Monday, August 01, 2011

Geeks Only: A Mega-Sized Recap of My COMIC-CON 2011 Adventure!



DANNY'S EPIC, GIANT-SIZED COMIC-CON 2011 RECAP OF DOOOOOM!

- It's been a crazy month or two for me. Not only have things been nuts at work, but I moved to a new apartment (down the street from my old place in Burbank - but bigger!), had my parents in town from Connecticut, and, well, in general, it's just been, well ... a lot. But that's why this year's trip to the San Diego Comic-Con - my fifth! - was so much fun and such a welcome reprieve. This year, I really needed to get away. I needed the mental and spiritual lift that you get from leaving town for a little while, that you get from being out and about and spending time surrounded by people filled with passion and creativity. This year's show may not have had some of the high-profile movie reveals as previous years, but for me, it was just as fun and fulfilling as ever. Because although Hollywood types love to analyze the show and its role as a marketing vehicle for movies and television, that isn't really what the show is about at all. It's funny, I recently read a blog post from someone who went to Comic-Con for the first time this year, via her role as some sort of Hollywood assistant / wannabe - and her impression of Comic-Con was that it was just a place for parties, networking, and deal-making. Now that, my friends, is a cynical and misguided soul. Because sure, there are parties, and sure, the show is a great place to network ... but ultimately, to me, it's a place to let your geek flag fly. It's a place to celebrate that aforementioned passion and creativity, to celebrate writers and artists and directors. To celebrate great stories and characters. And that's why I really don't care all that much to what extent Hollywood officially supports Comic-Con going forward. The writers, artists, actors, and directors who want to be there, who have the passion for it, will go. And we the fans (and I'll always be a fan), will be spared the suits and the actors and directors who show up only because they're forced to. For me, the show is a place where the cynicism that pervades Hollywood is thrown out in favor of sheer love for movies, TV, and comics. The less the show is infected with the usual BS, the better. But that magic is something that will be there regardless of how many Hollywood parties are thrown in San Diego. That promise of renewal of the creative spirit, the chance to geek out with friends and strangers - that's what Comic-C0n is all about.


THURSDAY.


- Anyways, rants aside ... this year's show was, as always, a great time. As mentioned though, work has been crazy lately, and the week prior to the show was particularly insane. So, when the G-Man and I left for SD last Thursday morning, I was running on little sleep and a bit unsure of how I'd hold up throughout the day. Luckily, the sheer adrenaline rush of anticipation kept me awake and semi-energized, and the sounds of the Tron Legacy Remixed soundtrack CD got me in the proper mindscape. Eventually, and even a little ahead of schedule, we arrived at the Hampton Court Inn in downtown San Diego, checked in, and got on the local shuttle to the convention center.

- As always, the area around downtown SD was crazy, packed to the brim with people and, even on Thursday, teeming with activity. There were company reps giving out flyers or free stuff, people in costume, and all sorts of randomoddity going on around us (like a brigade of people in WILFRED costumes marching towards the convention center. After picking up our badges, the G-Man and I headed straight towards the Con's famous HALL H - the huge, cavernous room where the show's biggest panels are held. We hightailed it over expecting the monstrous lines of previous years, but were shocked - shocked! - to find that there literally WAS NO LINE. We walked right into Hall H without any wait whatsoever.

Why was this the case? Well, I had been betting that that morning's Twilight panel would work in our advantage, with all of the Twihards emptying out of the hall after that panel was through. But, I still anticipated a big line for that afternoon's round of panels, which included a much buzzed-about 20th Century Fox movie panel. Overall though, I think the lack of lines at Hall H this year were refelctive of a couple of things. One was that this year's show lacked that one "must-see" event that every single con-goer *had* to see. In previous years, we've had panels for Watchmen, Avatar, The Avengers, and Green Lantern - all holy grails of geekdom. Even things like last year's Scott Pilgrim had a huge amount of grassroots support and buzz (even if that didn't translate to box office gold). This year, there just wasn't that same sort of big-event movie that caused people to line up early in the morning to get a coveted seat in Hall H. This, in turn, combined with the fact that, if anything, the huge, must-see attractions this year were actually TV shows, not movies. Comic-Con's other big hall, Ballroom 20, was easily the home of the show's biggest lines this year, with much buzzed-about shows like Game of Thrones, True Blood, and The Walking Dead commanding the Con's biggest crowds, and generating lines that practically extended into the Pacific Ocean. The balance of power definitely shifted from film to TV at this year's show. Part of that is thanks to super high-quality, super geek-friendly shows like Game of Thrones. And part of that is the absence of some of the big movie studios from the show - with neither Disney, Paramount, or Warner Bros. holding panels specifically for their movies (though smaller production studios like Legendary and Relativity, in response, held their own panels for the first time ever). So in the past, the smaller movies got huge exposure in Hall H by virtue of being wedged between the huge panels for Marvel or Disney. This year, without such anchors, Hall H felt a bit emptier than usual.

- But hey, that made for a pretty pleasant and breezy experience for us on Thursday, and one that was filled with some nice Hall H surprises. In fact, we walked into Hall H a little earlier than we had anticipated, and who was there on stage but PEE WEE HERMAN? Not advertised for any panel, it seemed like Pee Wee had simply come out to thank fans and just take some questions for the audience. Random, but cool.

- Next up was one of those great, out-of-left-field panels that ended up being seriously awesome. It was a panel for two films coming from indie studio FILMDISTRICT. Rather than presenting each film individually, the panel got the talent behind both films on stage at once, which resulted in a really interesting back and forth. Especially given that the panel included the great GUILLERMO DEL TORO, who to me, was this year's official King of Comic-Con. The man was everywhere this year, and, on every panel he participated in, he was passionate, hilarious, honest, and insightful - churning out classic quotes at a ridiculously rapid rate. Del Toro was at this panel to promote his upcoming indie horror movie DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK, which looked like a really cool creature feature in the vein of a Gremlins. One of the movie's stars, Mr. Memento himslef GUY PIERCE, was there to talk up the film, which Guillermo wrote and produced (though it was directed by newcomer Troy Nixon). Meanwhile, up-and-coming director NICHOLAS REFN was one hand to talk about his new movie DRIVE, which has a great cast and looks like a super-badass, gritty, noir-ish, Pulp Fiction-esque crime flick. CARRIE MULLIGAN and the great RON PERLMAN were both there to help promote the film (which also stars Ryan Gosling). Anyways, the setup of the panel allowed for some great back and forth between Del Toro and Refn on the world of filmmaking, Hollywood politics, etc. - and both movies shown looked kickass from the trailers and scenes we saw. Guillermo really was the man of the hour though - despite a bad back that almost prevented him from coming to SD, he was animated and engaging, and reestablished himself as one of the true Good Guys in film - a real inspiration both creatively and personally. Awesome.

- After this was the big FOX film panel - the one that I had been really anticipating due to the rumors that we'd get a first glimpse at Ridley Scott's psuedo-prequel to Alien, Prometheus - a movie that had the chance to be one of *the* big reveals of this year's show. First though, out came panel moderator DAMON LINDELOFF - he of Lost fame - to start things off. And sure enough, Lindeloff got things started by talking PROMETHEUS. He brought out star CHARLIZE THERON, and then, finally, showed some of the first footage from the film.

Prometheus, to me, looked great - but I still have no real idea what the movie is, exactly. Most of the scenes we glimpsed were more about aesthetics than plot. But in that regard, the movie looked awesome from a visual perspective - very Alien-esque - grim n' gritty yet sleek interiors, claustophobic space ships, and very sci-fi-ish costumes and space-suits - all very much in that classic, H.R. Giger mold. The clips didn't tell us much about the story, but they all had that sense of impending dread and fear that made Alien a classic. And, what little hints we did get pointed to a plotline that treads similar territory to Alien - people poking their noses where they probably shouldn't, and in doing so, awakening some very scary things. In any case, I am dying to see more on Prometheus. I do think it's a little strange though that they are being so ambiguous about whther or not the movie relates to Alien or takes place in the same universe. Why hide this? I am worried that all the mystery and vagueness could hurt the movie's box-office in the long-run. Certainly, the ambiguity about what the film is likely hurt the number of people that made their wayto Hall H to see the panel. Because you can bet that if this was simply called "Alien Origins" or something, the place would have been packed. I was also a little surprised by Charlize Theron's assertion that she had issues with the initital script she read, but that once she came onboard she worked with Lindeloff and Scott to make it better. I don't know, that just sounds a little fishy to me. At the end of the day though, Scott is a visual storyteller, and I think the main draw of this film is going to be the visuals, not the script.

In any case, RIDLEY SCOTT himself was present in the hall via a live video feed from Iceland, where he was still shooting the movie. You could tell that he was in quite the location, standing on a snow-covered mountain range. And with him was the star of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo movies, NOOMI RAPACE, who seemed very genuine, committed to giving her all to the film (sounds like a very physical, very demanding role). It was definitely cool hearing live from Ridley Scott though, even if it was via video feed. As the intro video that introduced Prometheus reminded us, the man is a master of sci-fi and adventure movie-making, the man behind such classics as Blade Runner, Alien, and Gladiator.

After the Prometheus portion of the panel, Lindeloff introduced director ANDREW NICHOLS, the writer of The Truman Show and the man behind Gattaca, to talk about his new movie, IN TIME. We then got some bigtime starpower, as JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE and AMANDA SEYFRIED came out to talk about the film. I give Timberlake credit, he talked a good game, and referenced movies like Die Hard and The Fugitive as inspirations for his man-on-the-run role in this one. And hey, seeing Seyfried in person was pretty cool - I have, afterall, been a fan since her days on the late great Veronica Mars. As for the movie - it looked interesting, VERY high-concept sci-fi. The film takes place in a future where time is used as currency, where your alotted time expires once you hit age 25, and life can only be prolonged if you've purchased additional time. But, since the aging process stops at 25, 100 year olds look identical to 30 year olds - meaning that in this world, Olivia Wilde plays Timberlake's mom. I like movies with big ideas like this, so I am definitely curious about In Time.

Finally, we got a segment on RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. Given that the movie is out shortly, I wasn't quite sure what would be shown to us to really get the crowd pumped. But I have to say, the movie is shaping up nicely, from the looks of things. ANDY SERKIS came out and spoke about the mo-cap process that went into bringing the movie's main chimp, Ceaser, to life. Serkis, the man behind Gollum and King Kong, is a really cool guy who is clearly an actor's actor, who literally transforms himself into all manner of creatures to bring to life the CGI creatures he lends his performance to. But man, Apes looks like it could be somewhat epic, and one scene in particular, in which an enraged Ceaser rushes to protect his keeper, John Lithgow, was even sorta chill-inducing.

- The next panel in Hall H was centered around the one and only ROBERT RODRIGUEZ. The director of El Mariachi, From Dusk 'Til Dawn, Spy Kids, and Machete was on hand to talk about upcoming projects that he's working on. While RR didn't have anything in any advanced stage to show - ie no true trailers or footage, he did have some *very* intriguing announcements. For one, he mentioned that he's in preproduction on not one but two Machete sequels, the second of which is set in space (!!!). For another, he announced that he has purchased the rights to spearhead a new HEAVY METAL movie. Now, there's been talk of a new HM for ages, but it sounds like Rodriguez is 100% committed to making it happen this time, and is busy recruiting some top talent to be a part of the film. He also mentioned that he'll do a contest for fan submissions, similar to what was done with Grindhouse (and eventually led to the creation of Hobo With a Shotgun). RR even brought out Kevin Eastman, publisher of Heavy Metal (and co-creator of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!), who talked enthusiastically about the project. RR then had another cool announcement for the Hall H crowd. He brought out the son of the late, great FRANK FRAZETTA, and announced that he is working with the Frazetta estate to bring the master artist's work to bigger-than-ever prominence in pop-culture. To that end, RR would be helping to open and curate a Frazetta museum in Austin, TX - featuring original Frazetta paintings that hadn't been seen by the public in 40 years. In addition, RR is developing a feature film based on the works of Frazetta, in the vein of the animated 80's film Fire & Ice. But, this new movie would be much more sophisticated, using new digital painting techniques to capture the look and feel of Frazetta's work. A reel was shown that demonstrated the technique, and the results were pretty awe-inspiring. If you don't know Frazetta, his work was iconic - he painted incredible scenes of swords and sorcery fantasy, creating some of the most well-known images of characters like Conan The Barbarian, and influencing generations of artists - in comic books, movie posters, etc. Suffice it to say, a Rodriguez-directed movie based on Frazetta's work would be positively epic. As an added bonus, RR brought 10 of Frazetta's most famous original paintings to SD to be shown in a gallery at the Hard Rock Hotel. I immediately made a mental note to go and check 'em out.

- The last Hall H panel of the day was a surefire crowd-pleaser - a meeting of the minds between two of the biggest forces in geekdom today, directors Jon Favreau and Guillermo Del Toro. The panel, sponsored by Entertainment Weekly as part of their "Visionaires" series, was the kind of thing that Comic-Con should do more of - panels that aren't about promoting anything specifically, but just great discussions between big names in entertainment on any variety of topics, with a chance for fan questions and interaction. As great as movie previews and panels filled with stars can be, I like these sorts of panels because they allow for more free-flowing, stimulating dialogue, and more honesty, when the directors or stars aren't in full-on marketing mode. So yeah, this was a great panel. Guillermo again stole the show with his gusto and passion and endlessly-quotable rants. He talked about being an outsider in the Hollywood system and about just being a "crazy mother$#%#er" in general. Favreau too had some interesting insights into the studio process, though you could tell he was feeling the burn a bit from the pre-release Cowboys & Aliens machine. You could definitely see the difference in the two men, as Guillermo is an iconoclast who doesn't like to compromise, but who wins people over with the sheer power of his artistic vision and passion. Favreau is more of a company man - willing to take on out-there, fanboy-friendly properties and try to make them more palatable for mainstream audiences. That said, he certainly has an intense loyalty to the Comic-Con crowd, and he really seems to credit the fanboys and fangirls with the early buzz around Iron Man - the movie that helped propel him to the A-list. He's definitely a dedicated, hard-working type of guy, though he does seem a little worn down by what was seemingly a crazy process in getting Cowboys & Aliens made. And then, his involvement on Disney's upcoming Magic Kingdom also sort of seems like a huge project that he is still very much figuring out how to tackle. In contrast, Guillermo Del Toro was basically born to direct The Haunted Mansion. The guy is obsessed with the famous Disney attraction, going so far as to have a home modeled after it, which he calls "Bleak House." Apparently, a coffee table book is coming out that shows Guillermo's funhouse of an abode in all of its tricked-out, super-themed detail. I came away from the panel super-excited about Haunted Mansion though, and also very intrigued by Pacific Rim, Guillermo's next directorial project that sounds like a crazy action film involving giant Lovecraftian monsters. But man, I would sign up for a lecture series given by Del Toro in a second. The guy is just a fountain of knowledge - a true expert on film history and an encyclopedia of info on sci-fi, fantasy, and horror. Quite simply, he's the man.

- And, well, that was the end of Day 1 at the show. But, it was certainly not the end of Day 1 in San Diego, not by a longshot. After the Del Toro / Favreau panel, we walked down to the Gaslamp district across from the convention center. On a normal weekend, the Gaslamp is a hub of activity and nightlife, but during Comic-Con, it's pure insanity! There are street performers, giveaways, people in costume, and all sorts of random and wacky promotional spaces. This year, there was a whole art gallery dedicated to CONAN O'BRIEN and his superhero alter ego The Flaming C. There was a garage full of Marvel Comics-themed monster trucks. A SEGA lounge and play area. The Tinfish restaurant was themed after various NBC shows, including the upcoming, fairytale fantasy GRIMM. And, as has been tradition for the last few years, a large diner inside the Hard Rock Hotel was transformed into CAFE DIEM - a Syfy-themed restaurant, with a complete menu of food themed off of shows like Eureka, Ghost Hunters, and WWE Smackdown. The grub at Cafe Diem is always pretty good, if a bit overpriced to capitalize on the Comic-Con crowds - but I mean, how can you go to Comic-Con and NOT eat at an entire Syfy-themed diner? So go there once again we did, and we even met up with my old BU buddy, the one and only Aksel C., along the way. The three of us enjoyed some delicious diner food (okay, Aksel had some weird salad contraption that he made up on the spot ... vintage Aksel), and were therefore recharged after a long morning and afternoon.

- We capped off the night with a very special event - an exclusive Comic-Con screening of ATTACK THE BLOCK. I had entered my name in an online contest to win tickets, and somehow, I ended up scoring two passes to the event, which saw director Joe Cornish, star John Boyega, and producer / generally awesome person Edgar Wright in attendance. The movie rocked (see my recent review for the full low-down), and it's always great to see one of the great geek directors - Edgar Wright, responsible for some little films like Shawn of the Dead and Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World - hold court. And that, that was the end of Day 1 in San Diego.


FRIDAY.


- Well, I knew that Friday ... well, if I didn't sleep in on Friday, I'd be zapped of energy for the rest of the weekend. So I slept nice and late Friday morning, recharged the ol' batteries, and then set out for another day of Comic-Con adventure. First, I met with the G-Man (who awoke early to rome the show floor in search of swag), and we got in line for the Frank Frazetta exhibit that Robert Rodrguez had mentioned the day before. We were told that you needed a special pass to go into the exhibit, in a gallery in the Hard Rock Hotel - but it seemed like ultimately you just had to wait in line. The whole scene outside the hotel was crazy, because in the same general area, people were lining up for a Jon Favreau signing. We waited in line for a bit longer than I'd hoped, but we finally got in and got to get up close and personal with the awe-inspiring paintings of Mr. Frazetta, including an iconic portrait of Conan (the Barbarian, not O'Brien), and the legendary "Death Dealer" painting, arguably Frazetta's signature work. Then, we wandered around a bit in search of a lunch spot, and stumbled into The Broken Yolk - a charming diner that fit the bill to a T, and that made a mean waffle. One cool thing about San Diego during Comic-Con - the fact that so many of the local restaurants get totally decked out for the show, with special menus, decorations, waiters wearing superhero T-shirts, etc. You have to wonder if any other city would go to such lengths to get into the Comic-Con spirit. At the Broken Yolk, they went all out with special menus, wall decorations, etc. - sweet!

- After lunch / brunch, we headed back to the convention center and made our way towards one of the big hot spots of this year's show, the area where DC COMICS was holding its numerous panels. This year, of course, DC was the source of much speculation and controversy, thanks to their announcement that, come September, they'd be rebooting their entire line of comic books - with a revamped continuity, huge story and character changes, and with 52 new comic launches, each with a new issue #1 (yep, even venerable institutions like Action and Detective). To that end, the DC panels at this year's Con were a lot of fun - lots of angry questions from fans, who were riled up about everything from changes to beloved characters to a perceived lack of diversity in characters and creators. One emotional woman dressed as Batgirl reportedly showed up at numerous DC panels, each time accusing the panelists of not having enough strong female characters, or female creators, at the company. Sometimes, the comic book panels at SDCC can feel a little dry compared to the bright lights and big stars of the movie and TV panels, but man, there was definitely some electricity this year with all of the shakeups at DC.

This was also evident in the long lines. We got in line about an hour early for DC's SUPERMAN panel, and just barely made it into the room. Lots of people didn't end up getting in to that or the subsequent Justice League panel - a sign that interest was very strong in DC this year. Now, the Superman panel had a star-studded lineup of big name creators - GRANT MORRISON and J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI chief among them. Morrison is always a fascinating guy to hear speak - he is one of the true mad geniuses of comics, and even if I don't love the changes being forced upon Supes, it'll be hard to resist checking out what Morrison has in store for his upcoming Action Comics #1. Meanwhile, JMS talked up the sequel to the NY Times best-selling Superman: Earth 2. It sounded like another emo-teen-soap version of Superman - not something that particularly interests me, but whatever. Surprisingly though, the fan questions never dove too deep into all of the questions surrounding the relaunch. In this new continuity, Superman and Lois Lane were never married, for example. Um, whoah - what? And yet, supposedly some of the big events in Superman's history - like his "death" at the hands of Doomsday, *did* still happen in the revised timeline. So ... how does that work? Personally, I am a traditionalist when it comes to Superman - I like the old-school costume and like him as the classic, iconic hero. I don't really see why he needs a ton of updating - just tell good stories. I can already tell that the new costume looks cool when drawn by Jim Lee, but I see where it could look goofy when others with a less-slick style take a crack at it. We shall see. Definitely a very interesting panel though, and, for me, it's always a thrill to hear the great Grant Morrison hold court.

The second DC panel we caught was around the revamped JUSTICE LEAGUE. This was a panel full of huge names, as the new JLA comic book is set to be written by one of comics' biggest names - GEOFF JOHNS, and drawn by the legendary JIM LEE. Johns was also there to talk Green Lantern and Aquaman, which he'll also be taking a crack at in September. In addition, the panel had a bunch of other talent who will be contributing to other, related titles come September. For example, you had DAN JURGENS (the man who killed Superman), who's writing the new Justice League International series, and Philip Tan, who's drawing a new Hawkman series. Again, there were lots of questions from fans concerned about changes, diversity, how decades of stories might possibly be squeezed into the new five-year timeline, etc. DC has a lot of prominent talent who tend to be men of few words, so there weren't necessarilly a ton of revealing answers. But, just being in the room with fellow fans and soaking up the energy was a lot of fun. And hey, it's Comic-Con, and to me that means making time to get back to basics and celebrate the artform of comics!

- At this point, my goal was to attend a special panel being held to celebrate the 45th anniversary of the 1960's BATMAN TV show. There was a panel being held that was set to reunite Adam West, Burt Ward, and Julie Newmar, to discuss the show, review favorite clips, etc. Here is an example of where Comic-Con sometimes drops the ball. I mean, this is a beloved show that has multiple generations of fans. Everyone loves Adam West, and a guy like him is practically royalty at Comic-Con. So, why was this sure-to-be-popular panel relegated to one of the convention's smallest rooms? We ended up not getting into the panel despite lining up an hour early, so, yeah ... holy disappointments, Batman! Of course, these types of epic fails are par for the course at Comic-Con, but still - give Adam West Hall H, I say! I think he could fill it. So once we admitted defeat, we decided to walk the convention floor for a bit and get some good photo ops.

- After a bit of floor-walking, I met up with Heather S. and her boyfriend to hit up the evening screening of DC's latest animated movie adaptation - BATMAN: YEAR ONE. Heather was already in the big Ballroom 20 from previous panels, so I had to get in line by my lonesome. Good thing that I got in line when I did, because I just barely made it in to the packed room. I did though, and the moment was sweet. Because I have to admit, the panel for the screening was comprised of some big names. Not only was legendary animator BRUCE TIMM there along with his DC animation colleagues, but so were stars Katie Sackhoff (Battlestar Galactica), Ben MacKenzie (The OC, Southland) and yes - the man who is perhaps the best actor currently on television - BRYAN CRANSTON. As a longtime Malcom in the Middle fan, and a current Breaking Bad super-fan, it was awesome to see Mr. Cranston in person. And man, he did a bang-up job in the film voicing Commisioner Gordon. It's funny, too, because I think he could kill it doing a live-action Commish as well - he's got the right look, for sure. But, we all watched the movie together - and it was a lot of fun seeing it with such a jacked-up crowd. The film was an extremely faithful adaptation of Frank Miller's classic comic book, and while it wasn't anything mind-blowing, it definitely retained the gritty atmosphere and noir-ish feel of the comic. The Q&A afterwords was a lot of fun though, with very lively banter between the leads, particularly Sackhoff and Cranston. Some interesting announcements also came out of the panel, including the fact that DC is working on a two-part animated adaptation of Frank Miller's dystopian classic, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.

After the screening, the three of us grabbed a late dinner (at one of my favorite downtown SD spots - Sloppy Joeys), and then wandered around the Gaslamp for a bit. It was a great time, and I was definitely charged up for the day ahead.


SATURDAY.


- Saturday was an oddly quiet day at SDCC. Typically, Saturday is the busiest, most insane day of the show, with at least one or two marquee panels in Hall H. But again, a lot of the attention was on TV -- and that was evident when we arrived at the convention center. We walked over to the Indigo Ballroom at the nearby Marriott, where a lot of the show's big TV panels are now held, to see see what our odds were of getting into that afternoon's COMMUNITY panel. As we wound our way through the line, I was shocked to see that the line extended down the beach as far as the eye could see. There was no chance of us getting in to see Community, let alone anything in Indigo that day.

- And yet, we walked past Hall H, and there was, again, absolutely no line. Shocked, we waltzed in just in time for a panel on THE IMMORTALS, a new, highly-stylized action film based on Greek myth. Directed by Tarsem Singh, who did movies like The Cell and the Fall, the movie looks pretty amazing from a visual standpoint - like 300 on crack. We were treated to some positively badass action sequences, and some footage that was quite eye-popping - definitely putting the movie on my radar as a potential must-see. That said, the panel for the film was a bit strange. Tarsem Singh was very animated and interesting, and Frieda Pinto of Slumdog Millionaire charmed the crowd, but the rest of the cast all seemed a bit bored and out of it. I expect that from someone like Stephen Dorff, who just seemed super hungover. But I was really hoping for a standout appearance from panelist and star HENRY CAVILL, aka the man who will soon be Superman. To me, there's something special about being chosen to play Superman, and I think it's the responsibility of the man playing him to show a certain reverance for the legacy of the character and the iconography that he's tasked with bringing to life. There wasn't a lot of talk about Superman: Man of Steel on the panel, but I was really hoping to get some kind of inspiring / reassuring words from Cavill that would put him in a truly "super" light. I guess I'll chalk up his relative quietness to this being his first Comic-Con, but dude - next year I expect you to come with guns blazing and give the fans a true Comic-Con moment.

- We then left Hall H to get in line for one of my most-anticipated panels, that being the panel for the best sci-fi on TV today ... FRINGE. The line for Ballroom 20 was long, but we got there very early so were in good shape. We even suffered through eating cardboard-like convention pizza so that we could eat while in line. Funnily enough though, I actually didn't want to be *too* early to get in line, because right before the Fringe panel was a panel for THE VAMPIRE DIARIES. No offense to anyone who's into it, but it's just not my thing, and I was weary of being in a giant room filled with screeching teenaged girls (I know, I probably just set myself up for some smart-assed joke, but oh well ...). Of course, as fate would have it, we *just* made the cut for Vampire Diaries. I feel bad - there was probably some diehard VD fan behind us who went home crying due to not getting into the panel, but hey, them's the breaks. At the least, we'd be in prime position to get great seats for Fringe. And so, I sat in the back of Ballroom 20, half-listening to the show's good-looking stars talk about all the soap-opera-y drama that had unfolded over the previous season. And I cringed as girls literally just SCREAMED every time Ian Somerholder said a word. Damn, that guy has it good.

And I guess this is as good a time as any to go off on the tangent of: is this sort of teen girl demo good or bad for Comic-Con? I don't know, I really don't. I mean, being in Ballroom 20 for Vampire Diaries, it was literally like being at a different show altogether. It was like being at a boy-band concert or something. And I wonder whether these girls would have any interest in reading a comic book or getting into any harder, purer forms of geekery. Typically I'd say yes - that getting noobs to Comic-Con is ultimately win-win, as it broadens the appeal of the show and serves as a gateway towards the really good stuff. At the same time though, there's now enough semi or non-geeky stuff at Comic-Con that one could go to the show and spend the whole time checking out panels for things like Vampire Diaries, Twilight, Glee, The Big Bang Theory, Family Guy, and Dorothy of Oz. I guess that's fine, I just don't want all of those things spotlighted *at the expense* of other, cooler, more legit things. I mean, there are other places where a show like Glee can do fan outreach ... I'd like to see panels like that one go away in favor of more cool spotlights, free-for-all discussions, cast reunions, screenings things like that. I mean, there's now a viewing party around the musical episode of Buffy that's held every year. Why not do a group screening of other classic TV episodes or movies, with talent present, etc.? An X-Files reunion, perhaps? Maybe next year - 2012 - the year the aliens are set to invade!

- Speaking of which, after Vampire Diaries emptied out, we moved up towards the front of Ballroom 20 in preparation for the FRINGE panel. Honestly, I am such a fanboy for Fringe that I was thrilled just to be sitting so close to the likes of Lance Reddick, Jasika Nicole, Joshua Jackson, Anna Torv, and yes, the great JOHN NOBLE. The applause from the fans as each of these actors walked up to the stage was huge, and Noble in particular got a thunderous ovation. And deservedly so ... not only is he amazing on the show as Dr. Walter Bishop, but, geez, he is apparently the coolest guy ever in real life. Noble kicked things off by issuing a heartfelt speech to the gathered fans, thanking them for their support. And throughout the panel, he was animated, funny, gracious, and insightful. How this man has not been Emmy-nominated, I have no idea, but his absence from the Emmys is, to me, a black mark on the whole awards show. Anyways, the big tease at the panel was that Joshua Jackson didn't initially show up with the other cast members, and since his character was written out of existence on the show, the producers joked that the search had begun for a replacement. We were then treated to a pretty amusing video of people like Danny Pudi, Jeff Probst, and numerous others auditioning for a part on Fringe. Eventually, Joshua Jackson came on stage incognito, dressed as one of the show's mysterious Observers. There was a lot of joking around and comraderie on stage, and so, even if there wasn't much if anything revealed about Season 4, it was still a really fun panel. And the cast seemed genuinely appreciative of the fans, which was cool. Noble, Jackson - all seemed in good spirits. And yeah, Anna Torv probably melted the hearts of at least a few fanboys, adding credence to the idea of her character, Olivia Dunham, being the modern-day Agent Scully - the thinking man's sex symbol. I only wish we had been shown SOME kind of teaser for the new season. Oh well - can't wait for FRINGE to return in the Fall. And I'm glad that after a few years of missing the Fringe panel, we finally were there, front and center, at this year's show.

- After the Fringe panel, we checked in on Hall H ... nope, still no line! So we again walked in just as the Dorothy of Oz panel was wrapping up. I had little interest in the animated Oz musical, until I looked on stage and realized that PATRICK STEWART was there. My god! How is he not in more movies? How is he not in *every* movie? I may not be a full-fledged trekkie, but man, is there any TV character ever with more gravitas than Captain Picard? Okay, Jack Bauer. But still ...

- Anyways, the real reason we went back to Hall H was to catch the annual KEVIN SMITH panel. It's funny, because years ago this was just another panel at Comic-Con. But now, Smith regularly goes on speaking tours and charges some obscene amount of money to get in. So seeing him for free at Comic-Con? Not a bad deal. That said ... whoah. Smith was hilarious in his annual panel, no doubt. But he also seemed a little ... off? He just seemed to be rambling big-time, answering audience questions with half-hour rants, that repeatedly led to him plugging his podcasts and such over and over and over again. It's always fun to see Smith speak, but I think he really lost the crowd for a while there, just seeming to be lost in his own mind, speaking in a circular sort of manner that was neither here nor there. Still, there were some great nuggets of hilarity during the panel. One great moment came when Smith played a scene from his latest, independently-distributed movie, RED STATE. The clip was preceded by a hilarious text crawl that gushed about how awesome The Dark Knight Rises would be. It was super-funny, and to be honest, one of the funniest pieces of writing I've seen from Smith in a while. It's funny because a fan asked him whether he'd ever consider writing scripts for others to direct, and Smith seemed a bit lukewarm to the idea. It's too bad ... even if Smith is content to smoke weed and do podcasts these days, I still credit him with being a huge influence on me personally with movies like Clerks and Mallrats. And, as far as Comic-Con goes, I think Smith was a legit pioneer in his day - a guy who helped make geek culture mainstream and cool. I do feel like it's a shame that, after his next movie, he plans to call it quits in terms of the film biz. But if he's that uninspired to make more movies, then hey, get while the getting's good. He can tell a good story though, and I will say that after a lot of aimless rambling for much of the panel, Smith redeemed himself with a hilarious closing story about his dealings with the Westboro Baptist Church. The story - both profound and vulgar - was vintage Smith, and had the crowd crying with laughter. I'm glad that Smith was able to emerge from his cloudy haze long enough to tell it. So yeah, it was a really fun panel overall, and hey, seeing Smith has become somewhat of a Comic-Con (or "Com-ee-Con", as he calls it) tradition. And we were even joined by my friend Samantha L. for the panel as an added bonus.

- After the panel, we hit up the Marriott hotel to cash in a prize voucher we'd gotten at the Fringe panel. Turns out all it was good for was a lousy luggage tag! WTF. Not cool - I wanted a T-shirt! (although on Friday, I did snag a limited edition, official Comic-Con T, featuring a Jim Lee rendering of the JLA - not too shabby, especially considering that they were sold out by Sunday! I also got a sweet Batman T with the customized red-and-black Bat-logo from the Flashpoint comic book series - pretty badass.) From there, we went back to the hotel for a bit before heading out to downtown. One annual tradition in San Diego is to eat at TGI Fridays. Why? Because somehow, LA is completely lacking in TGI Fridays, and so SD is a rare opportunity to indulge in some delicious Fridays grub. But, this was no ordinary dinner, because we were lucky to be joined by the one-and-only KC, and her friends. Now, this is when Comic-Con magic happened. Because two years ago, while waiting in a ginormous line for Hall H, KC, G-Man, and I randomly met this crazy dude from Norway who looks like Dooley from King of the Hill (complete with mohawk-ponytail), has an obsession with Superman (he has a giant statue of Supes in his house) and who, disturbingly, has a a number of seemingly unhealthy proclivities that I won't go into here. Suffice it to say, this man had been built up to be a legend in our minds - an icon of Comic-Con that we never dared to dream that we'd see again. And yet, just as I was joking to KC that seeing this Norwegian enigma again would be the final ingredient towards a perfect night ... who should boisterously walk into Fridays but Cousin Sven himself (I just thought the name suits him)!!! Yes, the Norwegian wunderkind graced us with his presence (it turns out that he and KC have actually kept in touch all this time), and at that moment, our level of sheer jubilation was cranked up to eleven. Here I was, with good friends, at TGI Fridays, reunited with the mythical, insane, mohawked Norwegian dude 0 talking about robots and zombies and other geeky stuff - at the San Diego Comic-Con! For this moment, my friends, life was good, and I was officially in my happy place.

- After a great dinner filled with hilarious moments and good conversation, I ventured off on my own to play the part of Hollywood bigshot. Because yes, I had one and only one ticket to Syfy's annual Comic-Con party, which is a very private, very swanky affair. Held on the rooftop of the Solimar hotel in downtown SD, the party is comprised of a mixture of industry folks (execs, clients, etc.), press, and celebrities. This year's celeb contingent was a bit lacking compared to year's past (perhaps having something to do with the competing Entertainment Weekly party down the street), but there were a couple people that piqued my interest, including geek-queen Felicia Day. The problem with these types of events though is that everyone sort of stands around and tries to look cool, and everything is pretty buttoned-down and formal - so it's hard to just approach people or meet new people. And acting like a fan and asking for pictures or autographs, well, that would come off as a severe breach of Hollywood party etiquette. Still, I'm glad I made an appearance, if for no other reason than to say I went. But when I think of this swanky Hollywood party and the relative awkwardness of just standing there, pretending that I have somewhere to be or someone to talk to, versus the good times I'd had only hours earlier with my friends (and crazy Norwegian dude), I'd choose TGI Fridays any day of the week. Of course, one day I plan to attend one of these swanky parties in the role of token VIP celeb, and hang out with my friends who will, by then, also be huge deals. But until then, I'm good with nerd-talk and chicken sandwiches.

I will say this though: running into "industry folk" at Comic-Con is often a momentary downer. Nothing personal, but there's nothing worse than talking to people who a.) look down on Comic-Con attendees for some reason, b.) think they are entitled to cut in lines or get special access to events, or c.) are not particularly passionate about anything at the show, and view the whole thing as an annoying obligation. I mean, look, as much as I appreciate the big-time feel and cool events that Hollywood brings to Comic-Con, I also don't like some of the Hollywood attitude that comes with it. Comic-Con is by and for fans, and is all about egalitarianism - no special treatment for anyone. And that's how it should be. That said, I couldn't help but laugh as I ambled up to the Syfy party check-in and saw all manner of wannabes desperately trying to get in. What was this, a club on Sunset? So I did have a moment of smug satisfaction when I flashed my ID and was ushered right in to the swanky hallway of the Solimar. Take that, D-list-celebrity-whose-name-*should*-have-been-on-the-list-but-*wasn't!* In ya' face! Danny Baram from Bloomfield, CT has ya' beat.

- I will also say though, and I'm not sure why this is ... but it seems like every year I go to San Diego, there's a higher percentage of d-bags walking the streets of the Gaslamp. It's funny, because four or five years ago, you'd go to the restaurants and bars in downtown at night, and a huge percentage of the people out and about would be from the Comic-Con crowd - everyone still proudly wearing their badges as they ate, drank, and got down with their bad selves. You'd walk into The Whiskey Girl or the Blarney Stone and it was Geeks' Night Out. Lately though, perhaps thanks to an increase in late-night programming at the show, and/or more fan-specific gatherings, screenings, and other events around town, you don't see as many Con-goers just hanging out in the Gaslamp late at night. And yet, the "regular" crowd hanging around just seems ultra-obnoxious and unfriendly, much more so even than at your average LA or Hollywood haunt. I've heard about and read about numerous instances from this past year alone where there seemed to be some tension brewing between Con-goers and unsavory locals. Now, friends have told me that the Gaslamp, under normal circumstances, tends to be known for attracting this sort of after-hours scumbaggery, and that most of the cool kids tend to stay away from it more often than not. Still, every year the area seems more and more overrun by the d-bags. It's like animals in a zoo that eventually become normalized to being around humans - the d-bags have become increasingly unfazed by the hordes of geeks that flood their city each year. I guess the natural reaction would be for Comic-Con to begin holding even MORE after-hours events and official parties. I mean, why not? What if one night of the Con, Hall H was retrofitted into a giant party space, for SDCC badge-holders only? I say do it, because other parts of SD seem to be getting a bit less friendly these last few years.

- I ended up staying at the Syfy party a bit later than I had intended, and ultimately ended up boarding a late-night shuttle bus back to the hotel, passing by a mini-village of fangirls camping out for the next morning's Dr. Who panel. What is it with women and Dr. Who? Who knows. But I do know that on that bus, I had the most random conversation ever with this glasses-wearing, long-haird ubergeek type, who responded to everything I said with a wide-eyed reply of "indeeeeeed." And yet, for all his nerdiness, he'd never even read The Walking Dead. Lame. It's a classic illustration of Nerd vs. Geek. Nerds are just awkward and weird. Geeks can be awesome, cool, and disarmingly good-looking (ahem) ... we just happen to have really amazing taste in pop-culture.


SUNDAY.


- Sunday is always the most laid-back day of SDCC, but this year, there was definitely a sense that, yeah, this thing was going to the limit, baby. With TV shows with huge cult followings, like Dr. Who, occupying Hall H though, there was a lot of hustle-and-bustle going on around the convention. The G-Man and I walked around the show floor, as is tradition, and it's something that, increasingly, is my favorite part of the convention. It's great to check out all of the random artists and small-press publishers who've taken the time to set up a booth at the show. And, especially since I recently moved into a new apartment, I was on the lookout for any good (n' cheap) art for the new place. I found one guy who drew famous movie scenes, and once I realized he had prints from The Big Lebowski, I couldn't resist purchasing a couple of pieces, which are now proudly hung on my wall at home. I also picked up a super sweet drawing of Zatanna, done by Dead@17 creator Josh Howard. Also now hanging on my wall at home. All in all, there were all kinds of cool things to see on the show floor this year - from great cosplay costumes, to roving R2-D2 robots, to the Suicide Girls, returned after a one-year banishment.

- I did, however, make time for one final panel Sunday afternoon, and it was a spotlight on one of my new favorite writer/artists, JEFF LEMIRE. Lemire has been doing absolutely incredible work on the ongoing series SWEET TOOTH, which to me has nicely filled the gap left by the endings of acclaimed mature-readers series like Y: The Last Man. It's a badass post-apocalyptic series that's weird, unpredictable, and gripping, and it might just be the best series on the stands today. Lemire's also been dabbling with some more mainstream DC Comics of late, currently finishing up a well-received run on Superboy, and has relaunches of Frankenstein and Animal Man coming in September. It was interesting to hear Lemire talk about his work, and I look forward to reading more from him in the future.

- After the Lemire panel, we did one last pass of the show floor, soaking in the atmosphere and checking out the scene one last time before heading out. We grabbed some pizza, and then walked over to a big outdoor mall in downtown. There, we met up with the Axe-Man and another friend of his, and took in a showing of CAPTAIN AMERICA. I loved the movie (see my review, posted a few days back), and it was a fitting way to cap off another successful Con. Eventually, we retrieved our luggage from the hotel and set out on the long journey back to LA.

- I returned home tired, exhausted even. And yet, I felt full. Especially having come off of a grueling couple of weeks at work and in life in general, this year's Comic-Con adventure was exactly what I needed to refocus my energies and regain some perspective on things. It was another epic adventure, and I can't wait to do it again.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Why ATTACK THE BLOCK Rocks!




ATTACK THE BLOCK Review:


I know that the geekier corners of the internet have been singing the praises of ATTACK THE BLOCK for what seems like forever now, but I am here to tell you to believe the hype. It's not often that a wholly original, wholly awesome genre movie comes along, and so when it does, it's cause to celebrate. And yes, Attack the Block is a movie worth celebrating, worth geeking out about. Because it's one of those movies that just smacks you in the face with its badassery, and one that makes the most of its modest budget - instead of relying on expensive CGI, it instead uses good, old-fashioned creativity to stand out from the pack. And you know what? Having seen a couple of other alien invasion movies this summer alone, Attack the Block's got the grooviest, scariest aliens of 'em all. And the best, most memorable characters. The funniest moments. The dialogue that will be quoted and requoted until the end of time. The scenes that will make you cheer and laugh and get you giddy. No, I don't think this is a perfect movie or anything like that ... but I do think it's such a breath of fresh air that yeah, all of the hype is, I think, more than justified.

The premise of Attack the Block is simple - aliens have invaded a poor slum of London, and it's up to a ragtag group of teen gangsters to protect their home and fend off the E.T.'s. But what's great about the film is how it gives so much depth to such a basic premise. On one level, the movie works as a comedy in the vein of Shawn of The Dead or Hot Fuzz. Though it isn't parodying a specific genre per se, the movie is definitely a pastiche of indluences from 80's John Carpenter movies to sci-fi and horror-comedies like Gremlins and The Goonies. There's a definite, 80's feel to the film, with a Carpenter-esque synth score and the same type of moody lighting and atmosphere that Carpenter was known for. There's also that mix of drama, violence, and black comedy that was in movies like They Live and Escape From New York. It's a great combo, and even as the movie has you cracking up with laughter, it'll have you on the edge of your seat.

But, aside from the comedy and the action, Attack the Block rather brilliantly works as a character study, in that it slowly but surely shifts our sympathies towards the delinquent kids at the center of its story. Director Joe Cornish takes a big chance with this movie, in that he starts out by making his lead kids out to be unsympathetic thugs. In fact, our first encounter with them is seeing the gang mug a helpless woman. But man, what a cast of kid and teen actors. It's not long before their humor and charm starts to win us over. At the same time, give huge credit to actor John Boyega as Moses, the sullen leader of the gang. This is a star-making turn for him, because without speaking a ton, we see in his face the transition from leader of a gang to a leader of men. Once he realizes that he can use his powers of badassery for good, so to speak, well, it's one of those hero-making turns that you've gotta love and cheer for. The cast of kids as a whole though is, like I said, superb - and totally hilarious. The banter between them, though at times a little hard to understand (they've all got thick London gangsta accents - think Ali G), is oftentimes funny as hell - and it pulls no punches in terms of being vulgar, obscene, and just plain wrong. And by the way, the one real recgnizable face in this one is Nick Frost from Shawn of the Dead, Paul, etc. - and he's great as always, as an oblivious drug dealer who gets caught up in all the alien invasion madness.


Aside from Boyega and the other kids though, the star of the movie is director Joe Cornish. Cornish is a friend / protege of Edgar Wright (who served as exec producer on the film), and it shows. Cornish shares Wright's knack for kinetic action, inventive visuals, and high drama even in the midst of absurdist comedy. Cornish ensures that Attack is a nonstop thrillride from start to finish, rarely letting up for a moment - but he also squeezes in a ton of character in between all the action and horror and hijinks. The fact that each of the kids in the gang is so memorable and distinct and full of personality is a testament to the actors, sure, but also to the script and to Cornish's ability to infuse the movie with character and wit. Where Cornish also excels is in the sci-fi aspect of the movie. Clearly, this is a low-budget flick. But Cornish makes that an asset, because man, the aliens in this movie look BADASS. I mean, how many movies lately feature aliens that are utterly generic and unmemorable? Many. So little premium these days is placed on creative creature design - everyone just wants their aliens to look like they got ripped out of the latest hot first person shooter game or something. But no, not Attack the Block. Here, the aliens are these insane-looking balls of blackhole-like blackness with these devilish blue, glowing, neon eyes. And they jump and fly around like Kirby's cousins from hell. And they are awesome. This is a throwback to the days of Carpenter and Spielberg and Gremlins - when it wasn't about who had the slickest CGI, but who had the coolest, weirdest creatures.

Attack the Block is one of those movies that you should run out and see and support, and then probably see again and buy on DVD or blu-ray. This is going to be one of those geek-cred movies that if you haven't seen, well, clearly you're not in the loop and you haven't been hanging with the cool kids. But the movie isn't necessarilly niche - in fact, it's got a little something for everyone - action, comedy, cool creatures and hilarious kids. It's got madcap British humor, but it's also got some real meat on them bones - it works as a crazy comedy, but also as a coming-of-age tale about kids who go from zeros to heroes, from boys to men - who learn that there's more purpose to life than just being a thug and being bad. But most of all, this is quite simply an insanely fun, scrappy sci-fi action/comedy that puts most of its bigger-budget, bigger-hyped summer competition to shame. Allow it! Go see Attack the Block and support kickass genre filmmaking at its finest.


My Grade: A-

Danny Salutes CAPTAIN AMERICA.




CAPTAIN AMERICA Review:


- The big trend in superhero movies these last several years has been to make them gritty, sleek, modern, realistic. That can result in great movies, like Dark Knight, but it can also make some superhero movies feel unnecessarilly reigned-in, small, boring. For those of us who love the imagination, the boldness, the bright colors, the unlimited storytelling possibilities of superhero comic books, this trend can leave us feeling a bit cold. Look, I get what guys like Bryan Singer and Jon Favreau tried with X-Men and Iron Man, but sometimes ... sometimes I just want a superhero movie that's unabashedly fun, big, bright, over-the-top, and full of good, old-fashioned, two-fisted action and rip-roaring adventure. Good vs. Evil. Heroes vs. Villains. And that, True Believers, is what CAPTAIN AMERICA is all about. Unapologetic comic book heroism. Colorful heroes and villains. And a simple, yet, to me, still-powerful message that's at the core of the superhero myth, but that's been lost all too often in recent times: be a good person, fight the good fight, and never give up.


I'll just say this right off the bat - my biggest worry going into this movie was Chris Evans in the lead role. I like Evans as an actor, but let's face it, he's best known for more comedic, smart-alecky roles. The guy has a surfer-dude persona that just didn't seem to gel with Cap, who is, of course an All-American guy from Brooklyn who has to muster the gravitas to lead the US Army into battle against the Nazis, and later, to lead The Avengers against the forces of evil. But - wow - Chris Evans shocked me in this film. He 100% pulled off the role of Steve Rogers, and didn't just pull it off, but went above and beyond. His transformation from skinny, undersized geek to Super-Soldier-Serum-infused hero is really pretty remarkable - comparable, I think, to the gold standard which is Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent / Superman. There's a scene when Steve first gets his new physique and abilities that seriously sold me. Having just been released from his containment tube, Steve realizes that there's a German spy amidst the scientists and soldiers gathered to witness his transformation. Once outed, the spy begins firing bullets and attempting to make an escape, and immediately, Steve springs into action and gives chase. The ensuing chase scene through the streets of New York is absolutely awesome. Not just because it's exhilerating and well-staged, but because of Evans' demeanor. Without saying anything, we can see Steve's mindset - he's nervous, scared as hell, usure of the limits of his new abilities ... but at the same time, he is absolutely determined to bring this guy down. The big stand up and cheer moment comes when the spy throws a seemingly helpless kid into the river, and Steve has to make the classic superhero choice - save the kid or pursue the badguy. But, in a great little moment, the kid swims above water, looks at Rogers, and yells "it's okay, I can swim - go get 'em!" as Steve smiles, waves, and runs away. Cheesy? Maybe. But dammit all, at that moment I was 100% sold on this movie - it just got it. It got what heroes like Captain America are all about. No irony, no modernist spin - just one man who wants to help those who need helping. And Evans pulls it off - the earnestness, the heroism, the determinaiton of Cap - better than I could have imagined.


I also give a lot of credit to director Joe Johnston. He directs Captain America in a classic, straightforward manner that is like a lesson in action movie-making for the Michael Bays of the world. This one is very much in the spirit of a Raiders of the Lost Ark and Johnston's own The Rocketeer - that same spirit of all-American adventure is present in this one. That said, there is some great stylization here as well, with Johnston introducing a lot of the art deco-like touches that he included in The Rocketeer. This isn't necessarilly World War II as it happened, but it's WWII as it appeared in movies, TV, in comic books, in pop-culture at large. This is the bold, weird, stylized world of Joe Simon and Jack Kirby come to life, and man, that, to me, is awesome. There's well-staged, slam-bang action and some great set-pieces. And yes, there is humor, and even the occasional wink at the audience (and some nice homages to the comics as well). But mostly, Johnston finds nothing inherently funny or silly about Captain America, and I really respect that. And by the way, there's a great, symphonic score to the movie as well that really adds to the action.


That same enthusiasm for the characters and the period carries over to the villain of the piece - Hugo Weaving as THE RED SKULL. How many superhero movies have we seen lately where the villain is a conflicted antihero, a corrupt businessman, or a nebulous entity of some sort? Not here. Here, The Red Skull is a classic villain ripped straight from the comics - gleefully over-the-top, scheming, plotting ... he's just an evil bastard with a freaking red skull for a face. Now, his origin does nicely mirror Cap's, and there are some interesting interactions between the Skull and his not-so-chummy Nazi collaborators ... but at the end of the day, I just loved watching Weaving go full-on EVIL. In short, The Red Skull is one of the best, most fun-to-watch comic book villains we've ever seen on screen.


The rest of Cap's supporting cast is, amazingly, damn good. Stanley Tucci hams it up in the best way possible as German doctor Erksine, the inventor of the Super Soldier Serum. Tucci's character is another example of hoe the tone of the movie is just right - a little over-the-top, a little hammy ... but just heartfelt enough that man, we really come to like and care about about this kooky guy. Same goes for Tommy Lee Jones as tough-as-nails Colonel Phillips. Jones could probably have played this role in his sleep, but he seems to having a great time here - just acting the hell out of the role and delivering his lines with gusto. Same goes for Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark - yep, *that* Stark. It could have been a one-note role, but Cooper brings so much charisma to the part that he steals a scene or two with just a raise of an eyebrow or a nod of his head. Sebastian Stan is similarly good as "Bucky" Barnes, Cap's loyal friend and ally. You really buy into him as a great friend of Cap, and I'd love to see Stan come back and do the Winter Soldier storyline if a sequel is greenlit. Toby Jones is also really funny and easy-to-root-against as the diminuitive henchman of the Skull, Dr. Zola. Finally, how great are the HOWLING COMMANDOS in this movie? God, just seeing Neil McDonough with bowler hat and handlebar mustache as Timothy "Dum Dum" Dugan ... I mean, if that doesn't bring an ear-to-ear smile to your face, then by all means, turn in your geek card now. Like I said, I love that Captain America embraces all the great silliness and fun of the comics without any shame or embarrasment. I mean, this is why I love superhero comics - because you get a group of ragtag misfits called The Howling Commandos kicking Nazi ass while being led by a guy named "Dum Dum." And that's all here in this movie. Yes, awesome.


Finally, let me bestow infinite praises on Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter. Take note, Hollywood - THIS is what a leading lady is supposed to be. Atwell kicks ass as much as any of her male counterparts, but is also a total bombshell that, completely understandably makes even Cap - the ultimate boyscout - want to toss his good guy persona out the window. Atwell seriously just owns it in this movie. I knew she was good when I saw her on the recent PRISONER remake on AMC, but if she doesn't become a huge star after this, there's no justice in Hollywood. But hey, Joe Johnston has quite the track record with leading ladies - remember, he cast a young Jennifer Connelly as the Bettie Page-esque star of The Rocketeer. And I think Atwell's performance here is comparable, except she gets to kick a lot more ass and bust a lot more balls.


If there's one thing that keeps Captain America from being 100% pure awesome, it's the ending. Without spoiling anything, the very end of the movie just left me a little cold, and after so much fun buildup to get to that point, I was disappointed to see what amounted to a somewhat tacked-on-feeling ending that came off more like an obligatory bridge to The Avengers than anything else. Don't get me wrong, I think there might have been a way to do this sort of ending in a more impactful manner, but as is, it just feels like the main story we've been following for two hours ends very abruptly, all in the name of having a quickie prologue to next summer's big Marvel blockbuster. It just could have been handled better, and it's a shame, because the movie builds and builds so well that the right ending could have been the final exclamation point on what was, to that point, an incredible ride. As is, the energy deflates a little bit as the credits roll.


Overall though, I really loved Captain America, and it might just be my personal favorite Marvel superhero movie of all time. At the least, it's right up there with X2, Spiderman 2, and the first Iron Man. But this one really feels like a different beast, because while those other characters are products of the 60's and of Stan Lee's reign as the head of the House of Ideas, Cap represents an earlier, simpler time - when America was at war and needed heroes, icons, to bear our flag and rally the nation. To me, there's something magical about the characters and stories of World War II-era America, and perhaps that's why I've always been a DC guy moreso than a Marvel one. I love the big icons, the larger than life heroes, the simple-yet-powerful concept of fighting for good and for what's right. And that's what Cap is - an idea, a modern myth, a kid from Brooklyn who becomes America's greatest hero, simply because he is a good man and will never stop fighting. The movie proudly restates that credo - when Dr. Erksine points at Steve Rogers and tells him he was chosen not because he was a good soldier, but because he was a good man. It's there when Steve Rogers jumps on what he thinks is a live grenade, because he's ready to sacrifice himself to save others. It's there when that kid tells him to quit worrying about him - he can swim! - and tells him to go catch the badguy. To me, this is just a fun, positive, fist-pumping sort of action movie - an adventure that gets back to the basics of superheroes, a movie that more than proves why Cap isn't just the first Avenger, but the best.


My Grade: A-

HARRY POTTER Ends, And Danny Weighs In




HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2 Review


- The latest and final Harry Potter flick is certainly among the best of the movie adaptations of the top-selling book series. After a somewhat plodding Part 1., Part 2. finally gets around to the good stuff - giant battles, big stakes, and an overall feeling of epic finality. This, finally, is it for Harry Potter and friends, and with that notion firmly established, the movie takes on a weight and level of gravitas that we'd only occasionally seen from these movies before.


All in all, this final Potter gets closer than a lot of its predecessors towards feeling like a great adventure movie in and of itself. This film series has always been a little frustrating for me, because while I've enjoyed most of the Potter films, and have immensely enjoyed one or two of them in particular, I've always been a bit baffled by the superlative reactions to them from the rabid Potter fanbase. The fact is: for those who have a huge affinity for the books, there is a subset of those fans - a large one - that enjoys these movies on a whole other level than everyone else. They thrill to see their favorite characters and scenes from the books up on screen, and are happy to fill in all of the missing story bits in the movies with what they already know from the books. For these fans, seeing a new Potter movie is simply a way to revisit a universe and characters that they love - and they are more than content when the movies end up being a sort of "greatest hits" version of the source material. I get that, to a point. But I also feel like the Potter movies have rarely 100% worked as standalone films. There is too much key information that's left out or ultra-condensed, too many characters that are given short shrift, and too many key plot points that are glossed over in the name of sprinting to The End.

The final Potter, to its credit, has enough moments of pure coolness that it's hard to dwell too much on the details. Sure, I couldn't quite wrap my head around Voldemoort or what he was trying to accomplish, or why Harry and Ginnie Weasley are still an item, or how Harry (spoiler alert) ends up dying and then coming back to life to save the day. But it was mostly okay, because there were cool speeches given by great actors, lots of whiz-bang action, and some epic set pieces with giant trolls, massive armies, and all sorts of cool magic stuff going on.


And I've said it before, but I'll say it again. It really is remarkable how great the former child-actors cast in the lead Potter roles have become. Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson, and Rupert Gint have all evolved into damn good actors - and great action-movie actors to boot. They can each give an inspirational speech, toss off a well-timed one-liner, and crack a quip with the best of 'em. And it really is with the best of 'em, because as always, the lineup of awesome, veteran thespians really shines in this series, and in this film in particular. Alan Rickman, for one, is basically always great, but he's long been a standout in this series as Severus Snape. He gets to have some big moments in this final film, and his sheer charisma and badassery threatens to overshadow even Ralph Fiennes' villainous turn as Lord Voldemort. Fiennes does a great job though as well, hissing and cackling his way towards being a classic ubervillain. Even Maggie Smith, who has only occasionally had moments to shine in this series, gets some great little bits where she gets to kick some ass, stiff upper lip mostly intact. Helena Bonham Carter is another actress who's basically always fantastic, and really, is there anyone alive better equipped to play gothy scream-queen Bellatrix? I also really enjoyed seeing Kelly MacDonald, who's been so great on HBO's Boardwalk Empire, pop up as a ghost who gives Harry a key piece of information. And of course, Michael Gambon is always good as everyone' favorite gay wizard, Dumbledore.


What this movie really does well is that everyone gets their little moment. Harry of course is the star, but Ron and Hermione have their big romantic beat, Luna Lovegood does her thing, Draco Malfoy has a couple final moments of evilness, and Neville Longbottom emerges as an underdog scene-stealer. I only wish that some of these characters had had a better build-up earlier in the series. Matthew Lewis does such a good job making Neville likable that you can't help but cheer for him, but, um, where was this guy in the last couple of movies? I know, I know, readers of the books know and love Neville already, but in the movies, it felt like this potentially great character came out of nowhere, and because of that, his big moments, while fun, could have been even better with the right build-up. Same goes for the aforementioned Harry / Ginny romance - which actually becomes a big deal at the end of the film, because it's key to the story's flashforward epilogue. I mean, from these movies alone, it's hard for me to grasp why Harry, at this point, isn't insanely jealous of Ron and Hermione. Why would he ever choose the bland Ginny over kickass Hermione? Given that the epilogue shows Harry and Ginny as being fated to be together, you wish there was a bit more to that particular relationship.


Speaking of which, I don't know if I'm alone with this, but to me the biggest single story gap in these films is the rivalry between Harry and Voldemoort. I know - it's been built up for eight movies - their final showdown has been a longtime coming. But I just rarely got a true sense from these movies that Harry vs. Voldemoort was an EPIC, HUGE, WORLD-SHAKING battle-in-the-making. I never quite got why exactly the guy hated Harry so damn much, or really, what his deal was anyways. Voldemoort isn't supposed to be an all-encompassing evil entity like Sauron in LOTR, his beef with Harry is much more personal. And yet I never really got that sheer hatred from the character. And the fact that the final battle in this film ends with some Scooby Doo-esque trickery on Harry's part didn't help things any. One of the weakest scenes in the film, to me, was the post-battle talk between Harry and friends, in which Harry offers up a convoluted and, let's face it, pretty lame explanation of how he managed to take down the dark one. Overall, the pacing of the film felt a little off at times. The movie gets off to a rather slow start, with Harry and co. having a somewhat confusing conversation with the not-previously-seen brother of Dumbledore. But later on, when the big battle at Hogwarts begins, the whole thing feels a bit rushed, with a lot going on but not a ton of time given to us to absorb it all and take in the sheer size and scope of the conflict.


Still, I did really enjoy the movie overall, and I couldn't help but admire this whole world that's onscreen - clearly but a taste of JK Rowling's universe from the books. I really do like the characters, the settings, the mythology - but I always come away a bit frustrated that so much is lost in translation. I always feel like I'm getting a cliffnotes version when watching the movies, and I think that really keeps these films from being on par with truly *great* fantasy-adventure franchises like Lord of the Rings. Everthing just feels *adapted,* and as I watched this movie I couldn't help but feel like I was watching something that was derived from something else, and not something that completely stands up on its own merits. It's a subtle but important distinction, I think, between something like Star Wars, that hints at this whole universe that exists around the movies, and the Harry Potter films, where it often feels like key explanations, key plot points, are missing from the scripts, where there is that tangible void.


Nonetheless, for sheer spectacle, and as a last hurrah for some great characters played by some fantastic actors, this final Potter definitely works as a crowd-pleaser. You do have to give a lot of credit to this film series for persisting at such a relatively high quality level, all while keeping an internal continuity, in terms of story, cast, and production. It's interesting though - to see how the collective conciousness of the pop-culture universe functions. There is some sort of validation in seeing characters from books, comics, etc. up on the big screen - and no matter how great the source material is, people love seeing those same stories adapted into movies, even knowing that films can't always do them justice. Personally, I want movies that work as movies. This series worked well, but let's not confuse a love for the source material with a love for the movies in and of themselves. That said, this is a very solid closer to the series. The Harry Potter faithful will love it. The rest will appreciate it as solid filmmaking with great casting and fun action that is pretty damn good, but no, not quite as awesome as it could have been.


My Grade: B+

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Climbing THE TREE OF LIFE




THE TREE OF LIFE Review:

- The Tree of Life is one of the more interesting, ambitious movies you're likely to see in theaters this year. From legendary director Terence Malick, it's a sweeping, ambitious film that really shoots for the moon in terms of scope and thematic depth. It's a gorgeous-looking movie - a thought-provoking, contemplative piece that mixes a simple story of family and human tragedy with a cosmic perspective - cutting between slice-of-life moments and moments that take us to the Big Bang, to prehistoric times, to the end of the world. It's a fascinating, odd, at times perplexing collage of sights and sounds. And for anyone who considers themselves a film buff, it's a must-see. At the same time, however, I can't say that Tree of Life 100% clicked for me. I appreciated its ambition, but I also left feeling a bit unsure of what I was supposed to take away from the experience. Personally, I felt like Malick never quite managed to tie together his various, divergent thematics in a way that felt truly meaningful.

Tree of Life focuses on the story of a slowly-breaking-apart family in the 1960's. The story is told in a nonlinear fashion, so we see snippets from a certain period of time, but not necessarily in chronological order. That said, throughout the corse of the movie, we piece together a lot of information on these characters. We know that the father, played by Bradd Pitt, is a would-be musician stuck in a thankless day job. Money, job status, keeping up with the Joneses - all of these pressures have hardened Pitt's character and filled him with a sort of repressed rage. It's usually a quiet anger, but it does come out in violent bursts in which he tends to be verbally or occasionally even physically abusive towards his wife and sons. Pitt does an outstanding job with this character. He's never completely likable or completely unlikable - he's multidimensional - a man with good and bad inclinations - who can be a good father and husband but also can be erratic and temperamental.

Jessica Chastain plays Pitt's wife, and she too does an excellent job in the role. Like Pitt, she plays a character who has been hardened and beaten down by life to some extent. But, she also retains more of her old self - and being with her kids can still inspire her more playful side to come out.

Meanwhile, the true focus of the film are the kids of the family, chief among them Jack, played by Hunter McKracken. The young actor does an excellent job, perfectly portraying a kid in his early adolescence who is beginning to question the nature of things, and beginning to see his parents as flawed and imperfect.

To me, Tree of Life is strongest during its segments focusing in on the family. There are some terrific scenes with Pitt, Chastain, and McKracken that paint an extraordinary picture of a seemingly-idyllic family living in suburbia and the darker, more hidden cracks in the foundation that holds them together. It's strange, because it felt to me like Malick could have made one hell of a movie that just focused in on these characters and this particular moment in time. This could have been a simpler, yet potentially more effective film, if it stuck to being a story of the breakdown of a family in the aftermath of tragedy.

But Malick isn't content to keep things simple. Instead, he begins and ends the film with a framing sequence, in which we spend some brief time with a middle-aged version of Jack, set in the present day. This version of Jack, played by Sean Penn, is a bit of an enigma. What little we know about him is that he's well-to-do, some sort of high-powered, well-paid businessman - living in a fancy, modern house and married to a model-esque wife. But, the man also seems haunted, sullen - still affected by the tragedies that hit him and his family when he was a boy. I was a little taken aback, to be honest, at just how little time we spend with Penn's older Jack. He has only a few minutes of screentime, and that makes it very difficult to ge a read on him, or to draw parallels with the younger version of the character. While there are hints as to this Jack's station in life, they are vague. And that means that this key segment of the film - like so much of the movie - leaves a lot that is open to interpretation.

And that's the way Tree of Life works. In a way, it's a nice change of pace, in that the movie gives it - and you - plenty of time to breathe. My experience watching the film was that I would take in the imagery even as I was lost in my own thoughts - thinking about how the idyllic scenes on-screen reminded me of my own childhood or of people I knew. Not many films work in this way, presenting you only with the big, key ideas of the story and leaving it up to you to fill in the margins. For that reason, I think that Tree of Life is a movie that lends itself to vastly different, and very personal, interpretations. If you relate to the movie's themes of family and spirituality and loss of faith in a direct and meaningful way - if you're able to transplant your own experiences into the framework of the film - then you just might walk away from this one thinking you've seen a masterpiece. For me, I actually appreciated the more traditional segements of the movie - the fine acting from Pitt and the child actors - but I struggled to find meaning in the more abstract segments. Scenes of the cosmos, of dinosaurs roaming through a primordial earth - these were amazing visuals, to be sure. But I was just never able to connect the dots - what did dinosaurs have to do with anything else?

Don't get me wrong - I sort of get what Malick is going for here. He's showing us characters who have been struck by tragedy, and having them question God and faith. In turn, he's showing us all of the giant, epic, unimaginable things that God has done - created life, created the universe. It's a response to these characters' personal pleas and questions to God - the truth is, they are small, insignificant parts of a much larger, unimaginably complex universe, and they must accept that, well, God moves in mysterious ways and it is not up to us to know his plan.

At least, that's one interpretation. But, to me, the movie never really comes together in an impactful way. The tangents just feel too sudden, too random, too all-over-the-place, such that the movie feels lacking in connective tissue. Just when you're invested in Pitt and co., along come dinosaurs. Just when you're ready to learn more about Sean Penn and the man he's become, here we are in a Lost-style pseudo-heaven where everyone reunites and hugs and all seems to be well. The movie asks the big question of "what does it all mean?" - but the same question could be asked of this movie.

That said, this is one of the most gorgeous-looking, immersive movies out there. The small-town suburbia scenes are incredibly well-shot, and the more cosmic moments, while narratively puzzling, have a visual sense of awe and wonder that made me feel like I was a kid in a planetarium. I would love to see Malick direct a 2001-esque space odyssey, because man, he could probably create something that was visually mind-blowing.

And you know what? I also can't help but admire the sheer ambition of this movie. It reached for the stars, literally, and the end result is something wholly unique and singular - one man's vision translated directly from brain to screen. There is a messiness, a randomness to the film - a sense that Malick himself never quite knew the point he was trying to make. And at times, there is a sense of the film being too-arty-for-its-own-good. The heavy-handed, whispered narration, the repeating of certain key images over and over - it all gets to be a bit much at times. And you can't help but think of movies like A History of Violence that cover these same sorts of big ideas, but manage to do so without diverging so wildly from their core characters and framework. But Tree of Lfe is, undoubtedly, a conversation starter. It goes BIG. It strives for greatness. It doesn't quite get there, but I will say this: it's one hell of an experiment.

My Grade: B+

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Danny's COMIC-CON 2011 Preview Post! 50 Questions For This Year's Show!



Man, it's been a crazy, well, month and a half. As you've probably noticed, my blog postings of late have been far fewer and farther apart than usual. Things have been hectic - new apartment, lots of shakeups at work, etc. That said, after several weeks of insanity ... it is time for my annual trek to San Diego for COMIC-CON, the mecca of all things pop-culture, the center of the universe for fans of movie, TV, comics, and all things geeky-cool each July. This will, incredibly, be my FIFTH consecutive Comic-Con - hard to believe. And I'm in the midst of packing and prepping as I type this. But -- I do want to get down a few pre-show thoughts before heading out. So, without further ado, here are ...





DANNY'S TOP 50 QUESTIONS FOR COMIC-CON 2011:


50. THE WALKING DEAD proved that zombies can come alive on TV. Will the AMC hit maintain momentum as it begins building the hype for Season 2? Will we see any new, fan-favorite characters from the comics introduced on the show?


49. Can the new SPIDERMAN film successfully revive and reboot the franchise, or is it, depsite a great cast, simply too soon to get audiences re-hyped for Spidey?


48. GAME OF THRONES may well be the new king of Comic-Con - will this be the biggest, craziest panel of the show?

47. One of the best comic book writers of the last decade, BRIAN K. VAUGHAN, is supposedly announcing a new project at the show after a lengthy absence from the world of comics. What's BKV been up to? And will he unveil a new title to continue the legacy of books like Y: The Last Man and Ex Machina?


46. Will Ridley Scott show footage from PROMETHEUS, his quasi-Alien prequel, in Hall H? Will it rule?


45. Rumor has it that CONAN O'BRIEN will make an appearance to promote some animated superhero shorts ("The Flaming C"). Will Comic-Con embrace Team Coco, and vice versa?

44. Holy reunions, Batman! Adam West, Burt Ward, and Julie Newmar will be appearing together to celebrate the 45th anniversary of the 60's BATMAN TV show. What shenanigans will ensue?


43. Fans of FRINGE have been desperately waiting to hear word of what's in store for next season, following this past season's head-turning cliffhanger ending. Will there be clues as to what's next?


42. Speaking of which, will fans rally around JOHN NOBLE, who was once against robbed of an Emmy nomination despite kicking huge amounts of ass on Fringe?


41. Which of the new FALL TV shows will hit hardest? Will fanboys come away from the Con buzzing about Terra Nova, Grimm, The River, Awake, Alcatraz? None of the above?


40. Will the war between the true-blue geeks and the TWIHARDS die down this year?


39. Will the war of words over the place of geek-girls in geek culture reach a fever pitch? Female fandom seems to be one of, if not THE hot topic at this year's show.


38. What will the reaction be to TIN-TIN? Will Steven Spielberg's first-ever Comic-Con appearance be a legendary moment or a "meh" moment?

37. What mystery movie will ROBERT RODRIGUEZ reveal at his panel. Everything from Red Sonjia to Sin City 2 is rumored.

36. How will DC Comics deal with negative reaction to the reemergence of once-crippled Barbara Gordon as Batgirl? With Babs back in tights and Oracle no more, what becomes of fan-fave Stephanie Brown in the DCnU?

35. What will CHUCK have in store as it goes to its final Comic-Con? Will the geek-friendly show reassure fans that it will go out with a bang?


34. Even though Warner Bros.' film division is not holding court this year in Hall H, will we get any new info on Dark Knight Rises or Superman Man of Steel? Could any surprise reveals be in the works, or will WB keep mum?


33. What does Grant Morrison have in store for the reboot of Superman and Action Comics #1? Will lawsuits force DC to radically reinvent the Man of Steel?

32. Speaking of which ... Superman and Lois Lane: divorced? Say it ain't so! How will DC explain the planned separation of comicdom's most famous couple in their relaunched universe?

31. In fact, DC will have many questions to answer. For example, in their new universe, how will they explain the fact that books like Batman and Green Lantern will keep decades' worth of continuity intact, whereas Superman and Justice League will essentially start from scratch?


30. ATTACK THE BLOCK - is this the new Shaun of the Dead?


29. CAPTAIN AMERICA premieres this weekend - will fanboy buzz have Comic-Con attendees running to nearby theaters to see Cap in action, or is this one summer superhero film too many?

28. COWBOYS AND ALIENS is another soon-to-be-premiering genre film. With Comic-Con serving as the location of the movie's premiere, will all signs point to this being a sleeper hit of the summer?


27. CONAN THE BARBARIAN is also looking to make a last-minute push at the show. By Crom, will this movie see the box office competition driven before it, or will it cause lamentations from de men and de women?

26. Digital distribution will be a big buzzword at the show as far as comics go. Will DC's decision to go day-and-date digital also be adopted by Marvel and others?


25. What will be the go-to cosplay costume of the show? Past years have seen The Joker, Ramona Flowers, and Hitgirl claim Most Popular Costume of the show. This year - will be interesting to see what's hot. Personally, I say you can never go wrong with Harley Quinn.


24. The Twilight Saga is winding down, so what other female-friendly franchises will attract the attention of the con's resident fangirl population? True Blood, Dr. Who, Vampire Diaries, and Snow White And The Huntsmen will all be vying for geek-girl cred (though I have to say, I love me some True Blood).


23. What videogames will rule the show? Hot hits from E3 will be playable on the show floor - from The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim to Uncharted 3 to Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom -- what games will be must-haves for the fanboy set?


22. What do Geoff Johns and Jim Lee have planned for the crown jewel of the DCnU - the rebooted JUSTICE LEAGUE? If nothing else, the new launch means super-sweet Jim Lee renderings of all the iconic DC heroes.


21. Will THE AVENGERS assemble? No Marvel panel in Hall H this year, but will the House of Ideas emply other viral marketing techniques to hype up its uber-epic?


20. Is SWEET TOOTH the best comic book on the stands today? With his own spotlight panel, writer/artist Jeff Lemire has a chance to up his status to stand side by side with the likes of Morrison, Johns, and others as one of today's biggest creative forces.


19. Will anyone be stabbed in Hall H this year? Let's hope not!


18. What effect will DISNEY's absence have on the show? Is Disney saving all of its big announcements for its own D23 Expo in Anaheim, set for August? Or will the House of Mouse have some surprises in store for San Diego?


17. Speaking of which, GUILLERMO DEL TORO is everywhere at the show. Might we get any first looks at his upcoming Haunted Mansion? What info will he have on the mysterious project PACIFIC RIM?


18. What's next for GREEN LANTERN? WB committed to a sequel despite lukewarm reception at the box-office for the recent comics-to-film adaptation. Will there be any word on the potentially epic Part 2? And what do Geoff Johns and co. have in store for the GL comic book, following the recent reveal that the rebooted comic will now star the villainous Sinestro?

17. Do TV comedies still have a place at Comic-Con? Fans of Community, The Big Bang Theory, Children's Hospital, Eagleheart, and more would argue "yes!" What hilarious moments will occur during these shows' sure-to-be-memorable panels?


16. Will the Q&A sessions at the panels feature some semblance of intelligent questions and non-annoying question-askers? Odds are ... nope, it'll be more of the same lamebrained mouthbreathers at the front of the lines.


15. BEAVIS & BUTTHEAD are due for an animated comeback over on MTV. Has their time passed, or will a whole new generation know the glory of Cornholio?


14. BATMAN YEAR ONE - a new animated movie, will be premiering at the show. Will this be the definitive adaptation of Frank Miller's classic tale?


13. Where the party at?


12. What will be the must-have T at this year's show? We've seen shirts bearing the logos of Blackest Night, Flynn's Arcade, and others be the attire of choice for attendees in the past. This year, what will it be? Flashpoint? Avengers? The Flaming C?


11. Can JJ Abrams recapture the magic of Lost? JJ's got two new shows he's producing that will be at the 'con - Persons of Interest and Alcatraz. Both feature Lost alumni in the cast. Will either get the kind of buzz that Lost generated at Comic-Con back in the day?


10. Is this the end of an era for Comic-Con? With WB and Disney sitting things out this year, has Comic-Con lost some of its importance to the studios? Does this signal a more back-to-basics approach for the years ahead?


9. Will comics once again take center stage at Comic-Con? The biggest buzz this year from fanboys is not a movie or TV show, but the relaunch of DC's entire line starting in September. Will the typically-tame comics panels in fact be this year's hottest ticket?


8. Where do superhero movies go from here? With all of the A-list characters already-exploited, what B-listers might get a shot at the big time? Have we hit superhero overload?


7. Will 2012 be the biggest geek year ever? With The Avengers, Spiderman, Dark Knight, Man of Steel, The Hobbit, and many more huge films set for next year, is this year's Con a Calm before the Storm?

6. What's next from Warner / DC? We've got Batman and Superman ... and then ...? Will Wonder Woman ever make it to the bigscreen? The Flash? Green Arrow? Booster Gold? Or will the relatively disappointing reception to Green Lantern make WB less aggressive in exploiting the DC library?


5. Who's a real geek? With geek culture now more mainstream than ever, are we all just one nation of geeks? Even Ms. USA says she's a geek. So yes, there's an identity crisis of sorts going on at Comic-Con. And the question is - has Comic-Con become too cool for its own good?


4. What beloved geek property will finally get its due in movies or TV? We've seen Game of Thrones a huge success on HBO, but we also just saw Universal put the kibosh on its ambitious Dark Tower plans. So what's next? Will there ever be a Preacher movie or TV show? Fables? Y: The Last Man? The Sandman?


3. On that note - are TV shows the new movies? Typically, Hall H has been the home of big movies. But the hottest tickest at Comic-Con this year are things like True Blood, Game of Thrones, Fringe, and The Walking Dead. TV seems to increasingly be the star of Comic-Con, and the #1 source of high-quality geeky goodness. So ... when might more TV series migrate to the primetime real estate that is Hall H?


2. How is the new generation going to consume media, and what does that mean for Comic-Con? Will DC's reboot and digital distribution efforts legitimately allow kids to enjoy comics again? Will the old icons of Comic-Con stay relevant to a videogame and anime obsessed gen of kids and teens? Or is Comic-Con doomed to increasingly become geezerville? Last year I was encouraged to see a new gen of fanboys and fangirls going gaga for movies like Scott Pilgrim -- but sometimes, in an industry that constantly banks on nostalgia, you have to wonder what if anything is new under the sun?


1. What will be "the" big moment of Comic-Con 2011? Last year we saw the Avengers assemble in Hall H, heard Ryan Reynolds recite the Green Lantern oath, and saw Harrison Ford make his Comic-Con debut. What will be this year's big surprise - the thing that will get everyone buzzing? I have no idea -- and that, my friends, is the reason why this weekend is going to be a hell of a lot of fun.

Monday, July 18, 2011

TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON - Wake Up and Smell the Mediocrity!



TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON Review:


- The third TRANSFORMERS movie is yet another piece of braindead, lowest-common-denominator garbage from the team that brought you the first two movies in the franchise. And yet, here we are, and the movie is a HUGE performer at the box-office, an unstoppable juggernaut of Summer 2011. And part of me, well, I get it. The TRANSFORMERS films promise spectacle, mayhem, and action on an epic scale - giant robot vs. robot battles, mass destruction, cosmic warfare the likes of which few other movie series can deliver. But that's what kills me about these movies. The promise of epic robotic action is near-irresistible to anyone still in touch with their inner twelve-year-old. And yet, as simple a task as these movies have before them, they repeatedly fail to deliver anything resembling a cohesive, entertaining action-adventure. They are dumb-as-#$%&, with plotlines that seriously make those of the 80's cartoons feel like Shakespeare in comparison. The action is incomprehensible - awesome in ten-second bursts, but failing to add up to anything of substance, even in the most basic sense. The characters - I could care less about. Rarely has there been a more useless, unlikable action-hero than Shia LeBeouf's Sam Witwicky. I think the first film got a pass if only because the spectacle of it was so great. The second film upped the pyrotechnics but somehow made the story and characters even more gag-worthy than the first movie. The third movie is probably somewhere between the first and third on the craptasticometer, but at this point, the spectacle and he novelty has 90% worn off. We've seen Avatar, District 9, Inception, Dark Knight, Thor, X:Men First Class, Tron Legacy, and many other big action blockbusters that have some intelligence, some imagination, some artistic merit at their core. These movies and countless others make Transformers: Dark of the Moon look like $#&% in comparison. Oh, let me count the ways ...


The Action Editing Is Once Again Awful. Like I said, the action is cool-as-hell in ten second bursts. Cool - paratroopers! Cool - Optimus Prime! Wait - what the hell just happened?! There's no flow, no storytelling to the action. And that's sad in a movie produced (why, Steven, why?) by Steven Spielberg, who is the master of great action set-pieces in movies like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jurassic Park. In those movies, every action scene masterfully tells a story. In TF3, there's once again the feeling of - okay, what the hell is happening? I will say, there is a pretty good scene of Shia and co. trying to escape a collapsing building. This scene might be one of the best in any of the Transformers flicks for sheer scale and bombasity. But here's the thing - director Michael Bay can never just focus on ONE thing. Every action set piece involves two or more likely three different sequences intercut. So every action scene feels like it takes FOREVER to advance, because we see the action unfold for a few seconds, then CUT to somewhere / someone else, then to a third person or place, then BACK. It's MTV-style editing on crack, but it completely zaps even the most ambitious action sequences of all forward momentum and immersiveness. And yes, there are the usual random scenes of jets taking off, military guys in bunkers, etc. that are now in EVERY Michael Bay movie.


The Cool Robot Stuff Is Overshadowed By Other Crap. Why do we like Transformers? It's because of the giant robots! Seriously, the single best thing about this movie is Peter Cullen's Optimus Prime voice - as always, it freaking rules. But Optimus Prime is never given time to be a real character. Neither is Megatron or, in this movie, new character Sentinel Prime, given any time to really make an impact. Why? Because this series insists on constantly cutting away from the robots to give us Shia's sitcom-within-the-movie. And this isn't GOOD sitcom. It's bad. Very bad. Okay, the CW-ish stuff here isn't quite as nauseating as in Part II, but man, it's close. Not only do we have to deal again with Sam's super-annoying parents, but we have to endure his epic-fail "romance" with supermodel Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. There is no chemistry between these two, and you'll spend most of the movie wondering what pact Sam Witwicky made with the devil that he goes from Megan Fox to this girl. And look, I get that she's there to be eye-candy, but the character is TOTALLY useless. A non-character. But even though she is a black hole of suck, the movie still wants to give her big moments with Sam that come off as totally unearned. I mean, how hard is it in a movie like this to create a decent female character who is spunky and likable and has some personality? Whiteley's inclusion just makes Sam seem like even more of an unlikable douche. She's hot, sure, but is this really the girl that Sam will go to the ends of the earth for? Okay, on a certain level it makes sense, but on another level, you really wouldn't mind seeing either Sam or his girlfriend caught in some Decepticon crossfire.


The Movie Has No Idea Who It's For. And you know, this does kind of annoy me. I mean, this is a Transformers movie. It should be appropriate for kids. And yet it has gross-out humor courtesy of an annoying-as-hell and totally useless Ken Jeong. It has characters calling each other "gaylord" as if that's supposed to be funny. It has Whitely shot like she's in a Maxim shoot. And it has Sam's mom hand him a book on relationships called "She Comes First." And it's supposed to be cute and funny. This is also a movie that has a yellow car named Bumblebee that transforms into a robot. WTF. I get that the movie is trying to appeal to teens and twenty-somethings first and kids second, but the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Again, if Spielberg wasn't attached as a producer I'd say he'd be rolling in his grave at the sort of stuff that passes for "humor" in these movies. This is the guy that made E.T. - and though this two is the story of a boy and hsi weird alien friends, this is no E.T. - that's for sure.


Terrible Characters and Worse Characterization. I've talked about how unlikable Shia is. How much of a blackhole Whiteley is. But even the characters in the film that had a decent shot of being cool pretty much suck. Those who saw the last movie know the pain of watching the great John Turturro stumble through awful dialogue as he tries to maintain some shred of dignity. Now, he is joined by the similarly great Frances McDormand, playing a hard-assed military officer. Add the Coen Bros. to the list of those rolling in their graves after seeing this movie, and particularly the bare-bones, non-character played by McDormand. And by the way, I was talking above about how the movie dilutes the main story with al sorts of useless crap. Well, there is a WHOLE subplot - one that goes nowhere, mind you - with John Malkovich as Sam's new, slightly-crazy (it's Malkovich, what do you expect), OCD boss.There is a war of robots going on, but according to Michael Bay we must spend half an hour learning how Malkovich has an eccentric management style in his office. The list of actors (and in turn, their characters) who are totally useless in this movie is nearly endless. Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson, Alan Tudyk, Patrick Dempsey, Andy Daly, the guy who played Aaron by-god Pierce on 24 - all wasted, all useless. Oy. And ... worst of all ... even the robot characters are pretty blah. Isn't Megatron supposed to be the huge, Big Bad of this series? This movie mostly leaves him off to the side, but then suddenly puts him into play towards the end of the film. Problem is ... I honestly have no idea what his deal is. Is he just super-evil? A conquerer? I know, he's just an evil robot leader, but give me SOMETHING. Give any of these characters an arc, a story, a personality. Peter Cullen's awesome Optimus voice can only do so much. Hugo Weaving is Megatron LEONARD NIMOY is Sentinel Prime. Do either have a single memorable line of dialogue, a single snappy one-liner? Nope, nada. At one point, a good-guy robot kicks some ass and then, randomly, says "class dismissed!" WHAT? That is emblematic of the level that this movie operates on. Class dismissed - no setup, no context, not a punchline to a joke, nothing. That's the snappiest thing the script could come up with. Kill me now.


Here is what is good about Transformers: Dark of the Moon ...


a.) Peter Cullen's voice as Optimus Prime.


b.) Leonard Nimoy!

c.) The 3D is actually really well done - it makes a HUGE difference that the movie was shot in 3D, and there is a great, immersive sense of depth to the visuals that is legitimately cool.


d.) There is a cameo from Buzz Aldrin that is pretty badass.


e.) The opening five-to-ten minutes of the film, that focuses on the backstory of Sentinel Prime, is admittedly pretty damn sweet.


f.) That sequence where Shia and a bunch of soldiers are trapped in a collapsing skyscraper is pretty epic.


g.) and ... that's about it.


- It's funny, because as I was typing this, I overheard someone talking about how they enjoyed this movie and that people "expected too much" of it. I disagree. Whatever the genre of movie, there are ways to do that genre well, and ways to screw it up. A great action movie doesn't need the kind of story that a great period drama needs to work, but it needs the *right* story to serve the story and drive the action. And the action, well, it needs to be well-shot, well-edited, and it needs to get the audence invested in its outcome. Even as someone who has a degree of nostalgia for the old Transformers cartoons and action figures, I watched this movie and barely cared about any of its characters, wasn't invested in the story, and only became immersed in the action for about ten seconds at a time. Maybe the world has gotten so ADD that this has now become acceptable. Maybe people are so happy to, literally, shut off their brains, that they are content to be eased into a near-comatose stupor by a constant barrage of audio-visual attack. Maybe being stimulated is all that matters - as long as things are happening, and happening fast, then that, for many, is fine, is fun, is entertainment. But I'm sorry, I demand some sort of aesthetic merit. Earlier this year, I argues that Sucker Punch was an unfairly dismissed movie. It was less about story and more about image, but its action and imagery was artful, imaginative, and evocative. Transformers is just static, just noise. It's Idiocracy come true. And look - I enjoy moments of the movie. I love big action in general. I love giant robots. I love the basic concepts and the imagination that brought this concept to life way back in a magical time known as the 80's. But that spark of imagination has been left to die on the altar of lowest-common-denominator, where movies aren't stories, aren't art, but simply an opiate-of-the-masses. Sit back, watch, shut down. Don't ponder this story, just inject it like a drug and get your geek-fix. I'm sorry, but there has to be a better way. Let's stop making excuses for crap. I know, I know, it's only Transformers. But this isn't an Ed Wood B-movie, this is a mass-market product, this is what kids love, this is the gold-standard in blockbuster movie making -- and in my opinion, a movie that makes this much money shouldn't be this mediocre. Some won't care, but I demand better from my pop-culture.


My Grade: D+

HORRIBLE BOSSES: My Axe To Grind




HORRIBLE BOSSES Review:


- Horrible Bosses is one of those movies that must have sounded great in one-sentance pitch-form. "A group of average guys bands together to kill their awful bosses." A great premise for a movie - and a perfect idea to sell to the studios. Afterall, everyone can relate to having to deal with a terrible boss. This is comedy gold. But as with all movies, the devil's in the details. To make a premise like this work, you need great characters, a story that's funny but makes some strange sort of sense, and a number of outrageous moments to keep the laughs coming. But Horrible Bosses is way too all-over-the-place to ever really gel as an effective, memorable comedy. It has some killer moments (no pun intended), but it pretty quickly derails from the elegant simplicity of its premise and loses steam as it goes.


When I think about a movie like Horrible Bosses, I think of the challenge of making the script work in a way that makes things amusingly, darkly funny but also works under a certain sort of logic. I mean, we're dealing with average, otherwise well-behaved guys whose bosses are so horrible, so awful, that they would drive their employees to not just contemplate - but actually go through with - cold-blooded murder. Horrible Bosses, however, never really makes the case for such extreme measures. The closest it comes with its three protagonists is with Jason Bateman and his convincingly horrible boss, played by the always-good-at-being-a-bastard Kevin Spacey. Spacey is just terrible enough that you can see how he might drive an ordinary man to find his inner stone-cold-killah. And maybe, just maybe, the movie would have worked better if it was solely focused on Bateman and his quest to off his boss. But for whatever reason, Horrible Bosses tries to do a somewhat half-assed riff on Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, with three characters who each agree to kill *each others'* bosses. But at some point, they try to hire a hitman to do it instead. Later, it looks like the plan shifts to somehow manipulate the bosses into killing each other. And ultimately, none of that ever really happens and the whole movie ends up feeling sort of pointless.


Again, the whole fun of a movie like this should be the average guy or guys trying to hatch the perfect murder, and then executing it through to the bloody end - with perhaps a good twist or two along the way to spice things up. But it felt like this movie started off with a simple idea of that sort, and then, somewhere along the way, really lost track and got too complicated for its own good.


One reason I say that is that, other than the really well-done Bateman-Spacey relationship, the other two employee-boss rivalries just aren't that strong. Jason Sudeikis plays a guy who really loves his boss - a fatherly, good-natured mentor type played by Donald Sutherland. But when Sutherland's character passes away, his idiot, drug-addicted son takes over. Colin Farell plays against-type as the bald, pot-bellied loose cannon of a new boss, and he seems to be having fun with the part. But, the character just seems like a random collection of undesirable traits rather than an actual person. Plus, so little time is spent on the dynamic between him and Sudekis that, again, the idea of murdering him seems a little out-of-nowhere. Meanwhile, Jennifer Aniston plays the boss of squeeky-voiced Charlie Day - she is a dentist and he is her hygenist. The problem? Aniston sexually harrasses her assistant - making repeated passes at him and throwing herself on him in a way that most guys would probably welcome, but Day - happily married and a fan of personal space - can't stand. So the question is - how do you make a hot boss trying to seduce her employee someone who is in fact so scary, so disturbed, that her employee actually wants to kill her? Well, let's be honest - I don't know that you can. Day gives it his all to play his squirmy character as a guy bottling up some serious, repressed rage towards his walking-sexual-harrassment-suit of a boss. But still - in the movie, Sudeikis and Bateman laugh at Day's "predicament," and we sort of have to side with them. Okay, so Aniston does a good job of being not so much seductive as creepy and weird, but surely, murder ain't the answer here? All I'm trying to say is -- this movie needs to sell us on its premise, and I don't know that it ever really does.


Aside from the amusingly snake-like Spacey, and a couple of so-gross-they're-hilarious moments from Aniston, the real scene stealer here is clearly Jamie Foxx. Foxx plays a seemingly-badass hitman-for-hire, and he is hilarious. The role brought to mind the old days of Foxx doing crazy characters on In Living Color. And hey, even if he dabbles in more dramatic roles these days, the guy's still one funny dude when he wants to be. I won't spoil some of the surprises around his character here, but suffice it to say - he has a high percentage of the movie's biggest laugh-out-loud moments, even with relatively short sceen time.


Otherwise, most of the movie's funniest bits come from the random little moments between its three leads. The movie has a habit of letting Bateman, Sudekis, and Day drift into these little improv-y conversations, and the movie just feels smarter and funnier the more it seems to go off-script. There are some great little bits in the margins of the movie. But too often, the meat of the script seems way too "brotacular" for its own good. It's something that annoyed me in The Hangover and The Hangover 2, and similarly annoyed me here - the scenes of the guys sitting around and just chillin' feel forced and just, well, off. There's also a mean-spiritedness in the dialogue that I found off-putting. We're supposed to be rooting for these guys - and to root for someone to get away with murder, they have to be pretty darn likable. Honestly, all three of the main characters in Horrible Bosses felt pretty douchey to me.


There are definitely moments where the movie shines, and there are some individual scenes that inspire big laughs. But overall, I felt like this movie took what could have been a simple, novel premise and failed to execute on it (again, no pun intended). The flow of the movie seems jumpy and the pacing uneven (Jennifer Aniston's character inexplicably disappears for the third act, before popping up in a hasty end-tag). The humor is hit or miss. And the characters never feel very justified in their actions. Is Horrible Bosses horrible? No, it's a decent comedy. But it could have been much more.


My Grade: C+

CARS 2: Can Lightning Strike Twice?



CARS 2 Review:


- It's funny, talk to some people, and they'll tell you that the first CARS movie was one of the weaker Pixar movies - a decent, well-animated movie, but not on par with the best of the best Pixar flicks - the likes of Wall-E, Toy Story, and The Incredibles. But for me, CARS still stands among my favorite Pixar films. I loved the animation and the characters, but I also really liked the movie for its evocation of a certain flavor of Americana - that Walt Disney-esque version of the American Dream. The anthropomorphic cars in the film lived in this mythical version of 1950's America - a land of great hope and dreams, of shiny chrome and new frontiers. I loved the world and the themes of Cars, and so personally, I was excited to revisit it again with a sequel. Now, as hard as some Pixar fans have been on CARS, some fans and critics have been even harder on CARS 2. To some extent, I get it. Pixar doesn't typically do sequels, and when they do, it's usually only in special cases - telling the sprawling, surprisingly epic Toy Story saga, for instance. On the surface, Cars 2 felt a little like one of those old direct-to-video Disney cash-in sequels - it felt like it might have a little less purpose, a little less depth than the first film. The trailers made it seem lighter, less essential.


And to some extent, that's true. Cars 2 is a much lighter, bouncier affair than Cars 1. Where the first film covered BIG themes and ideas, the second one is, essentially, a Cars-ified version of a 60's spy movie - a James Bond take-off with cars. So no, there's not as much meat here as with other Pixar flicks, but that doesn't mean that the movie isn't still super entertaining. There's still a lot to like in Cars 2.


For one thing, the animation is as good as anything Pixar has yet produced, and some of the scenes just bleed off the screen, popping with color and vibrancy. The plot of the movie takes our old pal Lightning McQueen on an international adventure, so the movie really gets to show off with a variety of exotic settings and locales. Where the first movie was all about the American west - Americana - this one is all about the rest of the world. So Radiator Springs makes a brief appearance, but we also visit places like Japan and Italy. The Japan scenes in particular are pretty stunning, with gleaming neon cityscapes and a hyper-cute, anime aesthetic that is awesome to behold. I am also just continually amazed at the amount of expression and emotion that Pixar's animators get from characters who take the shape of cars. I know some critics can't help but fixate on the "why" of how this world of all cars and no people came to be, but to me, the world is so fully-realized and brought to life with such gorgeous detail that you just accept it as is. Okay, so one reference in the movie to dinosaurs is certainly a headscratcher (whaaaat?!), but 99% of the time, you just accept this strange, stylized world and soak in the exquisitely-rendered characters and scenery.


The voicework in the series also continues to be top-notch. There's no one standout performance like the late, great Paul Newman's in the original Cars, but there are, nonetheless, a number of excellent voice-actors in this one. Owen Wilson is back in top-form as Lightning, and he's joined by a top-notch supporting cast. Michael Caine as a veteran secret agent? Yes please. Emily Mortimer is also really good as his enterprising assistant. Eddie Izzard is great as the villain. And you've even got greats like John Turturro and Joe Mantegna in the mix as well.


However, all this leads to the Larry the Cable Guy issue, aka the elephant in the room. Look, I think Larry did a great job in the first Cars, and he continues to do a nice job here as the redneck tow-truck of average-intelligence, 'Mater. But Mater was great in Cars 1 as a supporting character, and the fact is there's only so much Mater, and so much of Larry the Cable Guy, that one can take before he gets a tad bit annoying. Cars 2 makes the mistake of putting Mater front and center, and it's a classic case of giving the sidekick too much to do and this disrupting the delicate balance of character dynamics in the series. Because Mater is so heavily-featured, Lightning gets the short shrift, and some of the better-loved supporting characters from the first film all but disappear into the background. In any case, I think there's just a fundamental structural problem here in that the movie shouldn't have kept Lightning so separate from Mater while the latter gets up to his ears in international espionage. It would have been nice to see the old friends team up in the movie's third act. Instead, it's the Mater show, and like I said, there's only so many of Larry the Cable Guy's shenanigans you can take without rolling your eyes a bit.


All that said ... man, those Pixar guys are clever. Somehow, in the midst of Lightning competing in an international racing competition, and Mater getting unwittingly caught up in a whole, big-action espionage thing, the movie sneaks in a.) a well-done, mostly heartwarming message about friendship, and b.) a surprisingly biting commentary on how big oil is holding back the proliferatin of alternative fuels. The first plot element is pretty expected - as Lightning travels the world and becomes a bigger deal, he becomes increasingly embarassed by Mater and his uncultured ways. Eventually though, Lightning has to learn how to accept his friend for who he is - big hugs all around, aww shucks moments by the bucketful, etc. etc. That part of the story can be a bit obvious at times, sure, but mostly, Pixar does this sort of thing with a subtlety, sophistication, and wit far beyond most kid-friendly flicks. The second plot element snuck up on me a bit, and I think that was the intention. I was ultimately sort of shocked that a movie this light and bouncy on the surface had such a cutting message about green energy and big business. It's an element of the movie that's more in the background until the end, but still ... ballsy by Pixar - I like it. And, at the end of the day, you realize that Cars 2 has a bit more depth than initially meets the eye.


Overall, I do agree with the critical consensus that Cars 2 is a shade below the best Pixar efforts. It just feels a little too goofy, a little too "cartoony" (as odd as that is to say about an animated movie) - and less substantial and meaty as compared to other Pixar films, in particular Cars 1. But, I also think that many critics overreacted - hugely - in calling this one a failure or by grading it uncessarilly harshly (though I will say, Dreamworks still remains the animation kind of 2011 thanks to the awesome Kung Fu Panda 2). But CARS 2 is still a supremely entertaining movie - filled with eye-meltingly awesome animation, great action, and functioning as a fun riff on 60's spy-movies. Not a classic, but still a really well done movie that continues Pixar's track record of quality.


My Grade: B+