Drag Me To Hell (Movie Review)

Since I don’t often review horror movies, let me first give you an idea of what I like and don’t like in horror flicks.

If I watch a horror flick, I want to be horrified. I don’t watch them to see barely dressed teenagers, or to drink in ridiculous amounts of gore. For my tastes, a good horror movie will be scary not just the first time you see it, but also the second and third. So “jump” scares do not win points with me, even when they scare me the first time through, because I’m looking for a movie worth seeing more than once. If I want to be scared by sudden, loud noises, I’ll give my 2 year old the car keys and see how long it takes him to set off the alarm. Doesn’t cost me a dime.

A good horror movie will stay with me and leave me unsettled even after the movie is done. I’m much more interested in something creepy, unsettling and disturbing than I am in something that is simply shocking or gory.

In my book, great horror movies include Saw (the first one at least), The Ring (also just the first one) and Event Horizon (that movie still messes with my head).

I really dig creature movies like The Thing and Jeepers Creepers, but I put these in a different category(Creature Feature/ Monster Movie) for the sake of this review.

Now to the review!

Before becoming a superstar director with the Spider-man films, Sam Raimi was best known for his tongue in cheek “Evil Dead” franchise of “horror” movies. If you’re a fan of these flicks, you’ll probably like “Drag Me To Hell”. This is all of my review you need. You’re welcome and enjoy.

If you’ve not seen Bruce Campbell in all his chainsaw/boomstick glory, or if you did not like the “Evil Dead” films, stick around with me for a minute.

“Drag Me To Hell”, like the “Evil Dead” films, takes some classic bits of horror and folklore and inserts some tongue and cheek humor to give them a new spin. This time around, the elements used draw heavily from gypsy folklore. Curses, evil spirits, that sort of thing. Throw in some childhood “fear of old people”, and you’ve got some concepts that are fertile ground for creepiness. Unfortunately, Raimi steals the power from these concepts within the first 40 minutes of the movie by playing them for laughs.

Now don’t get me wrong. Laughs are good now and then in horror flicks. Without them, unless the disturbing elements are paced very well, we will become numb to the horror. But the laughs should never be at the expense of the source of terror. (A movie like “Frighteners” is a good example of this. While far too humorous for a straight up horror film, it avoids making the bad guys “funny”.) When a bad guy becomes funny, you don’t fear them anymore. You may even start rooting for them to see what entertaining thing they will do next. (Freddy Krueger, anyone?)

In “Drag Me To Hell”, a young woman is cursed by an old Gypsy woman for not approving her loan. Sound like a joke? Actually, this plot point was ironically NOT played for laughs. The old woman is very creepy, for a moment, but soon little gags here and there turn her into a source of comedy. The same goes for the evil spirit haunting our leading lady. As if to compensate, the movie resorts to jump scares almost exclusively to provide its frightening moments.

As most bits of “danger” maintained a humorous touch, I quickly stopped fearing for anyone in this flick, hoping that at least some of the obviously CGI visuals would be interesting. And yeah, they were kinda neat. But nothin’ to blog about.

The script is pretty forgettable, as are all the performances in the cast. Not a third-dimensional character in sight. And Alison Lohman felt more like an actor making “choices” than a real person I could care about.

In terms of relevance to meaningful subject matter, you could probably strike up a conversation about concepts of hell or evil spirits and evaluate how we might validate or invalidate the various ideas floating around that feed into movies like this one. There is also an interesting moral dilemma near the end of the film that brings questions of judgment, punishment and justice to mind. But since the material is never quite treated seriously, you may not feel like any worthwhile dialogue after leaving the theater.

This isn’t a “bad” movie. If you enjoy jump scares, you may dig it. There are some images that may evoke a sense of Satanism for some, though I can’t verify any genuine connection to real religious practices. Still, if that sounds like a turn-off, you’ve been forewarned. I found the movie kept me emotionally engaged (intense music and sounds made it hard to relax much), but since my mind was incredibly bored and not invested, I found the jumps more annoying then fun and checked my watch often until the movie was over.

Quality- 7.0/10

Veracity- 6.5/10



p.s.

I’m considering changing the name of the “Veracity” score category to “Relevance”. I dig the word Veracity and its attachment to the concept of truth, but the word “Relevance” requires less explanation regarding its relationship to what I am evaluating. Any objections to the change?

Half-off Bonanza!

Got some extra "fun-money" from our tax return this year. Add that to a half-off sale at my comic shop and I'll soon be complete in my collection of "Solar: Man Of The Atom"!

After watching the Wonder Woman animated movie again I decided to start collecting Wonder Woman once more. Gail Simone was involved in the movie script and she has really been impressing me on "Secret Six". She's doing the current run on Wonder Woman, so I figure now's a good time to get caught up and give her run a shot!

Terminator: Salvation (Movie Review)

The Terminator franchise is one that I have enjoyed quite a bit. Despite the first two films being very different from each other, they were both executed wonderfully and hold up very well today. Terminator 3 had some major shortcomings but I still found some things to like. And the Sarah Connor Chronicles TV show has been a fantastic addition to the mythos.

Coming into "Salvation", I wasn't sure what to expect. The visual look of the film looked appropriately bleak in trailers, but the PG-13 rating had me concerned that it would lack the violence that makes this franchise what it is. My estimates were not too far off.

From the opening of the film, we're introduced to a new character, Marcus Wright. Surprisingly, he seems to have more screen time in the movie than Christian Bale does as John Connor. Although the Marcus character is interesting, the focus he stole from John Connor was a downside of the movie. This franchise has always been about the Connors, and to spend so much time on this character seemed to take the movie off center.

The story is alright, mainly focusing on the mystery of Marcus Wright and who/what he is. It also spends time developing John Connor's place in the resistance movement. Reportedly, before accepting the role, Christian Bale asked writers to re-write the script into something that would be interesting to simply hear read on stage. I'm glad he did this, since even in its finished state, the plot and characterization were adequate, but not gripping.

In Terminator 2, we saw a wonderful character performance by Linda Hamilton, who presented a very complex and damaged Sarah Connor, yet Christian Bale's John Connor doesn't have any traits that separate him from a number of other heroes in this genre.

Bryce Dallas Howard is given virtually nothing interesting to do, a complete waste of her talents. Hopefully she will be given more, should this planned trilogy continue.

The Marcus Wright story does pay off enjoyably in the end and gives a sense of closure to the film, though the climax doesn't reach anything close to the intensity of the first two Terminator films.

The last charge I have against this film is that the Terminators didn't seem to do much terminating. They capture people and sometimes manage to kill them, but we see very little of the cold, brutal killing so common to terminators in the movies and even the TV series. This is partially because there are (almost) no T-800's yet, which are made to look human, resulting in a more ruthless portrayal of their actions. But T-800's or not, this movie missed the mark on a vital component of the franchise.

I don't blame this on the PG-13 rating. The TV show has terminators doing a fair amount of killing, but shot in a way that minimizes the gore/violence. This film just seemed to avoid killing in general. A very strange decision. As a result, I never felt dread upon seeing a terminator or other Skynet machine. I didn't really fear for the characters and the machines did not make me worry.

Now, on to what I liked. The color scheme in this movie is wonderfully grim and captures the post-apocalyptic feel perfectly. In a world dominated by machines, seeing everything in shades of gunmetal grey feels right on target.

I don't say this often about films, but I really enjoyed the special effects! They used a combination of physical and digital effects when representing the machines and terminators that made the world feel real while still being fantastic. At one point, the film also uses special effects to digitally recreate an actor, and I've never seen this done better. They wisely used smoke and other ambient visuals to mask the imperfections of their CGI work. I would say that a full 50% of the digital character's "face-time" I thought to myself, "That looks completely real"! Hopefully, they will use this effect again in the future films, as it was a moment that definately reminded me that I was watching a Terminator flick. Likewise, I hope to see filmakers take notice here and continue to push CGI forward, while hiding it's defects in the meantime. A VERY good use of the technology.

If you come to this movie to see action, you won't be dissapointed. From top to bottom it has plenty and the accompanying explosions and other visuals do not fail to be fun. This is also a world that is VERY cool to look at. The variety of Skynet machines and the ways in which they behave create world worth exploring.

Now to Veracity. Does this movie say anything relevant to the human condition or the true nature of reality? Undeniably.

First, we unfortunately have to hear Hollywood's spiritual motto yet again. At one point, while listening to a recording made by his mother, John hears her instruct that when he isn't sure what to do, "just follow your heart". (Yeah, THAT'S the most reliable decision-making system.) Once again, I'd prefer that Hollywood say "do what makes sense and hope for the best" or even "Do what you think is right"(as opposed to what FEELS right). We'll do alot less damage to ourselves and others that way.

The Marcus Wright character seems built into the story specifically to ask one question: What does it mean to be human? The premise of this movie, and stories like it (The Matrix, Battlestar Galactica) seems to lean toward the idea that humans are really just complex machines, with no spiritual component, since machines can apparently become "self-aware" and develop feelings and all the other traits that make us human. We're meant to sympathize with the machines equally, since they have become "just like us". These kinds of stories are usually implying (purposefully or not) that we either have no spiritual component, or we are able to give machines spirits like our own, placing humans in a pseudo-god position.

"Terminator: Salvation" says something surprisingly different at the end. In a voice-over, one of the main characters delivers the "moral" of the writer's story by saying that what defines humanity "can't be programmed into a chip."

With a few acceptions, sci-fi largely comes from a darwinian/naturalistic view, where there is no spiritual component to humanity. But this movie clearly implies that there is something beyond the physical that makes us what we are.

In the final analysis, this is a great movie that doesn't feel as much like a Terminator flick as it should, though many will still enjoy it with good reason. It also lends itself to meaningful conversation at several levels.

Quality: 8.5/10

Veracity: 8.5/10

Outlander (Movie Review)

How in the world did I miss this movie in theaters? Goes to show that I should check the new DVD releases every week!

This movie had a very narrow distribution in theaters in 2008 and that's a real shame, as fans of fantasy and sci-fi should certainly check this movie out at some point. It's not the best movie in the world, but it's not a terrible film, either.

I remained interested in the film for most of it's 115min runtime and was even grabbed in a few instances by some scary or otherwise shocking moments. The script was written by Dirk Blackman and Howard McCain, who both wrote the script for "Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans", their only other writing credit. "Outlander" is also only McCain's second movie as director(though he's done a little TV as well).

For fans of bloody sword fighting and battles with clanking armor, you'll get a pretty good fix in this flick. The fights are not espeically well choreographed, but they are still enjoyable and a few bits of shocking brutality serve as distraction from this minor shortcoming. The action scenes are shot pretty well and fun to watch, with a few very memorable moments. Good stuff.

Creature buffs may also find the monster in this movie interesting. When it was first revealed, I was unimpressed with the CGI, though it improves a little later in the film. The creature design, however, is visually interesting. The director uses a lack of light very well to keep the creature covered in shadow at times, letting our imagination do some of the work. But the creature is by no means hidden throughout the film. There are plenty of full shots of the monster in the second half of the movie that look great. I'll try not to spoil the conceptual design of the creature here, but it's definately a visual highlight of the movie. I wish I could have learned more about it's strengths and weaknesses, but it looks like they had other priorities for the film.

The cast, which includes names like Jim Caviezal, John Hurt and Ron Perlman, performed their roles somewhat blandly, though Caviezal had at least one good emotion-filled scene. There were no characters of real interest in this movie, unfortunately.

The plot is where this movie really suffers. Others may tell you that it is too far-fetched, but that wasn't my problem at all. I don't mind combining spacemen and aliens with 8th century Vikings. (That was a really COOL part of this flick!) I also don't mind that the main character is an alien who looks just like a human. (Roger Ebert didn't like this because it didn't fit in a logical Darwinian framework. "Yer a smart guy, Rog, but does ALL science fiction need to come from a Darwinian framework?") My problem is that the story focused on the least interesting plots in the movie.

You've got an A plot(the monster), a B plot (the spaceman-princess budding romance), a C plot(who will be the next king?) and a D plot(the spaceman's guilt), all given priority in that order. But the romance story is completely uninteresting because of the lack of compelling characters. In my opinion, the B plot could be completely removed from the story, greatly improving the final product. (Predator and The Thing didn't need a romantic subplot, did they?) It's not that the B plot scenes are bad. They are just boring and slow the pace of the movie.

Were I to re-edit this film for my own personal enjoyment, I would remove most of the B plot scenes and dig through the NUMEROUS deleted scenes on this DVD (I can't wait to look at all of them!) for scenes that support the D plot and put them back in the movie. While trying to avoid spoilers, I'll say that the D plot brings a great moral dilemma to the movie that is directly connected to the monster, unlike the B and C plots. But in the theatrical cut of the film, the D plot is downplayed so much that it seems like an afterthought.

I really want to give this movie a higher Veracity score than I am, because this movie asks the question "Do two wrongs make a right?" It asks the audience to wrestle with the concept of justice a little and provides opportunity for some meaningful conversation afterward, but not much.

In the end, this is a movie that is not solid enough for general audiences to enjoy, but genre fans should probably give it a rent at some point just to make sure they're not missing something they'll dig. Because a few people will probably really dig this movie.


Quality: 8.0/10

Veracity: 6.0/10

Supernatural, So Far...

... so good!

I'm about halfway through the first season and I'm enjoying the show so far! I think I got used to Dean's acting style and they haven't played up sexiness in the show to the degree I was afraid they would.

The only two episodes I really haven't liked so far are "Hook Man" and "Bugs".

The main issues with both episodes is that they have no connection to the advancement of the overall plot and did very little to advance the characters of either Sam or Dean. "Hook Man" also has some lame bibliology attached to it that rubbed me the wrong way, but that's unfortunately inevitable in this genre, where the motifs of Christianity are usually pulled from a sort of superstitious Catholicism and are defined heavily on tradition and only very loosely on biblical content.

Oh well. The rest has been GREAT!

Phantasm

I've felt a little bit in the mood for horror flicks lately and so I finally got around to seeing Phantasm 1 and 2 this week.

My parents very wisely kept me away from films like this in my youth, so I had never seen these horror classics before.

Watched one online and the other on TV this week. I'm really glad I didn't have to pay for them. The acting was terrible, especially in the first one.

That said, both movies did something that works for me in the horror genre. They created an alternate reality that you think there are probably rules for, but they don't tell you what those rules are. Is it sci-fi? Is it supernatural? What the crap was that?!

It's those kind of eerie, random and disturbing visuals that make a film in this genre click for me.

Haven't seen the other one or two Phantasm movies that are out there, but if I stumble on them for free, I'm thinking I'll be curious enough to watch.

The Dreaded (Or Delightful?) Dr. Carpenter!!

I had a Music Theory teacher in college who had the reputation of "weeding out" of the music program any student who wasn't really "serious" about being a musician.

The syllabus for her class was entitled "How To Fail This Class", and listed 20 ways you could potentially fail her course. For example, "If you do not take notes consistantly you will FAIL!!" The word "fail" always appeared at the end of every item of the list, in all caps, bold, underlined twice and followed by two or more exclamation points. Her point was made very clear.

Dr. Carpenter had a dry but decent sense of humor and when I visited her once for some one-on-one help, she was very kind and had a ready smile. But her class was extremely hard for me and for some reason any compassion she had within her quickly drained away when she stood in front of a classroom. I have never had a teacher who was more negative in their approach to education as this woman, for some reason, decided to be.

Well, I failed her class miserably. I had never come close to failing a class before and never came close afterward. I took the same class again, from a different instructor, and got a B. Interpret that however you wish.

Whenever I dream of college, it's always a nightmare. Something about missing a test or failing a class or something. But last night, I dreamed that I went back to school to get a Master in Music and was taking another class from Dr. Carpenter! Only this time, she couldn't have been more positive! She was practically dancing around the room as we all came in!

I took my opportunity to see if she remembered me and told her how I had failed her class but eventually got a B when taking it again. She loved my little story so much that she went into her office next door to make a slight change to the syllabus before printing out copies and distributing them throughout the classroom.

There, in the middle of the syllabus, she had typed:

"A special welcome to Peter Pope-stone!"

Like many others before her, she had misspelled my name (pretty badly in fact), but I appreciated the sentiment and knew that, THIS time around, I would really enjoy Dr. Carpenter's music theory class.

So what does this mean? Is this a cosmic sign? Maybe I should return to school and further my music education! Maybe I should slam the brakes on Spirit Blade Productions and dedicate myself to the art of compositional analysis!

Maybe I should gut myself with a spatula.

Neverwinter Vault Favorites

Since I've mentioned this game and its insane replay value a few times, I thought I'd share a few of my favorite modules available, either for free, or for affordable purchase from bioware. I've included basic overall ratings out of 5 stars. "*"

****Harper's Tale- Multi-part. Good place to start/build new characters. Very enjoyable series requiring some cheating now and then, as provided in the game's debug menu.

****Caereena- Krakona Rising- Lengthy adventure. Epic Levels! Tons of action! Downside is lengthy, overly detailed conversations between periods of action. Ends unresolved with an obvious intention for a sequel (which is being developed).

****Pool Of Radiance- Port of classic PC DnD game. Not cinematic. No central story. Just quest after quest. Lot's of walking, back and forth to and from quests. Recommend buying one or two "magic bags" to reduce trips. This can also be countered pretty well with the "mylittlepony" code to speed up travel. There are two annoying mazes that take a little time to get through. (about 30 minutes each of just straight walking for me.) When the game is over, you are notified by a note in the final boss's remains, but are then left to freely explore the game world. I may return and do some of this later, as there are territories outside town I haven't covered yet, including a lizardman settlement side-quest that I never finished.

***Pirates of the sword coast- Pretty enjoyable. (Purchased from bioware.)

*****Darkness Over Daggerford- Great, long module, originally made to be sold by BioWare and it shows! Available for FREE at the Neverwinter Vault!

Currently, I'm giving "Infinite Dungeons" (sold by bioware) another try, now that I've figured out how the map system works. (Before I was getting lost a lot and running in circles!) There's virtually no plot to speak of, but if you like endless hack n' slash, you might really get a kick out of this one.

Star Trek (Movie Review)

Before reviewing this movie, I should give you a sense of where I'm coming from in relation to the Star Trek franchise.

I began watching Star Trek around the second or third season of "Next Generation" and continued faithfully watching every Star Trek show and movie since, with the exception of "Enterprise". I think that the original Star Trek series and "Next Generation" were groundbreaking and changed the way we make and view science fiction television. I loved these shows and never missed an episode.

Having said that, Star Trek retained a fatal flaw that ironically, given Gene Roddenberry's Darwinian views, the TV franchise never "evolved" beyond. That flaw is summed up in one phrase: "Concept over character".
Although we loved the members of each crew, the real star of most episodes were the "aliens/singularities of the week". Problems were usually solved in a single episode, keeping characters from changing, and most episodes could be watched in any order.

This was great, for a time. I didn't know it could be done any other way. Then, along came a show called "Farscape", followed a few years later by the reinvented "Battlestar Galactica".

Farscape had wild new concepts and aliens every week that made the recycled plots of the Star Trek franchise look tame and sterile by comparison. The Jim Henson creature shop pumped out strange alien week after week, when Star Trek had stuck mostly to putting play-doh on people's faces and calling them aliens. Farscape's characters pulsed with passion and displayed the full spectrum of human emotions so tangibly you could almost smell them.

Battlestar Galactica showed us "military in space", but unlike Star Trek, allowed for unprofessional behavior among the crew. Relationships were constantly strained and lives were messy. There were "sweat stains" on those uniforms.

I look back at Star Trek with nostalgia, but no longer with any real interest. When I saw that first teaser trailer for the new movie, however, my hope was reignited. Maybe this movie would bring powerful characterization and life to the Enterprise bridge! Maybe this would be the Star Trek that the "Enterprise" tv series should have been, but was to afraid to risk itself on?

No "maybes" about it. This movie is what sci-fi fan's like me have been waiting for.

From the very beginning, the film is more action-packed and intense than any of the usual Star Trek episodes. Aliens also look unique and oddly shaped, putting visual effects, animatronics and make-up to wonderful use. Yet despite the explosive action and dazzling effects, this is not simply a summer popcorn flick. Care has been taken to look at the original characters and amplify the traits about them we love, using young yet experienced actors to get the job done right.

Chris Pine gives us a Kirk that actually acts like the renegade we were always supposed to believe Kirk was, but that Shatner never really gave us.

Zachary Quinto presents a Spock much more complex than ever realized by Nimoy, displaying the cold rational Spock we all expect, yet also revealing his inner struggle with his human emotions. His dual heritage was all too easy for me to forget in the original series. Not so in this version.

Karl Urban turns out a very relatable performance as Dr. McCoy, providing some of the earthy grounding that space opera often lacks.

Zoe Zaldana's "Uhura" serves a practical purpose in her position on the bridge and a dramatic purpose in relation to other characters that never seemed present before.

Simon Pegg stole every scene he was in, providing us with a genuinely funny, down-to-earth and likeable "Scotty". I only wish he had entered the story earlier than he did!

Although John Cho was not given much to work with in the script, Sulu's fencing background was affirmed and put to very exciting use, making him a welcome "action" presence in an already exciting film.

Anton Yelchin is a more interesting Chekov than we've seen before. He's the likeable underdog of the crew, and the language barrier he faces was acknowledged and used to charming effect. He made me want to put an arm around him and say "It's okay, buddy! You're doing great!"

Finally, Eric Bana was almost unrecognizable as the film's villain. He wasn't over the top "evil". Just insanely disgruntled.

People get angry and stay angry with each other. Roddenberry's utopian future is given a much needed reality check. Even in the future, people are still people and still very flawed. Although this story was by no means a "human drama", nor was it as character-driven as Farscape or "Battlestar", it was a HUGE step forward in both areas for the franchise. This was not a movie about ideas. It was a movie about people and some pretty crazy events they had to deal with.

A few conventions of the franchise are also modified for the better-

Teleporters were strategically "damaged" by the script, allowing for more leaping and death-defying stunts than would otherwise be possible with this oh-so-convenient technology. And in several instances, even the transporters are used in ways that stretch their capabilities, and those of their operators! Nothing is "easy" for these characters.

The steady beams of the old phasers have been replaced with percussive, short energy bursts. The result is that action scenes are more relatably intense, subconsciously reminding us of modern handguns. Hand-held phasers have some kick in their wielder's hands, and ship phasers pummel other ships like massive machine guns. They are still energy weapons, but far from the tranquil, almost quiet phasers of old.

Lastly, ship battles are not lumbering, slow-motion "submarines in space". Both full-size starships and smaller "shuttles" maneuver in exciting ways that feel appropriate for their size, yet far more thrilling than what used to feel like a game of "battleship". (Commander! This time, try E4... Nothing? Okay, let's talk for a moment about our next move while the shields are holding so remarkably well and our enemies are so mercifully slow to kill us all.)

This is far more than a fresh coat of paint. It is Star Trek re-imagined. And while it embraces much that is new, I believe it retains the most important elements of the old.

On to my "Veracity" evaluation. Is there anything in this movie that is likely to result in meaningful conversation afterward?

Thematically, this movie looks at one key issue that is vital for everyone to examine. The role of emotions. Does the movie tackle it successfully? No.

What starts as an interesting setup for discussing the role of emotions finally comes to a stupidly simplistic close as one key character says to another, "Set aside logic. Do what feels right." The character who said this is a fan favorite, and the scene is written as one character passing on wisdom to the younger generation. So this is the voice of the writers, here, saying what they think is the right thing to say in this instance.

I have never in any movie seen this idea so clearly stated, and upon hearing it I couldn't help but mutter a "good grief" that hopefully only my wife heard. (I hate it when people talk during movies, so I feel a little guilty.)

Why do we have to polarize our views of logic and emotion so much? Biblically, there is a place for both, but we so often kill one and uphold the other. Lately, our tendency in America is to kill logic and "follow our hearts".

Unfortunately, our hearts are often wrong, or even tell us to do things that are harmful to ourselves or others. We have conflict all over the world because we are all doing "what feels right" rather than pursuing knowledge of objective truth and virtue, and then emotionally RESPONDING to that truth.

Emotions are wonderful things, but they are a terrible compass for decision making. Use of language requires logic, so logic has to be used to even SAY "do what your heart tells you". Otherwise opiuhas ljiq872 9rhjajlyas. Oops! I stopped incorporating logic into my communication.

On the other hand, logic is vital, yet our lives are meaningless if we are not emotionally invested in anyone or anything.

Back to the movie. What this character SHOULD have said, is: "Our knowledge is finite, therefore our ability to reason has its limits. So choose the path that the most reliable evidence suggests is correct, and then hope for the best."

Logic and reason are used to discern reality and truth. Emotions are meant to be a RESPONSE to what is true.
Not a perfect film, but very well done! Just what this tired franchise needed! And the continuous theme of emotions and their place in our lives couldn't be more relevant. This film provides a great jump off point for some very meaningful conversation!

Quality: 9.0/10

Veracity: 8.5/10

Trying "Supernatural"

I'm almost done watching Highlander and decided it was finally time to give this CW series a try. I've watched part of one or two episodes and had mixed feelings. It seems to have a dark tone that I will enjoy, but it's headed by two suspiciously "pretty" looking male leads who didn't impress me with their acting.

Still, I'm interested in cleaning my mental slate and giving the series an honest shot from the beginning. I've ordered season 1 on DVD and it should arrive this Friday. Should have more to say in a few weeks!

Wizard Is WRONG!!

This month, Wizard magazine created a list of the 25 best sci-fi TV shows (that aired in the US or UK) ever made and failed to include "Farscape" in their list. In a sidebar, they said why it didn't "make the cut".

They admitted they weren't sure why they were luke-warm about the show, but suggested two possibilities:

1. The idea of a spaceship as a melting pot for alien races had been done many times before.

2. Alien muppets are still muppets.

Okay, they've really dropped the ball here. Point #1 is not what made the show great. That's like saying Battlestar is no good because it's another "military sci-fi" show. Farscape took a familiar model and turned it on its ear because of how unconventionally it treated it. With ongoing, unresolved plotlines, the show demanded you watch every episode and rewarded you for your commitment by delivering emotionally gripping character-driven stories, in addition to crazy concepts.

How many space shows let you see the lead character die for real and stay dead, while at the same time being alive? How many shows make a perfect "clone" of the main character that sticks around for an entire season! This show took plot concepts and played with them in ways you never expected them to, but somehow always wished they would. Battlestar Galactica (the recent series and number 5 on Wizard's list) producers all but admitted to taking cues from Farscape in the character-driven department, so give credit where it's due.

As for point number two, it's totally bogus. If Farscape's creatures are muppets, then so is Yoda and every creature in Star Wars. And in 20 years when everyone finally realizes how lame CGI looks, these creature shop characters will look just as real as they did on day one. Besides, aren't we all tired of putting play-doh on someone's face and calling them an alien? Let's have some REAL aliens for a change!

X-men Origins: Wolverine (Movie Review)

Although I'm a big comic book fan, I'm not a mainstream Marvel fan. I pick up enough through cultural osmosis to know all the vital info, and I follow Wolverine's exploits in the Ultimate Marvel universe, so I'm no stranger to the character. But I didn't have alot invested in this movie when I came into the theater. Mainly, I just wanted a better movie than X-men 3.

I couldn't have been much happier.

From the first scene, I immediately got the sense that this would not just be an action flick, but a movie with action driven by character. The film pulls from the comic book origins of Wolverine, though certainly makes modifications, to tell a highly entertaining story. We get a deeper look at Logan than we have on screen before, and the movie, while incorporating other mutants of X-men lore, isn't cluttered up with mutant cameos as X-men 3 was. Characters like Blob and Gambit, while not crucial to the story, were at least given functions that advanced the plot.

On that subject, the plot is not complicated, but that's not why you watch this sort of movie. Logan has an objective and he meets people and overcomes challenges to meet that objective. There are a few action beats that are unexpected and very fun to watch. Logan cuts loose with his powers like we've never seen before.
The acting is enjoyable by all and it's a special treat to have Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool in the first part of the film. There are no Oscar moments here, but everyone appropriately invests in their characters and makes good use of what the script gives them.

The directing is done well, especially in action scenes, where good use of slow motion gives us the chance to appreciate some of the crazy mutant madness. Visual effects are solid, for the most part, although in one scene Gambit has some awkward looking wire-work, and in more than one spot, Logan's claws are identifiably computer generated. Yet considering the number of effects shots, this can be overlooked with very little eye-rolling.

Fans will notice that Deadpool in particular is adapted rather unfaithfully in several regards. Mainly his powers and costume. Though even amidst changes there are nods to the source material on both counts and his trademark humor is intact. There are rumors of a Deadpool spin-off, which would be VERY interesting to see done after watching this flick. You tell me if you think it will happen.

The movie ends with some degree of satisfaction, though it obviously leads into the first X-men movie, so you don't have the level of resolution that you would normally have in a film of this genre that has no sequels planned. You know certain people won't die, so only so much can happen, as massive as the action-packed ending is.

There is also a thread left hanging that I'm curious about. This is no spoiler, but my understanding is that Logan's brother becomes the mutant villain Sabretooth, who appeared in X-men, played by another actor. In the X-men flick, he's got completely black eyes, a lot more hair, and doesn't say anything. He's a silent brute. The Wolverine flick fails to explain how we transition from one character version of Sabretooth to the other.

You will definately want to stay around for at least TWO post-credits bonus scenes. The first is nothing special and the second was cut short in my theater before it finished playing. (It felt too short and so I checked online when I got home. Yup. I missed something pretty awesome! But don't spoil it for yourself. Go see this movie!)

As for veracity, there's not a lot, but one theme that comes up more than once is that of human nature. Okay, okay, MUTANT nature. But it still applies. Logan is fighting his genetic tendency to behave like an animal. He is constantly being prodded to be an animal by his brother, and Logan tries to avoid it. This mirrors our tendency for sin, as humans. We are born with a sin nature and we live with an internal struggle to go against our evil tendencies. The "animal" side of Logan isn't a perfect metaphor for sin, because he rightly says at one point that he should have followed his instincts. (He was deceived at one point in the film for not trusting his instincts.) This feels a bit like the tired "follow your heart" mantra we hear so much from Hollywood. Still, it may lead to good discussion. Our heart, or our "instincts", do not ALWAYS lead us in the wrong direction. Sometimes, our heart is right. But that doesn't mean we can TRUST our hearts. We need a consistant, objective source of truth to help us determine when our heart is desiring the right things.

At the end of the day, this is a movie that should not be missed by fans of cool action flicks and should be watched as soon as possible by fans of the genre.

Quality: 9.0/10

Veracity 7.0/10