Search the Community

So here we go again. This time I'm sitting in a properly huge IMAX theater, waiting for the latest James Bond epic to begin. No lack of a crowd this time - being a rainy Saturday night in Burbank. The movie kicks off in about 20 minutes, and as usual I'll be back with a review after I get home. Or maybe tomorrow. Either way, see you after the show. __________________ (15 hours later...) So, is Skyfall the "Best Bond Ever"? Well, no. That would be Goldfinger. But I'll get back to that. Skyfall is, however, the second best Bond film. And it's pretty close to being the best. Let's run down the list: Awesome pre-credits sequence? Check. Great title song? Check. Great title sequence? Check. Gadgets? Check. Guns? Check. Girls? Check! Car chases? Check. Action? Check. Stunts? Check. Humor? Check. Adversary worthy of James Bond? Check. And that last one is critical. Too many Bond films fall flat because the villains just aren't enough of a threat. They either aren't interesting, or menacing, or on equal (or superior) footing with Bond. The villain in this film is every bit Bond's equal, and then some. Plus he's got some classic Bond-film quirks that make him memorable - which is also very important. You have to enjoy the time the villain is onscreen. They have to be fun, in their own way, to watch. And they have to be credible. The Bond villain in this film makes sense within the current world. What he's after makes sense. His lair makes sense. It's not some giant orbiting platform or submersible city. He's not bent on some completely over-the-top world domination plot. As for Bond, Daniel Craig is at his best here, and at times he evokes some of the past Bonds in his actions and mannerisms, yet he's made the character his own. Bond starts off having a bad day, and the repercussions affect him throughout the film. We get a closer, more personal look at Bond than we have in a very long time (possibly since On Her Majesty's Secret Service). We feel like we're connecting with the man, not just a character or a facade (I'm looking at you, Pierce Brosnan). In some ways, Bond has a character arc here similar to Batman in The Dark Knight Rises. However, where that film did everything wrong, Skyfall does everything right. Bond's problems aren't solved in a montage of him doing sit-ups (he also doesn't waste several hours painting a giant bat on a bridge using gasoline in order to let the bad guy know he's coming ). There's a welcomed humanity brought to the character. The story is a good one, too. While Bond films generally aren't known for their depth, this one does a good job at keeping enough things under wraps long enough so that you're not continually just waiting for the next inevitable thing to happen (although some things are telegraphed in advance, the payoffs are worth it). There's just enough complexity to keep you involved without getting in the way of the action, as opposed to, say, Octopussy, which is so convoluted I've never been able to figure out what's going on in that movie. The action scenes are top-notch. Over-the-top, yet without the silliness of some previous Bond films. The opening chase scene is classic Bond. The fight scenes are all first-rate too, although they've yet to top the fight on the train in Thunderball. There's just a brutality to that which seems like it's two guys fighting for their lives, and they've never been able to recapture that. The fights still seem too choreographed, but they are really well choreographed, and fun to watch. Perhaps because this is the 50th anniversary of the Bond films, there are a lot of nods to previous films. How many of those are intentional, or just the inevitable result of there being so many films that comparisons are unavoidable, I don't know. But there are scenes, elements, shots, gadgets, characters, and so forth that evoke moments in other Bond films. Yet I didn't find them obtrusive. After all, when you're watching a Bond film, you're always aware you're watching a Bond film. So some self-reference is to be expected. If I had any complaint, it's that the film is pretty long, clocking in at nearly 2 1/2 hours. But it keeps moving at a brisk pace, and rarely lags. It didn't feel overly-long anyway. The film also does a nice job of setting us up for future Bond films. It starts off questioning the very relevance of James Bond, and by the end not only are we assured of his necessity, but we're also reassured that the franchise is safe and has a solid future ahead of it (something that was not at all certain with the bankruptcy of MGM). I thought Skyfall was awesome. It was a fun action film, but better still, it was a great Bond film. It hit all the right notes, and was well worth seeing on a big screen (even at $17.50!!! a ticket). Its an event, and that's what a Bond film should be. I'm looking forward to the next one. Skyfall gets a 9/10. Go see it. And now a short list of Bond's "Best and Worst": Best Bond: Sean Connery. He defined the role, although his run had low points as well, such as the cringeworthy sequence in You Only Live Twice where he's made up as a Japanese peasant, and pretty-much all of Diamonds Are Forever, which shamelessly paved the way for the campy 70's Bond films. Worst Bond: Timothy Dalton. He's just bland. He actually makes a better villain when he plays one. He's only marginally better than Pierce Brosnan, who always came across as a vapid pretty-boy. Even when Brosnan was dirtied-up, it never felt honest - just another layer of make-up. Best film: Goldfinger. This has the definitive Bond villain, the definitive Bond henchman (Odd Job), and the best plot of any Bond film. It's not about world domination, or starting World War III - it's about throwing the world's economy into chaos through an act of nuclear terrorism (and with that, I'd like to welcome the Department of Homeland Security to my blog - hope you enjoy the read!). There is no massive lair, or ridiculous doomsday machine. The final set piece at Fort Knox serves the same visual purpose/plot device as a lair, but it makes far more sense than somebody hollowing out a volcano or building an entire nuclear power plant on a private island. Although the film looks dated now, the story and characters could effectively be transplanted intact into a modern movie. Worst film: Octopussy. Some will put View To A Kill as the worst, but at least that film had Christopher Walken, who was fun to watch. Octopussy was an incomprehensible train-wreck. The plot involved stealing jewels for some reason, and a Soviet General trying to blow up a U.S. Army base in order to force the U.N. make the U.S. withdraw from Europe to umm... something... and then there was Maud Adams and her army of spandex-wearing circus acrobats... and James Bond in a clown suit... and a hot air balloon... and... uh... yeah. So... Octopussy. Worst Bond film ever. Best theme song: Live And Let Die. It rocks. It has french horn power chords. 'Nuff said. Worst theme song: Tomorrow Never Dies. While Madonna's Die Another Day is a terrible, unlistenable mess, Tomorrow Never Dies takes the prize because of Sheryl Crow's nasally voice. While her singing may be suitable for her pseudo-country-barroom folk ditties, it just doesn't suit a Bond film at all. She set the bar so low that Madonna cleared it, for crying out loud. They need to get great singers for their theme songs. Ann Wilson (Heart) or Annie Lennox would be awesome. Adele was an excellent choice for Skyfall. Tomorrow Never Dies also loses out for another reason - it's a stupid title. The original title was supposed to be Tomorrow Never Lies, which would have fit in with the theme of the movie, where a media mogul manipulates events in order to... uh... sell newspapers. The newspaper was named "Tomorrow". Right. Great plot there. Anyway, there was a typo in a fax to MGM which led to the film being renamed. So there you go. Worst Bond theme ever.

So Disney bought Lucasfilm today for $4 billion. Lock, stock and Jar-Jar. I'll admit this took me by surprise, even though Disney and Lucas have teamed up in the past: Indiana Jones (the ride), Star Tours and all of its related merchandise, plus other more questionable crossovers like this: As a friend of mine who works for the Big D pointed out, Leia is now a "Disney Princess". (shudder) Anyway... the question is - is this acquisition a good thing or a bad thing? Well, let's take a look at the bad. Umm... Give me a minute here. Bad... uh... Well, I guess that the Star Wars and Indiana Jones properties are now owned by a massive, heartless, entertainment conglomerate that cares more for marketing than anything else could be considered a bad thing. Except for that fact that that really hasn't changed. I mean c'mon... Lucas. Am I right? The Phantom Menace? Attack of the Clones? Revenge of the Sith? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Nuke-proof Refrigerators? A steadfast refusal to stop tinkering with beloved movies and release them in their original theatrical forms? Jar-Jar? Really... apart from The Clone Wars TV series, Lucasfilm isn't exactly batting a thousand lately. Or even crossing the Mendoza line. So would the properties that have already been (in some views) irreparably damaged fare any worse under Disney? I don't think so. In fact, I'm hopeful things might actually improve. Even though Lucas is going to hang around to give input to Kathleen Kennedy (who will be running the Lucasfilm branch of Disney), he isn't calling the shots anymore. And frankly, I think that's a good thing. I think George did great with Star Wars (the original film). But maybe he was more lucky than good. Empire was more Ivrin Kershner's film than George's. Return of the Jedi had more input from George, and look what happened to that big, Muppety Ewok-turd of a movie. And the prequels were, in my opinion, effectively a waste of six-plus hours of time. The Clone Wars TV series has, at times, been excellent, but those aren't directed by George. He's had input into them, but I think they've succeeded more because of other peoples' creative direction. Part of today's announcement was that there will be new Star Wars films, starting with Episode VII to be released possibly in 2015. Now, there's every chance that under Disney's guidance they could be just as big of stinkers as the last three Star Wars films were. But I don't think they could be any worse, and with George not directing them, I think that improves their chance of being better. (Not that Disney has any great track record in making films, mind you.) There are many, many things that could go wrong, of course, but I'm hoping they avoid enough of them to push the movie franchise in a positive direction for the first time since Empire. Had The Clone Wars series not reached some of its heights, I wouldn't be nearly as optimistic. Even then, it's a cautious optimism. As for any concerns that Lucasfilm is somehow "selling out", think about that for just a second. Star Wars has always sold out. From Darth Vader Underoos to C-3PO's breakfast cereal, the only franchise to shamelessly merchandise themselves as much as Disney - if not more - has been Lucasfilm. So I don't see much change there, except to see more merging of Disney and Star Wars characters. Nothing new there. Legos and Angry Birds have already been there, done that. George sold off Lucasfilm because he said he wants to see Star Wars continue on for future generations, and doesn't want to do it himself. Disney makes the most sense. They have the money, resources and marketing machine necessary to handle Star Wars. Nobody else does. Plus they had the money to buy him outright, so George can do whatever he wants to now for the rest of his life without worrying about any of it earning a dime or pleasing any fans. Before, he had to worry about Lucasfilm turning a profit, now he doesn't. Disney now owns Star Wars. All of it. All of the characters, licenses, movies, games, everything. Even the Star Wars Holiday Special. They also own Indiana Jones, Lucasarts, Skywalker Sound and ILM. Disney just bought themselves a big chunk of Hollywood. Frankly, I think $4 billion was a bargain. Disney owns The Muppets, Pixar and Marvel, and haven't made any major mis-steps with them. At least, no more than any other studio would have. (I'm looking at you John Carter and Cars 2.) They've had their fair share of hits and misses, but in the long run Disney is undeniably successful. Whether that comes with anything vaguely resembling artistic integrity or not is debatable. But again - Lucasfilm has done no better. If anything, they've had even more vehement vitriol heaped on them by their own fans over the years. Certainly, this all bodes extremely well for Disney. They've just added a huge new weapon to their already considerable marketing arsenal. I'm hopeful we might even see something fans have long-since written off as impossible: the original movies on Blu-ray. Unaltered. Disney has been doing this with their own theatrical shorts and films for years. This sort of thing is right up their alley. Besides, it'd be a great way for them to cash-in on their newly acquired intellectual property. Certainly, there are some concerns. Will they continue The Clone Wars on its current path, or try to make it more kid-friendly? When they took over Marvel, several ongoing TV series were canceled and rebooted, much to the consternation of fans. Although with Marvel, its various properties were scattered to the four winds and different production companies anyway. Disney has attempted to reconsolidate those properties under one roof. With Lucasfilm, everything has been under one roof the whole time. So we'll see if they stay the course. Hopefully, they'll leave The Clone Wars be. At the very least, I'm sure we'll see it move to Disney XD. There's also a concern about fandom. Lucasfilm is pretty lenient about letting fans make fan films about Star Wars. It's a very open universe, relatively speaking. Disney... not so much. So there could be a culture clash looming on the horizon. We'll see if Disney is smart enough to understand its newly inherited fan base and work with them, not against them. At any rate, it's all very interesting news. Fanboys are all at once rejoicing over the news of new movies, while at the same time lamenting the fact that Disney now owns everything. Others are glad that George is gone, and at the same time worried that Star Wars has lost its visionary. But was it really his vision anyway? Or has it actually belonged to the fans all along, and George was just along for the ride? Well, I guess we'll find out. Just please... no Ewok/Tinkerbell crossover direct-to-video movies. Because that would make me pretty-much throw up.

I'm at the theater yet again, and I've only got a few minutes before the film starts, so there's just enough time to post a super-quick pre-movie entry. And that was it. See you in three hours! (Much, much later...) You know what? I think I'm going to type this up tomorrow instead. It's late. (The next day...) Well, that was a long movie. And if I had to choose one word to describe it, it would probably be "tedious". It takes forever to get going, takes forever to get anywhere, and you spend most of the film waiting for something to happen. When it does, it generally pays off, but the problem is waiting around for it. A bigger problem is that, while I tried to avoid spoilers, I found the whole film really predictable. For one thing, too many critical moments are shown in the trailers. You remember, "Oh - that hasn't happened yet, so therefore such-and-such has to happen first." Also, either they telegraphed what was coming really early on in the film, or set it up so that it was obviously the only way it could play out. Part of the problem is that if you look up the comic book history of the characters at all, then you know some of what is going to happen in the film. So, you just spend time, again - waiting for it. The characters added to this film - Selina Kyle (she's never actually called "Catwoman"), Bane, and a few others work very well. Bane (Thomas Hardy) is an interesting character - huge, menacing, violent, yet oddly calm and intelligent at the same time. Calm villains are always more threatening, because they can ramp up to a higher level as needed. They don't start off as psychotic and out of control. They're scarier because they know exactly what they're doing. An example of doing a villain the wrong way is the Emperor in Return of the Jedi. He was a cackling nincompoop (I call him Emperor ). But in the original version of The Empire Strikes Back, he was calm and cool - almost like an evil Obi-Wan Kenobi. Bane manages to pull off being a truly credible threat, although because he talks through a mask the whole time, a lot of his dialogue gets muffled and lost. Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) is a much better take on her character than what's been done in film the last couple of times, although frankly, that's not all that hard. Hathaway has fun with the character, and adds a playful touch to her, which fits in with what we know of her from the comics and other appearances. She also doesn't look bad wearing a skin-tight catsuit either. Somehow though, she's an expert in martial arts and riding the Bat-Motorcyle-Thing, so it makes you wonder where she got those skills from, when she's presented as basically being a down-and-out cat burglar. They spend so much time on Bane's backstory (it is a huge chunk of the film) a little more of her background wouldn't have hurt. Even just enough to imply that there's more mystery to her past than they hint at in the film. Where The Dark Knight Rises fails is that it spends forever telling (and re-telling) us about Bane's history. Yes, it ties into the main story of the film and the trilogy as a whole, but frankly, it wasn't necessary. The whole thing felt needlessly convoluted, especially some of the revelations at the end which felt very tacked-on. Sure, I suppose some people will appreciate how it all ties together, but it felt a little bit too much to me like, "Not only is Darth Vader Luke's father, and Leia's father, but he also built C-3PO!" A little too much out of left-field. But okay, whatever. I guess they had to have something in there to (not really) surprise the audience. Besides that, the rest of the film has plot holes big enough to drive a large truck through. And while that's to be expected in superhero films, here it just felt that the whole film got bigger than it should have. The scope of what was happening got to the point of "What is the point of Batman coming back now, when there's effectively nothing he can do by himself anyway?" It became more of a Superman-sized threat, than a Batman-sized one. Like the filmmakers were so focused on making it epic, that it really didn't matter how they were going to get out of it in the end. And in fact, most of the rest of the cast were more heavily involved in the story throughout the film than Batman was. He largely got lost in the shuffle. And that brings up the other problem with the film - Batman. Or more to the point, Christian Bale's version of him. What made the previous film so good when I saw it in the theater was Heath Ledger as The Joker. But as I watched it on TV several times since then, I realized that was the only thing that made the film so good. It was The Joker's film. Not Batman's. The Dark Knight Rises is Bane's film - not Batman's. Frankly, I'm tired of the "scrawny-guy-in-a-rubber-suit" movie version of Batman that started with Michael Keaton. When you watch Christian Bale - he's just not physically menacing. He doesn't have the screen presence to pull off Batman, and I still don't think they've ever gotten the look of the character right. He's okay if he's in motion - fighting, swinging, etc., but close-ups of his face just look a bit... silly. And the situation isn't helped by Christian Bale's acting range, which is approximately that of a tuna-fish sandwich. Despite what he goes through in this film, his emotions just never ring true. He has the same three or four expressions, which are all just slight variations of each other, and that's about it. And I'm really tired of the gravelly voice he uses as Batman. I understand it's part of his "disguise", but he just sounds tired all the time. And although there are a couple of fight scenes in this film, I've seen better. "Okay, first I'll hit you, then you hit me back. Ready? Go!" Maybe that's dictated by the rubber suit. But it's less fighting, than it is just hitting. And also in this film, he doesn't do much Batman-y stuff. In other words, stuff that only he could do. Looking back on the previous two films, Batman did more of what you expect Batman to do - haunt the night, fight criminals, and strike fear into their hearts. But even starting with the second film, I felt it was starting to become more about gadgets (especially gadgets that just happen to be the ones he needs most - like the flying Bat-thing in this film), and the villains. Yes, Bruce Wayne has to deal with some issues in this film, but it all felt rather superficial. Rather than being critical and life-changing for the character, it was just something that the filmmakers needed to do to get him back to where he should have been in the first place. Anyway, this is the end of Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan's run on Batman. I hope the studio completely reboots the series. I hope they strip it all the way back to its core. Make it about a big, menacing guy in a Batsuit (and not a rubber one with fake muscles), stalking criminals, solving crimes, and being the Dark Knight Detective. Not James Bond. Not Iron Man. Set it in the 40's or 50's even. Get away from all this ridiculous technology. Stop making him rely on other people and billions of dollars in gear to combat crime. Make him figure it out himself. Show him doing the work. Make Batman believable and human. Get an actor with presence. Think of how John Wayne or Sean Connery carried themselves onscreen. They were tough guys that you did not want to cross. Make him menacing and physically imposing. It's easy enough to explain away for Bruce Wayne - just say he played football in college. Boom. Done. Make Batman mysterious and terrifying to criminals. Batman: The Animated Series would be a good starting point to think about. All of this isn't to say that The Dark Knight Rises is a bad film. It's not. It's well-made. Good special effects. Solid cast (mostly). But it could have lost probably an hour out of its running time (and with it several needlessly convoluted plot points), and been a better film for it. And the predictability didn't help either. I felt like I was spending large chunks of the movie just waiting for what was inevitably going to happen. The biggest problem though was that I didn't find myself caring much about anyone in it. It didn't have the likability or fun-to-watch factor The Avengers had. Batman, even if the subject matter itself is dark, should still be fun. It's a comic book. They should get back to that. The Dark Knight Rises gets a 6.5/10. And as a final note, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention something about the tragedy in Colorado last week. I can't even pretend to imagine what the victims and their loved ones are going through - but they all have my deepest sympathies and heartfelt prayers. Watching The Dark Knight Rises, it's impossible (especially in a couple of scenes) not to be reminded of what happened. It was also a little eerie, but oddly reassuring, to see the ushers periodically checking the exit doors during the film to make sure they weren't propped open.

So, here we go again. I'm killing time in a movie theater, waiting for a movie to start. However, there are only a couple of minutes to go, so I'm not going to get much typing done. I wasn't sure whether to go see The Amazing Spider-Man or not, since I can't say I was all that intrigued by the trailers. But I had a couple of hours to kill, and a free movie pass burning a hole in my pocket, so here I am. Well... time for the show. (One movie and a late dinner at Chick-Fil-A later...) (BTW - does anyone actually like their rubbery waffle fries? Their chicken nuggets are awesome - especially with the Buffalo sauce, but their fries... bleah.) Anyway.... I figured I should probably see Spider-Man now, because once The Dark Knight Rises hits later this week and takes over every single movie screen in the country, there won't be any place left to watch it, except the dollar theater next to the bowling alley. Yeah, you know the one. Spider-Man (The Amazing) is a pretty good superhero flick. Generally speaking, I liked it better than the first Spider-Man movie in the last series. I think the casting was better across the board - especially Emma Stone (as Gwen Stacy), and the villain (The Lizard) worked better too. But then, I never really found the Green Goblin to be all that credible as a movie villain. What works fine in a comic book, doesn't always (or sometimes ever) translate well to the big screen. I also liked the different take on Peter Parker (or more accurately, Peter Parkour) (Andrew Garfield), and Aunt May and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen), and was surprised how well Sally Field worked as Aunt May. For those of us who grew up on the ancient endlessly-in-peril version of Aunt May in the comics, it's nice to see a (slightly) younger, feistier version. The special effects were spot-on, but by this point, that should just be a given in a high-budget superhero film. Spidey's webs (which have thankfully returned to their proper place, coming from web shooters outside of his body) looked the best they ever have. There was a particular scene where Spider-Man webbed up a bad guy by eerily crawling around on him like a real spider would, which was pretty cool and something I hadn't seen before. Speaking of things I hadn't seen before... well, that was about it. The biggest drawback to The Amazing Spider-Man is that it's basically just another re-telling of Spider-Man's origin story, which probably every single person on the planet is already familiar with. So there weren't really any surprises in it, and some things were telegraphed so obviously and early they had little impact. "Oh right... this is where that thing is going to happen. Well, get on with it then." They tried to shake things up a little by incorporating Peter's parents into it (which I don't know if they ever covered in the comics or not), but while we find out a little bit more about them, we really don't find out what happened to them. I guess they're saving that for the sequel. But at least they expanded a little bit on what has come before. There were a few annoying things - like how incredibly convenient it was that someone was working at the very company Peter needed to sneak into; the ridiculously convenient (and improbable - even for a comic book movie) crane scene (you'll know it when you see it - or when you hear the overblown orchestral music that accompanies it); and two or three times they had a TV news anchor telling the movie audience, in the most painfully obvious way possible, what just happened. It's like, "Hey - we know some of you in the audience are really stupid, or three years old, so in case you missed it, Spider-Man just did this." That was completely unnecessary and really pulled me out of the movie. Show it. Don't narrate it. Speaking of being pulled out of the movie, I did not see it in 3-D, and I'm glad I didn't. There were several point-of-view shots with swirling camera moves that probably just would have made me ill. They were obviously thrown in for 3-D screenings (Bad filmmakers!! No biscuit!), but they're still just as obtrusive in 2-D. One, maybe two would have gotten the point-of-view of Spider-Man across well enough. Criticisms aside, I enjoyed the film for what it was - an above-average superhero film. The cast was best thing about it - the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone was spot-on, and there really wasn't a weak player in the group. The action was good, the special effects were first rate, and overall, it was a fun film. But it's nothing you'd need to see in 3-D or even in a movie theater. It lacks the epic scale of something like The Avengers. That's not a bad thing - just a different thing. It's a smaller, more intimate film, which I think suits Spider-Man well. The biggest problem is that we've seen/read/heard this story before. But I am looking forward to the sequel, and seeing this cast in action again. Spider-Man (The Amazing) gets: 7.5/10

Currently, it's 11:41 PM, and I'm sitting in a movie theater, waiting for the first showing of Brave. Now, I'm not usually enough of a movie nut to go on opening night (or in this case - opening morning since the movie starts at 12:05 AM), but 1) I was bored and 2) I've learned not to go see Pixar films during the day, because parents tend to take their kids to those showings. I'm talking kids in strollers. Crying. Not how I want to spend my movie going hours. Usually this late, there are very few people at the movies, especially on a weeknight. I'm here because I don't have to work tomorrow. But surprisingly enough, there are quite a few people here, and this isn't an IMAX or 3D screening either. Must be mostly kids out of school for the summer - upper high school and college age kids, based in no small part on the couple behind me making small talk. Sounds like they're on a first date, since the topics are running the gamut from what they want to do with their lives (him - something to do with fishing, her - orthodonture) to movies, pets, etc. I got tired of listening, so I thought I'd get a head-start on this entry. Before the trailers* start, I have just enough time to mention I'm seeing this film for free. A couple of weeks back, I went to see The Avengers for a second time, and the picture was messed up. There were giant yellow splotches on the image (not the screen itself) which meant someone had smudged the blue panel inside of the digital projector. This ruined the movie for me, to the degree where I submitted a complaint to the theater chain - which is something I've never done because generally theaters are poorly run and nothing would be done to resolve he situation anyway. But I figured, "why not?" So then... Oh, time for the movie. Back later. (About 2 hours and change later...) Right. Well, it turned out that blogging was a pretty good way to kill time before the movie started. I'll have to keep that in mind for future excursions. Anyway, back to the complaint. I used their online feedback form, which only lets you rant in 256 characters or less (something like that). So that made it difficult to adequately describe the problem with their projector (which, incidentally I've run into before at work, which is why I knew the cause). But I sent it off anyway and figured that was that. Then, some days later, I got an e-mail from the the theater chain, profusely apologizing, telling me they were going to look into the problem, and offering to send me a couple of free passes for my trouble. So I thought, "cool - free movies". And that's why I didn't have to pay to see Brave tonight.** But I would have. Gladly. It's excellent. I'll admit, the trailers worried me a bit because it felt a little bit like it was going to be a typical "Disney princess" movie. You know... where the princess isn't happy with her lot in life and has to go off seeking better things (insert "wishing song" here). And while there's a little bit of that, a typical Disney princess film, or for that matter, a typical Pixar film this is not. Although in all fairness, it's a little hard (sequels notwithstanding) to pin down exactly what a typical Pixar film is. At their best, they manage to reinvent themselves with each new project, and Brave feels unlike any other Pixar film. But it does share one trait with their best work - it's astonishing quality. As an aside, thanks to a Free Preview Weekend recently on U-Verse, I caught up on watching Dreamworks' Kung Fu Panda 2 and How To Train Your Dragon. KFP2 was pretty good for a sequel, but largely more of the same. It paled though in comparison to HTTYD. That was easily Dreamworks' best effort to date, and was at times really quite stunning. In fact, there were some concerns in the animation circles that because it came out first, Brave would be unfavorably compared to it (both films being based in ye olden times, featuring mysterious beasts and Scottish accents). However, as good as HTTYD was, Brave simply blows it away. The look of the film sets a new benchmark, even for Pixar. The scenery is often breathtaking, and it's very easy to forget you're watching animation. But what really makes Brave work are the characters. The animation is first-rate (especially the bear), their designs are excellent (they take CG hair to new levels), their personalities are engaging, and every one is well-acted and extremely likable. I really enjoyed the story, and while I was able to see a few plot elements coming, much of it took me pleasantly by surprise. The film was, simply put, a joy to watch. It's probably not a film that really little kids will enjoy. There are some pretty intense scenes in the film, and while there are great comedic moments peppered throughout the film, there may be more drama and dialog than could reasonably hold their attention (besides, they got Cars 2 last year, so it's the adults' turn this time). And while most of the humor is well done, I really could have done without the butt jokes in the film. The film was strong enough so that they weren't really necessary. But the audience laughed, so maybe I'm in the minority there. I just find that stuff cringeworthy nowadays. The sound design, music, editing, etc., are all spot-on. It's really hard to find flaws with the film except the aforementioned butt jokes, and a couple of plot points were telegraphed a bit too heavy-handedly. It certainly was worth the price of admission. Even if I would've had to pay for it.*** Also showing with Brave is the new Pixar short - La Luna. It's another one of their shorts that's a little hard to define. Not laugh-out-loud funny, but engrossing. They form their own little world, with its own rules, and neatly tell a story about it. Reminds me a lot of the films from where I work, actually. (And incidentally, Brave was directed by two CalArts alum - Brenda Chapman and Mark Andrews. Go CalArts! Although it's a little weird going to Pixar films now - since I've been at CalArts so long, it's getting hard to keep up with all of our alumni's names in the credits.) Anyway - go check out Brave. I'm not sure whether or not it's Pixar's best, but it's definitely up there with the best of them. (And be sure to stay through the end credits.) Brave gets 8.5/10 * The trailers started off with one for The Oogieloves. I have never felt less a part of a particular demographic in all of my life. ** Except, of course, $11.75 for popcorn and a drink. That's absolutely ridiculous, and one of these days I'll probably stop paying for that, and just go out for a nice dinner afterwards instead. *** After the theater chain sent me the free passes (which, by the way, are unrestricted, and have an expiration date of 12/31/2099), the manager of the theater also e-mailed me, and sent me four IMAX tickets, plus a note that they were ordering a new optical block for their projector. Now I know why my popcorn was so expensive.

In this film, an old, fat, bearded Jeff Bridges mumbles his way through a script that at times is largely incoherent. Oh wait... I think that was supposed to be part of my Tron: Legacy review. I went out and saw True Grit today. Being a fan of the original (with John Wayne) I half-expected to sit there through the whole film thinking, "That's not how John Wayne spoke that dialogue." And while such comparisons are inevitable, this new True Grit does stand on its own, and manages to carve out its own identity. In part, this is due to Jeff Bridges not trying to imitate John Wayne's take on the character of Rooster Cogburn. He brings his own take to the character, which is a bit more grounded and less caricatured than Wayne's. In fact, that pretty-much sums up the whole film. This version of True Grit seems to be less caricatured, and more grounded than the 1969 original. That should be expected though, since westerns of that era (and especially Wayne's) were more idealized "Hollywood" versions, where everything was cleaner than it should be, and the actors seemed more like they were playing characters in a story, than existing as real people living lives. That's not to say that this new film isn't peppered (pun intended) with its own odd assortment of distinct characters (read: weirdos), but they're played differently than in 1969. And while this version does maintain a lot of the flavor and charm (including the unique dialogue) of the original, and the plot and characters are nearly identical, the direction and acting give the remake a little bit harder of an edge, and leaves you uncertain as to how things are going to end up. (Although it's clear from the opening narration that at least one of the characters certainly survives, since they're narrating it after the fact. I think the film would have been a lot stronger without that at the opening.) What makes the film really work is Hailee Steinfeld's performance as Mattie Ross. While John Wayne's relationship with Kim Darby was the center of the 1969 version, Steinfeld is the heart and soul of this one, and she manages to pull off a character that's smart beyond her years, and makes it all seem quite natural. If anything, Bridges seems to step aside to a large degree, and lets her shine in her role. And while Bridges is certainly entertaining, this is more her film, than his. There are a few things "missing" from the new version, or at least things that I may not have caught - such as more of Ned Pepper's history with Cogburn, or more of Mattie's bonding with her horse. As such, some of the film doesn't pay off quite as well as the original did. One big improvement though is Matt Damon (who I had a hard time recognizing at first) as LaBoeuf, versus Glen Campbell from the original. Still, for sheer entertainment value, I prefer the original. Nothing beats John Wayne. I will say I was a little bit disappointed in the ending of the remake, Anyway, True Grit is worth checking out. It's an enjoyable, well-written and well-acted western. You don't get a whole lot of those anymore. It had some genuinely fun moments, solid performances, and some classic characters. It's a nice update to a classic - respectful to it without ruining what was so good about the original. And if you see it at 1:40 PM on a Monday afternoon, you'll have the theater pretty-much to yourself, too. And no funky 3-D glasses to wear. 8/10

Well, I was going to write up some ridiculous, overlong blog entry about The Avengers and superhero movies in general. But then 2/3 of the way through it, I realized that even I didn't want to read it. I got off on some tangent about Batman and... anyway, I'll leave that for when The Dark Knight Rises comes out. So here's what you need to know: The Avengers is awesome. The action is great. Everyone gets a chance to show why they excel at what they do. You could see how Captain America could go toe-to-toe with bigger, badder dudes and not just hold his ground, but come out on top. I left wanting to see even more. Admittedly, Hawkeye and Black Widow are a bit less effective at fighting giant mechanical alien space monsters than say, Iron Man, but hey... Scarlett Johansson in a catsuit. How can you go wrong there? And they even managed to make Hawkeye look cool (leaving the big purple "H" off the costume probably helped). Some origin story movies have to cover so much backstory, action suffers as a result. In hindsight, I wish Iron Man, Thor and Captain America had some more action scenes in their first movies. But that's not a problem here, in no small part because so much groundwork was covered in those other movies. They drop in just enough information here so you know who these characters are, and what they're about, in case you haven't seen the other movies. By the time you get to this film, everyone is up to full speed, and it doesn't take very long to get this movie rolling. The heroes all get their moments to shine, and we get to delve into more of what makes them tick. Everything is very well balanced, and nobody dominates the film. It's not "Iron Man 3" - this is very much a team movie. The dialog is very smartly written, and there are a number of instances where characters are cleverly paired-up and this leads to some great comedy, conflicts, camaraderie, compassion and um... something else that starts with "c". Pathos. I guess. Well, so much for alliteration. There are a lot of very funny lines in the film, but they all stem from genuine character moments. The movie also has a lot of heart. I liked these characters. That's hard to do in a film that's so densely-packed with characters, action, and business. Speaking of characters, Mark Ruffalo is excellent as Bruce Banner. I was kind of worried, since I thought Edward Norton did a really good job in the last Hulk movie, and there were hardly any shots of Ruffalo in the trailers to judge by. But as a friend of mine pointed out, "The Avengers is the best Hulk film ever made." Bruce Banner and the Hulk have the two best lines in the film. Ruffalo makes Bruce Banner a compelling character, as if he's had to inhabit him and bear the weight and the responsibility of the Hulk for years, but yet he still has a wry (and slightly wicked) sense of humor about it. The Hulk himself looks the best he ever has, and is a genuinely fun (and at times, scary) character to watch. It wouldn't surprise me if Marvel dusted off the Hulk franchise again and took another shot at a sequel. Tom Hiddleston is terrific again as Loki. He was the best thing about the Thor movie, and he doesn't disappoint here, either. He's great fun to watch as a villain, likable and detestable all at the same time, and a worthy reason for the Avengers to assemble. You can't have a great superhero film without a great villain, and he makes for a solid core for this movie to revolve around. Did I mention Scarlett Johansson wears a catsuit? 'Nuff said. Cobie Smulders, smolders as agent Maria Hill. Also in a catsuit. Sign me up for S.H.I.E.L.D. The Avengers starts fast and doesn't let up for 2 1/2 hours, yet it's not tiresome. It doesn't feel busy, but dense. There's a lot to absorb - so much so, that I plan on seeing it again. I almost never do that with movies, because I always feel that after one viewing, I've seen basically everything the movie had to offer. Admittedly, part of this could be because some guy brought his little kid along who asked questions every 5 seconds for the first 20 minutes of the film. Finally, after repeated "sshhhh!!"s from me and the guy next to me, the dad finally took his kid out. Top tip for parents: if you have inquisitive little kids that ask questions every 5 seconds, get a sitter. Or sit as far away from everyone else in the theater as possible. This ain't your living room, y'know. That aside... The Avengers is, simply put, the best comic book movie ever made. It's the very reason I used to read comics: great characters, huge action, over-the-top villains, and lots of all of the above. Best of all, The Avengers is fun. That's the best thing that can be said about any movie, and this one delivers. Big time. Go see it. In 2-D (I can't imagine 3-D making the movie any better, and would likely just serve as a distraction). 10/10 Oh yeah... almost forgot to mention, stay through the credits, all the way to the end.

Jean "Moebius" Giraud passed away Saturday, at the age of 73. Another phenomenally gifted artist, his work graced countless comic books, science fiction and fantasy art (most notably Heavy Metal magazine), and movies including Alien, The Abyss, The Fifth Element and of course - Tron. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRvbPH_6lcQ (I can't understand a word he's saying, but I love the fact he has a Snoopy poster on his wall. )

I'd pay eleven bucks to go see this... plus snacks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3NwB9PLxss Or this one.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is a decent popcorn flick. The stunts and gadgets are completely ridiculous, unbelievable and well... impossible, but they're still pretty fun. Animation director Brad Bird (Iron Giant, Ratatouille, The Incredibles) makes his live-action debut here, and although he doesn't have any writing credits on the film, his distinctive fingerprints (especially his sense of humor) are still present throughout the film. Don't expect a plot that makes any sense, since that simply isn't the point here. The point here is to be over-the-top. Tom Cruise out-runs (for example): The Kremlin blowing up, a sandstorm in Dubai, a car crash, a train, a 65-year-old villain who is in surprisingly fit shape, and probably some other things I'm forgetting (there's a particularly funny moment involving the train where Cruise's lack of height is poked fun at). Think of the Roger Moore-era Bond films, but modernized, and you have a basic idea of where this is going. Borderline silly, but still a fun ride. If you're looking for a way to kill a couple of hours at a matinee, or just have a hankering for overpriced popcorn, check it out. MI:GP gets a probably overly-generous 6.5/10.

A friend of mine got me into a free screening for Captain America the other evening, complete with free popcorn, soda and snacks! Now, despite this, I promise that this will in no way bias my review towards what is obviously the greatest movie in the history of cinema! Okay, it wasn't that great. But Captain America was still pretty good. Or rather, that should read "'Captain America: The First Avenger' was still pretty good", because after all, there may be two or three people on planet Earth that don't know it's a tie-in to The Avengers movie coming next summer to a theater near you. So consider this a public service announcement and a movie review. All for the same price! Anyway, Captain America (The First Avenger) takes place during World War II, and makes for a nice nostalgic twist on superhero movies as a 1940's period piece (something director Joe Johnston also did well with The Rocketeer). Superheroes were first developed in the late 30's - early 40's, so their origin stories also centered around this era. Besides comic books, early superheroes were featured in comic strips, cartoons, radio programs and movie serials (Captain America saw his film debut in a 1944 serial - the first Marvel superhero to do so). The main character - Steve Rogers - tries several times to enlist in the Army to fight in the war, but is repeatedly rejected as unfit. He's unhealthy in all sorts of ways: asthmatic, small, skinny, weak, bad acne, dandruff, you name it. But he has determination, and - as someone who has always been the victim of stronger people - compassion for the weak. These latter traits help him get accepted into a secret "Super Soldier" program, designed to create the perfect human fighting machine through science and technology. From there, we learn the origin of how he became known as Captain America (as a war-time symbol similar to "Uncle Sam"), how he got his costume and shield, and how he eventually gets transplanted into the 21st century so that he can be in next summer's The Avengers movie. Coming soon. To a theater near you. Chris Evans is likable as both pre- and post- transformation Steve Rogers/Captain America, and the movie does a good job in laying down a lot of groundwork without becoming boring. Origin stories are tough to make informative enough to tell you critical information about the character, and still bring enough action to the film to keep it interesting. That he's surrounded by an excellent cast - notably Tommy Lee Jones as a gruff Army colonel (with some of the best lines in the film), and Hayley Atwell as love interest Peggy Carter - helps to keep the dialog entertaining and grounds Evans' character so he's not too "super" as to be unbelievable, given the time period and setting. In order to avoid too many historical conflicts (or potentially demean real troops that fought in the war), and to give Cap something to do well-suited to his abilities, his goal is to bring down a fictitious secret Nazi weapons division called Hydra, headed up by Johann Schmidt, aka The Red Skull (played by Hugo Weaving). I was a little disappointed with Weaving's performance, since it seemed like he either didn't go over-the-top enough with it, or simply lacked enough screen time to make a lasting impression as a truly evil villain. But still, he was appropriately evil enough, and served the point of the story. While the idea of Cap going after Hydra was a good one, most of the battles between them were shown as a series of montages, and we don't get to see as much of Cap in action as I was hoping for. I suppose this was necessary given the film's run time of nearly two hours, but it would have been nice to see more of the fighting, since when he does cut loose, it's a lot of fun. For much of the film, they managed to keep most of the technology decidedly 40's-looking, yet without looking too cheesy. It's a good balance, and helps set the proper tone of the movie, and makes the time period more believable. That said, some of Hyrda's weapons were decidedly a bit too futuristic looking. Maybe something a little more Flash Gordon-esque would have worked better, but then again, maybe that would have looked too cheesy. The effect of digitally transplanting Chris Evan's head onto a scrawny body worked really well, and never fell into the "uncanny valley" that fake Jeff Bridges did in Tron: Legacy. In general, the special effects were all pretty good, especially since in many cases the whole point of them was to be completely transparent in re-creating various locations ca. 1943. It doesn't come across as a modern, effects-heavy film (although it is), and I think that helps to keep it planted in its time period. What didn't work, was the 3-D conversion. In a word, it was terrible. Besides often being poorly done to the point of distraction, the whole film appeared very dark. I don't really feel I got to see the film, but rather a shadow of it. I'm tempted to go see it again in 2-D, just so I can watch the movie without being annoyed by bad, false depth-perception. Still, despite the bad 3-D, I enjoyed Captain America* quite a lot. The time period, nods to movie serials and campy USO shows, the right amount of humor, solid acting and casting, some good action (although not quite enough), the inclusion of more Marvel characters (like The Howling Commandos and Howard Stark), all add up to a fun and satisfying superhero nostalgia trip. Plus, it's way, way better than Green Lantern. Seriously. I think I should've given that one a 3/10. Cap gets a 7.5/10 (But go see it in 2-D. Even if it's free in 3-D. ) * The First Avenger

Yes, yes... another Tron-related blog entry. Ah... but this one is completely different! According to Tron-Sector, the original Tron is going to be screened in a number of theaters in special midnight showings around the U.S. in the coming months. Here's the current list: April 22 Nuart - Los Angeles April 30 Ken - San Diego May 6-7 Esquire - Denver May 13-14 Uptown - Minneapolis May 20-21 E Street - Washington D.C. May 27-29 Sunshine - New York June 10-11 Inwood - Dallas June 17-18 Egyptian - Seattle I may just be in Seattle around that time, too.

Five down... one to go. I only had a couple of Green Lantern comics as a kid. I knew he had a power ring that was recharged by sticking it into a lantern, and that he could fly and shoot energy blasts with it... and that was about it. It was only later as I began collecting comics that I peripherally learned more - that he was only one of thousands of Green Lanterns patrolling the galaxy, and that they make giant green things ("constructs") like dinosaurs, fists, and sledgehammers out of their rings. (I mostly read Marvel, so I never got into GL.) The movie takes great pains to educate the uninitiated at the outset, explaining the history of the Green Lantern Corps, how the universe was divided up into 3600 different sectors, how each Green Lantern was the protector of their own sector, about how the rings are powered by the lanterns, that the lanterns are powered by some big glowing thing in the middle of the planet Oa which is in turn powered by the willpower of everything living thing in the universe, that - for some reason - the power of will is colored green (and fear, naturally, is yellow), and about how one famous Green Lantern alien guy was the only one in the universe who was able to beat some other evil alien zillions of years ago, and how this other now-completely-forgotten-about alien broke out of a ridiculously poorly constructed and completely unguarded prison, and starts to cause all of this ruckus, threatening the entire universe, and... Bored yet? Yeah... well, that's just the first few minutes of the film. Information overload. The Green Lantern movie was in development for years. And maybe it should've stayed there for a little while longer. The problem is, the backstory is so convoluted, that the beginning of the movie where it all gets spelled out just drags on and on and on. And it really isn't necessary. It could have been trimmed way down, since a lot of it gets repeated in dialogue between characters again later in the film anyway. Get to the point, and get on with the film. We don't need to know everything about the Green Lantern Corps. Just introduce them as an intergalactic police force or something, and move on. Once the movie finally gets started, it's an okay film. Not awful, but not good, either. The main character - Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is likable enough, but incredibly bland. He spends most of the movie with the exact same expression on his face, and only rarely shows much emotion. They can't seem to pin down what his character is, either. He's supposed to be an irresponsible loser, but a highly respected irresponsible loser who is a test pilot at the highest level. It's never really spelled out how he supposedly never followed through with what is obviously already a successful career. He also has a confusing relationship with his ex-girlfriend/boss/fellow-test-pilot too, which I never really got a handle on. At first, I thought there were several different female characters at work there, but about 2/3 of the way into the film I realized it was all the same person. I think. I'm still not quite sure. That brings up one of the big problems of the film - the characters just seem flat. They apparently don't know what they're supposed to be feeling at any given moment, and then will suddenly change direction without any real apparent motivation or thought. One moment Hal doesn't want to be a Green Lantern, and then the next he's completely changed his mind. One moment his ex-girfriend/boss/fellow-test-pilot is calling him out for being a loser, then then next she's making puppy-dog eyes at him. And it's not just them - every character in the film seems ill-defined or confused. Another issue with the film is that it can't seem to decide if it's serious or a comedy. On one hand, the Earth is in danger of being destroyed, and on the other, Hal uses his power ring to make a giant Hot Wheels track to save a helicopter from crashing. This aspect of Green Lantern's power just came off as silly. The "constructs" he makes are generally pretty stupid. Sure, it's supposed to be an extension of the wearer's imagination, but doesn't he have a better imagination than to make giant springs appear underneath a truck to fling it into the air? Or to make a machine gun (which he does twice, no less)? Can't he just pick up the truck with his energy ring? What about making some sort of super-advanced energy weapon? Or a giant monster to combat the evil alien? And to pull himself through outer-space, he makes a couple of airplanes. Not rockets? Not spaceships? For something with such huge potential, it never really pays off. It all comes across as very cartoonish, and I couldn't help but think of "The Mask" or "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" while watching it. There are some massive collapses of logic in the film, too. Such as when Sinestro (who is a good guy in this film) decides to attack Parallax (the evil alien), he takes only about a half-dozen Green Lanterns with him. Against a threat that he believes can destroy the entire Corps? Why didn't they all go? It's not like it takes them more than a couple of minutes to get anywhere in the galaxy anyway. And why did the alien Green Lantern at the beginning of the film need a spaceship to get around, when the Green Lanterns can all fly through space? And when Hal Jordan quits being a Green Lantern - why did they let him keep the ring? And how often does the ring need recharging? If the ring needs recharging, why not just take the lantern with him? For a hero named "Green Lantern", his lantern spent the whole film sitting on a coffee table. The supposedly "fearless" Green Lantern Corps and their leaders seemed most concerned with saving their own planet, rather than the rest of the universe which they were supposedly sworn to protect. And nobody in the film ever once seemed taken by surprise by any of what was going on. Purple alien? Sure. Power ring? No problem. Magic lantern? Got it. Superhero who can fly through space to other planets, battle intergalactic enemies and make Hot Wheels tracks out of green energy? Nothing odd about that. Everyone just blankly accepts everything as perfectly normal. Even Hal's "secret identity" is immediately seen-through by his best friend and his ex-girlfriend/boss/fellow-test-pilot. But it's not that big of a shock to them. None of it is. The special effects were merely okay. I suppose ten years ago they might have been state-of-the-art, but that still doesn't mean they would have been good. Parallax was (as others have described) a giant floating cloud of poo, with a face. The constructs just didn't look impressive enough. The CG aliens looked okay, but weren't anything special. The planet Oa just felt like a bunch of random green cliffs, and didn't really feel like a planet where people actually lived or did anything - it just looked like a special effect. The CG Green Lantern suit was more distracting than anything, and worked best when the "energy" flowing through it was diminished so it looked more like an actual suit (and the pattern on Sinestro's suit kept reminding me of Spider-Man's). Another issue which didn't help the whole movie going experience, was that the digital projection I was watching just wasn't high-enough resolution. I could clearly see individual pixels on screen (as if I was sitting too close to an LCD monitor), which made small or distant objects just turn into blobs of pixels. Whatever detail might have been there was wasted. Given that this was a 2D screening in a multiplex where a 3D screening was also happening, it's likely that this was an improperly set-up 3D projector running the film in 2D, causing the resolution to be halved. Whatever happened, the point is, if the movie was better, I shouldn't have been more interested in counting pixels than paying attention to what was happening on screen. Green Lantern is more science-fantasy than anything (and I use the term "science" laughably). It's hard to buy into any of it as serious when the film can't seem to make up its mind whether it wants to be serious or not. The characters are flat and the actors might as well have been sleepwalking through the whole thing. The premise is also so fantastic (and not in a good way) that it's hard to get into. You have this ring that can do anything, but nobody ever really does anything all that amazing with it. It's often too cartoonish and silly. Maybe that's how the comic books are too, but translating something so bizarre to movies needed a different touch. It worked with Thor, so it can be done. But you can skip Green Lantern. You won't miss anything by waiting for it to show up on TV. 4/10

Sheesh... I'm up to part 4 already. I guess I'm committed to this for the long haul, now. I went and saw X-Men: First Class at a late Friday night showing. Usually, I'll wait a week or so to go see a film to avoid lines or crowds, but well... I was bored. So I decided to go see it. The first two X-Men films were okay, but I never felt that they got all of the characters quite right. (Anna Paquin?? Gimme a break.) It felt like they took random bits and pieces of characters and stories, and tossed it all together without knowing really what to do with it all. And the third movie... well, the less said about that epic mess the better. It's almost like they went out of their way to kill off the franchise. And the Wolverine movie was instantly forgettable, which is probably the best thing that can be said about it. Given all of that, I didn't have great expectations about X-Men: First Class. The commercials really didn't tell me much about the film or characters that gave me any reason to want to go see it. But again, I was bored. Plus, I had a blog entry to fill. So to say that I was pleasantly surprised with X-Men: First Class is an understatement. It was a really good film. It goes back to the beginnings of the X-Men, and how Charles Xavier, Erik Lensherr (Magneto) and others first got together. Now, if that's all it did, then it probably wouldn't be much of a movie, and frankly, that's all I was expecting. But First Class goes further back than that, and shows why these characters turn out the way they do. It adds depth to them, to their relationships, and makes Magneto into a sympathetic, tragic character. The contrast between the boyhoods that Xavier and Magneto went through is startling. And while it's probably been gone over in comics before, it's really presented well here, in a way that actually made me resent Xavier and his naive, privileged upbringing, when so much tragedy was happening elsewhere. Yeah... pretty powerful stuff for a comic book movie. Consequently, as their worlds were shaped by their upbringings, so was their view of it. As they finally meet up later in life, they couldn't be more different. Yet, they still manage to bond in what really comes across as a genuine friendship, and almost a brotherhood of sorts. Their relationship, goals, and view of the world is what is at the core of this film. What's really interesting, is seeing Xavier as a 20-something college kid. He's not the serious, stuffy, elder statesman we're used to. He's young, humorous, and adventurous, but still with the qualities that will come to the forefront later in his life. On the other hand, Magneto is, in every regard, his polar opposite (pun not intended) - serious and scarred irrevocably by life. Yet they find a common ground in their desire to protect and forward the cause of mutant-kind. And if anything, Magneto is even more serious about it than Xavier is. Most of the other X-Men are more perfunctory than critical to the story. There has to be some first generation X-Men, and in the other movies they've already established that four of the original comic book X-Men (Cyclops, Marvel Girl/Jean Grey, Ice-Man and Angel) wouldn't even have been born yet, so they make do with Beast, Banshee, Havoc, Mystique, and a couple of others I've already forgotten the names of. The backstory with most of the characters probably has nothing to do with their comic book origins, so don't even bother trying to work that out, but from the standpoint of the movie, the relationships that are formed are sufficient to the story at hand and in a couple of cases, important. Besides Xavier and Magneto, the other exceptional character in the film is Sebastien Shaw played by (surprise!) Kevin Bacon. Now, the fact that I was surprised by how good he was isn't a knock against Kevin Bacon (after all, he's in one of my all-time favorite guilty-pleasures - Tremors), it's just that I'd never seen him play a villain like this before, and this guy is completely evil. Yet, he's not over-the-top evil, he's calm, in control, and very methodical and matter-of-fact about the whole thing. That's much more unsettling than someone who wrings his hands and cackles maniacally. The story takes place in 1962, and does a surprisingly good job of weaving it into current events of the time. I wasn't really expecting that to work, but it did, and they managed to mostly pull off the look of the early 60's convincingly enough. That said, some of the technology (and hairstyles) looked to be too new for the era, and even if it was accurate to the time, maybe playing it safe with pushing the look a little older would have helped sell the time period a little better. There are some strong character moments during the film, and even though we know where characters are going to end up for the most part, the film does a good job of maintaining suspense as to when (or even if) things are going to happen during this particular story. There was even one moment near the end of the film that took me completely by surprise, although in hindsight I can see that it had to happen sooner or later, but I wasn't quite prepared for when or how it happened. There are a couple of cool cameos in the film, although I was actually a little disappointed by them, since they more firmly tie this film into the other X-Men films, and I was hoping this might be used as an opportunity to just start over. Consequently, I'm not sure where they're going after this movie. The 70's? I suppose it might be interesting to see a series of period superhero films, but I think it would be more interesting if it were Superman or Batman in the 40's. The action sequences were well done, and the special effects were mostly very good. There were some places where the CGI didn't quite work, and Beast's makeup just never looked quite right, but those are minor quibbles. There wasn't anything in there I'd call a deal-breaker. Overall, I found myself really liking the movie. It still makes some missteps, and plays a little fast and loose with the X-Men canon, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. The important thing is that the film really made me like and empathize with the main characters, and care about what they were doing. Superheroes or not, that's always a point in any movie's favor. X-Men: First Class gets a surprising 8/10.

Okay, true story - I've actually known two people named Thor. One of them was a co-worker, and the other a student (who is now a director). I also knew someone whose last name was Batman. I bet she got teased a lot as a kid. But that's off-topic. I went to see the movie Thor today, despite being somewhat underwhelmed by the trailers for it, and despite that I've always felt Thor was somewhat of a third-stringer, superhero-wise. But I decided to go see it since I enjoyed watching Iron Man 2 on Blu-ray recently, and thought since this is going to be one of the tie-ins for The Avengers next summer, that I might as well stay caught-up on the series. I didn't really know a lot about the character, since even when I did collect comic books (which was over 20 years ago), I didn't have a whole lot of his comics. In a way though, I think that was a good thing because then I didn't really have any pre-conceived ideas about what the movie should be about. I thought Thor was probably going to be a rather odd movie for Marvel to sell to the general public, since he's not really a traditional superhero, being steeped more in pseudo-Norse-mythology than technology or mutation or science-gone-wrong. But I found the movie surprisingly accessible, and ended up really enjoying it. I think that Thor benefits from recent science fiction properties like Stargate or Battlestar Galactica which successfully mixed mythology and science fiction, and that's what Thor ended up doing. It came up with a plausible backstory for the characters, and was able to integrate that into the pre-established Marvel universe. It also helped a lot to spend quite a bit of the movie in Asgard, establishing the history of the principle characters, how they related to earth, and most importantly - their relationships to each other and their personalities. By the time we get to Earth, we realize that the stakes for this particular movie really aren't on Earth, but that the point of the film is to develop Thor into the heroic character that he's expected to be. While he had the bravery and power to do heroic deeds, he didn't have the selflessness necessary to be a true hero. Chris Hemsworth does a good job portraying Thor. He's a likable character, and hits the right notes in his performance (although his character's change of heart happens so abruptly that it's a little hard to buy into it). Anthony Hopkins did a great job as Odin, and really carried himself with the kind of screen presence that's required for that kind of a role. He managed to strike an imposing, authoritative figure, and reminded me a bit of the way John Wayne or Sean Connery could do the same in their later years. Tom Hiddleston as Loki was the standout performance in the film though, because you could never quite tell when he was being genuine, or lying through his teeth. And even when you knew he was lying, he never tipped off to the people he was lying to that he was being deceptive. It was a smart, subtle performance, where you aren't really sure when he's being evil (unlike, say, Emperor Witchiepoo in Return of the Jedi). Plus, he was a likable and tragic figure, which always makes for a compelling and enjoyable villain. The rest of the cast was good as well, including Thor's Asgardian cohorts and some of the people he encounters on Earth. However, I never really bought into him falling in love with Natalie "Spock eyebrows" Portman. That just really wasn't developed much, and like his character's personality turn, felt like a whole lot got skipped over. From a costuming standpoint, I thought everything generally worked well, but sometimes what should have been metal accouterments looked too much like painted rubber or plastic. But they did look a lot better in motion than the still photos that are online. And while it probably wasn't intentional, sometimes when Thor was flying, you just saw his red cape flapping, looking for all the world like Superman from a distance. The action scenes were pretty good, but the direction and editing often made the action hard to follow (which seems to be the case in films now, more often than not). Maybe it's just easier to fake things in fast cuts than wider long shots. Special effects wise, they pretty-much have everything nailed now. It's less a matter of being able to technically achieve something, than it is designing it in the first place so that it's going to look good. Gone are the days of matte lines and bad compositing, or hokey stop motion and unconvincing miniatures. That said, there are still some shots that didn't look quite right, as if they weren't quite sure how to make something so grounded in fantasy look "real". Overall, I enjoyed Thor more than I expected to. It's a different film than what the trailers implied, as a great deal more of the story revolves around Asgard than it does Earth. The characters were likable, the action was good, and the story did a good job of covering some potentially confusing groundwork, without becoming convoluted or ridiculous. Certainly worth a matinee at any rate. But see it soon if you're going to. With all of the other films opening up now, it's already being relegated to just a handful of screens, and there was maybe just 20 people in the theater with me. Thor gets a 7/10 (Incidentally, while looking up tickets on Flixster, I realized that next summer is going to be another "Summer Full o' Superheroes". Superman and Batman will team up in a box-office battle against Spiderman and The Avengers. Personally, someday I'm hoping for "Forbush Man vs. Fred Hembeck: The Motion Picture". )

Yeah... so this is about a year late. But I never did see Iron Man 2 in the theater. I just wasn't all that excited by it for some reason, despite really liking the first one. So I finally rented it this week. I didn't get it from Netflix, or download it from iTunes, or stream it, or get video on demand. I rented an actual, physical Blu-ray disc. From a store. A small, mom and pop type video store.* I know... quaint, right? Well, I couldn't rent it from a Blockbuster, since those have been closing faster than uh... something that closes really fast. Like a simile of some sort. Where closing is involved. Yep, another quality blog entry. Thanks for stopping by and reading. Anyway... I actually really liked Iron Man 2. This despite the fact that I didn't get the whole audience participation effect while watching it at home. At their best, movies are a communal experience. At least, when people don't talk during the film, or have their cellphones ring, or bring little kids who scream the whole time, and so on. Because then, they should just really be staying home. I thought the filmmakers did a pretty good job of fitting several major plots into the movie, but it didn't feel like a disjointed mess (which can often happen), since the story lines all tied together in a way that made sense. They combined the characters of Whiplash and the Crimson Dynamo into one (although it was more Whiplash than Crimson Dynamo), had War Machine in there, Justin Hammer (played most excellently by Sam Rockwell) and the Black Widow (played even more excellently by Scarlett Johansson in a cat suit). Still though, even with all that going on, the heart and soul of the film was still Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. He comes across as the most believable and human alter-ego of any cinematic superhero. Other movie superheroes always seem like the actors are playing the role of their character, but Downey just feels completely natural in the role, as if he really is living the part onscreen. Part of that may be the script, part of it may be the nature of Iron Man being grounded with technologically based super-abilities (rather than having mutant, alien, mystical, or otherwise super-natural powers), but certainly a lot of it comes from Downey's own personality and playfulness with the character. Sure, Tony Stark is a self-centered egomanic, but he's a likable self-centered egomaniac with a heart of gold. Or rather, palladium. Downey just inhabits the character effortlessly, and makes it work. It also helps that all of the supporting cast was excellent. Besides Rockwell and Johansson, Don Cheadle did a good job as Rhodey, Mickey Rourke was superb as Whiplash, Garry Shandling was great as a particularly slimy senator (and made another good foil for Tony Stark), Samuel L. Jackson had an expanded role as Nick Fury, and Gwyneth Paltrow brought back that great chemistry that she has with Downey. And I did mention Scarlett Johansson, right? In a cat suit? Because I think that's an important plot point. There were some really good action sequences nicely spaced throughout the movie, although the final battle with Whiplash seemed a little bit too easy (although since they were double-teaming him, it had better have been a quick fight). There were some nice hints at the forthcoming Thor, Captain America and Avengers movies too, which helps to enforce the idea of Iron Man being part of a bigger world. Overall, I liked Iron Man 2 a lot more than I expected too. Was it as good as the first movie? Not quite, but neither was it a bad movie by any stretch. It was, in the best sense, a worthy sequel. I now wish I'd seen it in the theater. I think I would've had fun. Consequently, I'm now a little more likely to see some of the other superhero movies this summer. I'd give it an 8/10. *Incidentally... back to the video store for a moment - Video Depot. It's interesting now that the only video stores left around here are the smaller, mom and pop type stores that existed in the days before Blockbuster. I missed those stores, and even in recent years when I rented movies, I'd still go to them in favor of Blockbuster when I could. I hope that they can still stick around. I think there's a need for them (I really don't want to rent a Blu-ray from a vending machine at the grocery store, or wait for Netflix to mail something to me when I want to rent something on the spur of the moment), and maybe now they stand a chance of with the demise of Blockbuster, Hollywood and their ilk. (This particular store is covering its bases - it also does computer repair and is a notary public. And sells postage stamps. )

Well, the myriad editions of Tron: Legacy are now up for pre-order on Amazon (due to ship April 5th - ). The question is... what to get? The Tron: Legacy Limited Edition Five-Disc Combo Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy + Tron: The Original Classic Special Edition Blu-ray in super-special "Identity Disc" collectible packaging? The Tron: Legacy Five-Disc Combo Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy + Tron: The Original Classic Special Edition Blu-ray? The Tron: Legacy Four-Disc Combo: Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy? The Tron: Legacy Two-Disc BD Blu-ray/DVD Combo? Or just the pedestrian Tron: Legacy DVD? Nnnnaahh. Not the DVD-only one. What am I gonna do with that... watch it on a Mac? 'Cuz you know... you can't watch Blu-ray on Macs. Stupid Apple. I don't even want the Blu-ray 3D disc. I don't own a Blu-ray 3D player, or a 3D-compatible HDTV, nor do I want either one of those. I could just get one of the two or four-disc sets without the Blu-ray 3D disc, then buy: Tron: The Original Classic Two-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo Although I question whether that's even a valid pre-order listing, since the cover artwork is so dog-ugly, it looks like bad five-minute-Photoshop-fan-art. But if I went that route, I wouldn't get a digital copy of Tron: Legacy. And it doesn't look like I can get a digital copy of Tron anywhere. Not that I've ever used any of the digital copies of films I've already bought. And what's this "Special Edition" stuff I keep reading about the original Tron? That's worrisome. DON'T TOUCH THE MOVIE. Remaster it? Sure. Clean up the image? Sure. Color-correct it? Sure. But "Special Edition" it? I don't like the sound of that. Not one bit. Get it? Bit? "No." Phooey. You're no fun. Anyway... while we're waiting for the Blu-ray release to roll out, here's a leaked version of the original, unused intro to Tron: Legacy. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAAx6h5Bg5M (Sorry about that. I myself was a victim of that particular internet meme. But to make up for it, there are some very cool Tron-related interviews you can read at Den of Geek. Seriously. Check 'em out.)

What's up with all the superhero movies this summer? Thor, Green Lantern, X-Men: First Class, Captain America... there's a veritable glut of 'em. Maybe even... a super glut. I have yet to decide if I'm going to see any of them or not. Frankly, I've never been a big fan of Thor (although if Walt Simonson were drawing the movie, I'd go see it), the previous X-Men movies have all been pretty wretched, Green Lantern looks kind of stupid (sorry GL fans... but I call 'em as I see 'em), and I have yet to see any footage out of Captain America that makes me want to go see it (and I was a big Cap fan back when I was into comic books). I'll likely go see Thor and Captain America though, just because they'll tie into the Avengers movie. (Although I still have yet to see Iron Man 2, so I'll probably rent that on Blu-ray.) Tonight though, on the WB... What? It's not the WB anymore? It's the what? CW? What's that stand for? Children's Television Workshop? No... that's CTW. Hmmm... Well, anyway. Tonight was the series finale of Smallville. It's been on TV something like 10 years. I say "something like" because I've never actually watched an entire episode of it before, so I'm a little out of touch with it. But the basic premise is that this is Clark Kent in his pre-Superman years. So I thought I'd watch the finale, since there's been a lot of hype built up around it. Well, amongst those who watch it. I'd read some articles about it, and had seen bits and pieces of the show over the years, so I thought "why not?" It was a really good episode, too. Kind of makes me wish I'd watched the series. But now that it's over, I don't have to, so just think of all the time I saved! Anyway, it hit a lot of really good notes, tied up what were (apparently) a lot of loose ends and plot points, and was pretty emotionally satisfying, even though I didn't know who most of the people in it were. You know, except the obvious ones like Lex Luthor and Lois Lane and so on. They managed to work in some of John Williams' Superman score into the episode too, which was a nice touch. The part where Clark saves the day was a bit poorly explained though. Apparently, everyone on the planet was supposed to be somehow inspired by him and their positive energy would push away a giant asteroid of evil. Or something. Not really sure how that worked when only maybe a half-dozen people actually saw him, and even then he was a teeny-tiny blur. "Yay! We're inspired by that little blue guy!" Eh, minor quibble. When you start trying to apply logic to comic book characters, you're just asking for a world of hurt. If you liked Smallville, I'm reasonably sure you probably liked this episode. Or didn't, because maybe it was really disappointing. And if you want to read a review from someone who's actually watched the series, well, there's always IGN. But I thought the guy who played Clark was really good in the role. I think he'd make a good Superman. Too bad they've hired someone else to do the next reboot. Let's hope they get it right this time. That last Superman movie was awful. Still though, it couldn't be any worse than Tim Burton's Batman. Could it?

The answer to that would be "yes". I went to Best Buy today (now there's an ironically named store), and finally checked out a couple of 3D products for the home. First, was 3D HDTV. Now, I hadn't been able to try this yet, because in my previous visits to Best Buy, they didn't have any working displays. Usually, the 3D glasses had been broken, or were missing, or didn't have batteries in them or whatever. This time though, someone had the bright idea of permanently mounting the glasses to a stand in front of one of the TVs. I think the glasses were powered through the stand too, so they wouldn't have to keep replacing batteries. All they would need to do is wipe the forehead sweat off the glasses from time to time. Which is kind of gross when you realize that the likelihood of them actually doing that is zero. Right, so the 3D itself. This was a Blu-Ray of Avatar, running on about a 50" set. (Presumably, a pretty-good set if the purpose is to sell the whole concept of 3D in the home.) And Avatar, if any film, should look good in 3D, right? Since that was its whole big marketing thing (and having seen it in the theater in 3D, I thought it worked pretty well there). But the problem with 3D on a TV set, is it's never going to fill up your field of vision. And as soon as anything breaks the plane of the TV set, the effect is instantly ruined. You have half of a naked, blue alien chick floating in the middle of your living room. Also, everything past a certain depth completely flattened out. It always looked as if what should have been a deep forest or expansive vista was just a flat painting a few yards behind the characters. And things that floated in front of the screen were just a distraction, rather than helping to immerse me into the scene. Besides all of that - the flicker was annoying. And I was only watching this for a few minutes. I couldn't stand two hours of it. 3D HDTV is a gimmick. Nothing more. It may catch on with some gamers or hard-core sports fans, but Joe Public isn't going to buy into it, once they realize that 1) there really isn't very much 3D content out there, 2) you have to put on stupid, flickering glasses and 3) it really just doesn't work. For theatrical movies, in a theater, I can sort-of see the merit of it. It adds to the "event" factor, when it's done well. But even then, it's not necessary. It's a gimmick. Which brings me to the other 3D product I tried out - the Nintendo 3DS. What surprised me, was that the 3D actually worked. Basically, it's similar to a lenticular screen. You have to be about the right distance away, and if you lean off-axis too much, it doesn't work. There's a 3D slider which increases or decreases the effect. Unlike 3D HDTV, objects don't really appear to float over the device, but rather it's more like you're peering through a hole in it, and seeing a 3D diorama on the other side. For the game they had loaded - PilotWings Resort - the 3D really did give a sense of depth to the game, but more importantly, it gave a sense of distance. I think that's the critical distinction here. Being able to judge how far away something is in a non-stereoscopic 3D videogame has always been problematic. But here, it gives you a little extra bit of visual information that helps you play the game better. Of course, how successfully they manage to implement this in other games is the big question. For games where distance isn't important, then yes, 3D is just another gimmick. But if they can create games where judging distance is part of the game, then 3D could become an integral element, and not just useless eye-candy. As far as the 3DS itself goes, since it was bolted to a display stand it's a little hard to judge it. The analog thumb-stick seems better than the PSP's (it would be hard to make one that was worse), but the screen and buttons seemed tinier than I was expecting, and maybe I've been spoiled by the iPhone, but the resolution of the device was disappointing. The 3D effect was interesting though, and I can see some potential there. But I still left the store feeling it was just a gimmick - like a lenticular sticker you'd buy out of a gumball machine. Maybe interesting for a few minutes, but then the novelty wears off. And at $250... you could buy a lot of stickers for that price. (After I got back from the store, I found an interesting write-up at IGN about the 3DS in this regard.)

I saw Tron: Legacy in IMAX 3-D today, after months of waiting and anticipation. With much effort, I did manage to avoid spoilers - although some twit in the audience was talking during the film and guessed one during the movie. Here's a suggestion to all of you who are going to movies and like to talk during them... BE QUIET! You aren't at home watching TV, and nobody wants to hear you talking during the movie they're paying to watch. If you can't stand not hearing yourself talk for the duration of a movie, then stay home! Got that? Good. Don't got that? Stuff your popcorn-hole shut if you can't handle not-talking. End-of-line. Now then, onto the movie. Just for those of you who don't want to know anything about the movie, skip this review. I won't put any spoilers in here, but I will reference information as revealed by the trailers. Otherwise it would be a really hard review to write. Last chance. So, here we go. At the outset, I started off really liking the movie. As it started off, it hit all the right notes and did a good (if lengthy) job telling everyone not familiar with Tron what it was all about. There's a fair amount of flashbacks and plot exposition in this film, but nowhere nearly as much or as convoluted as the Matrix sequels. The real-world opening of the film is nicely done, and does a good job of introducing us to Sam Flynn. He comes off immediately as a likable guy, and a good protagonist for the film. Also, this section of the film is in 2-D (and it's noted before the film begins, so idiots don't sit there yelling "hey, this 3-D sucks!") The movie does a good job updating us on what has happened in the years since the first film, what has happened with Sam, Encom, and the mystery surrounding the disappearance of Kevin Flynn. There's good writing here, good character moments, and it makes for a great setup for the rest of the film. There are also some really nice nods to the first film, and to the 80's in general. (It wouldn't be Flynn's arcade without... we'll, you'll know. ) Once we enter the computer world, the 3-D kicks in, and at times the computer world is indeed stunning. There is some impressive design and breathtaking set pieces in there. There are also some that aren't quite-so-impressive. But it can't be all awesome, all the time. At the very least though, it's visually interesting, and uniquely recognizable as the Tron world, despite it's radically different look from the first film. This is how an update should be done. It's a little confusing at times as to where things are in relation to each other, but I think that's a minor quibble. Still, having the characters look at a map once wouldn't have hurt. I do have one criticism about the look though... some of the circuitry patterns on the costumes are pretty bland. I really missed the complexity of the circuit patterns from the original film. While that might not have been practical with these costumes (which are self-illuminated), I think that even a little more detail would have gone a long way towards making some of the characters look less like they were just wearing rubber costumes with a few glowing bits attached. Once in the computer world, we're quickly introduced to its denizens, and it's clear from the outset that something not-quite-right is happening. What though, we don't yet know. Sam gets caught up into the middle of it, much like his dad did in the original film, and is quickly dropped into the middle of some lethal versions of video games. The games are nice homages to the original movie, but they've been taken to a whole new level of visual polish and action. It felt very much like watching Tron did all of those years ago. All of this was quite excellent. The characters introduced in the film are all interesting and well acted. Castor (the flamboyant nightclub owner) is very over-the-top, but meant to be so, and he manages to pull it off without seeming silly. He's just a weird guy who seems to fit into this weird world very well. Flynn's lackey Jarvis is a fun character, and adds the typical inept-henchman comic-relief. Quorra (Olivia Wilde) is a great mix of naivety and fiercely loyal warrior. And she's quite easy on the eyes, I might add. The relationships between the principle characters are generally pretty well written and acted, although the emotions don't always seem to ring as true as they should, as if the actors weren't given quite enough time in some scenes, or held back emotionally. I especially would have liked to have seen more interplay or history between Kevin Flynn and CLU, although they do eventually pay off with some of that. But I would have liked to have seen more. There's some potential for sibling rivalry of sorts between CLU and Sam as "offspring" of Kevin, but that's never explored. Also, some of the dialog of the older Kevin Flynn was a little more hippie-esque than his character used in the first film. But then if you'd been cooped up inside of a computer for that long, maybe you'd be a little eccentric, too. (I suspect though that a lot of that flavor came from Bridges' own personality.) That said, the history that was shown within the computer world was interesting, and it helped raise the stakes in some regards. But it never seemed all that critical to me. Maybe because the premise of the key event the whole movie revolves around was all a little bit... fantastic (as in "removed from reality" fantastic, not "extremely excellent" fantastic). It became a little unclear during the film exactly how certain things had to happen, which is when things began to fall apart for me a little bit. We know the humans are going to want to get back out of the computer, so that's a pretty clear goal, although it was a little confusing why they had to go a particular place to do so, when that was a different place than where they came in. I wish they'd made that a little more clear. (Actually, I wish they'd explained that at all.) And this also ties into the key plot point of the film, and therefore, the key plot problem. Y'see, the bad guy has a plan. And the problem with it, is that even for Tron, even for Sci-Fi, and even for me, it was too far-fetched. Now, I'm pretty good at suspending disbelief when watching a film. The first Tron film is a good example. Or most sci-fi. But it's a plot point that seems to violate the world of Tron. Or at least common sense. Yet, it's a plot point that Steven Lisberger had brought up in a commentary once as something he wanted to do, so I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by it. But I would have thought something more... computer-oriented... would have been a better bad guy goal. Or at least have some bogus logical explanation of how it was supposed to work. So I had trouble accepting it as a threat, since the whole idea of how or if it could work - even in the context of this film - was lost on me. That said, I probably would have been okay even with that, if I hadn't been so distracted by the film's biggest problem. That problem (which I expected, but had hoped it wouldn't be so bad) was the de-aging effect used for CLU, and during flashbacks. At times it's acceptable. At others, it's dreadful to the point of distraction. (A fact I suspect the filmmakers recognized, since they used a heavy screen filter effect during the flashbacks.) Maybe others won't notice it as much as I did, but the reviews are already starting to mention it. The technology, apparently, just isn't there yet. Look back at Forrest Gump sometime to see how laughable their altered historical footage looks, where they have presidents and celebrities spouting off dialogue through badly animated mouths. Same sort of thing. But Tron: Legacy used the same technology as Avatar - and that worked fine. Maybe there just wasn't enough time (or money) to polish it to the same degree. More likely though, the reason that Avatar worked, is that you were looking at inhuman, tall, skinny, blue aliens with huge eyes and big ears. They're far enough from human to be believable. But in Tron, even though CLU is a program, they're still trying to pass him off as a human being, and it only rarely works. The teeth and lips are all wrong, the mouth moves funny (sort of like Jeff Bridges in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot at the end of the movie ), and the eyes look somewhat dead. In the computer world, they have the City, the Badlands, the Game Grid, the Sea of Simulation, and so forth. They should have also had a place called the Uncanny Valley. It would've been a great plot point. "Well, we have to cross the Uncanny Valley again." "Why?" "Oh no reason... we just have to. Several times. Get used to it." That said, overall, I really enjoyed Tron: Legacy. When fake Jeff Bridges wasn't distracting me, or when there wasn't a plot problem (such as, "oh hey, let's take this convenient plot device to get to the next scene!"), there were some genuinely fun moments in the film. There were some great action sequences, good moments of humor, and lots of loving references to the original Tron. There were also some neat surprises which will warm the heart of any Tron fan. The soundtrack was excellent, and the sound effects evoked the original film while still sounding modern. It's a worthy sequel to the original, and a good modern take on one of the most unique properties in filmdom. As for the presentation in IMAX 3-D, well... it mostly worked. In fact, the IMAX countdown before the film started was one of the most impressive things I've seen in 3-D. But there was, at times, significant ghosting, and the end credits seemed to jitter badly. Fast sequences were hard to follow on a screen that big, and the nature of a 24 frame per second format is really starting to show its age. With films being created digitally now, it's time to up the framerate, so action can smooth out without that annoying shuddering that happens. At times the picture was gorgeous though, with good use of 3-D, vivid color, and impressive depth and detail. At its best, it was excellent. Even at its worst though, it wasn't bad. Still, I may go see it again in Digital 3-D, to see what the difference is. I'd like to go see it again anyway. The film was good enough to justify another run through, and maybe I'd pick up some things I missed the first time around. And without spilling any details, yes - the film has been left wide open for a sequel (rumor has it, they're looking at a trilogy, although I don't know if that's a trilogy of new films, or if it includes the original). In fact, it pretty-much demands a sequel. I hope it gets the chance. The theater was full today, but there wasn't any cheering or applause (there were a few times I felt like doing so... but I didn't want to be the odd man out). The reviews are mixed, with critics generally blasting it (48% at Rotten Tomatoes), but audiences liking it (81%). The reviews up at IGN have been positive (which is something I suppose the target demographic will respect), and oddly enough, Roger Ebert liked it. Go figure. In this recent (and lengthy) post, I came up with a list of things Tron: Legacy needed in order to succeed. Let's see how they did... Engaging characters. A good story. (overall good, except for the key plot point) It has to be fun. (mostly) The dialog has to be engaging and well-written, so people don't get bored or confused. (but there were some high points) It has to be well crafted. (fake Jeff Bridges hurts, here) The film must be visually stunning. Innovative use of stereoscopic 3-D. (more often than not) The sound should be awesome. It has to please the original Tron fans. Admittedly, I'm biased. But I also think I'm in a position to be most disappointed if it was a bad film. It wasn't. Just not as good as I would have liked. But Tron: Legacy was certainly an order of magnitude beyond what anyone could have reasonably expected for a sequel to a 28-year-old box office flop. I'll give it... 7.5/10 (One of these days, I should go back and re-score my old movie reviews. I was far too generous with some of them.)

"Tank"... get it? Tron: Legacy is a huge unknown, and a big risk for Disney. The original film, while widely 'recognized' as innovative, was hardly boffo box office. However, the arcade game was a huge success, and a dedicated group of hard-core Tron nerds have kept the digital flame alive for nearly 30 years. So Disney obviously must see some potential here, or they wouldn't take the risk, right? Well, Disney has also produced its fair share of box office bombs over the years. The fact is, it never ceases to amaze me how many bad films get greenlit, get all the way through production, post-production, marketing, and into the theaters before someone finally realizes they're absolutely awful (and usually, it's the poor chumps paying $20 to go see them). After the film bombs, everyone points to bad marketing, or timing, or trends, or performances, direction, editing, competition, etc., as the cause. And while those are all legitimate factors, the fact is, some films are just bad. They lack compelling characters, an engrossing story, or just pure, visceral entertainment value. The fact that Disney decided to dust off a 28-year-old box office flop and throw many millions of dollars into a sequel is pretty astonishing. Admittedly, I've been excited about the idea of a sequel since the 25th anniversary DVD came out, when the possibility of it was discussed in one of the documentaries (and around the same time, the video game Tron 2.0 was announced). But if even a Tron-nerd like me can still be skeptical about a sequel happening, how on earth did Disney decide to go ahead with it? Timing. A number of different factors all had to come into play, for the time to be right for Tron: Legacy to finally happen: First of all, Disney is looking for intellectual properties (like Pirates of the Caribbean, Cars, etc.) that they can repeatedly visit and earn revenue from. This is the reason they bought Pixar. This is the reason they bought Marvel. This is the reason they're making Tron: Legacy. But they wouldn't have taken this step, without some other key elements lining up. The digital world has caught up to that of the original movie. The concept of avatars running around a computer system doing our bidding is far more commonplace than it was then. Because of the prevalence of social networking, many people pretty-much live a second life in computers now. Plus, other films like The Matrix have conveyed the idea of people running around in a virtual world, and have done so successfully (not counting its two sequels). Video games are more popular than ever (although the freshness of the early 80's era won't ever be reproduced), and Tron is the perfect property to exploit and/or explore that. The video game industry out-earns the film industry now. That certainly had to be a big factor in Disney's decision. John Lasseter (the CCO of Disney) has long been a fan of the original Tron, and has said that without Tron, there would have been no Pixar. So Disney's upper echelon is not only behind the film, they're fans of it. There's enough distance from the first film so while many people have heard of it, they aren't familiar enough with it to be turned off by it. (Disney has been keeping the original quietly aside for several months now. The DVD is out-of-print, it hasn't been run on TV, and no footage of it has been included in any of the promotional pieces for the new film, that I've seen). Jeff Bridges just won an Oscar. Admittedly, this happened after Tron:Legacy was well into production, but that can't but help to broaden the film's appeal. In fact, he's got two big films coming out this month, True Grit being the other one. Disney is pressing all the right nostalgia buttons with the fans, including a massive interactive viral marketing campaign, free-online games (including the legendary Space Paranoids, a new light cycle and disc battle game, and the classic arcade Tron games), new toys and console games (which are out now), oh-so fleeting glimpses of the film, preview screenings, and a Disneyland tie-in called ElecTRONica featuring a re-creation of Flynn's Arcade. The marketing effort Disney is throwing behind this film is impressive. I can't recall the last time I've see the full force of the Disney marketing machine brought to bear on a single film like this. Maybe it's just because I'm looking for it, but advertisements seem to be everywhere - billboards (including animated LED ones), bus stop signs, light shows, in-store displays, a huge merchandising push (including a dedicated Tron store in L.A.), commercials, trailers, and on and on. If the movie fails, it certainly won't be for a lack of trying. But the question remains... will it be successful? I think for that to happen, the film needs the following: Engaging characters. You have to like these people. You have to want them to acheive their goals. You also need to not just hate the villain, but love to hate the villain. The best movies have the best villains. Given that Jeff Bridges is playing both the hero and the villain - as long as he's given good material to work with - this one should be in the bag. I was really surprised how effective he was as the villain in Iron Man. I'd always just associated Jeff Bridges as "the nice guy", but he's good at being bad, too. A good story. The audience has to like the story, and more importantly - understand it. Yes, the audience now is far more tech-savvy than ever, but it would be easy to bog down a film like this in rambling technobabble (again: The Matrix sequels). On the other hand, it has to be believable. Explained in such a way that you buy into what is a really far-fetched premise. And once in the electronic world, it must behave within the rules the film establishes for itself. If it violates those rules, or common sense, it's just going to look stupid. It has to be fun. There has to be a pure entertainment value to it. There needs to be action, humor, suspense, pathos, an epic quality, and a good balance of all of the above. I don't expect to come out of a movie like this enlightened. I expect to come out of it feeling like I've just had fun. The dialog has to be engaging and well-written, so people don't get bored or confused. It has to be smart, funny and most of all - honest. It has to feel like these characters believe what they're saying. If there's a little camp that's okay - the first movie was full of it, and you'd expect some of that in a premise this ridiculous. But the film itself can't be campy. That's not how the film is being marketed. Nothing will kill a film faster than it being marketed completely contrary to what it actually is. It has to be well crafted. A lot of films suffer from poor editing and poor direction. Action scenes and camera moves that are confusing or too fast to follow do not make for an exciting film - they make for one that is hard to watch on the big screen (see: Speed Racer, Star Trek, The Transformers). Part of the problem seems to be filmmakers who are used to watching their work on a desktop-sized HD monitor, and not a three-story high screen. Conversely, the editing can't be so slow that people start looking at their watches, and wondering where they're going to go eat dinner after the movie ends. The film needs to be well paced throughout - taking time where it needs to, moving fast when called for, and most importantly: clearly shot and edited so people can follow what's going on. This is critical here, because the film takes place in a strange environment where they audience does not know its way around, and where characters look very similar to each other (black costumes with glowing lines on them). Fortunately, they seem to be going with the "good guys wear blue, bad guys wear orange" color schemes. The film must be visually stunning. What made Tron the groundbreaking film that it was, was that nobody had seen anything like it. CG environments in films are now commonplace, and even more so on video game consoles. We see this stuff all the time. They need to push this beyond anything we've seen before. If not in scope, at least in terms of design. There have been a few glimpses in the trailers that look promising, but I'm hoping they're saving the big stuff for the movie. (As an aside - I'm glad the trailers and commercials have been spoiler-free so far. They're keeping the footage shown to a minimum, which I happen to prefer. I just hope the reason for that is they're holding back the super-cool stuff, and not because that's the only footage that's worth showing.) Innovative use of stereoscopic 3-D. I'm encouraged that they shot the film using actual 3-D cameras, and that it wasn't just an afterthought added in post-production. My understanding is that the real-world parts of the film are in 2-D and the computer world is in 3-D. If so, I think that's an excellent idea (very Wizard of Oz-like). I hope they use the opportunity to play with 3-D as a medium, doing things with depth-of-field or scale that really makes the computer world seem unlike anything we've seen before. That said, it can't rely on 3-D, since this will be shown in 2-D as well, and the movie needs to work equally there. But the 3-D should have extra goodness that heightens the movie's computer world. The sound should be awesome. Go back and listen to the original Tron. Wendy Carlos' soundtrack perfectly fit the electronic world, and often blended right into the sound effects. It was a cohesive whole. The electronic world needs to sound both familiar, yet completely alien. The music I've heard from Daft Punk seems promising so far. It has to please the original Tron fans. If it doesn't hit their core audience, Disney has failed. Bad word of mouth about a film spreads instantly, and if the Tron fans are displeased, that's going to kill the film. If they're excited, then others may be more encouraged to see it (or more discouraged, if they really hated the first film ). To do this, Tron Legacy must respect the original film, and not disregard its canon. While the new film certainly won't be as campy as the original, there should still be some of the lightness, tongue-in-cheek humor, and playfulness that Tron had. Not enough to make it seem silly or damage its credibility as a more serious film, but enough to lighten the mood in appropriate places, and engender a sense of affection for it. Some references to the original wouldn't hurt either, as would Easter Eggs for fans to discover (it would also help generate repeat business, as people went back and looked for hidden gems). Also, while it's great to see Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner return, why not other cameos from the original film? Could David Warner (Dillinger/Sark) now be a janitor at Encom? Could Bruce as Tron make an appearance? How about Dan Shor (RAM)? Cindy Morgan (Laura/Yori)? There should also be some references in the soundtrack to the original Tron music. Just subtle homages would be fine, but it would be really disappointing to never hear the original Tron theme. If they can reasonably hit at least some of those points, I think the film will do respectable box-office business. But I think that even if they hit all of them, despite the marketing campaign, it still won't be a "blockbuster". The subject matter is just a bit too obscure or esoteric for that to happen. But I do hope that if it's a good film, that it makes a profit, and a healthy one at that, because Tron is a rich world, full of potential stories to be told. We should know pretty soon. The world premieres have happened, and reviews are starting to roll in. I'm avoiding all reviews until I see the film though, since I'm desperately trying to avoid spoilers. I spoiled The Empire Strikes Back for myself (of all movies...), and decided to never do that again.* I'll admit I'm very excited about this movie. More than I've been for any film possibly since Star Trek: The Motion Picture. That's a long time. And we all know how that film turned out. I hope I'm not setting myself up for disappointment, but I'm also pretty well grounded in my opinion of the original Tron movie. I love that film, not because it's that great of a film, but because of what it meant to me at the time, and the nostalgia associated with it. If Tron: Legacy doesn't stomp all over my nostalgia and ends up being a fun ride, then I'll chalk it up as a win. Anyway, I've got my ticket. Saturday, December 18th, 1:00 PM, at the Boeing IMAX theater in Seattle. I'm going with friends of mine who I'd seen the original Tron with, back-in-the-day, so the nostalgia factor will be in overdrive. (We couldn't get our schedules to align for opening day, which is why we're going Saturday.) If you're an AtariAger in Seattle and want to meet us there, PM me and maybe we can work something out. And lastly, a few more Tron: Legacy items to whet your appetite... An IGN interview with Olivia "Born to be" Wilde. A nice behind-the-scenes look at the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUAyAXd39E0 And some B-roll footage of the L.A. premiere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecrwbNRyz84 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovpTTy9C0Gc * And since someone is bound to ask... I was a huge Star Wars fan, and rabidly followed whatever news I could glean about The Empire Strikes Back in the years leading to its release, usually from the pages of Starlog magazine. At that time, at that age, it seemed like an eternity between films. Finally, the week that the movie was going to open had arrived. I'd already made plans to see it on opening day with a couple of my best friends from high school. On that Monday, my best friend Paul called me up, and simply said, "The book is out!" Fred Meyer (a local store) had it. I rushed over and bought it immediately, and read it cover-to-cover. I instantly regretted it. I hoped by the time the movie came out later that week, maybe I'd have forgotten some of it. Nope. Everyone in the audience responded with shock and awe, excitement and surprise, just like they should have, except me. I knew what was coming. Sure, the visuals were still spectacular, and it was a great movie, but I already knew everything that was going to happen. To this day, that's why Star Wars is my favorite film in the series, and not The Empire Strikes Back (like pretty-much everyone else). The movie just didn't have the impact on me that it should have. Lesson learned. I just wish I'd learned it on something else.

The viral marketing campaign for Tron Legacy rolls on! Someone at Disney is having a lot of fun with this. In case you missed the new trailer... you can check it out at Apple's Trailer site or or the viral site. It hits a lot of the right notes. Seeing Bruce Boxleitner back as Alan Bradley, a visit to the dilapidated Flynn's Arcade (which I've been to - it's in Culver City, although I think it was an Italian restaurant at the time), the touch-surface computer console (how far ahead of the curve were they with that one?), discs, lightcycles (including a glimpse at a vintage one), a young (and perturbed) looking Jeff Bridges... Here are some pics (yes, they're huge... but these have been reduced by half already): I've had dreams just like this... "Encom"? Well, a little revisionist history for the sake of the plot. It's cool to see the classic arcade game featured in the film. However, if you look closely... They missed one. Either that, or Encom sub-licensed Discs of Tron out to Bally/Midway. Recognize 'er? Well... she's no Cindy Morgan, but I wouldn't delete her program either. Guitar Hero apparently features prominently in the new film. There's also been an "alternate reality game" going on, with video of it up at Flynn Lives (scroll down to March 8th). Another website reveals some sort of puzzle. You can also go here, and if you're good at identifying classic (and not-so-classic) video games, you can get your own Encom employees badge (paycheck and stock options not included). This is part of yet another viral site they've set up for the movie. (I want these posters... but I'm not quite brave enough to dial the number.) Also, IGN has just posted an interview with Alan Bradley, regarding his recent return to Encom, and the Encom site has a press release about some forthcoming event on April 2nd. (Not to be confused with the Allen-Bradley mentioned here...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w Beyond that, reports are surfacing that Disney will be building Flynn's Arcade in Tomorrowland. This is awesome news if true. The arcade at Disneyland has been a pathetic joke for years, which is really sad because back in the early 80's it was an incredible arcade. So I'm looking forward to that. I just hope it's a permanent fixture, and has a truckload of vintage arcade games in it. Finally, in what is probably going to be nick-named the Tron-o-rail, Disney's Monorail will be featuring a lightcycle-themed paint job. We're still some nine months out from the movie being released, too. Disney really wants this to be a hit, and it's good to see them throwing their considerable marketing might behind it. I just hope it's a good movie.

What, you need more than just "Tron in HD!"? Isn't that enough!? Oh right... "when". Tomorrow night. Specifically, Wednesday night, on HD Net. 9 PM ET, or 6 PM PT, repeating again 3 hours later at 12 Midnight ET/ 9 PM PT. This is why it's a good thing to read Tron-Sector from time-to-time. Otherwise, I would have been seriously tweaked if I'd missed it. This one is going to be a keeper on the DVR. (At least until the Blu-Ray version comes out.) Also, the Flynn Lives website has been updated, and Encom also lives! Things are afoot!

On December 17, 2010, Disney will release Tron: Legacy. Yes... I'm looking forward to this. I'm posting about it now, because Disney just released a teaser poster, and a couple of publicity stills. And so you don't have to dig them up elsewhere, and because I like to laugh in the face of "cease and desist" orders, and because I need an excuse to pull my blog back off of "Page 2"... here are the pics: "The Game Has Changed" Olivia Wilde and Garrett Hedlund Garrett Hedlund, Jeff Bridges and Olivia Wilde (Dude... you're in a big-budget movie now. Buy some new pants.) And check out the awesome nerdwear: It glows in the dark! I'm hoping they get Tron: Legacy right. I'm a little concerned that the look of the characters (so far) seems a little too real-world and slick. But once they get all of the post-production work done, we'll get to see what the movie really looks like. Besides, what really matters in a movie like this is the special effects video game references plot. Oh, and by the way... Jeff Bridges has a very cool website. It's quite unlike anything I've seen other celebrities do (and makes me more than a little ashamed that I'm not drawing nearly as much as he is). Scroll down this page for his Tron links. (He even linked to the Tron Reboot parodies on YouTube.) And in completely unrelated news, except that it has to do with a celebrity linking to a YouTube parody of themselves... Recent Grammy Nominee "Weird Al" Yankovic put up a link on his webpage to this guy, who does a spot-on impression of Al: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fci-L63O95k

I went and saw Avatar the other week. I probably wouldn't have bothered, since I rarely go to movies anymore, but I was on vacation and my friends and I wanted something to go do. So we figured we'd catch an Imax 3-D showing, and hope the spectacle of the whole thing was worth the price. I really didn't have any idea what to expect with Avatar, since I hadn't really been paying much attention to the trailers. I had a basic idea of the plot, and had heard the effects were amazing, but people who don't have any idea what they're talking about often call something "amazing" when it really isn't. My issue with Avatar - before seeing the film - was the use of motion capture for creating the main alien characters in the film. Motion capture generally produces awful results. Usually because it's used as a substitute for real animation, such as with Polar Express, A Christmas Carol, or other ghastly films. (Robert Zemeckis needs to have his artistic license revoked. What happened to the guy who made Back To The Future?) The closer you attempt to mimic humans without getting it exactly right, the more creepy the results are. However, in Avatar, it worked beautifully. Because these were 10-foot-tall, blue-skinned aliens, they didn't have to be exactly right. In fact, I rapidly forgot I was watching CG characters, and caught myself several times marveling at the performances the actors who were playing the aliens managed to pull off. Not because they were good special effects, but because they were good performances. There were a handful of times where it was pretty obvious they were CG characters because the movement seemed a little off, or the staging of a shot felt more like a video game than a movie, but for 99% of the time, it really worked, and I just accepted the characters onscreen as characters. Not as special effects gone horribly wrong, or a shoddy attempt to shortcut animation. Avatar is ground-breaking in the way it manages to portray humanoid aliens. No more stop-motion or rubber masks. The result is fluid, realistic (well... as any 10-foot-tall blue alien is going to get), and most importantly - capable of conveying emotion. Real acting was captured and successfully applied to these computer models. Also startling was how the aliens looked like their actor counterparts - particularly Sigourney Weaver. When she appeared on screen as an alien, it really took me by surprise that she was so instantly recognizable. This is a key part of the film - you need to know who these characters are. They aren't generic, cookie-cutter aliens. They're distinct, and having them resemble the actors portraying them makes the voices and mannerisms fit. The phrase "performance capture" is being used rather than "motion capture" for Avatar, and I think that when applied to this film, it's completely accurate and appropriate. So how does that differ from animation, or specifically - character animation? Well, character animation is "performance creation". You start with nothing (except usually a voice track), and create the entire performance. Some animation is also used to enhance/fix/complete the performances captured for this film (after all - the actors didn't have prehensile tails). Avatar is the first film I've seen where the concept of performance capture finally matures into what it should be, and is starting to see its potential realized as a special effects tool. After all, if you could just shoot an actor performing a part, there's no point in using this sort of system. But the physiology of these aliens wouldn't work any other way. It also allows for capturing stuntwork that the actors couldn't do themselves, and then applying the physical movements with the actors' facial performances. Pretty cool. What I still detest, is when motion ("performance") capture is used as a shortcut instead of character animation, in films that normally would be (should be) created by animators. The performances just look all wrong, and frankly, I think that approach is a slap in the face of every animator working today. I'm hoping the success of Avatar doesn't encourage the use of performance capture to replace more animators. I'm hoping it does, however, encourage its further exploration as a special effects tool, which is where it belongs, and it could really open up some exciting possibilities. But I digress... this is supposed to be a movie review. Not an animation rant. The plot of Avatar was decent, if not terribly original. The principle themes have all been explored elsewhere, and there are some sentiments that are handled in a pretty ham-fisted manner. While I don't mind messages in films, I don't particularly like being treated like I'm too stupid to "get" what the messages are. In particular, there's one military briefing scene that was so obviously a contemporary Earth-centric political statement, that it took me right out of the film. Subtlety would have worked just as well, given the overreaching themes of the movie having been already established. Also, the audience was laughing when it was introduced. Maybe that was intentional, in order to make the pursuit of it seem stupid in the first place, but to me, it just seems more like bad writing. What made the movie work though, were the characters, and the world that was created. It was a very in-depth approach to not only an alien race, but their culture and their entire ecosystem. It made the whole idea of being on an alien world much more believable than most sci-fi films are able to achieve. The aliens, plants, animals, and terrain of the world were all carefully designed to fit together, and be familiar enough to be believable, while being alien enough to be something that couldn't exist on earth. The protagonists were compelling enough, particularly Zoe Saldana as Neytiri. I never had any problems just accepting her as an alien character for the entire film (probably because we never once saw her as a human). I actually felt empathy at times for the aliens, which is a pretty impressive accomplishment. It felt more like watching actors, than CG characters. The funny thing is - the aliens didn't look like humans with makeup on either... they just looked organic. On the other hand, the main villain of the film was too cartoony, and the felt recycled from Aliens (as did several other characters, like and of course Sigourney Weaver). The end of the film and a lot of the military hardware had a remarkably similar feel. That's not so much a criticism I suppose as it is an observation. But I just couldn't help thinking I'd seen a lot of this film somewhere else. Still, that's a minor quibble. As an interesting aside though, I couldn't help but think that the was perhaps what George Lucas had originally envisioned for the end of Star Wars. I don't mean the 1977 film, but the longer story he wrote before that, which was cut down into Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. The original battle of Endor was meant to be between Wookiees and the Empire - not Ewoks. But once George had made Wookiees (Chewbacca) into a technologically-savvy race, he felt he couldn't use them for the battle. So Wookiees became Ewoks (don't tell me you've never noticed the similarities in the names...), and Return of the Jedi became a big, Muppety, Ewok-turd, instead of the epic finale it might have been. (For what it's worth, George could have easily written around the Chewbacca problem by creating a backstory in which he was somehow rescued from the Empire by Han, and so he was an aberration, not a typical Wookiee.) But I digress again. Avatar is a spectacular-looking film. It's epic in its scale and its special effects are unmatched. I can honestly say I haven't seen anything quite like it before, and it was worth paying the extra money to see it in Imax 3-D. The 3-D effect is completely transparent, and very effective. In fact, after awhile, I just got so used to it I almost didn't notice it (closing one eye to flatten everything out, then opening it again made the 3-D pop back into place). They really have this technology down. No more flickering and headaches, and the 3-D glasses even fit comfortably over my own glasses. Seeing it in Imax was immersive. It's the way a movie should be seen, and made it worthwhile going out to the theater, to get an experience I couldn't get at home. At CES this week, the talk is about 3-D coming home to TVs and video games. Sure... whatever. The problem with that is, no TV you'll have at home is going to fill your field of vision. As soon as anything breaks the frame - the 3-D effect is ruined. 3-D will never be more than a gimmick at home (until we have wall-sized TVs), but as far as the movie theater goes... it's becoming a compelling reason to spend an evening out. In the case of Avatar, the spectacle was worth the price. Would I think the same of it had I seen it on a normal screen? Probably not. And I don't really plan to see it again to find out. I'll give Avatar an 8/10. Mostly because of the eye-candy factor. If you see it - see it in Imax 3-D. But get your tickets early - most shows were sold out, and the theater we were at was so full, we couldn't even sit next to each other.