http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:25:55 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/24/122555.php Solonor RasrethI think I can sum up my feelings about Corpse Bride in one word: disappointing.Yes, the visuals are stunning, and it is a technological marvel. You could easily mistake it for computer animation, rather than old-fashioned stop-motion. But the story is predictable to the point of being boring, and the music has got to be the least interesting thing Danny Elfman has ever written. Ever.The acting is fine and all, but it suffers from the Sinbad syndrome. Other than Christopher Lee and Albert Finney, there was no reason to waste money on getting names like Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and Tracey Ullman for it. Lee and Finney have unique voices and bring their distinct style to their characters. The rest could have been played by any good, no-name voice actor. (I didn't even realize Ullman was in it until I looked on IMDb.)I can't bring myself to call it a bad movie. It was cute. Really. But, fair comparison or not, it was certainly no Nightmare Before Christmas. Disappointing. Video36742@blogcritics.org Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:25:55 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/16/234052.php Solonor RasrethWell, we're back from seeing Man with the Screaming Brain, and I must say it is magnificently bad. In fact, I declare that it is the most wondrously horrible movie ever to take brain transplants, wanton sex, cat fights, exploding Vespas, mad scientists, ex-KGB agents, billionaire industrialists, crash test dummy robots and a Russian wannabe rapper, and mix them together. Well, ok, there was Titanic, but was that set in Bulgaria? No, it wasn't, Mr. Smarty Pants. So there!It was worth the price of admission just for Bruce Campbell's intro and Q&A before the movie. This is one seriously cool and funny guy. There should be more Bruce Campbells. In fact, I think that cloning would get all the Federal funding it needed, if scientists would just promise to only clone Bruce Campbell. (Actually, I think that's his next movie...)Oh, and I must disagree with Mr. Campbell. It's not really so much The Out-of-Towners set in Bulgaria as it is All of Me with a robot. Video34274@blogcritics.org Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:40:52 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/17/112723.php Solonor RasrethCriminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot. So my disguise must be able to strike terror into their hearts. I must be a creature of the night, black, terrible..a..a..a bat!It's Batman weekend around here, as the latest (and maybe the greatest) movie about the Caped Crusader opens.Batman has always fascinated me. When I was little, the Adam West TV series rivaled Lost in Space as my favorite show. My brother even had a pedal car Batmobile that was the envy of all the neighborhood kids.When I turned into a comics crack addict later in life, I shied away from Bats, as I saw him as just another campy addition to the dreadful lineup of DC Comics. (I was a Marvel fan.) Yet, sometimes, I would pick up a copy of Detective Comics that hinted at the shadowy, angst-ridden figure Batman ought to have been. When Frank Miller produced The Dark Knight Returns, it was one of the happiest moments in a geek boy's life.I had high hopes for the first real Batman movie, in spite of my doubts about its director and star. Today, you say "Tim Burton's directing" and most everyone goes woohoo!. Back then, I only knew him for directing Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Beetle Juice. Not exactly Dark Knight material. And Michael Keaton as Batman???Well, the movie was fun. Of course, Jack Nicholson stole the show, but Keaton was a pretty cool Batman. At the very least, from the TV commercials he had my 3-year-old running around getting up real close to your face and whispering, "I'm Batman!" which was highly amusing. But it still wasn't Batman: Year One.I have high hopes for Batman Begins, now. Christian Bale has been a favorite around here since Newsies (which my daughter used to watch over and over and over and...), so that's a plus. The early reviews are positive, except for the one from the Sentinel critic, which I always view as a good sign. So, we'll be off our dollar movie kick this weekend and dipping into the trust fund to go see it. I'll let you know how it turns out. Video31172@blogcritics.org Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:27:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/21/002919.php Solonor RasrethWell, we made it.Complete, the circle is.What we thought was as the tale of a young boy, Luke Skywalker, learning to use a mysterious Force to rid the galaxy of the evil Empire and its dark lord, Darth Vader, has turned out to be a six-part epic on the rise and fall of Vader himself. It's not really about the Jedi versus the Dark Side. It's all about Vader. It's always been about Vader. We've known this for years, and now the story is complete.I really got on the Star Wars drug again (in case you hadn't noticed), and it infected those around me. My daughter, especially, was giddy with anticipation over this chapter of the story. But my wife (who was always the truest and bluest of Star Wars fans) remained stoic. She'd been burned by the first two sequels and had lost some of the spark. Her expectations were low.As we were walking tonight, the kids and I were talking with great enthusiasm about how those who had already seen the movie were giving it rave reviews."Some folks have seen it three times already," I said."Three times," she scoffed. "Good grief! That's stupid.""Didn't you see the original like a hundred times?""Not on the first day! It hasn't even been out 48 hours." After a pause, she added, "For the record, it was 17 times..."Part of me wishes that I never got on this Star Wars kick again... wishes that I hadn't worried over the plot so there were no surprises... wishes that I didn't get myself all psyched up for a movie that couldn't possibly meet all my expectations... wishes that I'd let myself continue to think how much the first two sequels sucked and so this one would too... wishes I had the same awe that my wife had when she came out of the theater and said: "This was the best one."No, I don't agree that this one was best. There will always be a soft spot in my head for the original. But, damn, that was good!I almost lost it a little bit at the lack of chemistry between Padme and Anakin. I really snickered when Palpatine turned into a snarling, over-the-top 1930's monster. But forgive it, I must, as Yoda kicketh much ass!And when the click of Darth Vader's helmet turned into those first familiar mechanical breaths...I need to see it again. I need to shed the last little bit of baggage that I carried in with me this time... all the crap about Lucas and politics and bad acting and dialogue and expectations. I need to just let it be what it is:Star Wars. Nothing but Star Wars. Video29876@blogcritics.org Sat, 21 May 2005 00:29:19 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/06/012536.php Solonor RasrethRon Howard's new movie, Cinderella Man, stars Russell Crowe as boxer James J. Braddock. Braddock earned the nickname "Cinderella Man" when he came back from a failed career and the depths of the Great Depression to upset heavyweight champion, Max Baer, in 1935. It is sort of like a 1930's version of Rocky, but I hesitate to make the comparison, because A) it really happened and B) it's all-around a much better movie.Braddock was a top contender in the late 1920's, but he lost everything after a couple of defeats and the Stockmarket Crash of 1929. After that, he lost more fights than he won, and eventually no one would hire him. He took odd jobs down at the docks and stood in bread lines to keep his family together. In 1934, he got a lucky break and became a last-minute stand-in against John "Corn" Griffin. Everyone expected him to be the designated punching bag, but he knocked out Griffin in 3 rounds. After similar upsets against top contenders, John Henry Lewis and Art Lasky, he got a title shot against Max Baer. Overcoming 10-to-1 odds, he defeated Baer and became the heavyweight champion. An excellent recap of his history is at East Side Boxing.What surprised me was how closely Howard followed the true story. After reading up on Braddock, about the only thing I see that's different from the actual events is the portrayal of Baer as a snarling heavy. Baer was much more of a clowning goofball than a serial killer. While mentioning that Baer killed two men in the ring, the film does not bring up the fact that Baer donated the money from his subsequent bouts to the victim's family and lost four of his next six fights due to his fear that he might do it again. Consider it a nit picked, however. The rest of the history is as accurate as you can get inside a major Hollywood film. I almost wish they went further into Braddock's life, as he went on to fight and lose to Joe Louis in almost as dramatic a fashion as when he defeated Baer.The movie itself is nothing you haven't seen before. Lots of touching moments followed by "claw your way back from the pit of despair" victories. Crowe is excellent as Braddock, possibly earning him an Oscar nod if the film had come out a little closer to nominating time. I doubt that anyone will remember it by then. Renee Zellweger is her usual cute self as Braddock's wife, Mae, but nothing that's going to earn her any awards.The real star of the film, and the one who really drags you into it emotionally, is Paul Giamatti as Braddock's friend and manager, Joe Gould. He's what Burgess Meredith was to the aforementioned "Rocky". Giamatti's your surrogate in the movie. He's you standing there, utterly amazed as Braddock again and again overcomes the odds. I think that without him this would have been a ho-hum two hours. It reminds me of how Tommy Lee Jones rescued the last Howard film I saw: The Missing (substitute Crowe for Cate Blanchett). The story's nothing special, really, but the performances of Giamatti and Crowe make it a joy to watch most of the time.While I wouldn't say it was the best movie I've ever seen, it wasn't bad. I'd definitely sit down and watch it if it came on TV some Sunday afternoon. And that's not such a terrible thing at all. Video29096@blogcritics.org Fri, 6 May 2005 01:25:36 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/01/201231.php Solonor RasrethWent to see Kung Fu Hustle last night. I haven't laughed so hard in a theater in a long time. If Tex Avery and Jackie Chan had a baby, this would be it. Like Shaun of the Dead, this isn't so much a parody of its genre as it is a funny movie that uses the conventions of its genre to full effect. It definitely makes me want to look for other Stephen Chow movies, like Shaolin Soccer and From Beijing With Love. (It also makes me ashamed to find myself lumped in with the rest of the West in limiting my martial arts fare to Jackie Chan movies). Video28895@blogcritics.org Sun, 1 May 2005 20:12:31 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/29/085309.php Solonor RasrethIt is true. The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded. For I find that all the warning buzzers have mysteriously been silenced. I am in total acceptance of the fact that--no matter what--Revenge of the Sith will be the Best. Movie. Ever.So, prepare yourselves. Star Wars fanboy crap is about to come gushing forth from the confines of this here blog.First up, take a second to peruse the Star Warsie goodness at starwars.com. I know. I know. You've seen the trailer. You distrust the trailers. You've been burned before. Well, just pretend you haven't seen the last two movies. Pretend that this is the one that answers all of the questions and leads you into the real Star Wars. Once you give in to the Dark Side, you will understand. Search your feelings. You know it to be true.The mad praise of some hack who got a special early peek at the movie because he happens to be a bigshot director might not be a valid reason to get excited. Unless that hack is Kevin Smith. If you have the time (and can stand pure geekery in its raw form), read the transcript of an interview with Smith and Shaun of the Dead's Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright.Don't worry about the spoilers, either. I've read a bazillion things about this movie, and one thing that strikes me is how you cannot spoil it. You can read about the final showdown between Obi Wan and Anakin Skywalker, but until you see it...Speaking of Vader... one of the things that got me off on this kick today was reading the bloggy ramblings of the Darth one himself in The Darth Side: Memoirs of a Monster.Yes, I've been hooked. Again. Once more, they want me to invest more of my soul into a universe that sprang from a cheesey story in a 30-year-old movie. And I will do it willingly and lovingly.Don't underestimate the Force. Video28803@blogcritics.org Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:53:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/12/081558.php Solonor RasrethAs much as I want it to not suck, I have serious doubts about the new Hitchhiker's Guide movie. I know you can't tell a lot from previews, but even though I have similar doubts about Star Wars III, at least the trailers have had me itching to see the thing. I get no such urges from H2G2. And after reading a horribly negative review by a Douglas Adams biographer, it's only gotten worse. (There's a spoiler-free version and a detailed, 4-part trilogy version. They are both just as depressing.)Maybe it's because I'm such a huge fan of the books. I'm trying not to be a book Nazi. I mean how could you possibly put all that wry humor and wordplay into a movie without simply having someone read the darn thing aloud? (I'd be tempted to pay for that, actually, but I'm sure normal humans wouldn't. It wouldn't exactly be a financial bonanza for a studio, ya know?)I'm going to go see it with my peril-sensitive sunglasses (which are apparently not in the movie) at the ready. I'm just not looking forward to a world where the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal cannot be fooled by covering your head with a towel.Hey! Maybe that will work with the movie, too! Video28053@blogcritics.org Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:15:58 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/02/204747.php Solonor RasrethYou need not have read Frank Miller's graphic novels to enjoy Sin City. However, if you don't have a stomach for violence (even when a lot of the blood comes in milky, whiteout-like patches) or an appreciation for dark humor (the kind that turns an inner monologue into a hilarious conversation with a dead guy), then you probably won't "get it." The movie is a Frank Miller graphic novel come to life. It's black (not grey, black) and white with flashes of red. It's Sam Spade dialogue in a Quentin Tarantino world. It's the way Batman ought to look.It's a crusading cop (Bruce Willis) with a bum ticker trying to save a little girl from a sick rapist (Nick Stahl)... who happens to be the son of a powerful Senator (Powers Boothe).It's an angry giant (Mickey Rourke) on a mission to avenge the murder of the only woman who ever gave his ugly mug the time of day... and finding a cannibalistic demon (a really creepy Elijah Wood) and his powerful mentor, the Cardinal (Rutger Hauer).It's a pretty boy hero (Clive Owen) trying to save a gang of hookers from the police and the mob when they "accidentally" kill a cop (Benicio Del Toro) and break the truce that keeps the peace.Loosely woven together, these stories are set in a stunning representation of a dark comic book world. It is as if Miller used his pen and drew the damned thing on the screen in front of you. When there is color, it leaps out of the inky frame and takes on more meaning than it normally would.As far as the story goes, the middle tale (Marv versus the Cardinal) is the best of the bunch. Rourke's portrayal of the easily-confused hulk who has a burning need to avenge his "Goldie" is incredible. Bruce Willis winds up playing his specialty--a world-weary, cop who can't catch a break, going up against enormous odds (John McClane from Die Hard as an old man, basically), but it works. The hooker story is downright hilarious. The scene in the car where Clive Owen is talking to a dead Del Toro is priceless.Don't take the small kids. It's rated "R" for a reason. But if you want some adult entertainment, and you're either a comic fan or a fan of film noir, this is right up your dark alley. Video27677@blogcritics.org Sat, 2 Apr 2005 20:47:47 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/29/000851.php Solonor RasrethWe went to see a sneak preview of the latest film by director Danny Boyle this evening. It's called Millions. At first glance, it seems about as far from 28 Days Later as one could get. It is based on a children's book by Frank Cottrell Boyce about a pair of brothers who find a suitcase full of bank notes and their need to spend it before an imaginary Christmas deadline wherein all British pounds will be converted to Euros making the wad of old cash worthless.Complicating the situation, the younger brother, Damian (played brilliantly by 9-year-old newcomer, Alex Etel), is a bit detached from reality. In coping with the recent death of his mother, the boy has buried himself in the study of saints. He's a saint geek, spouting off detailed facts about their lives, which does not exactly endear him to his classmates. Not only that, but he sees and converses with several sainty visions (including St. Nicholas, St. Peter, St. Francis of Assissi and St. Clare). While older brother, Anthony (Lewis McGibbon), wants to spend the money on as much stuff as possible, Damian keeps finding ways of giving it away to the poor.I say that it departs from Boyle's work like 28 Days Later and Trainspotting, but only in the fact that this is a heartwarming, feel-good movie (I really think it should have come out at Christmas time). There is plenty of Boyle's distinctive camera work, a little bit of terror (when the thief who stole the money shows up to claim it), and, like the others, it is very, very British. In fact, it's almost a kids' version of his 1994 film Shallow Grave. This is not a Hollywood flick at all, and we're all the better off for it.The simple morality of the story and the incredibly precious performance of Etel make this a very sweet, funny movie. Boyle's sense of style and edginess (just) keep it from being too sweet. Video27405@blogcritics.org Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:08:51 EST