Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)

posted by Tygrrius @ 8:24 PM

Hold on tight, fellow geeks, I'm about to use a baseball analogy. Think of going to see the six live-action Star Wars movies as the equivalent of attending major league baseball games. And not just any major league games, but the World Series. Like the World Series teams, the live-action Star Wars movies represent the best of the best - in this case, the pinnacle of filmmaking.

Opening in theaters today, the animated Star Wars: The Clone Wars, on the other hand, is the equivalent of watching a really good minor league ballgame. It's a different experience than watching the World Series, but still a lot of fun in its own right.

To enjoy The Clone Wars, you will need to accept that this is a different league of Star Wars movie. If you are unable to get past that, if you are expecting the "standard" Star Wars movie experience, then you might as well stay home and watch your DVDs again. Much like those who turn their noses up at minor league baseball, though, you won't know what you're missing.

I wasn't exactly pumped up about The Clone Wars. While one of the previews looked great, many of the television spots bordered on terrible. Especially those featuring a new Jedi apprentice, Ahsoka (Bless you!). More on her later, though.

As a Star Wars fan, I sold my geek soul to George Lucas long ago. It may be minor league, but The Clone Wars is still a Star Wars movie so I was obliged to be there opening day. Keeping up a tradition we started back with Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace (almost ten years ago now, unbelievable), Caabbage joined me for the fun. Caabbage is my brother-in-law via my little sister, not to mention a friend. He's perhaps even more of a Star Wars fanatic than I am.

Breaking somewhat from tradition, though, our wives begged off from this one. It was just the guys this time. Well, and a theater full of fairly well-behaved children.

Anyway, I set my expectations bar fairly low for The Clone Wars. You know what? It wasn't horrible, not even close. The Clone Wars is often entertaining and always visually stunning. The animation, which was one of my major concerns going in, turns out to be fantastic. Many of the spacecraft and battle scenes look very close to the computer-rendered effects from the more recent live-action films. The Clone Wars looks like a Star Wars movie just often enough to deserve the name.

Most of the characters have new voice actors behind them. Since this movie is leading into a new TV series starting in October on Cartoon Network and TNT, this was probably due to economic considerations. I imagine it would be rather expensive, if not impossible, to sign Ewan McGregor to a long-term contract to voice Obi-Wan Kenobi in a cartoon series. James Arnold Taylor fills in the role nicely, though, just as he did on the 2003-2005 Clone Wars series.

Matt Lanter ably takes over as Anakin Skywalker, adding just the right edge to the character. Returning in their familiar roles are Christopher Lee (Count Dooku), Samuel L. Jackson (Mace Windu, in what amounts to a cameo), and Anthony Daniels (Threepio).

Soon after the battle of Geonosis (chronicled in Star Wars: Episode II-Attack of the Clones), the Separatist/Droid Army has cut off many of the Republic's shipping lines. When Jabba the Hutt's baby son, Rotta the Huttlet, is kidnapped, Chancellor Palpatine urges the Jedi to rescue him in order to forge an alliance with the Hutts and allow an alternate trade route through the Outer Rim Territories.

Sounds like a pretty bad setup for a movie, right? And it is, for writing is one of the two areas where The Clone Wars strikes out. Much like Star Wars fans really didn't need to meet Chewbacca's father Itchy or his son Lumpy in The Star Wars Holiday Special, adding to the Hutt family by including both a son and an uncle (Ziro the Hutt) brings The Clone Wars dangerously close to being a parody.

Since they are the only Jedi available (despite being in the midst of a battle), Obi-Wan and Anakin are dispatched to take care of the situation. Along the way, Anakin reluctantly takes on Ahsoka (Gesundheit!) as his Padawan learner. Voiced by Ashley Eckstein, she is a bratty teenager who resents being mistaken for a youngling.

The movie works really hard trying to make the audience see the irony of Anakin being forced to mentor a headstrong teen. Due to her affection for handing out nicknames (she calls Anakin "Sky Guy," Artoo becomes "Artooie," while Rotta becomes "Stinky"), Anakin calls her "Snips." Me, I'm going to refer to her hereafter as Spunky Brewster.

To call Spunky Brewster annoying would be an understatement. Keep in mind, I am one of the few known Star Wars fans in the galaxy who actually likes Jar Jar Binks to a certain degree. I don't even mind that the teddy bear Ewoks helped defeat the Empire. Yet Spunky even grates on my very patient nerves.

I can only imagine the thought process behind this character.

"Males love Star Wars. They will come see this movie no matter what we do. Take Tygrrius at The Film Frontier, he and Caabbage would see a movie featuring papier-mâché puppets as long as we stuck 'Star Wars' in the title. The question is, how do we target girls between the ages of 5 and 12 to expand upon our Star Wars empire?"

"Our marketing research shows that those girls love Hannah Montana. Too bad Star Wars doesn't have a character like that."

"Hey, what if Hannah Montana was a Jedi?"

And thus, Spunky Brewster was born. While the high-tech animation makes me look forward to the upcoming television series, the inclusion of Spunky as a main character does not.

The worst part of all of this, though, is that The Clone Wars absolutely wastes Padmé Amidala, an existing strong female character who is anything but annoying. Expertly voiced by Catherine Taber, Padmé's role in The Clone Wars amounts to a short but exciting bit part.

The male-driven 2003-2005 Clone Wars series also unfortunately left Padmé out of the mix most of the time, but filling the female void with Spunky Brewster is just a horrid idea. The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones both set up Padmé as an action hero, so her more subdued outings since those two movies have been disappointing.

Also more than likely due to the TV budget, Kevin Kiner provides the music for The Clone Wars rather than John Williams. Don't get all excited by hearing the classic John Williams recordings in the preview trailers, for not a second of it is to be heard in the actual film. Though Kiner makes use of some of Williams' themes, they are all inferior re-recordings and arrangements.

Kiner has a little more success with his original themes, most notably a rock-sounding song that plays during an intense battle, but even many of those fall flat. Without John Williams, The Clone Wars just doesn't sound like a Star Wars movie.

One technique that Lucas used in the prequel trilogy to anchor it to the originals was the echoing of familiar moments. The Clone Wars takes this technique to an absurd extreme, with echo after echo designed to remind you of specific moments or lines from the live-action movies. This serves mostly to make the audience wish they were watching those other movies on the big screen instead of this one.

As I said at the beginning, though, The Clone Wars is still an entertaining way to pass the time. So buy yourself a hotdog, peanuts, and Cracker Jacks, and take in a game or two of minor league Star Wars. You won't be disappointed. Much.

Story: 3 (out of 10)
Voice Acting: 8
Visual Style: 8
Animation: 10
Music: 3
Overall: 6

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

posted by Tygrrius @ 7:17 AM

Assignment: Trek
A Film Frontier special presentation

For our first Assignment: Trek journey, we set our Omni to December 7, 1979. This web site has gone back into time. . . .

REVIEW: Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Other than a short-lived cartoon series, Star Trek fans endured a ten-year drought between the airing of the final episode, "Turnabout Intruder," on June 3, 1969, and the release of Star Trek: The Motion Picture to theaters.

When a deadly probe of unknown origins threatens Earth, James Kirk (William Shatner) returns to command the newly refurbished Enterprise. While the movie indeed reunites the entire original cast, it unfortunately presents Star Trek as a lifeless shell of the original.

All of the adventure, excitement, and fun are gone. Instead, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a sterile bore that feels more like a poor copy of 2001: A Space Odyssey than Star Trek.

The film's one bright spot is the refit design of the Enterprise. She is beautiful and glorious. As much as I love her, though, an over four-minute, dialogue-less tour of the Enterprise's exterior set against composer Jerry Goldsmith's sleepy score is too much even for me. Apparently intended as a set piece, the scene drags on mercilessly, much like the rest of this movie.

Though Vulcans are known for concealing their emotions, it is the humans of this film that seem to lack any feeling. Except for brief sparks, none of the characters ever seem alive. The crew spends most of their time gaping in near zombie-like fashion at the main viewer on the bridge.

Meanwhile, the audience is subjected to never-ending visual effects as the Enterprise slowly makes its way through the interior of the massive probe. The characters become incidental to the effects and whatever plot there is seems only an after thought.

While things finally begin to pick up a bit in the final act, where there are actually slight glimmers of the real Star Trek, it is not enough to save this disaster of a movie served up by producer Gene Roddenberry and director Robert Wise. This is bad Star Trek and horrible science fiction.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture ultimately fails on almost every level. Lacking the emotional heart of the television series, the movie is simply not entertaining. However, besides the debut of the refit Enterprise, the movie has one other redemption: the promise of more adventures to come.

Story: 1 (out of 10)
Performances: 2
Visual Style: 1
Effects: 7
Music: 2
Overall: 2

The Dark Knight

posted by Tygrrius @ 5:32 PM

The last Batman movie I saw in the theater was 1995's Batman Forever, starring Val Kilmer. That was actually the first Batman movie I ever enjoyed (helped, no doubt, by the Superman-style opening credits, the mention of Metropolis, and Nicole Kidman, who has never looked better than she did as Dr. Chase Meridian).

I hated Michael Keaton's two turns as the character, in 1989's Batman and 1992's Batman Returns. While I found Kilmer convincing as the Caped Crusader, I wasn't thrilled with the casting of George Clooney in the role, so I skipped out on 1997's Batman & Robin (apparently a lot of other people skipped that one, too).

When a new Batman movie hit theaters in 2005, with then-unknown Christian Bale in the title role, I was only barely aware of it. A reboot with a younger guy playing Batman, where they tell his origins yet again? Boring, I thought, so I didn't bother to see Batman Begins in the theater.

Yes, I'm an idiot. I have admitted that many times in this space. I finally saw Batman Begins in 2006 on DVD, sometime after seeing Superman Returns in the theater. I needed a DC superhero fix and Superman Returns had not yet hit DVD.

Batman Begins blew me away. Finally, a Batman movie I could really get behind! I watched Batman Forever again after that, but my former favorite didn't hold a candle to Batman Begins. (Kidman still looked pretty good, though.)

Though Batman Begins and Superman Returns earned about the same figures at the box office, director Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins is often regarded as a "surprise hit" while some continue to call director Bryan Singer's Superman Returns a "box office disappointment."

For Nolan, this meant that he was able to proceed relatively quickly with a sequel, The Dark Knight, keeping most of his cast intact. I consider three years the perfect interval between entries in movie series, and The Dark Knight hits this advantage perfectly. The Superman Returns sequel, sadly, is still in development hell.

Conventional wisdom for superhero movies has it that the first sequel is always better than the original. Most think that 1980's Superman II is better than 1978's Superman. Many believe that 2004's Spider-Man 2 is better than 2002's Spider-man. (I actually disagree on both counts, but we're not talking about me here. My wisdom is anything but conventional.)

At the beginning of this year, I was definitely psyched to see The Dark Knight - especially after watching its early preview trailers. I must admit, though, that the death of Heath Ledger, who plays the Joker in the film, dampened a lot of my enthusiasm. It's hard to get excited about a movie that features the final completed performance of a talented actor who died before his time.

Besides, Batman Begins is a tough act to follow. Could The Dark Knight even match its predecessor in quality, much less improve upon it? Walking into The Dark Knight this morning, I realized that I was two for two in summer movies so far. Both Indiana Jones and Get Smart failed to let me down. Let's just say I was due for a disappointment.

In The Dark Knight, Batman continues his loose alliance with Gotham police Lieutenant Gordan (Gary Oldman). The duo also brings Gotham district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) into the fold. As the trio seeks to rid Gotham of crime, the Joker similarly teams up with the city's organized crime bosses, ostensibly to rid Gotham of Batman.

Maggie Gyllenhaal is Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. Seriously, Gyllenhaal's channeling of Holmes, who declined to reprise her Batman Begins role for the sequel, is uncanny. In fact, the transition is even more seamless than Dick Sargent taking over Dick York's role of Darrin Stephens on Bewitched. If Holmes were not a former star, I would never have noticed the change.

So, how does The Dark Knight stack up against Batman Begins? Somehow, it's even better. Like Star Wars (1977), Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), and The Empire Strikes Back (1980), The Dark Knight is one of those extremely rare movies where every single piece falls together just right.

The story is intricate and captivating, without being too convoluted. Nolan establishes a dark mood, yet makes room for occasional humor to keep audiences from falling too far into the dreariness. Editing is tight and extremely well-paced. There are no "slow" parts that should have been left on the cutting room floor. Every actor gives a convincing, top-notch performance. Ledger takes the Joker farther into insanity than any previous performer, yet manages not to seem over the top.

All of the visual effects are impeccable. There are no effect guffaws to pull you out of the movie. While I'm sure they made extensive use of CGI, there are none of those "Why did they use CGI here?" or "That looks really fake" moments that plague so many movies these days. Composers Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard are right up there with John Williams and James Horner in my book, and their score here is as perfect as the rest of the movie.

The only fault I can find with the entire movie is that Batman's voice occasionally sounds like that of McGruff the Crime Dog. In at least two scenes, I thought for sure Batman was going to say, "Help me take a bite out of crime." This is an admittedly minor quibble. He also had a McGruff scene in Batman Begins, so at least he's consistent.

The best thing about both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight is that the two films are so grounded in reality. They do not repeat the critical mistakes of many comic book movies, that is making the entire world so unlike our own that we cannot relate. Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and the best Superman movies all work because they place our heroes and villains within an otherwise "normal" world.

I need to see The Dark Knight a few more times to see how it holds up on repeat viewings. Superman remains my favorite superhero, but at this point I'm leaning towards The Dark Knight as the best superhero movie of all time - edging out Richard Donner's Superman (1978). Maybe a superhero movie this incredible can only come along once every thirty years. I'm glad I was there both times.

Story: 10 (out of 10)
Performances: 10
Visual Style: 10
Effects: 10
Music: 10
Overall: 10

Get Smart (2008)

posted by Tygrrius @ 9:36 AM

The Get Smart television series made its debut on NBC in 1965, about a year before the premiere of Star Trek on the same network. Perhaps it's appropriate, then, that the new movie version of Get Smart has made its debut about a year before the premiere of the new movie version of Star Trek.

Call me old-fashioned, but my three favorite TV series aired most of their new episodes in the 1960s. Get Smart fits snugly into that third spot for me, right after Star Trek and The Twilight Zone. I was born in the mid-1970s, so I have only known these shows in reruns. (My fourth favorite series, however, breaks that 1960s convention. It's Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman from the 1990s.)

This year, I've started making my way through the Get Smart series on DVD. I'm in the middle of the second season right now, relishing each episode. It's great watching them in sequence, and hearing Barbara Feldon (Agent 99) introducing each one. With Star Trek bumped until next year, Get Smart was my most anticipated movie of the year. Would I be disappointed?

Much like 2009's Star Trek, 2008's Get Smart faces the obstacle of audience reluctance to accept new actors in iconic roles. Who else but Don Adams could play Agent 86, Maxwell Smart? Who else but Barbara Feldon could play Agent 99? Who else but Edward Platt could play the Chief?

Another potential strike against the film is the history of attempted Get Smart revivals. After the series was cancelled in 1970, Don Adams returned as Agent 86 in The Nude Bomb, which was released to theaters in 1980 but poorly received. Notably, Agent 99 never appeared or even received a mention in the movie.

A 1989 TV-movie, Get Smart, Again, fared better and reunited the surviving cast, including Adams and Feldon. In 1995, FOX aired a new sequel series, Get Smart, which also featured both Adams and Feldon, with Smart now the Chief of CONTROL. The series also featured Andy Dick in an uninspired performance as 86 and 99's son, Zachary. The low-rated series lasted only seven episodes.

Now it's 2008 and Get Smart is back in theaters again. Steve Carell, who generally I've found overrated in previous projects, stars as Maxwell Smart. Anne Hathaway, who generally I've found underrated in previous projects, co-stars as Agent 99.

There are really only three key questions to address in reviewing this movie.

1.) Does the re-casting work?

The re-casting works, absolutely. Steve Carell is Maxwell Smart. I believed it from the moment he first appeared on screen until the very end of the movie. Carell makes brilliant choices throughout the film in portraying the character. Most importantly, he is not imitating the legendary Don Adams. Had he made this mistake, the Get Smart movie would have merely been a spoof of itself, aping the TV series that supposedly inspired it. Think Starsky & Hutch, The Dukes of Hazzard, or most other recent film adaptations of classic TV series. Carell's performance is the main reason why Get Smart does not fall into this trap. If Carell had tried to imitate Adams, I would have hated this movie.

Meanwhile, Anne Hathaway proves that she can not only handle comedy, as expected, but that she is also a kick-ass action hero at heart. Hathaway's performance may in fact be the best of the entire movie, reminiscent of Rene Russo in Lethal Weapon 3.

Alan Arkin appears as the Chief and brings the same sort of effective counter-balance to Carell's antics that Platt brought to those of Adams. The father/son-like relationship between the two characters survives the transition to the big screen as well.

2.) Is the movie good?

Get Smart is not a good movie, it's a great one. From the instant it begins until the credits roll, it is non-stop action and comedy that rarely takes a breather. I was expecting a movie like this to drag at times, or, worse, to have revealed all of the best moments in the previews, but it turned out even better than I ever hoped.

When KAOS, the international organization of evil, takes out nearly all of the agents of CONTROL, the international organization for good, the Chief is forced to promote one of his favorite but bumbling analysts, Maxwell Smart, to agent status. The newly named Agent 86 teams up with veteran Agent 99 and together they must unravel KAOS' plan to strike the United States. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson turns in an effective and typically charismatic performance as Agent 23, one of the few survivors.

Most of all, the movie is non-stop fun. That's what I'm looking for in a movie like Get Smart.

3.) Does it feel like Get Smart?

Most of the time, Get Smart indeed feels like an updated version of the TV series. Over forty years have passed and society has changed in many ways, though. Certain things are bound to feel different. One of the main changes is in the relationship between Agents 86 and 99.

On the TV series, the sexual chemistry between the two characters was instant but understated. In early seasons, Max even seems totally oblivious to 99's subtle affections. In the movie, there is an instant sexual tension between the two, but this time it is Max who quickly falls for the aloof 99. The turnabout works, but definitely feels different from the series.

Does the re-tooling of 99 as an action hero go too far? For me, it works and is one of the best updates of the movie. It feels like a natural progression of the barrier-breaking strides started by Feldon and her interpretation of the character in the 1960s.

There are also some great nods to the TV series in this film, none of which I will give away here. Some are subtle while others are obvious. All are in great taste and do not take away from the film at hand.

* * *

Nothing will ever replace the TV series, but the new Get Smart movie serves up two hours of entertainment that complement the show. My suggestion is to go in without pre-determined expectations of what a Get Smart movie "must" be. Just go in to watch a fun movie and you won't be disappointed.

Story: 8 (out of 10)
Performances: 10
Visual Style: 9
Effects: 8
Music: 9
Overall: 9

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

posted by Tygrrius @ 7:50 AM

It's been an extremely busy seven days for me, but I finally had a chance to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull yesterday afternoon. Though I was certainly looking forward to it, I was not exactly hyped about this movie. I think it was mostly the preview trailers. I found them to be ineffective and uninspired. I was worried the movie would play the same way.

Fortunately, the movie itself turns out to be a totally different story. First of all, director Steven Spielberg banked some major points with me early on for opening the film with an Elvis Presley song. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull takes place in 1957, so Elvis' 1956 hit "Hound Dog" fits right in.

Russian KGB agents manage to infiltrate the infamous Area 51. Within a warehouse of US government secrets and treasures, including the Ark of the Covenant, they release the captured Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) and order him to show them the location of a mummified body he assisted the US military with ten years earlier.

This is the first glimpse of the older Indy, for it's been 19 years since his last movie, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I was in my early teens back then. I remember that Last Crusade was just a movie for my friends and I to see on a whim as the school year was winding down while waiting for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier to be released the following week.

In fact, the preview for Star Trek V that preceded Last Crusade made me so excited for that film that I had a hard time concentrating on the Indy movie at first. Eventually, of course, the film drew me into the world of Indiana Jones. By the end, I was a big fan.

And to think, Star Trek V would be even better! Well, I had chicken pox by the time Star Trek V came out and didn't even see it until the following weekend and it . . . was what it was. Last Crusade became my favorite movie of 1989. This was also the summer of Tim Burton's Batman, but I only thought that movie was so-so.

Back to the present. Harrison Ford is older now, but so am I. I'm in my early 30s. I'm married and own a home. And wouldn't you know it, I'm still anticipating the release of another Star Trek movie. Some things never change. As for Ford, he steps easily back into the role of Indiana Jones. It's as if he continued playing the character throughout that 19 year absence. That, for me, is the real triumph of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Ford proves that he still has it. He can still play Indy, just as effectively as ever.

At Indy's side through most of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is "Mutt" Williams (Shia LaBeouf), a Marlon Brando/James Dean type. Ford and LaBeouf play well off each other and their chemistry represents the best part of this film.

Not so great is actress Cate Blanchett, who plays lead villain Irina Spalko. The Oscar winner was not up to the task of a fun, action-adventure movie like this one. Each time she was on screen delivering more than a line or two, I found myself wishing they had cast someone, anyone else.

Direction by Spielberg is top-notch as expected. Most of the look of this movie is close to the first three. There are not the shocking visual differences that exist between the original and prequel Star Wars trilogies, for instance.

Surprisingly, the special effects by Industrial Light & Magic are a mixed bag. I assume this was due to a time-crunch, as the production for this movie seemed compressed compared to, say, your average Star Wars movie. Many sequences are great, but some of the sequences in the finale are mediocre. I expect better from ILM.

The story by George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson, scripted by David Koepp, is fun and not overly complicated. You'll see each plot twist coming a mile away, including the worst-kept movie secret since that one in Superman Returns. That's okay, though. Indiana Jones movies have never been about the destination. They are about having as much fun as possible getting there.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has fun and adventure in abundance. It fits right in with the first three films, and is on par with them. Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford have done the impossible yet again.

Would I be tempting fate, or just plain greedy, to ask for another Indy movie or two? So be it. More, please. If this turns out to be the last Indiana Jones movie, though, then it was a great ride that ended on a high note. As a big fan of the main trio involved, I'd like to tell them thank you.

Story: 8 (out of 10)
Performances: 9
Visual Style: 10
Effects: 8
Music: 9
Overall: 9

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem

posted by JediSheltie @ 4:47 PM

Hey, guess what I did for Christmas...

To be honest, this is the first time I've ever bothered with a “Christmas Day” release, at least since I've had the luxury to do so. Not that I had any conceptional problem with it. Mostly nothing ever came out Christmas Day I ever wanted to see. So, I had Christmas dinner at the Alamo Drafthouse this year. It was a chicken Parmesan sandwich, and it was quite tasty. I followed it up with a chocolate milkshake chaser and a good time was had by all.

Right, and I watched a movie, too.

Though the advertising campaign hasn't made much of it, AvP-R is a very direct sequel to the first AvP. Other than the seeds of the plot, all the press and interviews leading up to the films release have taken great pains to avoid mentioning the “other” AvP movie. If mention came, it was generally of a diplomatic, “yes, it exists, and our film is different” kind of response.

The Predalien, a hybrid of the Alien and Predator races seen at the end of AvPG-13 picks up right where he left off, causing that big ship and all those nice Predators from the first film to crash near a remote mountain town. Only the hybrid and a few face-huggers survive to do what they do best, fulfill the biological imperative to continue the species.

The distress beacon from the downed vessel is registered back on Predator Prime, where, in spy terms, a “cleaner” is dispatched to fix the mess and remove all the evidence. The cleaner Predator is the only one in the film this time around, getting a bit back to the Predator film roots. While he's en-route, we start meeting the various bits and pieces of the eventual “band of survivors.”

Since the film doesn't do a lot to get us acquainted with them, I'll summarize: the ex-con recently returned to town, the sheriff, the ex-con's troubled younger bother with a crush on, a random blond chick, and a recently returned Army vet played by Reiko Aylesworth. Reiko is the only human I recognized in the cast.

The film subsequently begins leaping back and forth between the Predator's hunting efforts and the ever dwindling human population's encounters with the ever growing Alien population. There is no “enemy of my enemy is my friend” plot at work here. The Predator is not only cleaning up the Alien infestation, he's cleaning up the witnesses too. The sudden explosion of the Alien population is explained towards the end in a agreeably nasty fashion.

Which brings us to the obvious ways AvP-R distinguished itself from the original. Primarily the splatter quotient is significantly higher. Though even that is a bit of a tease as most of it happens at night, in the rain, with the power out. (That's not a joke, btw.) This doesn't lend itself to particularly “vivid” depictions of gore. The Bothers Strause get a lot of mileage out of messing with perceived “taboos.” One of the first face hugger victims is a boy, for instance. Though they slip right back into the standard cliché by having Aylesworth's character protecting her daughter all the way to the end.

One of the main problems is the film departs in a subtle, yet far more significant way from it's original franchises and even the first film. Instead of starting with a single “crew” or “group” whom we follow throughout the film, we are introduced to characters or sets of characters piecemeal. They don't all end up together until over half the movie is finished. There's less time to invest in the characters as a group or individually, as what development we get has to be squeezed in between Predators and Aliens fighting.

Aylesworth's character doesn't turn out to be the Ripley analog the advertising subtly hinted she would be. Her character receives the least of the already limited development time, and only ends up becoming a glorified chauffeur. The male lead, the ex-con, is set up as the hero of the piece, another reversion to cliché that didn't help the film much.

Ultimately, the film does deliver on the Aliens vs. Predator action, interspersed with various reasonably gory deaths of the local townsfolk at the talons of the visitors. I still think there was a little too much jump-cutting, but maybe theres even more being saved up for the inevitable “Unrated” DVD. The quibbles about having some humans to care about are, admittedly, a bit nitpicky when judging a film like this.

The bloody alien on alien action is what you're signing up for, and it delivers.

Rating: B-

Star Trek: The Menagerie

posted by Tygrrius @ 5:23 AM

Star Trek: The Menagerie
Remastered Theatrical Presentation (11/13/2007)
Remastered Episodes #12 (11/25/2006) & #13 (12/2/2006)
Original Episode #16 (11/17/1966 & 11/24/1966)

I don't have a particularly large television, but even when I go to other people's homes who have gigantic TVs they never quite have that movie theater feel. Nothing compares to seeing Star Trek, Star Wars, or Superman on the big screen of a movie theater.

So, when I heard that CBS was going to release Star Trek: The Menagerie to movie theaters in a limited engagement, I was all over it. Not only was it a chance to see the remastered visual effects in the best quality possible, but it was also an opportunity to see William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForest Kelley together on the silver screen again.

The presentation began with a short intro by Eugene "Rod" Roddenberry, Jr. He tells a fun story about his father setting up a projector for him when he was a kid and showing old reels of Star Trek episodes, including "The Cage" - the Star Trek pilot episode that makes up the flashback sequences of Star Trek: The Menagerie. He also tells the "too cerebral" story about NBC's rejection of "The Cage" and the unprecedented ordering of a second pilot that later sold the series.

After that, there was a feature about the making of Star Trek: Remastered, including a look at the HD DVD combo set being released next week. Since I follow the syndicated series rather closely, most of this was stuff I'd already seen. The best part for me here, though, was hearing the collective gasps of other audience members as the new effects were showcased. Incidentally, be sure to stick around after the credits because there is also a sneak preview of the second season set, coming in 2008. This resulted in even more startled but positive reactions as many audience members saw "The Doomsday Machine" and other episode enhancements for the first time.

No mention was made of the syndicated airings of the series, though I did plug it a bit to nearby fans. Star Trek: Remastered, unfortunately, continues to be almost a secret series in this area (and likely many others) due to its odd airtimes. You'll never find an episode starting earlier than 1 AM or later than 4:30 AM here. It's a real shame, considering the quality of work they are putting out. Hopefully the HD DVD combo set release will reach more fans.

Finally, the main event began. In what turned out to be a fortunate accident, I missed watching "The Menagerie" two-parter when it first aired on Star Trek: Remastered last year. So, for this portion, even I was in for some great surprises as I looked at these enhancements for the first time.

Besides the giant screen and great sound system, the other nice thing about the movie presentation (which will also be true of the HD DVD combo set) is that the episode is uncut. In the syndicated airings, about ten minutes of footage is excised to make room for the longer commercial breaks of today compared to 40 years ago.

The Enterprise is diverted to a starbase when it receives an urgent call from her former captain, Christopher Pike (Jeffrey Hunter in the flashback sequences, Sean Kenney in the current sequences). Upon arrival, Kirk discovers that Pike could not have sent the message for an accident has left him immobilized and unable to speak. As Kirk investigates on the starbase, Spock kidnaps Pike, assumes command of the Enterprise without authority, orders the starship to head for Talos IV, a forbidden planet, and leaves behind a rather angry Kirk.

There are many recurring Star Trek themes and concepts in Star Trek: The Menagerie, including emphasis on loyalty, duty, and friendship. Even Spock demonstrates that he believes the needs of the few or the one can sometimes outweigh the needs of the many.

The special effects upgrades are superb, some of the best work of the CBS Digital team behind Star Trek: Remastered. One of the best improvements to the series has been a more consistent look for the Enterprise. Pike's Enterprise looks noticeably different from Kirk's Enterprise (as it should, since there have been two major refits since then), but this distinction was usually lost in the classic airings of Star Trek because effects footage often had to be reused. Sometimes, the same Enterprise had two or three different looks in a single episode.

If you're a Star Trek fan, no matter how casual, and missed yesterday's screening, you need to run to your nearest theater showing Star Trek: The Menagerie for two more screenings on Thursday. You don't want to miss this.

Story: 10 (out of 10)
Performances: 10
Visual Style: 9
Effects Upgrades: 10
Music: 9
Overall: 10

For a listing of theaters and to buy tickets, go to fathomevents.com.

The Film Frontier's Related Articles

Superman Doomsday DVD

posted by JediSheltie @ 9:30 AM

The "Death of Superman" was the first time I started seriously collecting comics. It lasted through college, and after a small hiatus due to massive debt, has resumed with full intensity to this day. Superman has always been my favorite superhero, so I was there if they were going to kill him. I happened to be there a week late... but that's a story for another day...

Naturally one can then assume that I have a bit of an attachment to the original story, which was truly a spectacular effort at comic storytelling whose ramifications are being felt even today, in the "Sinestro Corps War" most notably.

Were I reviewing a animated feature based on that story, I might be quite harsh and unforgiving in my assessment of its merits. Fortunately, Superman Doomsday brings us quite a different story, so I'm able to step back, and review this story on its merits, instead of simply tossing off paragraph after paragraph about how they got so many "little details" of that rich, compelling comic saga wrong.

Though produced by Bruce Timm and done in the same style, this story appears to occur in its own little corner of the multiverse. There's quite a bit of pulling from multiple sources, including comics both old and new, and, as is common these days, the films. Here we have Superman (Adam Baldwin) and Lois Lane (Anne Heche), happily dating as Metropolis's most well known secret couple. Lois is concerned Kal-El isn't letting her in on the big secret identity, and a minor tiff ensues. The size of the next "tiff" is far more epic in scale.

Drilling through the earth, a team of Lexcorp scientists accidentally release a failed experiment in super-soldier development, a "Doomsday" weapon, buried on earth by some unnamed alien race, and patly explained by a trip through the archives of the Fortress. This Doomsday promptly eliminates the scientists and tears off for Metropolis. Yes, at PG-13, deaths, though not clearly shown on screen, are more than simply "implied."

The ensuing fight is well done. The fight choreography takes into account the power of the combatants. No one bounces off walls, they smash through them. Streets are torn up just in passing, and entire buildings crumble. The smashup is definitely a highlight of the entire film. Were I to retreat to my picky ways, I might suggest the whole "can't bleed" excuse did handicap the visual impact a bit.

What follows is a rather truncated exploration of the funeral and how Metropolis deals with the loss of their primary guardian. Lois promptly figures out her dead boyfriend's secret identity so she can have a chat with the, in this universe, solitary Martha Kent. But its really not all that long before Superman is back.

There in lies the third act, one which enters spoiler territory to even attempt to describe. If you've noticed Lex Luthor in a lot of the previews, there's a good reason for that. Lex, reacting with some disappointment that he was not ultimately responsible for the destruction of his arch nemesis, manages to turn his lemons into a rather dangerous glass of lemonade. Luthor's plot was certainly in character, and is, in some very abstract fashion, based on what he attempted in the comics.

Baldwin and Heche turn in decent performances in the lead roles. Though I like my Superman rather reserved, I might say Baldwin was a little too laid back in his vocal characterizations. Heche's Lois certainly rang a bit more true to the character than Kate Bosworth, and she only had to use her voice. Marsters' Luthor was serviceable, but he will forever be in the shadow of Clancy Brown's spot-on performance from Justice League Unlimited. The remainder of the cast was comprised of solid vocal talent.

Animation is what you've become accustomed to from any Timm production. This means you can expect rave boos from Tygrrius, folks, who hates it. I could give or take. Doesn't bother me, but I've always preferred more detailed art styles. I did find the cheekbone features on Superman oddly distracting, as they seem out of place.

I have yet to delve through the bonus features, so can't help anyone there. Tygrrius loves bonus features, so perhaps you can expect a detailed run down in his review

Since it seems important, I'll go ahead and do the grade thing:

Overall: B-
Voice Acting: B-
Animation: B
Plot: B-
Extras: N/A

Transformers – Movie Review - Now With More Than One Word

posted by JediSheltie @ 6:11 PM

Looks like it's official, we can pretty much do anything in film now.

Still a little pricey, but unleashing 30 foot tall robots in all out war in the middle of a large metropolis is no sweat. Make no mistake, that's what this movie is ultimately about, 30 foot tall robots beating the crap out of each other in the most spectacular fashion possible with modern effects. I can also report the script wasn't that bad either, even though, ultimately, that was just icing on the cake.

The plot is rather simple, as you are more than right to expect for a film of this nature. The Autobots (the good robots) and the Decepticons (the bad robots) are out to find the “Allspark”, the Maguffin that will basically allow its owners to take over the world by turning all our technology into pissed off little robots. Unwittingly holding the keys to the Allspark's location is Sam, a fairly basic teen geek type ably played by Shia LaBeouf. Honestly, it was only a year or so ago I figured out that name didn't refer to one of the female characters in whatever film of his I was watching at the time. Seriously, I kept wondering where the hot French chick was.

There's a big cast of humans here, and a long running time keeps them out at front. As one of the “fans” of the original Series 1 toon the film attempts to target, I did find the screen-time devoted to flesh and blood actors to be somewhat excessive at times. Problem is, there aren't enough people like me to recoup the budgetary costs of an all-Optimus fest. So I understand why we're basically watching a movie the general public can relate to as they follow the characters and their interactions with the warring Transformer forces. I can't blame them for this creative choice, and the fact that most of the humans are entertaining enough kept it from being a totally annoying distraction.

The main drawback to everything the film attempts to accomplish by following the human leads is that we don't really get a chance to get to know most of the Autobots. Outside of Bumblebee, Sam's car and eventual bodyguard, and Prime, the rest of the Autobot cast isn't all that well fleshed out. There's an eventual Autobot casualty, but it's hard to really feel anything since the character didn't contribute much to the film.

The Decepticons fare even worse in this regard. Few outside Megatron have lines, and are left to inspire menace by their presence alone. Fortunately the effects make this pretty easy, actually. Apparently you need to have picked up the comic prequels to have gotten a great deal of the “subtext” of the Decepticon side. Starscream is still a schemer, but you hardly get that from just watching the film.

He still blows crap up real good, though.

Still, complaining about a lack of giant robot action in this film is a little disingenuous, because, really, this film has more giant robot action than any film in history, and it's bloody amazing giant robot action at that. The action sequences are roundly eye popping, visceral experiences that really get your thanatos on. This film is a pure popcorn action fest that ultimately befits the source material. It was an action cartoon, not Shakespeare, after all.

Transformers - Immediate Post Viewing Review

posted by JediSheltie @ 7:02 PM

Wow...

"Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut" DVD

posted by Tygrrius @ 6:09 AM

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut
Superman: The Ultimate Collector's Edition, Disc 6

Warning: This review contains major plot spoilers.

I never thought I would be giving a spoiler warning for a movie filmed thirty years ago, but Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut presents a unique situation. Until now, this version of the movie has never been seen before, and it is significantly different from the Superman II released in 1980.

Background on Superman II

We have gone over this story a number of times now on The Film Frontier. To summarize again, director Richard Donner filmed Superman and most of Superman II at the same time. In order to complete Superman on time, the decision was made to hold off on Superman II with about 80% of the movie complete.

Due to budgetary and creative differences with the film's producers (Alexander and Ilya Salkind), Donner was replaced as director of Superman II once Superman was released and became a huge hit.

In order to obtain the full director’s credit and to meet his own vision of the movie, the new director, Richard Lester, re-shot much of the film.

Superman II also became a hit, but fans have always wondered about that mysterious other version. Twenty-six years after the Lester version opened in theaters, the Richard Donner Cut is finally available after being painstakingly restored by Michael Thau (with significant input from Donner).

2006: A Tale of Two Superfilms

The first new Superman film of 2006, Superman Returns, closed with a dedication to Christopher Reeve. The second new Superman film of 2006, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, opens with a dedication to Reeve:

This picture is dedicated in loving memory to Christopher Reeve, without whom we would never have believed that a man could fly.

The film then begins with a review of the events of the first Superman movie, as they apply to this version of Superman II.

The Superman you've never seen

Superman was originally to have ended on a cliff hanger, showing the accidental release of the Kryptonian villains when Superman hurls one of Luthor's nuclear missiles into space. Ultimately, this scene did not appear in Superman—but Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is based on the premise that it did (thus enabling the removal of Lester's Paris scenes). Also important, there was originally to be no "turning back the world" sequence to reverse time in Superman. More on this later.

The scenes are both interesting and awkward. Of note is that many alternate camera angles are used, rather than sticking with the familiar angles from the 1978 movie. This helps to make these classic scenes appear fresh.

However, the opening has a disjointed feel that creates a very uneven beginning for the Richard Donner Cut. The various clips are simply not spliced together very well.

Fortunately, everything begins to calm down once the opening credits roll and Superman II proper begins.

I actually prefer the review method used in Lester’s Superman II, where the events of the first Superman are reviewed during the opening credits. This is one of the cleanest "Previously on…" segments I’ve seen in a movie. The Richard Donner Cut would have benefited from a similar treatment.

Lois falls for Clark

After the credits is a “new” scene. Lois begins to suspect that Clark is Superman. She “proves” this to herself by drawing glasses with a magic marker onto a photo of Superman. When Clark denies it, she jumps out of a thirty-story window to further prove her theory.

Though called a “fun” scene, this has the effect of making Lois appear emotionally unbalanced. Trusting her reporter’s instincts is one thing, but risking certain death because of eyeglasses drawn on a photo is just ludicrous. Part of the problem may be that I am viewing the scene in 2006 rather than 1980. It is just hard for me to envision Lois doing something like this.

Lester replaced this scene with a similar one at Niagara Falls where Lois jumps into a rushing body of water to validate her claim. This seems a lot less risky and stops Lois from seeming completely insane.

Superman revealed

A later scene in which Lois ultimately discovers the truth is much stronger than Lester’s version of having Clark trip and accidentally place his hand in a fire. Though I have thrown some spoilers in to this article, I do not want to give everything away so I will not go into specifics about Donner's revelation scene.

Unfortunately, Donner actually never shot his version of the scene for Superman II. Instead two separate screen tests of Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder playing the scene when auditioning for their roles are used here.

It is effective as a placeholder, but the changes in style, particularly Clark’s glasses and hair from one angle to the next are quite glaring.

Still, I can see why they went through the effort of including Donner's scene as the reveal, as it is so much better than the Lester version. And, the scene works in conjunction with the aforementioned Lois leaping out the building scene. So, I guess I will have to defer to Donner on that one, too.

Extensions and cuts

Fans of Gene Hackman’s portrayal of Lex Luthor will no doubt be pleased by the Richard Donner Cut, as many of his scenes are extended and feature many more of his trademark quips.

Many other familiar scenes are also extended, though the movie is cut entirely different. A scene that continued as one unit in 1980 may now be intercut with another scene. For the most part, this trick works to give the movie a modern feel.

One major story change due to the editing is that Superman is shown in bed with Lois prior to giving up his powers. Though this may raise a number of questions, none of them are really worth discussing. This is a comic book movie, let it go.

The return of Kal-El

One of the most powerful scenes in any Superman film and, really, any of the movies we cover on The Film Frontier, is a newly restored one that finally explains how Superman gets his powers back. In the Lester version, this occurred off screen and is never truly explained. I will not give this away, either, but it ties in very well with the conclusion of Superman Returns.

Superman vs. Zod & Donner vs. Lester

Comparing the Richard Donner Cut to the Richard Lester version is an interesting exercise because it illustrates two entirely different approaches to comic book movies in general, and Superman in particular.

Donner’s take on the characters, the story, and their environment is serious and realistic despite the extraordinary circumstances. Donner includes fun and humor (all of the Gene Hackman scenes are Donner’s; Hackman never worked with Lester), but not to an extreme level.

Lester’s take is slapstick mixed with camp. Some people associate this kind of humor with comic books (thanks largely, I believe, to the 1960’s Batman TV series). I personally think this is a huge mistake.

The stylistic differences are quite evident in the Metropolis battle. Donner’s version (which grudgingly must use some Lester footage) is serious stuff and far superior to the Lester version, which is played for laughs.

The chemistry between Lois and Superman is also much more evident here than the Lester film, where the pair often come off cold for some reason.

In the Richard Donner Cut, after the supervillains are defeated and Lois realizes that she and Superman will never be able to share the kind of love they once did, she tearfully asks him to never forget that they loved each other.

Destroying the Fortress . . . and then taking it all back

Superman is also shown destroying the Fortress of Solitude, a scene I vividly recall watching in the network television version of Superman II. Like the bullets/fire/ice sequence from Superman, I was always disappointed on other viewings of Superman II that it was not there.

Unfortunately, the end of Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut presents problems. When the decision was made to halt the concurrent production of Superman II in order to concentrate on completing the first Superman, a high-impact scene of Superman reversing time by shifting the rotation of the Earth filmed for Superman II was moved over to Superman to increase the "wow" factor.

A death scene for Lois was then written into Superman in order to give him a reason to reverse time. Had he continued on as director of Superman II and fully completed the movie, Donner would have devised a new ending for the sequel.

For the restoration of the Richard Donner Cut, the only choices were to either use Donner’s original Superman II ending or Lester’s "magic amnesia kiss" ending. As noted by Donner a number of times in the commentary, Lester footage was used as sparingly as possible and only when absolutely necessary to fill in story gaps.

Therefore, the Richard Donner Cut uses the same reversing time sequence as the completed Superman film.

Ultimately, this is essentially a rough cut of the movie as it more or less existed when production was halted at 80% complete (with Lester’s footage filling in the gaps). As such, it is a sequel to the original ending of Superman—where Superman unknowingly releases the supervillains, Lois never dies, and Superman never turns back time.

Within the context of the Richard Donner Cut, then, this is the first and only time Superman has pulled the old reversing time trick. He reverses out the entire movie, rewinding all the way back to prevent the villains from being released from the Phantom Zone at all. They are, then, still out there in this continuity. Hopefully, this will not give Bryan Singer any ideas, though.

Were this a finished movie, this would have been a horrible ending. What are Superman's reasons for reversing time? Presumably, they are to 1) remove Lois’ memory of his identity, and 2) undo all of the death and destruction caused by the super villains.

Lois’ knowledge of his identity and the majority of Zod’s damage has already occurred by the time Superman gets his powers back. If he were just going to turn back time anyway, why bother to go fight the villains at all once he regained his powers? By reversing out the entire movie, we are left not only with a pointless battle but, essentially, a pointless movie.

Bizarrely, Superman returns to the diner as Clark to spin the bully around in his chair after erasing the entire movie. In the new continuity created by his time reversal, the people in the diner should not remember Clark any more than Lois should remember that he is Superman. Yet, the people in the diner recognize him.

The reversal also raises other questions, especially in light of how Superman’s powers were restored. Has he backed out the need for this as well? Or was that part of the "timeless" continuity that he exists in?

Lois’ suspicions about Clark's identity were apparently latent since the first movie. Since we are back to day one of Superman II, why wouldn’t those same suspicions surface? Will she be throwing herself out the window again?

Or perhaps Superman’s meddling with time has an enormous, unintended consequence: the events of Richard Lester’s Superman II occur next as some kind of divergence of the timeline. As interesting of an idea as that is to me, this would not explain why Superman would make so many of the same mistakes when experiencing similar scenes again.

Unfortunately, there really is no answer here. The split between the Salkinds and Donner robbed us of a proper ending of what would have been a terrific movie, not to mention four or five additional sequels that Donner indicates he was already planning with Creative Consultant (and writer) Tom Mankiewicz.

The Richard Donner Cut is an island, broken off from all of the other Superman movies. But if you’re going to get stuck on an island, then this is a wonderful one.

Take Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut for what it is: a rare peek at what might have been--the closest we can get to turning the Earth backward and righting the mistake of Donner being fired from Superman II in the first place.

The film’s closing credits end with a disclaimer from Donner: "Since the making of this film in the late 1970s, a greater awareness has developed regarding the cruelty to animals in connection with the fur business, and the health risks associated with smoking and second hand smoke. Therefore I do not condone the use of tobacco and fur products as depicted in this film."

'Nuff said.

Bonus features

Six deleted scenes are included as special features. By its very nature, the entire Richard Donner Cut is full of deleted scenes, but these are Donner scenes shortened for or not used in the Richard Donner Cut.

They are fun to watch, and the most interesting one is “Lex’s Getaway” – which is either an alternate version of the jailbreak scene or a sequence intended for him to escape at the end of Superman II. Which never happened anyway . . . this time travel stuff is giving me a headache.

The deleted scenes would have benefited from optional introductions, to explain their significance. For example, “He’s All Yours, Boys” features Superman handing Lex Luthor over to the “US Arctic Patrol” at the end of the movie. All well and good, except that the three supervillains are also shown being led away in the background.

Apparently, Superman and Lois didn’t kill them after all in that variation (possibly resolving one of several Superman ethics issues in this film). Portions of this scene aired in the early 1980’s network television version as well.

There is an optional introduction to the film by Donner, in which he essentially thanks the fans for giving him (and Michael Thau) this unprecedented opportunity.

Superman II: Restoring the Vision is a perfect featurette. It is just long enough to hit the highlights of how the Richard Donner Cut was assembled without becoming so long as to be boring. If only my DVD reviews were so concise.

The best commentary I’ve ever heard was Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz on the 2001 director’s edition of Superman. While the Richard Donner Cut commentary is not quite up to that par, it is still top-notch. What makes it work so well is that Donner and Mankiewicz are obviously sitting in a room together and making their comments live.

I’m sure they have talking points, but it doesn’t have that scripted feel that so many commentaries suffer from. There is also the advantage that they truly are talking to each other, rather than artificially editing together solo commentaries (as is the practice on the Star Wars DVDs, for instance).

At one point, Mankiewicz is in the midst of telling a story when Marlon Brando comes on screen. Donner politely interrupts so that he can point out that all of the Brando scenes were cut from the Richard Lester version (a real travesty, once you see his scenes).

Moments like this make you feel as if you are sitting in Donner’s living room watching the movie with him and Mankiewicz, two longtime friends. For me, that’s the best kind of commentary. If only all would follow this model.

Donner makes it quite evident in the commentary that he has a genuine love and respect for the Superman character. That's what makes his lost Superman opportunities, which obviously still pain him, even worse. Perhaps this disc and his Action Comics stint will finally heal his decades old wounds.

With Lester’s magic kiss sequence, Lois forgets some or all of the events of the movie. With Donner’s reversal sequence, the entire Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut is erased. Perhaps, since this is a peek at a movie that never was, this is an appropriate ending after all.

Story: 8 (out of 10)
Performances: 10
Visual Style: 9
Effects: 9
Music: 10
Video Quality: 10
Audio Quality: 8
Bonus Features: 9
Overall Experience: 10
Recommended: To all Superman movie fans

Related Film Frontier articles
Super Tuesday is here
Superman II writer on The Richard Donner Cut
Richard Donner's Action Comics debut sells out
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut DVD details
REVIEW: Action Comics #844
"Last Son" launches Donner/Johns Action Comics run
Donner/Johns reveal Superman movie concept in Action
EDITORIAL: Superman's Top Cinematic Moments
Coming Soon—Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut DVD
Donner joins Action Comics writing staff

The Man of Steel is back, but should we care?

posted by Tygrrius @ 5:28 PM

Warning: This review contains major plot spoilers.

In our universe, Superman II was released a quarter of a century ago, appearing to take place in the late 1970's or early 1980's.

In the universe of Superman Returns, however, Superman II took place only five years ago. And the events of Superman III and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace never took place at all.

Don't spend too much time thinking about that, just accept it and move on. For what is old is new again, and Superman is back.

And by Superman, I mean Superman in his full John-Williams-themed glory. Superman, where just watching the opening credits is part of the fun, part of the experience. Superman, with his massive fortress of solitude built from Kryptonian crystals. The movie Superman. A Superman once thought gone forever.

Surprisingly, Superman Returns manages the impossible. It feels like a true continuation of Superman II, like a sequel that never was but should have been. Sure, there was a Superman III and IV, but those movies were sequels in name and characters only.

Superman Returns is actually a sequel to the storyline laid out in Superman and Superman II, a logical continuation. Writer/director Bryan Singer sets this tone early. The opening credits wisely mirror Superman and Superman II, but with updated effects.

Singer keeps the "old is new" tone throughout. He peppers the visuals and dialog with references to the original Superman movies. Flying is still the safest form of travel, Superman (Brandon Routh) reminds us. And Clark is still comfortable using the word "swell." John Ottman appropriately uses the John Williams Superman themes early and often, along with complementary new music.

Since 1978, the shadow of Christopher Reeve has loomed over the role of Superman. He was so ideal that he defined the role, becoming a generation's idealized image of the character.

There are at least two ways to approach the inevitable Reeve comparisons in a Superman production.

The 1990's Lois & Clark television series tried to avoid the issue by making Clark the central character and relegating Superman to a supporting role. This decade's Smallville television series takes this approach one step farther by focusing entirely on Clark, eliminating the Superman angle all together.

Superman Returns wisely takes the Christopher Reeve issue head on. Rather than try to avoid comparisons, Superman Returns welcomes them. And out of Reeve's shadow flies Brandon Routh.

Routh seems a natural for both Superman and Clark. Is he Christopher Reeve? No. Is Routh Superman? Superman Returns proves that he is.

Routh's convincing performance leaves no doubt that this is the same character once played by Reeve. The transition is seamless. The movie's tallest hurdle and biggest question mark becomes its highest accomplishment. Routh is the key to Superman Returns, and his performance carries the movie. He brings new strength to Clark and a new sensitivity to Superman.

The main plot, involving Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) trying to use the power of Kryptonian crystals to create his own continent while killing billions in the process, is somewhat reminiscent of the first Superman movie's plot—even down to Luthor's female sidekick feeling compassion towards Superman and helping to thwart Luthor in the end.

Although the crystal aspect of the plot is a clever use of the Superman movie continuity, Superman Returns suffers a tiny bit from an issue that also affected the first Superman movie. It is a bit too long and would have benefited from more trimming in the editing room.

Subplots, involving a fiancé (Richard White, played by James Marsden) and a five-year-old child (Jason White, played by Tristan Lake Leabu) for Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) offer interesting new twists to the Superman mythos. While it brings a certain vulnerability to Superman, hopefully screen time will not dramatically increase for Lois and Superman's son should there be a sixth movie.

For many, Gene Hackman's portrayal of Lex Luthor is just as definitive as Reeve's portrayal of Superman. Spacey does a decent job here of portraying a darker Luthor, hardened by prison time, but unlike Routh, Spacey's performance often feels more like an imitation.

Bosworth is effective as Lois Lane, but does not leave a memorable stamp on the role. Perhaps this Lois seems a bit timid compared to ones portrayed by Margot Kidder and Teri Hatcher, but she is also at a different point in her life having had to deal with the unexpected departure of Superman and arrival of motherhood. Bosworth also gets to play one of the best Lois scenes ever, where she saves Superman for a change.

To set up potential sequels, Superman Returns leaves many unresolved threads:

· How will Lois choose between Richard and Superman?
· What are the ramifications if Superman is unable to recover the Kryptonian crystals?
· Given that he knows Jason's heritage, what will Luthor do when he escapes the island?
· What will Lois find out about her "forgotten" Superman II memories when she confronts Superman about how Jason could be his son?
· Does kryptonite strengthen Jason rather than weaken him?
· Does Jason know that Clark is Superman?

The concluding moment of the movie is a Superman fly-by in space over Earth, a direct homage to how each of the four Reeve movies ended. After the cast credits, a tasteful dedication to Christopher and Dana Reeve appears. These reminders that this was the first modern Superman movie without Reeve brought tears to my eyes and a lump to my throat. Superman Returns both embraces Reeve and bids him farewell with style.

Superman Returns makes us care that the Man of Steel is back.

Story: 8 (out of 10)
Performances: 9
Visual Style: 10
Effects: 10
Music: 10
Overall: 9

"Superman Returns" spoiler-free review

posted by Tygrrius @ 5:27 PM

Superman Returns opened in theaters on June 28. The first Superman film since 1987 stars Brandon Routh and was written and directed by Bryan Singer. Below is the Film Frontier's spoiler-free review.

Story: 8 (out of 10)
Performances: 9
Visual Style: 10
Effects: 10
Music: 10
Overall: 9

View the full Film Frontier review of Superman Returns, including spoilers.

Revenge of the Sith treats fans to the Dark Side of the Force

posted by Tygrrius @ 5:16 AM

Spoiler-free section

Overall, Star Wars: Episode III-Revenge of the Sith was even more intense and dark than I was expecting. It tied up several loose threads, but left others open. The second half was very different from any of the other Star Wars movies.

Early on in the film, Artoo steals the show in a series of scenes. Based on fan reaction to his flying in Attack of the Clones, I'm sure some will continue to ask, "Why doesn't Artoo do this stuff in the sequels?"

That doesn't bother me, though. For one thing, he's gotten older by then. And another, it's conceivable that he could have been damaged somewhere along the line and the Rebels either didn't have the resources or desire to fix the rockets. Remember, they were a rag-tag band of freedom fighters. With really cool starfighters. They used their resources on the ships and not repairing Artoo's rockets.

Still, Artoo's contributions left me wondering, could the little droid actually be a Jedi?

The Phantom Menace was Liam Neeson's movie and Attack of the Clones was Natalie Portman's. Artoo aside, Revenge of the Sith belongs to Ewan McGregor. He is Obi-Wan.

How's that for a review that, in reality, says nothing? Now, I'm just waiting for Episode IV to come out so I can find out how the Jedi will defeat...oh wait, no spoilers in this section.

On a more serious note, if you've not seen Return of the Jedi lately, you may want to watch that one soon. There's a scene near the beginning of Revenge of the Sith that mirrors one near the end of Jedi. It highlights one of the differences between Anakin and Luke.

Incidentally, there was nearly an uprising in the first showing here yesterday. After sitting through six or seven previews, the movie finally came on and the top half of the screen was the bottom and the bottom half of the screen was the top. A rather disconcerting start to the movie, especially since it took them a couple of minutes into the opening scene to fully fix it.

Since I knew we were coming back later in the day to see it a second time, it didn't bother me too much. I thought a few fans were going to jump over us and into the projector booth, though.

The way it went straight from the previews to the messed up 20th Century Fox and LucasFilm logos, without the normal theater intro, I actually thought it was a joke at first - the beginning of a last commercial before the movie. That would've been a pretty funny way to start a preview, actually.

Anyway, I loved Revenge of the Sith. It was a very satisfying installment that did not disappointment. And once you see it for yourself, you can read the rest of this review.

Warning: The rest of this review assumes you've seen the movie and contains major plot spoilers.

Having also re-watched the first two last night, I'd say at this point that Revenge of the Sith is the best of the three prequels, although Attack of the Clones comes pretty close for me. As to where it ranks within the overall saga, I'm really not sure yet. I think it is still too new to decide.

This movie does change the experience of watching the first two in some ways. For instance, I noticed that there's a line in Attack of the Clones that definitely foreshadows part of this movie, although it was not obvious until this one came out (I guess that's the mark of good foreshadowing).

Anakin tells Obi-Wan that he keeps dreaming about his mother in pain. Then he says, "I'd much rather dream about Padme." So, he was given his wish. Ah, wishes are always tricky like that. You can never be too specific with them. Lots of other stuff, but that was probably my favorite for some reason.

In Revenge of the Sith, it is Anakin's very quest to save Padme's life that kills her. And, ironically, it is the Jedi who actually unlock the key to "immortality", not the Sith. But even that immortality is only their own and would not have helped Padme, had she actually been in real danger.

Obviously, Anakin must unlock this key as well at some point after seeing Obi-Wan do the trick - information that he does not share with Sidious. Or maybe Yoda and Obi-Wan (and even Qui-Gon, I guess) helped him in some way at the time of his death.

I still find the "All is forgiven, be one with the Force" ultimate ending for Anakin in Return of the Jedi a tiny bit suspect. But I suppose Jedi and the Force are very forgiving. In the end, the Dark Side is not stronger. Just faster and more seductive. Luke was strong enough to avoid its trappings, while Anakin was weak.

I'm looking forward to seeing what affect Revenge of the Sith has on re-watching the sequel . . .er . . . original trilogy.

Let's see, nitpicks . . . or shall I say, open threads . . . with the caveats that I loved Revenge of the Sith and I'm sure most of these can be explained in some way. For many, it could be that they occurred between episodes III and IV. I sense an Episode III sequel novel on the horizon.

Based on the animated Star Wars: Clone Wars series only, I'd say that Mace Windu went down far too easily. As did most of the other Jedi. I guess the cartoon embellishes the whole thing a bit. Or maybe it's just a cartoon, and not real like the movies.

Why does Owen seem so bitter against Obi-Wan in Episode IV? And what was that whole deal about Owen opposing Anakin's involvement in the Clone Wars? Did he oppose it after the fact? He seemed to barely know Anakin, much less offering him advice on getting into a war that had not started the last time they met. Also, do Owen and Beru know the full story of what happened to Anakin? They seem to allude to it in Episode IV.

Luke says that there's something familiar about Dagobah when he first arrives there in The Empire Strikes Back. This is a very personal nit (i.e., I thought I had this part figured out, but the reality was much simpler than my idea), but I'd always assumed that meant he spent the first year or so of his life there before going to Tatooine.

If the big deal about Anakin's fall was that he was not initially trained by Yoda and at a young enough age, that would have partially explained why Luke was able to avoid the Dark Side. (Then again, Yoda apparently trained Count Dooku and look how that turned out.)

That's not to say Luke doesn't go to Dagobah early on his life just because it isn't in this movie. Perhaps it's Obi-Wan showing up to take him there that annoys Owen so much. There's fodder for the sequel novel right there. Which reminds me of another nit. . . .

Would it have been so hard to throw a line in saying that he was no longer going to call himself "Obi-Wan Kenobi," but was going to call himself "Ben Kenobi" instead? (And what kind of a fake name is that? Similarly, did they not think Vader would put two and two together if and when he ever met Luke Skywalker?)

Speaking of throwing lines in, supposedly Kenobi "once thought as" Luke did - that there was still good in Vader. Where was this? Once their Revenge of the Sith battle began, at least as far as I saw, he never tried to convince Vader/Anakin to turn back. Unless, again, that takes place later . . . but . . . IV makes it sound like this was their last battle until what George Lucas has since called their old man fight. During which, Obi-Wan, obviously, was spending most of his energy meditating in preparation to do the Force spirit trick. How's that for a made-up explanation?

I suppose that incident must have occurred between III and IV, though. It had to be something that Obi-Wan attempted to act on, because Vader was actually the one to tell Luke that Obi-Wan had once thought that way.

In fact, Padme's last words to Obi-Wan may have helped to put the idea in Obi-Wan's head. At the time, I suppose he thought Anakin dead anyway.

Did Obi-Wan have the ability to "feel" that Anakin was still alive from such a great distance? He does not seem to know. That also could be an interesting piece of the sequel novel, finding out that Vader was still alive. In fact, if they did think Vader dead, why didn't Obi-Wan and Yoda then team up to go against the Emperor? The Yoda vs. Emperor match was essentially a draw. Obi-Wan would've tipped the scales. Unless there's an implication that Yoda's power was somehow usurped, the more he fought the more powerful the Emperor became? That may be a stretch, though. They both seemed weakened.

The funny thing is, the first time I saw the movie, I misheard Padme's last words. I thought she said, "'Obi-Wan' . . . there's a good name," which would have been the worst last words ever! It wasn't until the second time through that I was able to hear, "Obi-Wan . . . there's still good in him."

Apparently, whatever imbalance Palpatine created in the Force clouded the vision of the Jedi a lot. There was Palpatine working about two doors down from Yoda and Mace, and they never sensed that he was the Sith Lord. Yoda could feel the pain of Jedi millions of miles away, but not tap into the evil Sith Lord hiding in the open. I suppose it makes sense that Yoda could more easily tap into the Jedi, but you'd still think they would be able to get some kind of reading on Palpatine. There's a line in Attack of the Clones in which Mace states that only the Sith lord knows that the Jedi's power to use the Force has been greatly diminished, so I guess we can chalk it up to that.

As expected, they messed up the reveals of both The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Sure, everyone knows by now that Vader is Luke's father and that Leia is Luke's sister. But still, watching the movies in order will make those scenes less important.

I'll grant that it would have been practically impossible not to show that Anakin was Vader without making a very confusing and far inferior movie. I was surprised that he got the name prior to the suit, though. That was their one, small chance at ambiguity there. It would have been a way to make it appear that Anakin actually died and that "Vader" was someone else. I guess I imagined him "turning" in mid-battle somewhere and then going against Obi-Wan rather than how it was portrayed in the movie as two separate events.

Even then, however, it still would have made Obi-Wan's line "A young pupil of mine named Darth Vader killed him" stand out as a li--unique point of view on the truth once Episode IV rolled around. This wasn't really a problem for me, simply a surprise. I suppose I'm actually glad they didn't take that ambiguous route anyway just to preserve a "secret" that everyone knows. So, this one, I'll give them. I still wonder if the "proper" order to watch these movies in for the uninitiated would be IV, V, VI, I, II, III, though. But that is a discussion for another day.

But this next one I knew I was right about, but of course I was wrong again. Kenobi mentions at the end of The Empire Strikes Back that Luke is their last hope. Yoda tells him, "No, there is another." Kenobi doesn't seem to know the Leia connection at that point!

I thought for sure he'd whisk Luke off to safety (to Dagobah!) without realizing there was another to be born (they could've hidden that from the audience as well, by taking the POV with Obi-Wan--preserving the Return of the Jedi reveal). Another personal nit.

This leads into the part that probably annoyed me the most. In Return of the Jedi, Luke asks Leia about her real mother. He even puts an emphasis on "real," and she doesn't question it. She says that her real mother died when she was very young, but that she remembered her being very beautiful and very sad.

Yes, this can be explained away by "Leia was a Jedi" or "She was just remembering pictures" but it just seemed that they killed Padme for the emotional impact, rather than staying true to the established story.

For a moment, I thought they did it right, though. When Bail Organa first gets back to Alderaan, for a split second I thought it was Padme standing there to take the baby from him. Remember, the fate of the "Natalie Look-alike" from The Phantom Menace was never revealed. The double killed at the beginnin