Changing The Way I Review Stuff

This is something I really haven't been sure how I wanted to tackle for awhile now. Ever since I was in college, I would rate the movies I saw on a grade scale, and that was my definitive answer. But, lately, my views on movies have been changing, for a number of different reasons. I've been getting a lot more easy-going, and a lot less snobby (if you've known me IRL for awhile, then you've probably been able to tell). I'm going to admit: I was a huge film snob. See, even right there, calling it "film" instead of movies. Honestly, what's the difference? I feel like now when I hear someone say something to the extent of, "Oh, the art house is showing some terrific films" I want to throw up a little bit. I shudder to think that that used to be me not too long ago. I'm not trying to say I don't appreciate a great film when I see one, but why can't a movie like Raging Bull be in the same category as Anchorman? To me, both movies are great for their own very separate reasons. Anchorman I feel I can watch whenever I want and enjoy it immensely. Raging Bull, though, is the kind of movie you have to be in the mood to watch, but when you do, there's a lot of terrific, artistic things going on. That, to me, is the best thing about movies. Movies can be the best form of art and be something to study for years, but it can also be a great way to forget about the problems of the world for a few hours, and have a great time doing it.

So, I'm going to change things up, a lot. While I like how my movie rating pages are very clean, with the grades separating each movie (oh, you haven't seen my list pages? Click here for my 2011 movies, here for 2012, and here for my top ten movies from 2010 and 2011), they're just not practical for the way I'm looking at movies anymore. Easy example: I gave The Avengers an A-/B+ on the old scale, but when I think about the movie and talk about it with people, I constantly regard it as an awesome movie. So, what's the point of trying to break down every movie into its own individual category? It makes it easier to say to someone, "Hey, The Avengers is awesome; The Amazing Spider-Man isn't", instead of, "Well, The Avengers is very much an A-, while Spider-Man is more of a C, C-." Easier; not as snobby, right? Now, that doesn't mean I'm going to go around saying that the new Twilight movie is spectacular, mind you, but I feel like this new system makes me sound less like a film snob, and more like a guy just talking about something he loves to write about.

I'm also going to try and review different things when I can, like games, CD's, and the occasional book or graphic novel. None of these will be as consistent as a movie review, but I hope to have a few up sometime soon. I've also decided I want to go through the huge task of watching and writing a review for each movie I own. This is where the new scale comes very much into play, because, for instance, even though Forgetting Sarah Marshall isn't exactly an Oscar type movie, I think it's great, and I'll point out the reasons why I think so, instead of trying to analyze it. There's times for that to be sure, but there's also times to just have fun and talk about a good movie.

So, here is how my reviews are going to break down from now on. There's going to be five different ratings, each one a pretty obvious statement on what I think about the movie.

Awesome: This is a movie you should see as soon as you can. Definitely worth the full price at movies nowadays. Think Alien, Back to the Future, or Anchorman (that's easily the most random three movies ever put together, but it sort of gives you the idea of what I'm going for).

Pretty Good: While there's nothing really wrong with the movie, there's a few reasons why it's not "awesome". Maybe the ending isn't as great as the rest of it, or it's a little long. Think Sherlock Holmes, 21 Jump Street, or Titanic.

Meh: This is the kind of movie you might enjoy for a little bit, but there won't be much you remember about it awhile after you see it. Borrow it from someone (or hey, your local library!). Think The Amazing Spider-Man, Green Lantern, or The Hangover Part II.

Lame: Not good. Maybe it's a comedy that just isn't funny, or an action movie where the action is boring, this is a movie to avoid at almost all costs. If you feel like you have to see it, catch it on TV. Think J. Edgar, Transformers 3, or Resident Evil.

Awful: Such a waste of time. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and it should really be ashamed of itself. If you really, truly, absolutely have to see it, this is one of the only times I'd promote illegal downloads. Think Batman & Robin, Twilight: Breaking Dawn 1, or The Happening.

Hopefully this makes me feel better about the reviews I write, and the way I present them isn't as snobby as it used to be.

Two Quick Reviews: Lincoln and Flight

I was really hoping to get a review of Lincoln up before the movie was released wide today, but I ran into too many other things to do. I also had the opportunity to see the Denzel Washington movie Flight when it was released, so here now are two very short reviews on these two movies.

Flight comes from director Robert Zemeckis, best known for the Back to the Future trilogy and Forrest Gump. Flight is his first live-action film in more than a decade, and also his most adults-only film. Denzel Washington soars (sorry for the awful pun) as an airline pilot who becomes the center of an investigation after a plane crash reveals something disturbing about its crew. Without giving too much away, Washington plays the performance with great care for the material: not going overboard as he possibly could have. The crash in the beginning is amazing and one of the top scenes of the year. Special note goes to James Badge Dale, who only has one scene, but absolutely steals the show, and his words resonate throughout the rest of the movie, and probably deserves an Oscar nod for it. Washington is more than likely a sure fit for a nomination, but the subject matter and ending may keep it out of the bigger categories. A-

Lincoln is pretty much the movie I expected it to be. This is both good and bad. Daniel Day-Lewis is terrific as the 16th President, but the real star is Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens. His work will more than likely get him a nomination, along with Day-Lewis. However, I have to say there really isn't anything fantastic about the movie other than the acting. Steven Spielberg really doesn't do anything all that extordinary with the movie, like I was hoping he would. I feel like if it wasn't Daniel Day-Lewis and Steven Spielberg attached to the movie, it wouldn't be getting half the attention it is, or half the praise for that matter. It's good, but not memorable. Lincoln will have its share of acting nominations for sure, and probably because of the star power it has attached, a Best Picture nomination as well. B+/B

Skyfall Review

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is no other series in the history of pop culture like the James Bond movie franchise. Really, nothing matches or tops it. Not all of the movies are fantastic (actually, only a few of them rise above "pretty good"), but the series has been a staple of popular culture since his first big screen appearance 50 years ago in Dr. No. Six men have played Bond over 23 official Bond movies, and while Skyfall isn't the best movie in the franchise, it is the one the series needs desperately at this point in its run.

After a botched mission leaves Bond (Daniel Craig) pronounced dead in the eyes of MI6, his boss, M (Judi Dench), is targeted by cyber-terrorist Silva (Javier Bardem), whose intentions stem from a personal vendetta he has with her. Bond brings himself "back from the dead" in order to protect M and stop Silva from destroying the British Secret Service. It's a classic Bond story with it's own twists that are perfect for the time we live in now.

People have been saying that Skyfall is the movie Casino Royale should have been, but I have to disagree. Casino Royale was a necessary reboot of the character in order to bring him into the new world of the 21st century. It stripped away most of the elements that make up a classic Bond movie, and by doing that, it reinvented the character for a post-9/11 world. To me, Skyfall ends a sort of trilogy for the character. Casino Royale brought Bond down to a gritty, realistic level we hadn't seen in decades. Quantum of Solace saw Bond coping with the effects of Royale's ending, while also slowly becoming a Bond we recognize. Skyfall completes the origin by honoring past Bond movies, while also moving the franchise in new, exciting, and bold, directions.

One of the great examples of this is the incorporation of a younger, more hipster looking Q (Ben Whishaw). This is the character's first appearance since Die Another Day ten years ago, and it's likely the most amount of time he's had on screen. In past movies, Q was simply the man who gave Bond the gadgets he'd use throughout the movie. He'd have one, maybe two, scenes in each movie. He was more scientist rather than geek. In Skyfall, Q plays an important role in helping Bond on his mission, playing the part more as a technology guru rather than a scientist. After giving Bond just a gun and distress radio for his mission, Q tells him, "What did you expect, an exploding pen? We don't really go for that anymore." Their dialogue together is some of the highlights of the movie, and hopefully Whishaw stays on to play Q in further movies, because he is a great fit for the role. It will be real exciting to see him and Craig play off of one another in future movies.

I feel like the movie is a little too long, and tends to drag in between the action sequences. The movie clocks in at 2 hours and 23 minutes, and honestly, I felt it could have been trimmed down to around 2 hours and been just as good of a movie. Some of the sub plots are too distracting to the overall story arch, and many of the scenes in between the action sequences take us out of the story a little too much. There needs to be a good balance between action scenes and down sequences, so that when the action sequences do come, they don't feel as jarring or forced. The action scenes, though, are some of the best of the year, and when the movie does get to them, they're all the more satisfying.

In many respects, Skyfall isn't James Bond's story, but more M's. Her past literally comes back to haunt her in the movie, and I would be willing to go so far and say that M is the Bond Girl of Skyfall. That''s really weird to say, given the history of what the title Bond Girl entails, but considering the strong relationship between the two characters, on more than just a professional level (getting even weirder...they're like mother and son, okay?!) is really the backbone of Skyfall's story. Although the third act does a nice job of humanizing both Bond and M, I really couldn't help but keep comparing the action to Home Alone. Yes, THAT Home Alone. It's not really terrible in a sense, but it took me out of the movie for a few minutes, and on a second viewing, I still couldn't shake the thought from my head.

One thing to note: Javier Bardem gives what is arguably his finest performance. Which is really saying something, considering his track record. Even though his character isn't introduced until about an hour in, he's still very much a terrifying presence in the movie. His entrance scene not only does a great job of introducing the character, but is probably my favorite scene in any movie so far this year, which is all thanks to the way it's handled an executed with the camera. 

Roger Deakins did the cinematography for the movie, and while I'm not the kind of person to view a movie like a snob (well, not anymore at least) and say, "Oh, that was a fantastic shot", I have to say, Skyfall just looks gorgeous. The color really pops from the screen and looks amazing even in a standard theater, and even better on an XD or IMAX screen. The scene I mentioned earlier with Silva's entrance, is just the highest point in a long line of great shots and scenes that are really all thanks to Deakins' vision. The title sequence, which is standard for every Bond movie, is one of the better ones in the series, I think. The sequence does a terrific job of hinting at events to come in the movie, and even touches on some of the themes. The "war in the shadows", for instance, plays a major role. It even hints at what Skyfall actually is, and various other elements of the movie. The sequence is even more satisfying on a second viewing, when you see the clues after knowing their significance. It's the type of sequence I would love to look at a little more in detail once the movie is released on DVD/Blu-Ray, and one that I hope the movies to come look to for inspiration.

Even though Skyfall sometimes feels like it could have been trimmed around the edges, it still makes for one of the better Bond movies we've seen since the end of Sean Connery's time with the character. I wouldn't put it in the same category as Casino Royale or Goldfinger, however. I will say this, though: I have never been more excited for the next Bond movie as I was at the end of Skyfall. There's several elements of the final scene that I really can't go into; but they make you realize that what you've been watching, not just in Skyfall, but in the past three movies, is the creation of a character we've known and loved for 50 years. I can't wait for Bond to get back to work.

A-/B+

Argo Review

Ben Affleck, up to this point, has been 2-2 in his directing career. He started with the mystery Gone Baby Gone, and followed it up with the crime drama The Town. Both movies were very solid in my mind. With his third feature, Affleck proves that he's worthy of conversation as being one of the best directors working today. Argo isn't just Affleck's best movie, it's the best movie of the year to this point.

The movie is about the Iranian hostage crisis of 1980. As revolutionists overtook the U.S. Embassy in Iran, six American embassy workers escaped, finding refuge in the Canadian ambassador's home. Tony Mendez (Affleck) is called in to work with the CIA to try and find a way to get the six Americans home safely. Ideas are passed around between Mendez and the group, until Mendez comes up with the idea of acting as a film scout for a fake science fiction movie that wants to look at Iran as a filming location. Mendez' plan is to fly into Iran and fly out with the six Americans acting as his film crew. The group is skeptical at first, but ultimately decide to give him the OK to go through with the scheme. The best part of all this? It actually happened. Keep that in mind; when you think this story is so ridiculous that it couldn't have possibly happened: it did. Also, this isn't the kind of movie that only takes a true event as its starting point and adds layers of fictional story on top of the actual event that the real story is more like an afterthought in the end.

The movie does a really great job of being dramatic but not being overly serious. There's no doubt this was a terrible event while it was unfolding in 1980, but the film doesn't try to push the drama anymore than it should. It has it's great light-hearted moments as well early on, when Affleck is roaming Hollywood trying to find people he can trust with the information on the hostages. John Goodman plays John Chambers, who is a well known makeup artist in Hollywood who has helped the government out with situations like this in the past. There are some great moments between Affleck and Goodman on screen, particularly when Goodman is approached. Alan Arkin plays the movie producer who decides to help Affleck and his crew. Both Goodman and Arkin's characters are very much the comic relief. I hate to use the word character here, because these are real people being portrayed, and all of the actors do such a great job of nailing their roles.

I heard Affleck talk in an interview recently that he made the six actors playing the hostages live together for a period of time before filming began. They weren't allowed much time away from each other or the place they were staying in. He said that that helped the six actors not only understand and appreciate what those six people went through for so long, but also grow together as a group. It really shows on screen in the scenes the six people share together.

It may have just been me, but noticed a lot of emphasis on characters eyes throughout the movie. In almost every scene, there was a close up on a characters face. It may not make sense, but there was a lot of eye movement throughout the movie, and it became almost like a point of interest in the movie. The style reminded me a lot of classic directors like Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick, who put a lot of emphasis on character expressions and point-of-view shots in movies. I know, lumping Ben Affleck into the same sentence with two iconic directors seems blasphemous, but, he's off to a really good start.

As far as Oscar chances go, I'll say if Argo isn't nominated for Best Picture I'd be really, really shocked. If Ben Affleck doesn't get a nod for Best Director I'll be really surprised. This movie has all the makings of an Oscar contender: great, enjoyable story, great acting by an all star cast, and the public seems to really be enjoying it so far. I really think Bryan Cranston, who I haven't mentioned yet, has a solid chance at a Best Supporting Actor nomination. He's really great as Affleck's go to guy on the mission, and it's nice to see him in a role like this. Secondary categories, like Cinematography and Editing, are solid locks in my mind as well. If there's one thing I can remember best from Affleck's three features, it's that the editing has been great in all three.

Ben Affleck was already a pretty solid director before he made Argo. Now, though, he's solidified himself as one of the best ones working today. Which is great, because back in the early 2000's, his acting career really, really sucked. Argo is definitely a must see and is, at this point, the best movie of the year.

A

The 7 Best (And 1 Worst) James Bond Theme Songs

There are certain things that we can always count on when it comes to movies. There will always be controversy with the Oscars, movie stars are almost always full of themselves, and James Bond will always return. With the release of the 23rd Bond movie next month, Skyfall, I thought why not have a little fun and look back at 23 "official" movies and 50 years of Bond in our culture? The James Bond franchise may be my favorite of all time. While there are some terrible movies in the series (*cough* Die Another Day *cough*), I think that kind of adds to the history and reputation of the films. Time has proven that no matter how bad the movies get, people will always come out to see a James Bond movie. So, I'm going to be looking back on some of the funner things in the movies: the gadgets, the cars, the villains, and of course, the Bond girls. Each list will be 7 items long, because...come on, do I really have to say why? Today, I'm going to list my favorite Bond theme songs. Some of these are more appealing to my taste, but I think it'd be hard to argue with most of the choices I made to this list. First though, it's only appropriate to start with what I think is the worst theme song of them all, coming from maybe the worst Bond movie ever.

The Worst:

Madonna: "Die Another Day" - Die Another Day

Now, don't get me wrong, Madonna is a great singer, with some of the best pop hits from the last 25-30 years, but here, the techno beat and lyrics just come off as boring and really, really annoying. It's more of a Madonna rip off than an actual Madonna song. The music video is even worse, trying to play on the torture scene and the fencing match in the movie, but the whole thing is just a mess. Madonna is capable of a lot better than this, which, to me, is why it's so disappointing and downright awful.

Okay, on to the 7 best.

7) Carly Simon: "Nobody Does it Better" - The Spy Who Loved Me

Arguably one of the better love songs ever recorded, it's odd to find it as the theme for a James Bond movie. An interesting note is that this was the first time the title of the theme song wasn't the title of the Bond movie. The song even got nominated for an Oscar. Simon has a great voice, and I still hear this one on the radio from time to time.

6) Jack White and Alicia Keys: "Another Way to Die" - Quantum of Solace



It's probably one of the strangest pairings for a duet in a long time, but White and Keys are able to blend their two very different musical styles together to make not just a great Bond theme, but a great tune as well. Keys' R&B piano compliments White's guitar riffs really well. The hook of the lyrics, "Someone that you think that you can trust is just another way to die", is really fitting for the movie considering the end of Casino Royale and the lead into Quantum.

5) Shirley Bassey: "Goldfinger" - Goldfinger

I don't think Bond theme songs would be as critical to a James Bond movie today if it wasn't for this one. Bordering the line between cheesy and serious, Bassey's amazing voice makes up for the corny-yet-fun lyrics. That opening hook is so memorable, that it may never be topped. 

4) Adele: "Skyfall" - Skyfall

The movie's not even out yet; hell, the whole song was just released yesterday. Still, this is how you do a Bond theme. I love the Bond songs that find a cool way to work in the movie's title, and this is one of my favorite songs that does it. Adele is probably the best musician working today, and her bluesy tones and great lyric writing are a perfect fit for a Bond movie. Can she do the next one, too?

3) Duran Duran: "A View to a Kill" - A View to a Kill

Okay, I know, this is basically all the best and worst things about 80's music wrapped up in one 4 minute package, but come on, how can you not like this song? To this day it is the only Bond song to hit #1 on the Billboard charts. Although I'm not a big fan of Roger Moore's Bond, he brought a much lighter tone to the character and is the longest tenured actor to portray 007. This theme fits right in with the fun aspect of a Bond movie. It's classic 80's, and classic Bond.

2) Shirley Bassey: "Diamonds Are Forever" - Diamonds Are Forever



Bassey makes her second appearance singing what many people consider the best Bond theme. Singers like Adele and Tina Turner have Bassey to thank for her three great Bond themes. I had a hard time deciding which of her songs should be at #2, because they're both great in their own ways. Her third theme, "Moonraker", is another good one. When you think of Bond theme songs, you think of Shirley Bassey.

1) Paul McCartney and Wings: "Live and Let Die" - Live and Let Die

It's a Beatle, singing a James Bond song. How can this not be #1? Even the Guns N' Roses cover is great. There was really no way McCartney could have screwed this up, but the fact that it came out as well as it did is even better. When you make not just the best Bond song of all time, but one of your own best songs ever, you know it's something special. Nothing will ever top this one.

So there you go, my favorite James Bond songs. There are no doubt going to be more songs in the future, but I think it will be very hard to crack this list. What do you think is the best Bond song? Is there one I missed out on? Comment below; let me know!

Things I Believe About the Cleveland Indians

I believe Manny Acta's firing is the right thing to do. In his six seasons as an MLB manager (2 1/2 with the Nationals, 2 19/20 with the Indians), he has amassed a career record of 372-518; a .418 win percentage. Granted, the argument can be made, justifiably so, that he never had the roster talent. Yet, after a 30-15 start last season the team finished under .500, and he has never had a winning season.

I believe Manny Acta is the kind of manager who is only as good as the talent he coaches. This may seem like a defense for him, but it is in fact the opposite. My prime example is the Chicago White Sox. On paper, before the season started, the White Sox and Indians looked like very similar teams; if anything, the Indians looked to be in a better position than the White Sox. However, the White Sox have been contenders all season, and are still fighting for the AL Central crown with first year manager Robin Ventura leading the team. Ventura has been able to rally the clubhouse and get players to perform far higher than their expectations. Acta was only ever able to get a meager amount of talent out his players. A roster full of high payed talent does not always equal success; ask the Boston Red Sox. Great teams are filled with players that rise above their potential to a level that helps the team reach their ultimate goal. Manny Acta isn't that type of manager.

I believe the Indians collapse in August is the main reason Acta is gone. Before August came around, the Indians were still a decent ballclub to watch. Then the bottom fell out and they won only 5 games in August. Think about that. Out of 29 games played in one month, the Indians only won 5. The only team to post a worse month are the Houston Astros, the worst team in baseball, who won 3 games in July. A team that has two all-stars on its roster should not lose 24 games in one month.

I believe Chris Perez is a cancer to the young players on this team and needs to go. His outbursts and public displays of anger towards the fanbase of Cleveland and the organization are an embarrassment to the players working hard everyday. He's a hothead and has no place on a team filled with young players trying to set good examples not just for the team, but the city as well. He may be right on some things he says, but I can only imagine what he is like in the clubhouse. His antics against the Oakland A's fan worries me about his behind close doors behavior even more.

I believe this team has a group of talent that can, one day, rival that of the '90's. With the right coaches in place (I'll get to that soon), and some extra pieces, the Indians could be a very exciting team in the next few years, and possibly by this time next year. I think Kipnis and Santana are both future all stars, despite their slumping numbers this year. I think Chisenhall, although still unproven, can be a solid corner infielder. Michael Brantley has the potential to be a five-tool type player. Vinnie Pestano can anchor the bullpen. To me, all this team needs is a right handed hitter and a solid, #1 starter. Obviously, those are two very big needs, and not easy to come by.

I believe Choo is not worth the contract he will get next offseason, and the Indians should trade him this winter. Choo is a solid defensive outfielder, but, to me, he lacks the offensive power that right field demands. His best season was 2010, and his numbers weren't that impressive even then. 22 HR and 90 RBI aren't anything fantastic, and his numbers have declined the two years since. He's a good player, a fan favorite, but the money his agent and he will be asking for is going to be way more than his worth. Trade him while his stock is still high, and get a team's top or second best prospect in the deal.

I believe Justin Masterson and Ubaldo Jimenez are not ace pitchers. There's no denying Masterson has talent. When he's on, his slider is one of the more un-hittable in baseball; but, he's too inconsistent to be a rotation ace. He's a 2nd, maybe 3rd man. The Ubaldo Jimenez trade has been nothing short of a disaster. I didn't like it when it happened, and now we're stuck with a guy who is having mental and physical issues on the mound. Granted, Alex White and Drew Pomeranz haven't panned out for Colorado either, but I would have much rather taken my chances with them than Jimenez.

I believe the front office takes the majority of blame for this team. There was a time when Mark Shapiro was making great trades and getting the best players for this team. 2007 is the prime example of that. But, that all drastically changed with the awful Cliff Lee and C.C. Sabathia deals. None of the players we recieved for Lee are on the roster. Granted, the C.C. deal brought us Brantley, but he was the player to be named later. Matt LaPorta was the big chip of the deal, and, well, the Indians keep giving him second chances, trying desperately to prove to the fans the deal was justified.  The first round draft picks have been horrendous recently. Our last solid first round draft pick came in 1998. The player? C.C. Sabathia. I do think Chisenhall and Lindor can break that streak, but, it is yet to be seen.

I believe Francisco Lindor will be an everyday starter by 2014. Who is Lindor? He was our first round draft pick in 2011, and has a solid bat and all the tools to become a stud. The problem? He's a shortstop. Would the Indians deal Cabrera in the hopes that Lindor turns out as good as advertised? I can't see it happening, but, it's difficult to move a shortstop to the position he would have to move to: the outfield, but that depends on Chisenhall's development. Lindor really won't be ready for the majors until 2014; he may see some action next September. To me, that gives Chisenhall almost a full season to prove he should be the everyday third baseman. If he can't, or he's just having an OK season, I wouldn't be against trying Chisenhall in the outfield (if that void hasn't been filled), and slotting Lindor in at 3B next September. Another route would be moving Lindor to the outfield this offseason and having him get a feel for it all next year. However, that could greatly stump his growth. It's ironic, given the team now, that they could have too much talent and not enough positions in two years.

I believe that Grady Sizemore and Travis Hafner need to go. We wasted money on both of these players this year, who combined for 212 AB's in 2012. I say that nicely because Sizemore didn't even suit up; not even in a spring training game if I remember correctly. I wouldn't even be up for signing them for the league minimum. Their time in Cleveland, though great at times, needs to be over.

I believe if the Indians want Sandy Alomar, Jr. as their manager next season, they need to sign him very, very soon. Alomar was very close to being hired as the White Sox manager last offseason. He was impressive on every job he was interviewed for. Even the Red Sox considered him. Alomar is going to be a major league manager before long, and in my estimation, is going to be a damn good one. For one thing, he's got history on his side. Some of the best managers in recent memory were once catchers: Joe Torre, Mike Scioscia, Jim Leyland, Joe Maddon, and Joe Girardi quickly come to mind. Granted, Acta was a catcher as well. Catchers make great coaches because they act as managers when their in the field. A good catcher has his manager's trust in calling a pitchers pitches; and sometimes sets the defense up based on the man at the plate. Alomar was always a fan favorite when he played and was one of the more humble and likable players on the team. He was on winning teams, he's a hard worker, and I think all of that would have a great impact on the young players on the roster, especially Carlos Santana.

I believe the Indians need to hire Mike Sarbaugh as their bench coach, before someone else does. Mike Sarbaugh is the manager of the Columbus Clippers, our AAA affiliate. He coached many of the players on the roster now to back-to-back league championships in 2010 and 2011. He is another man who could be a major league manager or coach in the near future. I think having Alomar as manager and Sarbaugh as bench coach is a great combination, and would be a huge boost for the club overall.

I believe, despite this abysmal season, the Indians can, and will, be a contender. Although this has been one of the worst seasons in recent memory, I think this can be seen as a blessing down the road. Hopefully the front office finally sees that the fans are fed up with mediocrity, and demand a better product. Perhaps Acta is just the first step in the process. There are good pieces in place with this team to build a winner, the front office just has to be willing to find the right guys to surround them with, both on the field and in the dugout. They need to draft better. They need to find the right prospects for Choo and Perez this offseason. They need to stop wasting money on players like Hafner and Sizemore. Most of all, they need to show us, the fans, they they DO want to win, and are COMMITTED to winning, not just say they are.

Review: The Dark Knight Rises

It's difficult to sit down and write a review of a film that has so much news around it the past several days. The tragedy in Colorado has no doubt weighed heavily on the minds of everyone around the country this past weekend, and it feels as if something as trivial as the critical opinion of a summer blockbuster doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. But, I do think an appropriate action to take during this tragedy is to support your local theater or movie house, while also sending thoughts, prayers, good wishes, and the like, to the victims and families affected by the tragedy. The best way I can think of doing that is to continue going to, and writing about, the movies.

Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy has prided itself on being different than your average comic book movie. While this doesn't necessarily mean that they're superior to all comic book movies, it does mean that we expect them to have a different type of tone and meaning. There's no doubt Marvel has had massive critical and box office success with its "universe", but the tone of their films is a complete 180 from the Batman flicks. Both movie franchises great, but have very different tones. What I'm trying to say is this: The Dark Knight Rises is at times the darkest film in Nolan's trilogy, but at many more instances, is arguably the truest comic book/action blockbuster movie out of all three, and the least realized one. 

I won't go over any of the plot points here because I figure if you're reading this, you've either already seen the film or already know the basic plot. I will say that the film has an almost three hour running time at 164 minutes, yet the movie moves at a very brisk pace. This is both a good and bad thing. Whereas Batman Begins and The Dark Knight prided themselves on being character-driven stories first, Rises is very much a basic action movie. Without getting into a lot of detail, the film is set eight years after The Dark Knight. There are several returning characters from the first two films, including (of course) Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), Alfred (Michael Caine), Fox (Morgan Freeman), and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman). While there are some terrific moments between Alfred and Bruce concerning just what exactly Bruce has been up to for eight years, I felt like there wasn't enough there to develop these characters over that huge chunk of time. It's as if the characters pick up right where they left off. While that can work for a film set six months after the first, it needs more polish here. Yes, Fox and Gordon are secondary characters, but surely they haven't just been sitting around waiting for Bruce to come back into their lives? We do get some interesting lines about Gordon's life in that time, but there's not enough there.

That's really the big issue with the film: there isn't enough polish on the storyline. While the Batman fanboy in me was absolutely giddy throughout the film, afterwards there was a lot more I wish the film had done. Nolan has always been a director about the characters, like I stated earlier. Here, yes, our main four characters have already been explored for the most part in the first two films, and perhaps there hasn't been any significant changes in Fox or Gordon's (although, in Gordon's case, there has been) life to warrant a big character study, like there is with Bruce and Alfred. After all, they are the stars of the movie. However, new characters, especially Marion Cotillard's Miranda Tate and Matthew Modine's Foley, aren't given enough of a chance to explore their characters, which makes their moments on screen seem forced and not convincing to the movie's plot. Cotillard is terrific in what she's been given, but I wanted to see more of her character, especially in the middle when she seemingly disappears.

This isn't to say I didn't enjoy the film, but I feel I'm nitpicking. The movie had far too much hype surrounding it, and there was no way it could live up to expectations, or its predecessor. The Dark Knight, as I've already said, is the best comic book movie of all time, and a terrific crime story. It was going to be nearly impossible to match it. Nolan and company have still made a terrific finale to their trilogy, and there are a number of things that work extremely well in this installment. Anne Hathaway steals the show as Selina Kyle. The blend of sexiness and brutality she brings to the character make her one of Nolan's best females (a crutch he's been carrying ever since Following: that he doesn't create interesting female characters). Joseph Gordon-Levitt also stands out as cop John Blake, and his back story offers some interesting moments early on in the film, and towards its conclusion.

Hans Zimmer's score is absolutely breathtaking at times, and yet, it is not overdone. A fight scene that ends the first act of the film would have probably been accompanied by a grandiose score in any other movie. Here, Nolan and Zimmer let the action play out with nothing but the sounds we see and hear on screen. It makes the end of the scene have that much more of an impact, because of the nature of what happens, and the repercussion it carries throughout the rest of the film. Towards the film's conclusion, the score is massive, and takes on a life of its own during some of the more hectic scenes we've viewed this summer. Overall, the score is a great equivalent to the film itself; complimenting scenes when it needs to without being overbearing.

There are a lot of specific scenes/shots that tie directly to Batman comic books; more so than the first two films. Graphic novels like No Man's Land and The Dark Knight Returns are the basis for many of these shots. However, the novel that gets the most reference is definitely KnightFall, with a shot/dialogue taken straight from the comics that I was really, really hoping would make the film, and was extremely glad when it did. In these instances, it seems like Nolan went more for fanboy pleasure rather than grounding Batman in reality, like he did in the previous two movies. Again, this works some of the time, but not all of the time.

It's interesting to note that there's an intriguing parallel of sorts between all three of Nolan's Batman films. The best act of Batman Begins was its first, the best of The Dark Knight was its second, and the best of Rises is its third. The third act packs quite the emotional punch, with an ending that not only puts its own spin on the characters, but does it in only a way Christopher Nolan could pull off. There are flaws in each movie to be sure, but in the case of Begins and Dark Knight, the good points outweigh the bad on a significant level. In Rises, the bad points aren't overshadowed as much. They stick out just a little bit more. There are many, many plot holes and questionable occurrences in the film that I really cannot discuss in detail in a spoiler-free review; perhaps that can be for down the road.

One person I haven't mentioned yet is Tom Hardy, who plays the main villain, Bane. He's the most difficult opponent Batman has faced yet in this trilogy, and the first real threat to Bruce's life. Hardy's voice audio was the subject of a lot of scrutiny when the first trailers were released, as it was difficult to hear his lines through the mask he wears. The sound audio was enhanced, and he's (mostly) understandable in the finished film. Hardy stated that he based Bane's voice on an Irish bare knuckle brawler. In an interview, he stated: "The choice of the accent is actually a man called Bartley Gorman...A Romani gypsy...His particular accent is very specific, which was a gypsy accent. So that's why it was difficult to understand." Throughout the film he is calculated and brutal; he's Joker minus the crazy plus muscles. However, like so many other characters in the movie, he's not as fully realized as he could have been.

That's how I feel about a lot of the film. There are a lot of great ideas here, but they're just that. They never become something more than a thought or inspiration. The movie is full of wonderful ideas but not nearly enough of them are as fully-realized as they should have been. Again, I really can't go into details, but let's just say a lot more could have been done with the material towards the end of the film's second act. Is it too deranged to say that perhaps this movie should have been split into two? If not, then many of the ideas needed to be left out to make more set pieces, characters, and storylines resonate like they could have.

While The Dark Knight Rises has its fair share of flaws, it is still a pretty good film. It's not on par with the first two movies in Nolan's trilogy, but it is definitely not a disappointing threequel like Spider-Man 3 or Superman III. It's a cool film, a fun film, but it's not a great film. It doesn't disappoint as an ending to the trilogy, but a lot more could have been done to make the movie on par with its predecessor. I suppose the most disappointing part of the movie is that fact that this ride is over, but, I don't think we'll have to wait too long to see Batman on the big screen again.

B+

Looking Back: The Dark Knight

In honor of the release of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises July 20, I'm looking back at the first two films in his trilogy, covering themes and ideas he's explored in his interpretation of Batman, and maybe, shed some light on what's to come in the final installment.

Note: This is not merely a review, but an in depth look at the film. If you have not seen it, do not read, as there is discussion about the ending. In other words: SPOILER ALERT.

If Batman Begins changed the way comic book movies are made, then The Dark Knight perfected it. The movie works not only as a comic book movie, but also as a sequel, a character study, a crime movie, and, in some ways, a horror film. Think about when the Joker tells the story of how he got his scars the first time. It's easily one of the more terrifying scenes of the year, and a great introduction to how mad this character is and will be.

Although this is the same Batman from Begins, it is, in a way, a different version of the same character. In Batman Begins, Batman took down his enemies using fear as his main tactic. In The Dark Knight, he relies more on his detective skills and brute force. Think about when he tracks down the Joker's hideout before his assassination attempt on the mayor. He uses a shattered bullet to recreate the fingerprint, and matches that up to apartments around the route the parade will be taking. On the flip side of that, consider when he travels to Hong Kong to bring Lau back to Gotham. Instead of sneaking into the building in the hopes of getting Lau out without creating much of a hassle, he simply bursts in through the window, takes down Lau's thugs, and exits via sky hook. Theatricality, it seems, hasn't lost its place with Batman.

In each of the two movies, Nolan used a different color theme throughout. In Begins, a dark tan dominated a lot of the scenes; here in The Dark Knight, blue is a recurring color. Blue has always been regarded as a soothing, calming color. It works as a great dichotomy to the chaos that is prevalent throughout the movie, and, I think, one of the more interesting aspects of the movie. Think about any of the scenes with the Joker, but in particular, the interrogation scene. There's not a lot of blue in the cinematography, but there's enough that it's noticeable. Notice how this is Batman's "weakest" moment. I say that in quotations because he exhibits a great amount of strength as he pummels the Joker. It's his weakest moment in the two films on a character level, because Batman is supposed to be mentally and physically stronger than his opponents. It doesn't do a whole lot to contradict what Joker said earlier in the scene about Batman being no different than the criminals he vows to vanquish.

And what of the Joker? He is a unique character not just in Batman lore, but in comic books and movies in general. I think, even if Ledger didn't suffer from his untimely death, that his Joker would still go down as one of the better movie villains of all time. Nolan has prided himself on making his Batman universe as realistic as possible; so we don't get the "normal" Joker origin of him falling into a pool of chemicals only to climb out of it with skin that is now white and a permanent smile. Instead, his white skin is face paint, and the scars appear as if they're self-inflicted. His clothing, as Gordon puts it, "appears custom". There's no DNA matches for him. It's as if he came from nowhere. There is no origin to his tale; he is an "absolute", a man without any means to be alive except to create chaos. He's not a criminal you can try to understand, but only have to realize that he exists, and he has to be stopped. I think the mental toll that the Joker weighs on Batman will have major repercussions in the sequel.

Gary Oldman again shines as Jim Gordon. He's able to continue the success he had with the character in Batman Begins and make Gordon more of a deeper character here. Of course his greatest moment comes at the film's conclusion, when he's faced with the real possibility that Two-Face is going to murder his son. The raw emotion Gordon shows in the scene could probably be attributed to Oldman's own thoughts of his family, and how he would feel if it were one of his own children threatened. He still clings to the hope that Gotham can be saved, and although he clashes with Dent, believes, like Batman, that Dent can be the symbol of hope the city needs to turn itself around.

This of course brings us to Harvey Dent/Two-Face, my personal favorite villain of Batman's universe. The tragedy of Harvey Dent and his fall to Two-Face makes him by far the most intriguing villain of Batman's rouge gallery, I think. It is an interesting parallel to the city of Gotham, once a thriving and populated city, now run by criminals and the mob. His story arch is the most fascinating part of The Dark Knight. It's Shakespearean in a way. Although comic book fans could see his transformation was imminent, it is still shocking when it does occur. Eckhart does a wonderful job of balancing Dent's charm and demeanor while also hinting at this beast he has lingering underneath the surface. The movie does a great job towards its conclusion of tackling Dent's split personalities, showing the man he used to be, and the monster he's now become. There was never a doubt in my mind that Two-Face had indeed perished at the film's conclusion; to be honest, I never understood why people doubted it. The film makes it fairly obvious that he is dead, showing us the memorial service held for him. What he meant for the city, and what the truth about his death would mean to the citizens of Gotham, is definitely an aspect that I think will be explored further in The Dark Knight Rises.

The movie is once again an interesting social commentary as well. Whereas Batman Begins questioned societies fear, The Dark Knight can be seen as a commentary on the privacy of citizens. Batman uses the cell phones of Gotham's population as the hub for a sonar device to pinpoint the Joker's location towards the end of the movie. Lucius Fox calls the practice, "beautiful, unethical, dangerous". He questions what exactly the cost is to the common citizen if Batman continues down a path such as this to find and stop a criminal. It can be seen as a comment on President Bush's Patriot Act, questioning if the ends justify the means. Although I think this idea is a bit of a stretch, it is still an interesting idea to bring up ten, fifteen years down the road. I also couldn't help but see a little bit of 9/11 in some of the imagery in the film, particularly when Joker blows up Gotham General Hospital, and when Rachel is murdered. As Batman stands on the rubble and discovers Dent's coin, the debris is almost strikingly similar to that of the twin towers.

Maggie Gyllenhaal is such a wonderful addition as Rachel that I almost, kind of sort of, wish they could have somehow CGI'd her into Batman Begins. Here, Rachel has life and zest. She's got spunk and, "a little fight in [her]" as Joker puts it. There is great chemistry between her and Eckhart and Bale, and the scenes with the three of them really showcase it. The love triangle subplot could have brought the film down on an excitment level, but instead are great quiet moments between the chaos.

Where fear was the dominanting theme in Begins, chaos is of course at the heart of The Dark Knight. It is all Joker wishes to bring to Gotham, and in many instances he succeeds. His "social experiment" at the film's end is his magnum opus. He thinks that by showing Gotham they can be as dark as he is, then the city will never recover. However, the ferries don't detonate each other, proving that not everyone has a madman hidden inside of them. The scenes where we see citizens trying to flee Gotham, and the massive traffic covering the city are powerful shots, and are a little chilling to think that one man can do this to a city. Even the way he pushes Batman is intriguing. He wants Batman to kill him so that he can prove to everyone that Batman is no different than anyone else. Batman's rule of no killing is hinted at a lot in the movie, and I think it's something to look for in Rises. Will Joker have pushed Batman so far that he's left with no other choice but to kill Bane?

I do, however, still question Nolan's lack of a credible link to his first Batman flick. While The Dark Knight is a brilliant film, and continues to set the standard for comic book movies, there really isn't anything here that distinguishies it as being the sequel to Batman Begins. Yes, it does boast (mostly) the same cast from the first film, and Scarecrow does make a nice cameo early on, but other than that there's really no mention of the first movie at all. I think what would have made the movie even better was to see the repurcussions of the train disaster from the end of Begins at the beginning of The Dark Knight. I understand the movie takes place six months after the events of the first, but we don't even see the train system in the background of any shots. I think it would have been a good touch to see crews still working to clean up the mess made by Al Ghul and Batman at the end of the first movie. But, it's hardly something that makes the movie less enjoyable on any level.

The movie ends unlike any other comic book movie I can remember. The Joker wins, essentially. Although his initial plan was to expose Harvey Dent as a criminal, he still succeeded in that Batman took the fall for Dent's crimes. Batman is now the outcast and enemy to the city he once swore to protect. In Gotham's eyes, he is no different than the likes of Scarecrow and Joker. But, he believes this is what must be done in order for there to still be hope for Gotham. Dent needs to still be a symbol of good for Gotham, and exposing the truth about him could be disastrous for the city. Batman proved to Joker that the people of Gotham are still good, but Joker proved that they are still corruptable with the fall of Dent.

Think about Bruce Wayne's psyche at this point in his life. He has lost both of his parents, his best friend/love of his life, and couldn't help save the one man he thought would be able to help turn Gotham back into a thriving city. The movie ends with him on the run; not just from the cops, but also from his demons. He was never the hero Gotham deserved, but the one they always needed, and he's lost that trust now in the city and in himself. It's such a powerful ending to a movie, and such a fascinating way to bridge the gap into The Dark Knight Rises.

Overall, The Dark Knight is, in my opinion, the greatest comic book movie ever made. The strong performances from the cast and the even stronger storyline make it one of the greatest sequels ever; right up there with the likes of The Empire Strikes Back and The Godfather: Part II. It is the standard that all comic book movies will be measured by for the next several years. The untimely death of Heath Ledger and the parallels to real world issues only add to the lore the movie has and will continue to have for years to come. It's a difficult film to follow, but I have the hope that Christopher Nolan and company will do this film justice in the their final Batman film.

A

Looking Back: Batman Begins

In honor of the release of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises July 20, I'm looking back at the first two films in his trilogy, covering themes and ideas he's explored in his interpretation of Batman, and maybe, shed some light on what's to come in the final installment.


Note: This is not merely a review, but an in depth look at the film. If you have not seen it, do not read, as there is discussion about the ending. In other words: SPOILER ALERT.

If you're not a big fan of the darker, more mature tone comic book films have taken on in the past few years, the one movie you can blame for that is Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan, a relative unknown (save his terrific Memento) at the time, was hired to bring the DC character back to life, after the disaster that was Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin. Nolan and co-writer, David S. Goyer, set out to make a Batman film that was more about The Dark Knight rather than The Caped Crusader. They realized the best route to do this was to bring the character back to his roots, and tell his origin tale, which at this point, had never been fully explored on the big screen. We got most of the story in Tim Burton's Batman, but Bruce Wayne's complete origin story was never fully explored. The film boasts quite the cast, with Christian Bale in the title role, Michael Caine, Katie Holmes, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Tom Wilkinson, Ken Watanabe, and, Cillian Murphy.

Both of Nolan's Batman films deal with several different themes; some of them overlap between the two films. Here, he focuses his attention on the ideas of justice, fear, and parenting. The main theme (and one that is pretty obvious) is fear. Fear in the unknown, fear in being alone, and fear in the loss of loved ones. Bruce Wayne (Bale) didn't begin his journey to Batman on the basis of fear, but instead was motivated by the death of his parents and sought justice. However, his rage clouded his idea of justice as vengeance. He was motivated to kill Joe Chill, the man who murdered his parents. He thought that by killing Chill, he'd find the justice he was seeking. However, he soon realized this simple act alone wouldn't be what gave him the satisfaction, or feeling of justice, that he sought. Instead, he fled Gotham in order to understand the mind of a criminal. As he tells Ducard/Al Ghul (Neeson), he delved into their psyche, but he never became one of them. During his training in the League of Shadows he discovered that their idea of justice was with the murder of criminals. His views clashed with theirs, and he fled, returning to Gotham in the hopes of ridding the streets of men like Joe Chill. But he realized he wouldn't be able to do this simply as Bruce Wayne; he needed to become something more.

I found it interesting that, although Wayne ultimately ends up defecting from the League of Shadows, and leaves Al Ghul to die at the film's conclusion, Al Ghul is sort of his main inspiration for the symbol that is Batman. The movie opens with Al Ghul telling Wayne, "If you make yourself more than just a man...then you become something else entirely...a legend". You can see Wayne already beginning to formulate the idea in his head at that point, because even he realizes at this point that criminals will not be fearful or respect lawmen or one individual man.

Batman Begins also delves into Wayne's relationship with his parents, and how their death ultimately leads to his choice to become Batman. This is the part of Batman's lore that we have never seen play out fully on screen before. Christopher Nolan finds a way to make the early scenes work without bogging the film down. He's also able to make it a running idea through the movie that Wayne is constantly searching for the father figure that he lost at a young age. The obvious answer to this dilemma is his butler Alfred (Caine), but Alfred only makes up a fraction of what Wayne is looking for in a father figure. Alfred is his foundation; the person he can look to for guidance during his journey as Batman. Al Ghul is the man he looks to for motivation to stop the criminals of Gotham; Jim Gordon (Oldman) is the man he looks to as the symbol of change for the city, and Lucius Fox (Freeman) is the "cool" one, the one who gives him his toys and doesn't question what Wayne does with them. At least, not in Batman Begins.

Although Christian Bale is a terrific choice for Bruce Wayne, I think the highlight of the film is Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon. He plays Gordon with a sense of hope that things can turn around in Gotham, even though almost everyone around him in the GCPD is corrupt. His Gordon gravitates to Batman's ideals almost instantly, and their partnership, although not realized until the film's conclusion, is a really satisfying payoff, and arguably makes for the best moments in the follow up, The Dark Knight. Plus, Oldman just looks like Gordon, especially his Batman: Year One and The Dark Knight Returns incarnations.

Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are interesting takes on social commentary as well. Here, Christopher Nolan uses the notion of fear as a means of discussing society on a larger scale. The movie was released in 2005, and although it was four years after 9/11, the memories still lingered in everyone's minds. We, as a society, were still wary about doing normal, everyday activities because the threat of terrorism was so prevalent, with things like the Homeland Security Advisory System color code.

I think my favorite scene in the film is when Wayne discovers the "bat cave" underneath Wayne Manor. There's a lot going on in the scene, and not much all at the same time. When he finally gets to the bottom of the well that he fell down in the beginning of the movie, he sees the cavern that the caves came from. He's not sure if he wants to continue because he knows what is on the other side; he's afraid of confronting what he already knows is there. He does, however, move forward into the cave, and discovers a huge expanse of space. As he lands, the bats come from all around and swarm him. Instead of running, he embraces the bats, and it's in this moment that he becomes Batman. It's a powerful scene, and one of Christopher Nolan's finer directing moments in his career.

The main, and I should say only real, issue I have with the film is Katie Holmes' character. While the part was written exclusively with Holmes in mind for the role, she seems bored in her time on screen. There's also a real lack of chemistry between her and Bale, which weigh the film down in its final moments. I understand the need her character brings to the movie, but I wish they would have went with a different casting choice, as many of her scenes are the more disappointing moments in the film. These are two people who are supposed to be lifelong friends with feelings for each other that they haven't explored yet. Sadly, they come off as people who barely know one another. When it was reported Holmes wouldn't be returning for the sequel, needless to say I was quite relieved, and even more ecstatic with Maggie Gylenhaal's performance in The Dark Knight. But, that's for another post.

Batman Begins is really what the franchise needed at the time it was released.  It's a back-to-the-roots sort of film, going with Batman's early days and 1980's when he was The Dark Knight, rather than going the 1960's route of being the Caped Crusader. The movie is an excellent start for the series, and its sequel was able to build on the successes of its predecessor and create a film that was unlike any comic book movie we had seen before. Batman Begins changed the way comic book movies are made, and set the standard for origin tales, even if they're of characters we've known for sixty plus years.

A-

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man is one of the most mixed-bag movies I've seen in quite some time. There are some really entertaining aspects to the film, and moments that I thought were really enjoyable, yet there are also plenty of moments that don't make a whole lot of sense and just aren't that well put together. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. I tried my hardest to. But I just couldn't shake the problems it has. While I was against the idea of a reboot on this series from the beginning, this has nothing to do with my opinion on the film. I'm fine with the idea of comic book movies rebooting themselves in order to keep things fresh. There are plenty of different comic book variations on characters like Spider-Man and Batman, so there's no doubt a chance for there to be many different variations of these characters on the big screen. What I didn't like about the film had nothing to do with its reboot aspect, but the fact that the film isn't well executed on many levels. I didn't like sitting through the origin story again because of the way it was told, and not because it was the origin story a second time.

This is a different, but not completely new, Spider-Man than we were used to with the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire trilogy. Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man is arrogant, kind of an asshole, and an outsider. When he's Spider-Man, this works really well. Maybe it's my love of characters like Batman and Iron Man, but I like the cocky Spider-Man more than the friendly neighborhood/I'm also the narrator Spider-Man. But, what is really all that fundamentally new about this Spider-Man as opposed to the earlier version, besides the way he shoots webs from his wrist and his personality? If you're going to promise an "untold story" of this character, and say that he's going to be a different take, then that is what you need to deliver, especially when we've already seen this origin story only a decade ago.

There are many sub stories in the movie that are introduced, but then tossed to the side for the sake of big action scenes. Parker's search for Uncle Ben's (Martin Sheen) killer takes up a good ten minutes in the film, then is all of a sudden gone from the story entirely, without a single mention of it for the rest of the film. If it was something that would have been explained as to why it was cast aside, I could have lived with it, but there was no explanation. I also was jarred when Parker all of a sudden creates his suit and is overlooking New York City in no time. He goes from looking for his Uncle's killer in street clothes, then to street clothes with a mask, then to his full Spider-Man costume in what seems like less than five minutes. It's as if the filmmakers realized they spent too much time at this point on Peter Parker and rushed to get the costume on screen. Uncle Ben's death wasn't as much of an emotional gut check as I assumed it would be; in fact, it was almost laughable. There is a much more poignant, and emotional, death, towards the film's conclusion that shouldn't have hit as hard as Uncle Ben's.

I was disappointed that there wasn't more screen time with Aunt May (Sally Field). The character was such a big staple in the Raimi trilogy that I felt her character needed more screen time. She's also cast aside once Peter stops hunting for Uncle Ben's killer, showing up only a few times as if to remind the audience she's around, worrying about Peter. I also really didn't understand the storyline of Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) being a high school student who is also apart of the biggest research department at Oscorp. Maybe that's something that's in the comics (I'm not very familiar with Spider-Man lore), but it didn't make much sense that she has access to those chemicals, and moreover, knows the exact components she needs to make a certain formula later in the film.

Rhys Ifans is an excellent choice to play Dr. Curt Connors, as he just has that scientist/professor look to him, but, it's unclear what exactly his character's motivations are in the movie. He's a brilliant scientist who used to work with Peter's father on genetic mutations; he lost his arm in some sort of accident that is never really explained, or even explored, and, for whatever reason he's determined to change New York City into a crowd of mutated Lizard's because apparently, that's the logical step in evolution to him. Let's get past the fact that this is now the third Spider-Man film that has the mentor/idol to Peter turn into his nemesis. Let's instead think with the idea this is the first time this has happened in a Spider-Man film. It doesn't work because the relationship between Connors and Peter doesn't go as far as it should. The character needed to be more realized in the writing stage. One moment he's a brilliant scientist looking to cure mankind of all disease. In another, he's a sketchy guy with an even sketchier past who has a thing for cold-blooded animals. When he does transform to the Lizard, he's just a hulking monster who wants to kill Peter because he's in the way. It's hard to root for the superhero when you can't figure out the bad guy's motivations, even if they're just anarchy and chaos. If there would have been some sort of outlined back story to him it would have at least given the character some sort of reason to act the way he does, instead of just a means for big fight productions and an ending.

Throughout the marketing for The Amazing Spider-Man we were told this would be the untold story of Peter Parker's transformation to Spider-Man. Like I've already said, there's nothing here that we didn't see in the Raimi trilogy in terms of origin, besides some brief hints at Parker's parents. This was the most frustrating part of the film to me. In the beginning of the film we see that Peter's father Richard (Campbell Scott) was working on the genetic mutation that the film hints at throughout. There's several spider images scattered throughout his office, including a big (almost laughably so) one on his blackboard. Later, Dr. Connors hints that there were experiments done on humans with the genetic mutations, but that none of the subjects survived. It made me believe that the film really wanted to tell us, in a roundabout way, that Peter was one of these experiments, and that the spider bite that he got didn't give him his powers, but instead awakened some sort of genetic mutation that was planted in him by his father. So, in that instance, Peter never became Spider-Man, but was instead always destined to be Spider-Man.

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but there are a lot of scenes in the film that seem like they were edited out at the last minute. The trailers had hints at more scenes dealing with the sudden exit of Peter's parents that somehow didn't make their way into the film. Were these scenes so bad that Sony execs forced director Marc Webb to cut them out? I also had a problem with bringing the idea of Peter's parents into the film as a whole. When Peter is trying to learn more about his father's time at Oscorp, there's a brief moment when we see an online article with the headline that his parents died in a plane crash. Later, Peter complains to Uncle Ben that his father had the responsibility to be there for him, and yet he's not here. It's as if everyone thinks Peter's parents are still alive somewhere, yet there's that article saying they aren't, so who knows. I understand that they weren't going to give us all the answers in this film, as it's the first of a planned trilogy, but there needs to be a set idea going forward.

All that being said, there are parts of the movie I really enjoyed. Besides the chemistry between Stone and Garfield, the cinematography by John Schwartzman is really stunning at times, especially the wide shots of the city and the Oscorp tower. James Horner's score works really well in the movie's quieter moments, but is used far too much during the action scenes that it becomes a little annoying. Towards the end of the film, it felt like he was trying to find a main musical theme to the score, but couldn't figure out which one he liked most. The first trailer for the film also featured a long first person sequence of Spider-Man running along New York rooftops. It was something different and I was excited to see exactly how it would be used in the final film. Unfortunately, it's been diminished to nothing more than a gimmick that is inserted at awkward points towards the conclusion.

With the amount of success the film has had at the box office already, it's no surprise Sony has announced this is the first of a planned trilogy. My hope is that Sony takes a little more care with the other two films and not just continually make the same film over again (kind of like the last trilogy). The important thing for them to do is take the elements that worked here, and if they flush out all of the issues it had, and build off the positive elements in smart ways, it can work. I probably won't end up ever liking The Amazing Spider-Man, but I hope I can end up enjoying the series as a whole. If not, there's always the next reboot, right?

C/C-

The Avengers Review

It's been only four years since Iron Man began moviegoers down the road that would lead to this. So much hype surrounded this movie before there was even a script attached to it, that it seemed there was no way it could live up to the expectations. I'm happy to say that director Joss Whedon and company have accomplished one of the more amazing feats in summer movies in a long time.

The fact that Marvel and Universal/Disney were able to achieve something as big and expansive as their own universe of movies is an extraordinary feat on its own. The fact that each movie is at least pretty decent, with The Avengers topping them all, is even more amazing. As far back as I can remember, there hasn't really been an event like the Marvel Universe played out in movies, ever. It's a movie event unlike anything we've seen recently, and probably won't see again for a long time.

The movie doesn't really have what you would call a complicated plot. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) plans to take over Earth and rule as its supreme king, or something. The Avengers are called in to stop him. That's really all there is to it. But the movie doesn't need an overly complicated plot. The Avengers is more about marveling at having four of the biggest comic book characters on screen together, all played perfectly by the chosen actors, and the interactions they have together. Whedon does a great job of giving each of the main characters, Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans) and Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) equal screen time. Even the role players, Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) have great parts. Whedon's script does a fine job of bridging the gaps these characters have with each other, while making the story entertaning, suspensful, and funny all at the same time.

I couldn't help but remember old Saturday morning cartoons while watching The Avengers; the opening scene especially. This kind of thinking works perfectly here. The only problem is that the movie becomes a little too comedic at times, with the characters having witty dialouge just for the sake of witty dialouge. It's not too the point where it's annoying or frustrating, but it gets somewhat unnerving towards the end. There are several crowd pleasing moments that come from them, however.

I also want to note that the 3D conversion the movie had in post production is simply not worth it. The movie wasn't shot in 3D, but it was known during production that it would be converted. The 3D has no added value; many scenes are hardly converted that I couldn't tell the difference with my glasses off. I would, however, recommend seeing the movie on a digital screen in 2D. The digital will give an extra glossy look to make the visuals pop more.

The movie clocks in at just under two and a half hours, which is quite a long running time, but goes by fairly quickly thanks to constant action and dialogue scenes that all have their own sense of purpose. Far too often movies like this have their characters try to find some sort of inner meaning, or overcome a personal struggle. That works terrifically in films like The Dark Knight, but here, all we're looking for is good action and a fun time. 

The action scenes are pure bliss. I was worried Whedon wouldn't be able to pull off the big action scenes that well, but he does a surprisingly good job, especially towards the end, with several long tracking shots that, although mostly CGI, still are very cool to watch.
 
I was really happy with the performance from Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner. I thought he was a great choice for the role, but was wary that he would have a minor part behind the "big three". There was controversy when it was discovered Edward Norton wouldn't be returning as Banner for the movie, but I have to say I agree with the decision. While Norton is a great actor, and did a fine job in The Incredible Hulk, I never thought he was very convincing as Banner. He just simply doesn't have that scientist look to him. Ruffalo has that look, and I'm pleased he's going to be with Marvel for the long haul as Banner.

While the movie was playing, I couldn't help but think that this summer is maybe the beginning of the end for big comic book movies. While The Avengers and its "prequels" were all executed in a terrific way, it's hard to imagine where these characters go from here. Of course, there are already sequels planned, with Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 scheduled for release in 2013. But it just feels as if there was such a build up for The Avengers I worry that people will now begin to lose interest in superhero films. There may also be the issue of too much of a good thing. DC has the release of The Dark Knight Rises later this summer, and the Superman reboot, Man of Steel, is scheduled for 2013. Don't forget The Amazing Spider-Man and Men in Black 3 this summer as well. There's also rumors they are planning a Justice League movie, with Man of Steel being the start.

I just worry that with how successful The Avengers already is, studios will now shell out any superhero or comic book adaptation they can think of, and look for a profit, which will no doubt result in terrible overkill for the genre. However there are good things happening with this genre as well. Marvel has had great success with this series, and Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight saga has wowed critics and moviegoers alike. It's no doubt that this genre is here to stay for the long haul, even if the general public loses interest after awhile.

With that being said though, The Avengers is not only a great accomplishment, it's so far the best movie of 2012, and a terrific start to the summer movie season. The only question I have is: where do these characters go from here? I don't know, but I can't wait to find out.

A-/B+

The People Behind the Camera

I'm pretty excited about the ideas I have for the blog to keep it updated and to keep myself writing. Movie-going and review writing is pretty slow these days for me, simply because there isn't a whole lot out there that is appealing at this point. This first series I have in mind is one that I may never truly "finish", but definitely want to start.

It's going to be an ongoing series I'm (tentatively) calling "The People Behind the Camera". Some call them directors, others auteurs, but for the sake of making this an open idea, this is what I'm calling it for now. What exactly is an auteur? To put it simply, it's a director that has a distinctive creative vision, which can be seen in each of his or her work as if they were the sole author of the film. In other words, even though a film may be written and produced by someone else, the director is seen as the primary creator, because of his or her personal ideas and visions, of the story.

In my opinion, I think directors can be more famous than the stars they use in their films. Back in the 50's and 60's, people became excited for a new Hitchcock film not because of who starred in it, but because of who was in the director's chair. Hitchcock was sort of the first "director diva", who paved the way for people like Stanley Kubrik, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, and Steven Spielberg. Think about it: how many times have your heard someone say, "let's go see the new Spielberg movie"? When a good director comes out with a new movie, it's like a must-see event in my mind, sort of along the lines of March Madness, or the World Series.

What I want to do with this series at first is shine a light on directors that are working today that should, or already are, in that same "diva" status as Hitchcock. Now, I'm not going to say that these directors are as good or better than the likes of Hitchcock and Kubrik, but I do think their body of work is worth recognizing. Depending on the director, I may study their best films individually, while also pinpointing those themes that make the director an auteur, or, in some cases, have one post focusing on the director's entire body of work. It mostly depends on the amount of films the director has made. For instance, I'd go a lot more in depth on Steven Spielberg than I would, say, Michel Gondry. This is simply because Gondry only has, in my opinion, one work of recognition, even though he shows his vision in all of his movies.

I also want to point out I won't necessarily be talking only about a director's best achievements. Some of these people have films just as bad as their great ones, and it's important to see why these films don't work and the great ones do.

I know this sounds like a really artsy and self-indulgent thing to do, but I hope that it doesn't turn out that way. I hope that it becomes a way for you, and others, to look at these directors differently when you see their films. Maybe you'll discover something you haven't noticed before. I hope I can point out a few ideas that can get people interested in seeing more films by a director, or to become interested in someone they may not have been initially.

It's going to be an ongoing idea: one that doesn't have an end date or a definitive amount of people attached. I may get away from it come awards time and go back to it, or I may continue through with a new film, or director, every week. I may also cover multiple directors at once. Some of the directors I hope to talk about at some point are: David Fincher, Martin Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson, Joel and Ethan Coen, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, and a slew of others.

However, I'm going to start with one man who's directing a pretty big movie coming out this summer: Christopher Nolan. I'll be looking at all seven of his feature films, writing about each one individually, while also looking at the over-arching themes and ideas seen throughout his films. I'm hoping I can have the post about Following up in the next week, and have all seven movies done by the time The Dark Knight Rises is released in July.