The Dark Knight

Heath Ledger was a fantastic, brilliant actor and his performance as the Joker was the best, most amazing moment of his all too short career. Let's just get that out of the way right now. Not only was his performance sublime, engrossing, and nuanced, it was one of the most dead-on portrayals of the character -- in or out of the comics -- and will no doubt go down in history as one of the most indelible, iconic villains ever seen on film. He was somehow funny, scary, and tragic all at once. It is sad that such a talented young actor was killed so early in his career, but at least he went out with a performance that will live forever.

I just wish the film that took place around Heath Ledger's performance hadn't, kinda, sucked.

I suppose I shouldn't say it sucked, since it is currently the highest rated film on the IMDB and has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 95%. I suppose I should just say that this film wasn't for me, since I don't seem to agree with director Chris Nolan's view on Batman or comic books in general.

I know, I know... it's going to be me against the world on this one, but hear me out...

While I definitely agree that a more nuanced, intelligent, and dare I say "realistic" portrayal of the Batman universe should be a breath of fresh air after the campy nonsense seen in the previous two (or maybe three or four, depending on your opinion) Batman films, Nolan's films have just been pretentious, overplotted, overcooked messes. But, worse than that, they just weren't Batman films.

Here's the thing, just because you put a guy in a cowl with horns and call him Batman, that doesn't mean you made a film based on Batman. That just means you called it Batman.

Here, in my opinion, are some important rules that Chris Nolan broke when adapting his version of Batman to the big screen:

1. Don't Mess up the Costume
This one seems like it would be a no-brainer, and yet almost every incarnation outside of the comics has gotten it wrong. Granted, a drawing of a character probably isn't easy to translate into a real world costume intended to be worn by an actual human being, but some of these costume designs didn't even try.

Let's start with the colors: In May of 1939, Batman premiered in Detective Comics #27 wearing a gray costume with a black cape and cowl. As printing and color quality improved over the years, the black cape and cowl gained blue highlights to show better detail and shadowing. Eventually, the entire costume turned blue and gray, and then black and gray again, and so on, mostly depending on the ear in which the story took place, what book he was in, and the whims of the current artist and editorial team.

So, sure, it's always been changing so I don't have a problem with changes made from page to screen. But at least in the comics it always looked good (except for the unfortunate period where he dressed like this, but that was Jean-Paul Valley, not Bruce Wayne), which can't be said for the films, which more often than not, have usually looked bad, with Christian Bale's Dark Knight being the worst. Seriously, he doesn't even look like Batman. He looks like a guy in a Hefty garbage bag with two bumps on his dead. You almost never see him full on, he's usually just in shadow or in extreme close up. Worse, his costume's color scheme is black on black with a black bat logo, so it's impossible to see.

This was a Batman costume designed by people who are embarrassed to be making a film about a guy in a costume. So... why are they making this movie?

2. Batman is a Detective
Now, this is something most people who have never read the comics couldn't be expected to know. In the comics, Batman is a detective with skills on par with -- and perhaps even rival -- Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, and the like. He uses deductive reasoning, collects and analyzes forensic evidence, and just plain uses his brains as much, if not more, than he uses his brawn.

You wouldn't know this from the movies, of course. Just like you wouldn't know from the Tarzan films that the character in the novels is actually incredibly intelligent, well spoken, and fluent in at least three languages. Most people who think of Tarzan think of the dumb, lumbering oaf who mutters "Me Tarzan, you Jane" popularized from the movies. That's not Tarzan. And the guy who prowls the city beating up muggers isn't really Batman.

The most we ever really get from any of the movies is when he'll enter some data into his computers and it will tell him what to do. At least in this film he actually visited some crime scenes and exchanged words with the cops, but he didn't really learn anything or act on evidence collected or gleaned.

3. Batman is a Martial Arts Expert
I know, I know... I just complained about how the films emphasize Batman's fighting over his brain, but now I'm complaining that there isn't enough fighting?

Well... yeah. Because, you know... there isn't.

Don't get me wrong, action-wise, Dark Knight is a million times better than Batman Begins, but that's only because Batman Begins has some of the worst action scenes in any major Hollywood movie. Seriously, it's terrible. All of the fighting scenes were basically just close up shots of Christian Bale's face and fists, edited terribly while punching sounds play in the background. The scene with the tumbler was cool, but all of the fight scenes were terrible.

Dark Knight is a little bit better, especially with the big truck chase set piece in the middle of the film, but the handheld fighting scenes are still pathetic and horribly choreographed and edited. A lot of that has to do with the fact that Chris Nolan doesn't know how to direct action effectively, but it also has to do with the fact that their Batman is wearing so much padding and armor he can barely move!

4. Batman Doesn't Fly
Why is Batman always flying around in these movies? Because it looks cool? But it doesn't. It looks lame and doesn't make any sense. He's not a real Bat. He doesn't have to fly around in every scene.

5. It's Batman and Robin, dammit!
Robin gets no respect. Robin is something of a litmus test for finding real Batman fans. Here's the thing... I'm not going to say that "real" Batman fans love, or even like, Robin, but "real" Batman fans don't hate him. The idea that Robin is a dumb, annoying, Jar Jar Binks like character that drags Batman down was invented by movie-goers who think they're smarter than comic book fans.

Here's the deal: Robin is a cool, fun character who compliments Batman. They're the Dynamic Duo! I'm not saying that Batman always needs to have Robin in every story. In fact, I usually prefer the solo stories, even thought I like Robin and think he has his place in the Batman universe.

Do I think he should be in all the movies? Of course not. However, in most of the interviews and production articles I've heard from the cast and crew of Nolan's Batman films, they've talked smack about Robin, said he has no place in anything to do with Batman, and isn't a character that can be taken seriously. It's as thought these people think they understand Batman better than the people who have been writing and drawing his stories for the past 70 years.

Even Frank Miller used Robin as an integral part of his Dark Knight Returns.

Ok, Donald, so you thought Chris Nolan's past two Batman films haven't shown much faithfulness or fidelity to the source material. Get over it. How does it work on its own terms? Forgetting the comic, was the Dark Knight, when taken by itself and in a vacuum, a good film?

No! It sucked!

This over bloated mess of a movie wouldn't have worked as an episode of Law and Order, let alone a film based on one of the most beloved comic book characters of all time. I'm not a dumb person. I'm able to follow multiple plot lines and a diverse cast of characters, but sometimes too much is just too much.

-- Warning!! There May be Spoilers!! --

Why was Eric Roberts in this movie? What purpose did his character serve?

Why was that guy from Hong Kong in this movie? Did we really need to spend another twenty minutes on that pointless scene in Hong Kong?

What was the point of the copy-cat Batman vigilantes? That plot line when nowhere.

Why was Maggie what's her name in this movie? Here's a tip for Chris Nolan: If you can't get Katie Holmes to reprise her role, rewrite the script so it's a new character. Rachel Dawson isn't even from the comics, was there really such a huge fan demand to bring back that character? And, no, the love subplot didn't serve any actual purpose. Bruce Wayne was going to give up being Batman if she'd only agree to marry him? Huh? So the Batman from this movie isn't fighting crime because he feels obsessed with bringing justice to the streets of Gotham city, but because he's a bored bachelor with nothing better to do? That's just dumb. And so is the idea that he was grooming Harvey Dent to be his successor so he can retire as Batman. That's just too moronic to even get into.

And why was all of the dialogue in this movie so pretentious and unbelievable? You either die a hero or live to see yourself become the villain? Oh shut up. How about option 3, where you live a long and happy life as a good person? And don't get me started on Gary Oldman's ridiculously over the top, cheeseball speech at the end about how Batman is Gotham's noble Knight. If that had been in any other movie, the fan boys who ate up this film would've laughed it off the screen.

Oh, and why did Batman have to take the blame for those murders anyway? As long as they're going to lie to cover up Dent's image, why not blame those murders on the Joker? Wouldn't that have made more sense and been just as easy to get people to believe?

But, then again, the idea that they had to lie about what a monster Harvey Dent had become was moronic anyway. They did so because they knew that the people of Gotham would never have any hope had they known that the once beloved District Attorney had turned to a life of crime. Pffffft. That was the dumbest, most impossible to believe plotpoint from this entire, ridiculous, impossible to believe movie.

First of all, an entire city can't lose hope and turn to crap simply because a public authority figure is revealed to be corrupt. Look at the real world that we live in. We have no heroes and just about everybody believes that most of our cops, politicians, and district attorneys are evil. Obama seems like a really wonderful, admirable person, but you can't expect me to believe that the whole world would go crazy if it was revealed that he went mad and murdered a bunch of people.

So, no, that made no sense. And since that was the stunning denouement, the entire story pretty much fell flat and served no purpose.

But what did work? Well, the visuals were stunning. There's no doubt about that. This was a beautiful film. Some of the action scenes were also ok. The Hong Kong abduction scene in particular was really clever and cool, even though it served no purpose in the overall story and just bogged down the plot with more useless minutea. Also, the Bat-cycle thing was really cool. I hope they bring that back.

Oh, and the Joker was awesome. As I said, Heath Ledger was brilliant and their interpretation of the character was flawless. Then again, it's not really a hard character to mess up. He's every bit as one dimensional as he comes across. He just likes to kill people and piss off Batman. And he definitely did a lot of that in this movie, so he was great. Ledger and Nolan even managed to take the character to another level by making him far more terrifying that he has ever been before. Seriously, this was the scariest, most unnerving character since Hannibal Lecter. I honestly never knew what he was going to do and I shifted nervously in my seat uncomfortably everytime he was on screen.

Unfortunately, the filmmakers never seemed to know what he was going to do either, or at least they never seemed sure of his motivations or what purpose he actually served in the overall story. But that actually worked for the character in the long run. So it was fitting that the supreme agent of chaos would be the defining character from this chaotic, overblown mess. In fact, I think the Joker may actually have written the screenplay.

Ipod Touch 2.0

I'm slightly ashamed to admit I actually paid the 10 bucks to update my iPod Touch to the newest software. But I'm more than slightly annoyed that I had to pay anything to update my iPod at all. By charging Touch users and not iPhone users, Apple is basically creating a tier system that says I'm a somehow inferior consumer of their products. It's somewhat insulting, nonsensical, and lacking sense from a business perspective. Sure, I paid the ten bucks, but it left me slightly resentful and with a bad taste in my mouth. Why charge for the ability to pay to download more applications?

But that's neither here nor there. There's no sense complaining about the charge since I was the sucker who forked it over the first day of release.

No wait... I paid on the second day, since the itunes store was down for the first 24 hours. So not only did I have to pay for the new software, but I had to wait a day to pay for it.

But, again, that's beside the point. Let's talk about the software itself. Was it worth the ten bucks?

Meh.

There were some interesting updates to the OS and functionality of the device, almost all of which are for the better, most of which are most beneficial for the iPhone, and all of which are too boring to discuss here. The real meat of the update, and the reason why I, and most people, downloaded it was for the App Store.

And it's pretty cool. But, frankly, it's also something that should've been available since day 1. And it shouldn't been free. But there I go again...

The App Store is just as easy to navigate and use as the Music store and everything else Apple has invented. Browsing is easy, downloading is easy, and syncing the iPod with my Mac is easy. You can download apps to your computer or directly to your iPod via wi-fi. Everything is sorted and ranked the same as on the music store, by category, popularity, etc.

The pricing structure seems a little wacky though. Lots of stuff is free, and much is so cheap it may as well be free, but some is just way too expensive. According to the App Store, Super Monkey Ball is the most downloaded game so far. I'm sure it's a fun game and all, but there are actually enough people willing to pay 10 bucks to play a game on their iPod?

There isn't even a way to play a demo for any of these games. You just have to purchase them on faith. That's ok if the game is 99 cents, or even a couple bucks, but ten dollars? No thanks. Especially considering the fact that playing games on a touchscreen isn't actually much fun. Here's a note to all of the game developers: Rubbing your finger back and forth across a glass touchscreen is actually really unpleasant. Try rubbing your finger tip against your monitor right now for a few minutes and you'll being to understand what I mean.

Anyway, I've stuck with all of the free stuff, and thankfully there's a lot of it. Here's what I've tried out so far:

Bubbles:
This sucks. Touch the screen and bubbles appear. Touch the bubbles and the disappear. They don't pop mind you, even though they make a popping sound effect. They just vanish from the screen. The animation is bad, the look is garish, and the fun factor is non-existent. I thought there'd be some kind of pleasure from popping bubbles, but the control is so far removed from what is actually happening on screen that it just doesn't feel right. I don't expect much from a free game designed for the iPod, but this one fell short of even that.

Check Please:
A slightly obtuse but functional tip calculator. Once you get used to the design, it's actually really useful and powerful, as tip calculators go anyway. You can set the tip percentage, tax, and even the number of people in your party. I like this one and recommend it.

Jirbo Break:
This is basically Arkanoid, or Brick Breaker, or whatever else it's been called over the years. You rub your finer along the screen to move your cursor under the ball. You've played it before. It's fun... but not on an iPod. As I said above, rubbing your finger along a screen over and over again just doesn't feel good. In fact, it feels bad. Play this to long and you'll get caluses.

Jirbo Match:
This is a kind of fun match game. You know the drill: You get to uncover two cards at once, until you find and make matches. It's cute and addictive. I like it and recommend it, if you know that you like match games.

Light:
This is completely pointless. It's a "flashlight" application that turns the screen all white... so you can see in dark rooms. There's nothing to say about this. It works and it might even come in handy. And I'm sure it doesn't take up much memory. Go ahead and download it.

Tap Tap Revenge:
This is actually a really fun, really clever music game. It's sort of like Guitar Hero, but on a touchscreen. You have to tap the dots as they fall down the screen in time to the music. It's hard to explain but it's easy to get into. This is actually a great game and I recommend it. It's just fun.

Urban Spoon:
Unsure of where to go for dinner? Download Urban Spoon and let it decide for you. It logs through a wi-fi connection to access information about restaurants in the area. Then you just shake your iPod (or press a button if you're in public and don't want to look like an idiot) and it randomly picks a restaurant, offering links to reviews information, etc. You can enter parameters that limit your search to certain cuisines or price ranges as well. This application is awesome.

And that's all I've downloaded so far. Was it worth the time and money I spent to upgrade the software? Probably not at this point, but as the App Store grows and the applications get better and more plentiful, I'm sure it will be a worthwhile investment.

But let's hope version 2.1 is free.

Wall-E

This is the best movie Pixar has ever made, so by default that puts it pretty high on the short list of the best movies ever made.

If you're like me, it'll make you laugh, cry, and want to jump out of your seat with excitement.

Just go see it.

Quick Movie Round-Up

I saw a few movies over the past few weeks. Here are my quick thoughts on each:



Speed Racer

Speed Racer is one of the worst TV shows of all time. I've met people before who describe themselves as fans and who actually claim to have made it through an entire episode. Some of these "fans" have even sat through multiple episodes. I've never been able to do that. I've tried. And I've failed. To begin with, I'm not a fan of Anime. Let me be more frank: I think Anime sucks. Especially bad Anime, a subcategory in which the Speed Racer series most definitely falls. It sucks big time.

But when I saw the trailer for the new movie based on Speed Racer, I thought it looked pretty cool. So I saw it.

In Imax.

I'm not sure if it was the enormity of the Imax screen or if it was all of the excited kids in the theatre who couldn't stop laughing and hollering with excitment, but I had a blast. It isn't going to win any awards (and judging by the box office, it probably won't even make much of a profit, if at all), but it was actually a really clever, really well done kids movie.

Rent it.


Juno

You know what would've made this movie less annoying? If it had been called "Jar Jar" and was just two hours of a pregnant Jar Jar binks wise-cracking in his Gunganese creole.

"Meesa Jar Jar Binks. Meesa forshizz up the spout!"

Seriously, this was one of the most annoying, awful movies I've ever seen. People liked this? This won an award for best writing? If you thought Daria and the collected works of Jenneane Garrafalo are the crowning achievements of Western Civilization, you might enjoy this movie. Otherwise, you'll find it as obnoxious and impossible to believe as I did.

There just wasn't one character moment, one piece of dialogue, one single epiphany that didn't seem forced, over written, or the least bit genuine. Call me crazy, but I enjoy hearing actors recite dialogue that sounds authentic and as thought it might actually come from a character's mouth, not straight from a pretentious, trite screenwriter's Macbook.

What a piece of crap.



The Incredible Hulk

I'll admit right from the start that I was one of the four or five people who actually liked the original Ang Lee Hulk film from a few years back. It was over written, over produced, and had one of the worst finales I've ever seen, but it was a pretty good comic book movie and the Hulk scenes were awesome. You can read my review of that film here.

I honestly wasn't expecting much from this film. It didn't look as cool as the first film, it didn't have a director as well known and respected as Ang Lee, and -- frankly -- Ed Norton is no Eric Bana. Eric Norton is actually really overrated and kind of annoying.

But this movie pretty much kicked ass.

The story wasn't really a sequel to the first film, so it was able to start fresh without any baggage. In a way, it owed as much to the TV show than it did to the first film. There were even cameos by Lou Ferrigno and Bill Bixby (in a roundabout way, by a quick clip from an episode of the courtship of Eddie's Father.)

But who cares about all that? What really sold this movie, other than the obvious love for and fidelity to the source material, was the amazing, comic book action scenes. For my money, the Hulk didn't look quite as good as he did in the first film (he was a bit too monstrous), but the set pieces were off the hook, each better than the last, all culminating in the best comic book style fight finale in film history. When the Hulk and the Abomination finally went toe to toe in the streets of New York City, I nearly wept in my seat. It was everything I've ever wanted to see on screen since Marvel first started making films in the first place.

Go see it. Go see it multiple times. I want to see another sequel.

Souther Style Chicken Biscuit

Why does this thing taste like pickle? I opened it up and looked inside. There were no pickles to be found. Does southern style mean pickle flavor? That's weird. I would have thought it meant, I dunno, cayenne maybe, or some other such spice. But pickle?

Now, pickle isn't altogether a bad flavor, not even on chicken. Chick-Fil-A sells little friend chicken sandwiches garnished with pickles and they're delicious. But maybe the difference is in how you can see the pickles before you taste them. Essence of pickle, when there is no pickle for the eye to see, is just odd and off putting.

But enough about pickles. How is the sandwich? Meh. I guess I can recommend it if you like pickles, but maybe not even then because, even though I belabored the point, it doesn't actually taste that much like pickles. It's just sort of has a light pickle flavor. The chicken itself seemed meaty enough, and the biscuit was flaky and flavorful. But it kind of gave me a headache, if that makes any sense. I felt sort of like I was sitting in the back seat on a long car ride while I was forced to read the atlas out loud. Not a great feeling, and then throw in the nasty aftertaste of pickles.

But, for whatever reason, I didn't hate it. But I don't think I need to get it again.

Titanic

Titanic is the stupidest movie of all time.

Of course, it's also awesome. It's a guilty pleasure, but it's still a pleasure. I own the special edition DVD and watch it all the time. I'm watching it right now, in fact. The special effects are amazing and look as good today as they did when it first premiered. The set design, photography, and costumes are stunning. The attention to detail is absolutely astounding. And the final hour or so where the ship is sinking is breathtaking, edge of your seat entertainment. James Cameron the producer and director deserves all of the accolades he received for this movie's impeccable design and production.

But James Cameron the writer is a hack. Seriously, this screenplay is terrible. When anything is happening that isn't from any actual historical record, James Cameron's imagination and writing ability simply run dry. But as bad as his hackneyed, trite dialogue is, it's his attempts at characterization that always make me cringe.

So here's my list of the eight worst written characters from Titanic. This might take a while:

8. Jack Dawson
Leo gets a bad rap. Everybody always points to this movie as his absolute worst performance ever. And it was, but only because all of his other performances have been so good. The guy's a great actor. I don't care what anybody says. This character just happens to have the distinction of being his worst written character ever. Seriously, he was given more nuanced, intelligently penned scripts while he was a cast member on Growing Pains.

But I kind of liked Jack, if only because Leo is such a charming, likable, natural actor. But it is a stupid, cliched character.

Jack's entire character can be defined by the party in steerage, which is the dumbest, most moronically conceived scene in movie history. You know... the scene after Jack has dinner with all of the rich people, and he then takes Rose down to steerage to show how poor people party so much harder. It's so annoying and ridiculous and, frankly, offensive to both rich and poor people alike. It's so dumb and over the top in how it strives to make its point that rich people are assholes who are all miserable, boring people while poor people are the only ones who understand what life is all about.

I'm surprised James Cameron didn't put Montel Jordan in the backround, singing "This is How We Do it" remixed on bagpipes.

7. That Irish Guy
I don't remember his name. I just remember that scene where Jack first sees Rose and becomes stunned, until that Irish Guy says, "You'll just as soon have angels fly out of your arse as you will get close to the likes of her."

Was he the great great grand father of Wayne from Wayne's World or something?

6. Cal Hockley
I just love how James Cameron takes every opportunity to make Hockley into such an nonredeemable dumbass. Like that scene where Rose is setting out her Picasso paintings and Hockley complains about how horrible they are, and how Picasso will NEVER amount to anything. Contrast that to the scene where Jack sees her paintings and gushes over them. Because, according to James Cameron, people who hate art are evil and those who love art are angels.

And what a prick this guy is. From the minute he meets Jack, he treats him like shit, and all but laughs when he finds out that all of the poor people are going to die. Why didn't they give him a Snidely Whiplash like handlebar mustache for him to twirl? Or they couldn't have included a scene where he raped one of his servants and then bit the head off of a live puppy?

5. That Fat Guy
You know... Bill Paxton's friend or partner or something. Who put that guy in a movie? That character wasn't just poorly written, but the actor was disgusting. Sorry, but it's true. In fact, was that Bruce Villanche?

4. Fabrizio
You know, Jack Dawson's annoying Italian friend. I'm sure you remembered who I meant after I said he was Italian, because he's the most ridiculously stereotyped Italian character since Chef Boyardee. They should've just named him Mario so he could've jumped around the ship, eating mushrooms, and saying things like, "It's a' me... Mario!!"

3. Jar Jar Binks
I have no idea what James Cameron was thinking. Why the hell was Jar Jar in this movie?

2. Molly Brown
Kathy Bates is a wonderful actress who should've known better. But boy was she annoying. That horribly, phony accent. Those obnoxious southernisms she worked into every line of dialogue. I don't really have much more to say. You know what I'm talking about.

1. Rose
I hate, hate, hate hate HATE Rose DeWitt Bukater. What a selfish, loathsome, insensitive, pathetic shrew. And she's actually our film's hero!

Rose's first big scene is when she is at lunch during the first day of the ship's voyage. She's mostly quiet for the whole scene, until her mother complains about her smoking. So what does Rose do? She turns to her mother and blows smokes right into her face. What a bitch! Sure, we later learn that her mother was expecting Rose to marry the admittedly loathsome Cal Hockley, but still. If you don't want to marry the guy, don't. But don't blow smoke in your mother's face. That's just mean.

And then, after Bruce Ismay talks about how he coined the named "titanic" because he wanted something that would convey the sheer size and power of the ship, she insulted him by telling him he should read Freud, because he obviously has a small penis. What the hell? I'm sure James Cameron thought this was funny. But it's just rude, pointless, and makes Rose look like a bitch. I tried to justify (or at least explain) why she was cruel to her mother, but I can't for the life of me figure out why she was openly insulting to Bruce Ismay.

And then she tries to kill herself. Why? I dunno. Because she's too much of a free-spirit to handle being tied down in the claustrophobia of wealth and privilege. Yeah, go and tell that to the people who had to pile 12 people to a room down in the steerage cabins.

And the entire movie was the story she was telling to Bill Paxton and the other treasure seekers. Remember them? They were excavating the Titanic's remains because they were looking for the diamond the Heart of the Ocean. So she tells them some incredibly long story about every minute of her time on the ship.

Why did they cut all of the scenes where Bill Paxton was like, "I don't give a shit about how Jack Dawson taught you how to spit. Where the fuck is that diamond?!!!"

At least she looks great naked. Best scene in the movie... which quickly turns into the worst transition in film history. The camera scans along Kate Winslet's naked body up to her face, which morphs into the wrinkled, liver-spotted visage of Gloria Stuart, the elderly actress playing Rose in her later years. Thanks, Jim, that's exactly what I want to picture when I think about Kate Winslet naked: how old and disgusting and wrinkled she's going to be some day. And as if that isn't gross enough, Gloria Stuart has some line about how it was the "most erotic experience of my life." Ugh.

No offense to Gloria Stuart, who I'm sure was a wonderful, beautiful actress in her younger years.

But the real capper on her character, the real moment where she ceases to be simply an annoying, self-hating, cruel shrew and becomes actually immoral and evil is when she drops the diamond into the ocean at the end of the movie. Seriously? That's how she honors the memory of Jack Dawson? By tossing millions of dollars into the ocean?

I hate this movie.

Why am I still watching it?

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

That title is kind of a mouth-full, but that's fitting since much of the movie is kind of hard to swallow. Produced and set almost two decades after the previous Indiana Jones film, the pulp feel of the 1930s has been replaced by the paranoia and B-Movie vibe of the 1950s, the Nazis are removed as the villains in favor of Stalinist Russians, and the merely middle aged leading man is replaced by a decidedly over the hill Harrison Ford. Oh, and the wide-eyed thirteen year old who saw the Last Crusade in the theatre has been replaced by a 31 year old man.

But I liked it.

In fact, I liked it a lot, once I returned home from the theatre, allowed some time to pass, and managed to distinguish between the expectations of what it would be on my way into the theatre, and my memories of what it actually was on my way out. In the end, it wasn't exactly the movie I wanted it to be, or at least it wasn't the movie I was expecting it to be, but it entertained me and left me mostly satisfied. Most importantly, I'm glad I saw it, I'm glad they came back after so long to make it, and I hope they make at least one more. It was a mixed bag that was more than the sum of its parts, with more that worked than didn't work.

Here's what worked:

Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. After George Lucas came up with the original concept for the film, and after he brought it to Spielberg to direct, the single greatest boon to the series was casting Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones. Casablanca wouldn't have been Casablanca without Bogart as Rick. Raging Bull wouldn't have been Raging Bull without DeNiro as LaMotta. And Indiana Jones wouldn't have been Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford in the titular role. He just brought a sense of humor, physicality, and effortless charm to the role that no other movie star has had in the right doses or to the same degree. And he's still got it. He's a little older, a little slower, and has a lot of gray hair, but he's still got it. I never doubted for a minute that, old as he obviously was, he could still kick ass.

And the rest of the cast was great as well. Ray Winstone and Cate Blanchett are both excellent, veteran actors who managed to take two characters who were, frankly, under-written and poorly defined and make them work and stand out. Winstone's Mac in particular was a lot of fun to watch when he was on screen, even though he never had enough to do and his motivations were always changing and kind of hard to follow. But he was a good addition to the series. Karen Allen, also frankly, isn't a veteran actor, so her inclusion in the film was based more on nostalgia than on her actual merits as an actor. She still has a beautiful, winning smile and a lot of charm, but acting wise, she really stood out as the weakest of an otherwise fantastic cast. But bringing back Marion Ravenwood, Indy's love interest from way back in Raiders of the Lost Ark, mostly still worked because she was a good character, even if most of our affection and love for the character from from that first film, and not from this one where she never has enough to do.

And then there's Shia LaBeouf. I've been a Shia fan since way back. I first saw him on Even Stevens and knew he'd be famous someday. He was just one of the funniest, most charming, and all around likable child actors I've ever seen. And I've watched almost everything he's done since, because he's that good. So I've been pretty excited to see him in blockbusters like Transformers, and I was excited to hear he was going to be in the new Indiana Jones film. And he didn't let me down. He's still funny, likable, and talented. Even if his character was slightly annoying and cliched. But he played it well.

So many sequels have been disasters because the creative teams behind the original successes weren't involved. Luckily for us, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have been behind the cameras for all four films, and the series has been the better for it. Lucas has taken a lot of beatings in the past (somewhat justifiably so, at least in regards to his predilection for putting technical spectacle over story or nuanced acting performances), but the man is definitely a genius at producing, and his love of history and Americana are what ground the Indiana Jones films in the real world and make them more than just the pulp films from which they were inspired.

Steven Spielberg is the greatest visual stylist in film history. No other director, with the possible exception of Hitchcock, could tell a story purely through visuals as well as Spielberg, and no director makes films that look anywhere near as good. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is one of Spielberg's best looking films. The camera work, set design, photography, and everything else were stunning. It's nice to see a big budget film with actual sets. This might be the last big budget, spectacle film that actually took place on large scale sets and location shooting, and not on a green screen that would be fixed up in the computer later on.

And then what doesn't work:

Where were the villains? Cate Blanchett is a wonderful actress who was very good in this film, but Irina Spalko just didn't do it for me as an arch villain worthy of Indiana Jones. What can I say about a villain who's so forgettable I actually had to check the imdb to double check her name? Remember Toht from Raiders? Now that was a villain. That guy's laugh was enough to give me nightmares when I was a kid. Or Mola Ram from Temple of Doom? He pulled a guy's heart out of his chest and showed it to him before he lowered him into a pit of lava. Now that's a villain! Irina Spalko? I don't think so.

Russians just can't compete with Nazis in terms of villainy. Stalin was an evil man to be sure, but communism, at its core, is a political ethos that is more naive and unrealistic than it was misguided or evil. Nazism, at its core, was evil in its most pure form. No matter what else is going on in the story, the idea of the Nazis achieving any kind of victory is disheartening. But would it really be so bad if the Russians found the Crystal Skull? Probably not. Or, at least, not on any kind of emotional level that can strike a cord with movie goers.

So the film, on a basic level, lacked any kid of real conflict or emotional center for the audience to rally behind. Raiders was a race to stop the Nazis from harnessing the power of God. Temple of Doom was about Indy's emotional journey from a man who only craves power and glory to one who sacrifices everything to reunite those kids with their parents. And Last Crusade was about how Indy rekindled his lost relationship with estranged father. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, at its essence, was just about... Indy searching for a Crystal Skull. There was really nothing deeper beneath the surface, nothing else for the audience to care about.

The Crystal Skulls are pretty neat, but I never really bought into their whole mystique, nor why they were supposed to be such a big deal. The Ark of the Covenant, Shankara Stones, and Holy Grail were also mysterious and enigmatic, but they mostly acted as metaphors for the larger story as a whole. The Skulls don't really do that. They're just skulls. But at least they're crystal skulls. That makes them cool enough, I guess.

And as great as the sets were, what was with the overuse of CG? To be sure, the first three films were special effects extravaganzas that used pioneering technology, but I still felt the CG in this film was overdone. The Indiana Jones films have a certain look and feel, which they captured perfectly in the cinematography and set design, but that look just doesn't work with the obvious computer imagery. Computer generated car chases, prairie dogs, and monkeys swinging through the trees with Shia LaBeouf in full Tarzan mode just didn't look, or feel, right.

Some of the CG did work, however, especially the special effect laden finale in the collapsing temple. That was probably the best CG I've ever seen. Also, the computer generated fire ants were pretty awesome and suitably creepy and disturbing. But car chases need to feel real, and cute, animated animals don't belong in this kind of movie.

Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull was the kind of movie that kept me on the edge of my seat, but unsure of how I actually felt as I walked out. But as more time passed, and as I worked on this review, I began to enjoy it more and more. Many of the complaints I had faded away and seemed to work with the proper perspective added in. This wasn't Raiders of the Lost Ark, and I'm no longer a teenager. Nothing could recapture that same magic or sense of wonder, especially since so many films since then have been inspired by, imitated, and down right copied that original trilogy. But I liked it. I'm eager to see it again, and I guess that's the only compliment a filmmaker really needs.

Ipod Touch

A couple days ago, I bought an 8GB iPod Touch. Why did I get a Touch instead of an iPhone? For some reason, everybody keeps asking me that. I keep having to justify my purchase, as though I'm an idiot for buying the Touch when the iPhone does everything the Touch does but so much more.

But here's the deal... I didn't want a phone, ok! First of all, the phone is about $100 more, and that's before the fees for the AT&T service, and before the cancellation penalty I'd have to pay to get out of my contract with Sprint. And why would I do that since I'm perfectly happy with Sprint? But that's another review for another time.

Anyway, I bought an iPod Touch. Deal with it, America.

But, yeah, I do wish I could've afforded an iPhone. I mean, it can do everything the Touch can but so much more! And that's saying a lot since the Touch is a pretty amazing piece of machinery.

First an foremost, it's an iPod, so that means it's a fantastic MP3 player with above average playback quality, an attractive appearance, an an absolutely amazing interface. It just looks cool and it's fun to use. It has something Apple refers to as a "revolutionary multi-touch interface." That means you can use your fingers to move stuff around. And it actually is kind of revolutionary. It's just fun and intuitive and comfortable. The items on screen seem to have real world weight, and scrolling through the menus feels a lot like using your fingers to spin a globe. It such a cool interface, and one that feels so right, it almost sucks going back to my laptop's touch pad after using the Touch for a long period of time.

The minimalist design, and the "multi-touch interface" does get kind of annoying when you're listing to music with the Touch in your pocket. Since there is only one button, all of the major features have to be accessed via your fingers on the screen. So that means you have to take the Touch out of your pocket every time you want to do something as simple as adjust the volume, skip to the next song, or pause the music. This isn't a deal-breaker by any means, but it is annoying. They should've thrown on a couple more face buttons that you could map to adjust the volume or control the music player.

But the Touch isn't just a music player. It's a multimedia device that also plays videos and... well... I guess that's it. Just music and videos. But, for its size, the video capabilities are pretty amazing. The screen is small, but it's crystal clear and looks pretty good. I'm not going to replace my widescreen TV or anything, but it's good enough to watch while you're on a plane or in the waiting room for your proctologist. It supports any videos you download from the iTunes music store, and it also plays MP4s, after you use the conversion program in iTunes.

The other key feature of the iPod Touch is the ability to log online via wi-fi.

This is totally the bomb.

Unlike the Wii or PSP, which took hours to configure to work online, the Touch automatically finds a list of available networks and connects in seconds. It's easier to get online with the Touch than it is with most laptops I've used.

And the browser is... pretty good. It's Safari, so it's reliable and fairly fast, if not all together exceptional. The screen is kind of small, but it senses if you're holding the Touch vertically or horizontally and tilts the screen to match. And you can double tap or "pinch" the srcreen to zoom in and out. It's not ideal, but if you want to be able to check facebook on a device you can hide in your pocket, this thing is a dream come true. Wi-fi is a bit of a battery hog, however, so you'll want to turn it off when you're not actively going online.

Email is also built in as a feature, and setting it up is as simple as syncing your music. You can either manually set up your email information, or plug it into your computer and let it pull your settings from your mail account. It's pretty nifty and works well. My only problem is nobody ever emails me. But it's still nice to have.

There's also a notepad, calendar, map feature that lets you search and find directions. This is also the bomb. As long as you're connected to wi-fi, it will find your approximate location and center in on that. Then type in, say, "starbucks," and it will point out every nearby location, with a link to the website and to step by step directions on how to get there. So far, this might be my favorite feature.

Rounding out the features are the built in youtube program, which seems weird but it's nice if you're into that kind of thing, weather, calculator, and stocks, which I'm sure is great but I wouldn't know since I don't care.

Do I wish I could make phone calls on it? Sure. I guess. But is it a fantastic multimedia device that also lets me get online? No doubt. It's an awesome iPod and I'm glad I got it, even if I have to take it out of my pocket every time I want to crank up the volume on "Walkin' in Memphis."

Comcast Sucks

For the past few years, I had Time Warner Cable and all was right in the world. Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't choose Time Warner because I thought they were a fantastic company or because they offered amazing service for a low price. I chose Time Warner because, for whatever reason and no matter where you may live in American, there's only ever one cable company that you are forced to use. I don't understand why that's legal or how it works out, but there you go. But lucky for the Minneapolis - St. Paul area, Time Warner was pretty good.

But they they were bought out (or something) by Comcast and everything changed. To begin with, for a while I was getting two bills a month, one for my old Time Warner account, and one for the new Comcast account. How could that happen when they are actually the came company and I only had one account, let alone only one TV? Don't look at me. It was a question I never got answered, and only got sorted out after about three months. They finally waived the late fees they kept tacking on to my account after those three months of constant complaints and phone calls.

But I told you that story so I could tell you this one:

Earlier this month, my sister and I decided to upgrade to digital cable, with HBO and an HD DVR. It had been a couple months since my trouble with Comcast so I felt confident enough to go ahead and upgrade my service. Ha ha ha. Anyway, my sister called up and ordered all the stuff and set up the appointment. We made sure to ask for the HD DVR, because we were also getting the HD package and wanted to take advantage of those channels.

So maybe a week or so rolls by until the morning of the appointment. Or should I say morning / afternoon since these companies only schedule four hour blocks when you have to be home, though you can be sure they'll be late anyway. This guy wasn't late, but he did arrive in the last ten minutes of that four hour block. But that's technically still on time so I can't complain.

"Hi, I'm here to install a DVR?" he asked as I opened the door to let him in.

I replied in the affirmative and showed him in to my living room.

When he saw my TV he said, "HDTV, huh?"

"Yup," I agreed.

"Ever think about upgrading to an HD DVR?" he asked, which is funny for a few reasons.

I pointed out that that was why he was there. He was supposed to be installing an HD DVR.

Oh no, he told me. Comcast had been out of HD DVRs for weeks. There's no telling when more will be coming in.

"So you don't have the thing you came to install?" I asked, trying to be polite.

He said he did not. Then he said, "I do have a regular HD digital box though. It's exactly like an HD DVR."

"What's the difference?"

"Well, you'll get all the channels. But it doesn't record."

"I see. I really want the DVR though, so why don't you just hook up the regular DVR and I'll upgrade to the HD DVR when one becomes ready."

"I don't have a regular DVR. I just have this digital box."

"You don't have a regular DVR? So why did you ask me... forget it. Just set up whatever you have."

"Ok," he said, and then did. He told me I would have to call to reschedule, which I did as soon as he left. I explained the situation to the man on the phone, letting him know that this guy showed up with no HD DVR and said they were out of stock.

"I have no idea why he said that," the guy on the phone said. "We have plenty." They couldn't send anybody back out until saturday morning. Since this was a monday or tuesday, I was annoyed.

"You can't send anybody out sooner even though this was your mistake?" I asked for no good reason. It's impossible to talk logic with a cable company. No, they couldn't send somebody out sooner.

So as the week draws closer to Saturday, my sister and I decide to just call in and pick one up ourselves. But when we called in to ask about this, they told us they had none in stock and have no estimate when they'll arrive, so not only can we not pick one up, but there's no reason to have somebody come on saturday. So they rescheduled again to have somebody come on the 17th.

That's tomorrow. This was two weeks ago.

Two days ago, I realized that I wouldn't be here on the morning of the 17th, so I called in once again to reschedule. They had nothing later that day, but the 16th was open. Awesome, I thought. I'll get my DVR that much earlier. And, because I had learned my lesson at that point, I made sure that they had some in stock. Of course they did.

So I woke up this morning so I could be ready to let the cable guy in any time between 9 and noon. He finally called at 11 and said he would be late, probably closer to one.

That's fine, I said. I was just happy he was coming at all.

"There is one other thing," he said after we agreed on the time. "I don't have the HD DVR. We are all out of stock. All I have is this HD digital box. It's just like a DVR except..."

So that didn't work out. I let him know that this had already happened, and that the person I talked to on the phone two days ago said they had plenty.

"Oh, they always say that," he said. Thanks.

So I cancelled that appointment and called back to see what was up, and to make sure I wasn't being charged for the DVR service. By some odd twist of fate, I wasn't. Weird. I thought for sure they'd be charging me for three DVRs.

So now instead of having another pointless, standing appointment, they took my name down and will call mw when one becomes available, probably no sooner than March 1st.

So that's my day.

The Alien Years

The Alien Years

I recently finished reading the Alien Years by Robert Silverberg, which I suppose you could describe as the thinking man's "Independence Day," but as a thinking man, I still noticed that the plot was very contrived, the dialogue stilted and hoaky, and the entire epic somewhat anticlimactic. So It wasn't as brilliantly written as the best of the genre, but I still like it. I still recommend it to fans of Silverberg or of sci-fi in general. It just could've used a really good editor to rework some of the more questionable story elements.

The story is epic in scope opening "7 years from now" and ending... I don't remember... something closer to 100 years from now. The aliens land and all hell breaks out, but unlike in most post Alien invasion stories, there's no mad max like wasteland. Some humans are enslaved and society as we know it is radically altered, but the Aliens stay to them selves or the most part. There is very little real contact made betweent the races because there can be none. The Aliens are simply too alien. Most of their behaviours, actions, and intentions are left pretty nebulous, which was one of the strengths of the book. This was a story about the humans of Earth, not the Alien invaders, about how they were coping, how they were raising their children, and how they were making their way in this new world.

If John Jakes wrote Sci-fi, it'd probably be something like this, a sweeping saga about one family during a time of crisis. That's either a compliment or an insult, I'm not sure which. Anyway, it's a ringing endoresment of how entertaining this book was, how moving in places, and how clever.

Robert Silverberg knows people. There is nothing false about his characters, in my opinion, and the way they act in this new world -- and how they relate to one another -- is fascinating and feels completely real. I bought all of the characterizations and character interactions. Some of the plot elements were too forced, however, since Silverberg seemed to force too many important characters to run into each other seemingly at random. This happened a few times. Not enough to bring down the story, but enough to keep it from being brilliant.

Also, as far as science fiction is concerned, the science was surprisingly lackluster. There was hacker named Master Megabyte. Megabyte? That's still a viable unit of date storage in the future? And, anyway, it's just a gay name all together. All of the sections dealing with hackers and hacking in general (thankfully kept to a minimum) were all either corny as hell at best or impossible to follow along because they were so unrealistic at worst. But, as I said, those sections were kept to a minimum.

Do I recommend the book? Sure, if you like science fiction. If you don't like sci fi, you'll hate this book. Not just because it's science fiction, but it's somewhat poorly written science fiction. But the story is great and the characters really well drawn. I liked it a lot and stuck through to the end. I had a blast.

Anyway, that's what I did this week.

Star Wars Sooper Special Editions

Be warned, this is going to be my geekiest post yet:

Earlier this week, yet another Star Wars set came out for sale. This was only the second release on DVD (I think), but the billionth version over all. This is now, probably, the fourth time I've bought some version of the Star Wars trilogy. I'm not complaining mind you. I'm just saying is all. This version is unique in that it combines the recently redone special editions and the original theatrical cuts. It doesn't come with the super spiffy documentaries and stuff on the set that came out a year or two ago, but if you want to be a completest and have both versions of the films, these are the ones to get.

Personally, I like the special editions better for the most part. Sure, there are some really weird, wacky editions that don't sit right, like Han shooting first, a few changes in dialogue here and there, and the wacky comic relief thrown in to the new introduction of Mos Eisley, but I still prefer it for the new special effects and subtle tweaks. Frankly, I don't think Lucas changed enough. Rewatching the original editions again really brought to light all the ways the first trilogy doesn't completely match up with the newer prequels.

Lucas should go balls out in his next special edition of Star Wars.

First of all, I need more Sam Jackson. You can't really expect somebody to sit through six films if Sam Jackson is only in the first three. You'd go through Sam Jackson withdrawls. Does anybody really believe Mace Windu died after Anakin sliced him up and threw him out of a window? Lucas should change the original Star Wars so, in that scene in Obi Wan's house, Mace is just chillin' on the couch watching TV. He can be like, "FINALLY you brought that motherfucker over to teach him the motherfuckin' force. Why the fuck we been sitting here in the desert for sixteen motherfuckin' years is beyond me. I need to get out and get some of that Corellian pussy!"

And then Lucas could just stick footage of Sam Jackson into the background, saying things like, "I don't care how bad it smells, get the fuck in there, motherfucker!" or "Shut down all the motherfucking garbage mashers on the motherfucking detention level!"

Or in that scene where Luke asks Obi Wan about his father and Obi says something like, "A young pupil of mine named Darth Vader betrayed and murders your father," Obi should actually say something like, "Oh yeah, Darth Vader is your father." And then Mace can lean over and say something like, "No shit. Motherfucker was one bad motherfucking dude. Killed babies and shit. Nice genes, motherfucker."

And then, in that scene where Obi fights Vader and Vader says something like, "When last we met, I was but the learner, now I am the mastah!" Lucas should change it so Vader says something like, "Hey, asshole, I'm gonna fuck you up for chopping off my legs and throwing me into a pit of lava. What the fuck was that about, man?! Who's got the high ground now, bitch?!"

Or in that scene where Luke asks Leia if she remembers her mother and she says yes, Lucas should change it so she says, "No, I don't remember my mother at all. I do remember... and this is going to sound weird... but I think I was raised by Jimmy Smitts? It never really occurred to me until now but why is my father hispanic? Think I'm adopted maybe?" And Luke could be like, "Jimmy Smitts? Really? I mean, he was good on L.A. Law and all, but Star Wars? Whatever. Yeah, I don't remember my mother either..."

Or in that scene where Leia kisses Luke on the lips, Mace can lean in and yell, "God damn!! Oh no you didn't!! You know she's your sistah, right?! You know that bitch is your sistah?! God damn, motherfucker! Or should I say 'sisterfucker'?"

Those would be some sweet movies.

Field of Awesomeness

Yes, that is me acting like a jackass at the Field of Dreams Movie Site in Dyersville, Iowa. But wait... there's more.



Yes, that is Kevin Costner and his unnamed band appearing live at the Field of Dreams and in public for the very first time! Jealous much? But wait... there's more:



Yes, that is Lisa Loeb appearing for some unknown reason with Costner and his terrible band. She wasn't even introduced. After she came on stage and jammed with Costner, he basically said that she needed no introduction and then marvelled at how amazingly her career turned out. Yeah, it's real impressive how she's playing back up for Kevin Costner's band in a corn field in the middle of fuckin' Iowa. If only she had "stayed" at the top of the charts. Ha ha ha ha ha.

But wait... there's more.



And yes, that is a giant screen showing the film Field of Dreams in the middle of the actual Field of Dreams corn field. It was all part of some roadshow put on by the Netflix people. Read all about it here.

The schedule broke down like this: at 7:00 Kevin Costner and his band would play and then at 8:30 they'd roll the film. That means we had to sit through an hour and a half of Costner and his band's special brand of adult contemporary, shit-kicking rock and roll. Worse than that, there were about a thousand people there and we had to walk a half a mile from the parking lot carrying folding lawn chairs through a dirt road that wound around a fuckin' corn field in the middle of Iowa. And how bad was Costner and his band? Let's just say it was the first time in my life I actually found myself wishing I was watching The Postman.

But, seriously, what a jack ass, forcing a thousand people to sit through his shitty band for over an hour and a half (as it turned out) just because they wanted to watch the Field of Dreams in an Iowa corn field. I still love his movies and worship the ground on which he walks... but still.

Once he got off the stage and the movie started, it was pretty cool. I mean, we were watching Field of Dreams in the actual cornfield, on a beautiful summer night. How cool was that?

Jealous much?

Click here to see the rest of my pictures.