently seen this version of Ghostbusters, I thought I'd compare it to another movie that isn't getting this much grief but has similar grain presence.

First off, you should know that Ghostbusters is grainy. So grainy, in fact, that if you look at some of the books in the library scene, they look like aphids are crawling all over them. It can be, admittedly, distracting; this does in some respects draw away from the "perfect image" reputation Blu Ray is supposed to have. I understand that, and it takes some getting used to.

On the other hand, two things jump out immediately: 1) Many movies released on BD from the 1980s have similar grain issues. Part of this has to do with the film stock being used at the time, and part of it is because in order to "remove" that grain, studios will use something called Digital Noise Reduction. It clears up grain but also robs images of fine details. Terminator 2 has a healthy dollop of DNR and you can tell at times. The other point, 2) is that even with this grain, you can still make out more in the image for Ghostbusters than previous dvd editions. Once you get used to the grain, the picture does admittedly look better and more "film like", however you take that to mean.

More importantly, I don't hear the same complaints about Criterion's The Seventh Seal, which is getting rave reviews about it's "perfect" image but also begins with a persistent layer of grain. Under the grain, sure, it looks great but unless I'm crazy or something, it's the same essential issue. I had a similarly jarring encounter with The Third Man, which looked much grainier than I ever remembered it seeing, improved clarity or no. And yet, like The Seventh Seal, nobody seems to be mentioning it. Ghostbusters, on the other hand, is getting calls of "buyer beware!"

Personally the Cap'n finds it a little ridiculous, but if you want my opinion both of them look pretty damned good considering their age. So does The Third Man, it just took some adjusting to. Truthfully, people with smaller tv's might not even notice the grain. On a larger screen, it's pretty pervasive, but not so distracting I couldn't watch two very entertaining movies. Yeesh.

---

Off to bed. I have to find something of Summer Fest is going to be tragic...