Snakes on a Plane!

Films Recently Watched:

Snakes on a Plane (2006) dir. by David R. Ellis

Well, we had a very busy weekend so I didn't get to catch this until a late show Monday night. I just got back and I'm proud to say that it was every bit as bad as I had hoped it would be! The only thing that would have made it better would have been to go to a packed house showing on opening night with an appreciative crowd (like Ward did).

To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the horror genre or much associated with it. For some reason, though, when I heard about this movie, something just 'clicked' -- as it apparently did for many in the internet community who adored this film long before they ever saw it. Regardless, this movie truly has everything one could want in a horror/thriller. Sex, drugs, violence, gore, relentless scary monsters in all shapes and sizes killing extras in every imaginable (and unimaginable) way, cheesy dialogue, cheesy actors making ridiculously poor decisions, and more jump-scenes than you can shake a snake at! Heading it all up is one of the coolest guys in Hollywood, Samuel L. Jackson. Naturally, he gets the lion's share of the coolest lines and coolest action sequences in the film.

It's snakes -- on a plane. What more could you possibly need to know? Don't take it too seriously, the movie itself, certainly doesn't -- many forked tongues are firmly planted in scaly cheeks here, folks. I can't, with any sense of responsibility, recommend this movie to anyone. Chances are, if you ever intended to see it, you probably already have.

Others:

The Family Stone (2005) dir. by Thomas Bezucha
Watched this a second time with Christy. She liked it too!

Young Mr. Lincoln (1939) dir. by John Ford
I have a feeling that not many people who are putting up their 'Snakes on a Plane' review are also putting up anything about this movie.

Henry Fonda is excellent here as the titular character. A few hints here and there are all you see during the course of the film of what Mr. Lincoln will eventually become. It's interesting -- as much as you hear about Abraham Lincoln in everyday discussion, it's almost always about the events of his Presidency. Rarely do we get a glimpse of his life prior to that. Here, we get to see it wonderfully portrayed. Abraham Lincoln is an upstart attorney from a small town. His first clients are accused of murder. The story is every bit as well-told and suspenseful as any modern-day courtroom drama.

John Ford also shows his skill with a camera. As always with Ford, careful attention is paid to framing and foregrounds and backgrounds. It's quite beautiful in black and white.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) dir. by Gore Verbinski
Christy and I managed to fit this in over the weekend. We had both seen and enjoyed the first film and Christy's a bit of a Johnny Depp fan, so we decided to check this out. Overall, it was OK. Going in, I didn't know that this movie was nothing more than a set up for the third film, so I think that much of my disappointment rests there. The sequel seemed to me to be much more graphic than the first film, so Christy didn't care much for that. It is OK for what it is. If you haven't seen it in theaters, but are interested, my suggestion would be to wait until closer to when the third film is expected out and then rent this one to watch it right before seeing the new one.

SNAKES ON A PLANE

I've got four simple words you need to remember:

SNAKES

ON

A

PLANE

Got it?


Forget X3
Forget Mission Impossible 3
Forget Fast and the Furious 3
Forget Superman
Forget Pirates of the Caribbean


This movie (starring Samuel L. Jackson) could end up being the movie event of the summer.

It's got the internet abuzzin':

Here's probably the premier source of information about this phenomenon, Snakes on a Blog.

The listing at Wikipedia: Snakes on a Plane

IMDb listing

And here's the discussion thread at the Home Theater Forum. Warning: Some foul language being used there on this particular thread (what do you expect? it a Sam Jackson flick).

just so you get the idea though...

Some quotes:

'Snakes on a Plane!'
It already is the tagline, the premise and the title.
It's everything! That's why this movie is the best thing to ever happen. And you have to tip your hat to Samuel L. Jackson for only needing to hear the title to know that this is something he needed to be a part of.

I can't wait for this thing. Unintentional comedy or no, just the sheer balls of Hollywood saying 'yunno what? It's snakes on a plane. You're going to see it or you won't. But it's snakes on a plane, so I bet you will' that has me dying laughing everytime I think about it. No movie can get any more high concept. None. The pitch is the TITLE. That's it. It's beautiful. I cannot wait.

Snakes on a plane, man. C'mon. Look at the thread. look what happens. If you're in a group of people larger than three, and you see that poster, or you see that ad--you're going to see the movie. it's just going to happen. Your brain will not allow you to pass up the opportunity to watch something that WILLFULLY and PROUDLY calls itself 'Snakes on a Plane' with a straight face.

I also really hope that Steve Irwin shows up at some point in the film, I would love to see Sammy snap his neck for dangling his kid over that Crocodile.

Apparently, they are doing 5 days of reshoots, basically to add scenes to make it an R rated film. Now, that's a first.

and the sequel: Snakes on a Plane 2: Snakes on a Boat

Priceless!!

I'm totally seeing this! And it gets the sidebar countdown!! ---->

Hoodwinked

Films Recently Watched:

Hoodwinked (2005) dir. by Cory Edwards, Todd Edwards, Tony Leech
Sometime back in December we got a flyer from Anderson University indicating that we, as alumni, could get free tickets to a film called Hoodwinked created by some fellow alums, Cory and Todd Edwards, et. al. Interesting. I hadn't been particularly impressed with their previous film, Chillicothe, but this looked like it was in a completely different vein: An animated take on the tale of Little Red Riding Hood. The voice talent they had was impressive: Glenn Close, Anne Hathaway, Jim Belushi, Patrick Warburton, Andy Dick. It said that it was appropriate for ages 3 and up, so we decided that we would all go. In the meantime, my long-time friend, Stacy called and said that they she and her family were planning to come too, so we decided that we should try to go together. So we did. I am happy to say that all of the kids in our group (including Stacy's 7-month-old) were very well behaved. This was only Hannah's second theatrical movie viewing.

The event was yesterday and I came out of it pleasantly surprised. The story-telling here is pretty tight. The basic concept is a Rashômon-like telling and re-telling of a story from the various perspectives of the characters involved. The way it all comes together is really quite clever and well done. There is no question that the animation is not up to par with what Pixar, DreamWorks, and Blue Sky are doing, but it serves the story well enough.

A couple of the songs (mostly written by Todd Edwards) were really good, too. I was especially fond of the song, "Red Is Blue," performed by Ben Folds. That sequence also features some of the best animation of the film, as well, in my opinion.

We saw the picture at the beautiful Paramount Theatre in downtown Anderson, Indiana. Unfortunately, we had terrible audio during the movie. Though they indicated that they had done all they could to make the audio work in the room, I am certain that there were several gags that we missed due simply to the lousy audio. The DVD will be a "must-buy" for me when it releases.



As you can see, they did see fit to cover all of the indecent sculpture in the theater with thematic apparel.

One cool thing about the event (besides the fact that it was completely FREE) was that several of the film-makers were there in person (including director, Cory Edwards - above, right) to introduce, meet & greet, sign autographs, etc. Christy and I were a couple of years behind the Edwards' clan at AU and though we didn't know them, we were familiar with their style of comedy from various skits at variety shows and their aspirations to create film. We are happy to see them achieving their dreams.

We did, however, run into several college friends while we were there. Several of them we hadn't seen in years and it was great to be able to catch up with them a little bit.

All I can say is, if you get a chance to see Hoodwinked, I highly recommend it. If you get a chance to see Hoodwinked for free, in a beautiful 75-year-old theater with several hundred of your closest friends, including the writers and directors, then absolutely don't miss it!!

Rashômon (1950) dir. by Akira Kurosawa

Daredevil (2003) dir. by Mark Steven Johnson
Worst -- Villains -- Ever

What? a dude named Bull's-Eye with the evil skill of throwing darts and similar sharp objects with generally amazing accuracy? With (what else?) a tattoo of a target on his forehead? Are you kidding me? This guy would better spend his time amazing his buddies playing yard-darts or something. Colin Farrell didn't do the character any favors either. What a pathetic hammy performance. Wow, just, Wow. And then John Coffey from The Green Mile? I thought he was supposed to be nice, let alone, dead! He tried to take it back, but it was too late. Yeah, well, I wish I could have my 133 minutes back, but it's too late for that, too!

Speaking of villains, Ben Affleck was not believable, for me, as a superhero. The film didn't seem to abide by it's own rules. OK -- Daredevil is blind but has his remaining senses miraculously enhanced. OK, but where does it indicate how he got his super strength? What about his apparent ability to defy gravity? I'm usually able to "suspend disbelief" for these types of movies, but this was a stretch for even me. And, for what it's worth, I did watch the supposedly improved Director's cut of the film.

Having said all that, the audio on this DVD is amazing. The DTS mix is immersive and aggressive. Perfect for the scenes that put you inside the head of a blind-crimefighting-vigilante!

Elektra (2005) dir. by Rob Bowman
Yes, I am a glutton for punishment. After being underwhelmed by Daredevil, I just had to.

Off To The Races - Double-Double Feature

Films Recently Watched:

Double-Double Feature (Part I):

Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines, or How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 hours 11 minutes (1965) dir. by Ken Annakin
Up until this one, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was the longest-titled film that I had watched. Well, according to this list, even this one is only the 15th longest film title (Strangelove is 124th), so I guess I've got a long way to go (so to speak).
The list also shows Disney's upcoming The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe weighing in at #164. What's #1, you ask? Another Demonstration of the Cliff-Guibert Fire Horse Reel, Showing a Young Girl Coming from an Office, Detaching Hose, Running with It 60 Feet, and Playing a Stream, All Inside of 30 Seconds, of course.

The Great Race (1965) dir. by Blake Edwards

When Volcano and Dante's Peak came out in 1997 and then Armageddon and Deep Impact came out in 1998, I was convinced that either the film studios were blatantly ripping each other off or they had completely lost the ability to generate an original story idea and more than likely, both. But once again, I learn there's nothing new under the sun. Hollywood couldn't come up with two original ideas in 1965 either, so they apparently decided to make the same film twice! Those Magnificent Men and The Great Race are both films about a race to Paris. Both feature an American hero/lead with the antagonist being a dastardly/sabotaging over-acted fiend with a idiot sidekick who does much of their dirty work. Both have enormous male casts with nearly singular female roles, despite Race's theme of Women's Lib. Both clock in at well over 2 hours (137 and 160 minutes, respectively), including musical intermission breaks. Both use a "scope" aspect ratio. Both use an old-timey introduction/opening credits and both use a healthy amount of vehicle operation "acting" in front of rear-projection screens. Finally, both feature the female leads repeatedly losing their clothing. Other than that, they couldn't be more different!


Double-Double Feature (Part II):

Around the World in Eighty Days (1956) dir. by Michael Anderson. Produced by Michael Todd.
This was the Academy's Best Picture winner for 1956. It's IMDB rating is only 6.8. I began to wonder if '56 was a slow year at the movies, but the other four pictures nominated (and their respective IMDB rating) were: Friendly Persuasion(7.5), Giant(7.5), The King and I(7.5), and The Ten Commandments(7.7). No one has ever said that the Academy is free from politics, and my guess is that the Academy chose to honor Michael Todd for his accomplishment of making this monster of a film instead of honoring the actual "Best Picture." See, Michael Todd is considered by some to be the greatest film producer ever. He produced one film and with it, won the Producers' most coveted award, the Oscar for Best Picture. In many ways, the film tells the story of how the film was made. Both Michael Todd and Phileas Fogg, the main character in the story, are convinced that they can accomplish something that their closest friends believe is impossible. For Phileas Fogg, the task is to travel around the world in 80 days. For Michael Todd, it was to create a successful film adaptation of Jules Verne's famous story. Both had to overcome huge obstacles and constantly improvise in order to accomplish what they set out to do. Another accomplishment of Todd's in this picture was the invention of the "cameo;" the bit part played by a major star (e.g. Buster Keaton, Caesar Romero, Frank Sinatra, Peter Lorre, and Red Skelton, to name a few from this one).

Around the World in 80 Days (2004) dir. by Frank Coraci
Disclaimer: I have not read Jules Verne's novel, Around the World in Eighty Days.
That said, if the 1956 version of this film is true to the source material, then this remake is barely recognizable as coming from the same source. Perhaps they should have changed the names to protect the innocent, because the names are about the only things that are the same here. This is pretty much Around the World in Eighty Days meets Inspector Gadget (not a compliment) meets every silly Jackie Chan movie you've ever seen. For me, the remake removes the heart and soul of the 1956 version. The come-what-may stoicism of Phileas Fogg and his true-to-self attitude in the face of adversity, to me were the heart of the story. These are replaced by hijinx and sulking in the remake. Also, the traveling sequences were among my favorites in the '56 movie. In 2004, these are replaced by 10 second CG bits so that they can move on quickly to the next big choreographed fight sequence. If you're only going to watch one, watch the original from 1956.


Other Films Recently Watched:

High Plains Drifter (1973) dir. by Clint Eastwood

Deliverance (1972) dir. by John Boorman

I [Heart] Huckabees (2004) dir. by David O. Russell

Tim Burton's Corpse Bride (2005) dir. by Tim Burton and Mike Johnson
A simple, sweet story, despite the surface themes of zombies, murder and suicide. I can't help but compare this to Tim Burton's other feature-length claymation work, The Nightmare Before Christmas. Bride's songs are weaker and not as well-used. The story is much simpler, but not as well executed. The characters are fewer, but not as sympathetic. Nightmare is simply better.


I've finally, just recently broken into my birthday present that I got in March even though my birthday wasn't until May. It was a collection of 18 Oscar winners for Best Picture. From it, I've watched five of the DVD's so far: Unforgiven and Around the World in Eighty Days (already mentioned) and the following three titles:

GiGi (1958) dir. by Vincinte Minnelli
Christy enjoyed this one quite a bit.

An American in Paris (1951) dir. by Vincinte Minnelli

Grand Hotel (1932) dir. by Edmund Goulding

The Transporter (2002) dir. by Corey Yuen. Co-produced and Co-written by Luc Besson.
When we were at a movie theater in Indianapolis a couple of months ago, I saw a banner advertising The Transporter 2 with the reference, "From the makers of The Professional." Well, The Professional (aka: Léon) is one of my new favorites, so I figured I'd better watch the original before I considered seeing the sequel. I liked the visual style of the film (the bullet tracers are a really nice effect). It's a simple story that gets complicated, in this case, a little too complicated for its own good, I'm afraid. Similar to other Besson stories: Loner hero doesn't want to get involved, but meets a girl and, of course, gets involved anyway -- saves the day, gets the girl, etc. Completely implausible, but a fun action flick, nonetheless.

IMPS - The Relentless: Chapter 1

I got a surprise in the mail Saturday.

As I mentioned before, one of Christy's relatives is involved with the guys that made the Star Wars fan film, Troops. They're making what will eventually be a feature-length film, I.M.P.S. The Relentless, but they're releasing it in small pieces (these guys all have full-time jobs, besides devoting lots of their "spare" time to this project).

They released the trailer back in March and released the first chapter back in May.

So why am I waiting to tell you about it until now? Good question.

I tried several times to download it, but couldn't.

I could download it at work, but couldn't play it there. I downloaded and installed the correct DivX player at home (which was the problem at work), but had some trouble downloading the actual film over my dial-up connection there (it's a 200MB+ file).

All that to say, Nathan was kind enough to mail me a DVD copy of the first chapter and trailer!



So now that I've seen it, I'm happy to report to you that it is really good! This is not your average (or even above-average) fan film.

This has a really high production value throughout, and these aren't just a bunch of tight shots on actors either, they've created a world for these ships and characters and they allow the viewer to see it! There is a lot of detail here that could have easily been left out. The ships are believable inside and out and these aren't just all the same ships that we've seen in the Star Wars films. They have created new ideas and expanded on what we've seen before. I was especially fond of the TIE docking stations and the landing gear on the Corellian freighter. Very nice.

Believable sound effects that, again, expand on the Star Wars universe, but still fit the part. I even heard a "Wilhelm" scream in there! Very nice work, fellas!

More on the plus side, there was original music composed for this production. More on that HERE. The CG elements they use blend in nicely with the real sets and actors. Editing, mixing, all quite good.

With a narrator speaking over the first several scenes, I started to worry that the entire thing would be like that, but once you get to the dialogue, there are several genuinely funny moments, some spoken, some not.

I'm anxious to see in what direction this film is going to go next, though I'm a little worried that they're actually going to make me care about some of these troops that were always so easy to hate from Lucas' films.

Other that that, the only downside that I can think of is that I am probably now on every government terrorist watch list between here and California! Besides getting a package in the mail that says "Special Imperial Agent," now, with all this terrorist nonsense happening over in London accompanied by headlines like MURDER AT STOCKWELL, BAD DAY AT STOCKWELL STATION, and STOCKWELL RAIDS, well, I'm pretty sure that I'm being monitored by the F.B.I., C.I.A., etc.

May the Force be with me -- and also with you!

Batman Begins

Films Recently Watched:

Batman Begins (2005) dir. by Christopher Nolan

First, let me begin by saying that I went into this movie knowing nothing about it beyond what was shown in the trailers that I’d seen (including the trailer that showed immediately before the film began – Way to go, Applewood 8!). Further, I know nothing about the Batman mythology beyond what is obvious from the three or four previous Batman Films beginning with Tim Burton’s 1989 film. Having said that, I believe that anybody can go to and appreciate this film. I sure did!

The aptly named, Batman Begins, explains the origin of the character of Batman. Through a series of flashbacks, we learn of events which occur during Bruce Wayne’s formidable years that explain how and why he acquires the tools, abilities and motivation to become the crime-fighter, Batman.

PERFORMANCES
Now, I love the 1989 film, Batman. Michael Keaton was definitely an -- odd choice for the Bruce Wayne/Batman character, but it worked for me. Val Kilmer and George Clooney in the later Schumacher Batman films also seemed a bit off-key as the caped-crusader. Christian Bale, however, is perfect as both the millionaire playboy, Bruce Wayne and the winged avenger, Batman.

Katie Holmes also delivers an excellent performance here the only potential love interest to Bale. She also manages an important political plotline. As assistant District Attorney representing Gotham, Rachel Dawes(on's Creek - coincidence?) is on her own crusade to protect Gotham and its inhabitants.

Among the supporting cast, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are convincing in their roles as Alfred, Bruce Wayne’s caretaker and Lucius Fox, Wayne Industry’s techno-gadget creater and inventor, respectively. These are the only two guys who know how Bruce Wayne spends his nights. They also supply much of the occasional humor to the film.

Christopher Nolan (Memento, Insomnia) directs the picture. In the hands of another director, this film could have easily gone wrong (i.e. Batman & Robin). But Nolan remembers that Batman is somewhat unique as a superhero in that he possesses no superpowers. This is a point hammered home by Nolan. This is as real and gritty as superhero movies get. He shows several times that Batman gets hurt and, in doing so, tells a compelling story of beginnings and beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS
I believe that Tim Burton’s 1989 film, Batman will always hold a special place as my “favorite” Batman film, but I can absolutely say that Batman Begins is the better film. It’s story, construction, and execution are superior, the performances are more believable.


Believe it or not, besides watching a bunch of movies, I have managed to do a few other things since I last posted. I can't remember what they all were, but that's only because one of them was turning thirty-one. Besides that, we went to the Indianapolis Zoo on Memorial Day (Monday) with my Mom & Dad, Christy had a Pampered Chef party, and we've been spending some time outdoors when it has been nice - grilling out, working in the yard, we even planted a tomato plant and a zucchini plant that seem to be growing and doing quite nicely! Hannah's getting pretty good on her tricycle. I have some pictures, but I'm having trouble getting them off the camera onto the computer. Oh, and we also went to the Zoo!


Other Films Recently Watched:

THX 1138 (1971) dir. by George Lucas

A Shot in the Dark (1964) dir. by Blake Edwards

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) dir. by George Lucas
This was my second theatrical viewing - this time, with Christy. I was better able to see the film this time as I was able to sit further back in the theater.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004) dir. by Brad Silberling

Hero (2002) dir. by Yimou Zhang

The Aviator (2004) dir. by Martin Scorsese
Christy and I watched this one together. It is a biopic of Howard Hughes. She was interested in the portrayal of Hughes' Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. I was interested to learn of Hughes' film-making days in Hollywood; so I also watched...

The Outlaw (1943) dir. by Howard Hughes
After watching The Aviator, I was expecting to be wowed by Jane Russell's "mammaries" in this film, but was quite disappointed. I'm in the camp that would have to believe that the 1943 version of the MPAA was more disturbed by the films implications than any skin that was actually shown, or perhaps they were disturbed with Hughes, himself. Regardless, a pretty run-of-the-mill western, as far as I'm concerned.

Metropolis (1927) dir. by Fritz Lang
An amazing work of science-fiction for 1927.

The Motorcycle Diaries (2004) dir. by Walter Salles

Apocalypse Now (1979) dir. by Francis Ford Coppola

Collateral (2004) dir. by Michael Mann
Not usually into Jamie Foxx films, but he really stands out in this one. And, no, I haven't seen Ray yet. Some of the best cinematography of Los Angeles I've ever seen.

Did I mention we went to the Zoo?

Revenge Of The Sith

Films Very Recently Watched:

Star Wars: Epidode III -- Revenge of the Sith (2005) dir. by George Lucas

Here are a few initial thoughts in the form of a modest review. I may add to this post as other thoughts occur to me or possibly if I get the chance to see the movie again.

With Revenge of the Sith, Creator/Writer/Director, George Lucas brings to a conclusion the Star Wars prequels and, in doing so, brings an end to the Star Wars saga. Lucas has managed to do all of this in fine fashion.

Sith finally tells the story of Anakin Skywalker’s turn from good to evil and the creation of the Galactic Empire against which the now famous characters Luke, Leia, Lando, etc. rebel in Episodes 4, 5, & 6. It is the film that we all wanted 1 & 2 to be. Few really wanted to see Anakin as a ten-year-old kid who exclaimed, “Yippee” far more than is becoming of any future Dark Lord of the universe. Few really wanted to see twenty-something Anakin whining about his teacher’s methods to his new girlfriend, Padmé. But, alas, Lucas decided to make a trilogy of the back story films to mirror the original trilogy, so that’s what we got. Far be it for me to complain about the number of Star Wars films, though, as I have enjoyed every minute. Ultimately, perhaps the best way to say it is that Episodes 1 & 2 are there mainly to set an extravagant stage on which Episode 3 can revel. Regardless, Sith is easily the best of the preqels and it was worth the wait.

Performances
Ewan McGregor delivers the best performance by far in this film, in my opinion. Even more so than in the previous two prequels, Ewan is Obi-Wan Kenobi. Any faults here would have to fall on the writing and not the delivered performance. McGregor supplies believability to a range of emotions including humor like a veteran. Well done, Sir Ewan.

We got to see a glimpse of the intensity of which Hayden Christensen is capable in Attack of the Clones. In Sith, Christensen is given the opportunity time after time to display that intensity. For a director whose primary guidance to his actors is the now infamous, “Faster – More Intense,” Hayden must have been an absolute dream to work with as far as Lucas was concerned.

Surprisingly, CG Yoda gives one of the most human performances in the film. From full motion shots to extreme close-ups, Yoda looks amazing on screen and I’ve got to give props to the animators at ILM who created his performance for this film. Frank Oz again provides the voice of Yoda. He does it unlike anybody else, but Yoda does a fair amount of speaking in this film and his uncanny speech style begins to stick out after a while. “Talk like this, I must. Began it did in Empire. No other way is there.” Other than that, fantastic.

I was expecting to be amazed by the performance of Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine. As it ended up, I was only amazed by the fact that I wasn’t amazed at all. I found much of his performance was over-the-top, to say the least.

This could be another case where the faults lie with the writing and/or directing, but I believe that there are deeper issues with Natalie Portman’s performance as Padmé in Sith. Overall, Portman just seemed very one-dimensional here. Seems with all she’s going through, there would be a much wider range of emotions, especially when you consider the fact that she’s pregnant through the entire film! Whether it’s the writing/directing or the performance, itself, there is much more that could have been done with Padmé that would have benefited the film.

Rating
In my opinion, there are probably only two or three scenes that put the rating of this film past the PG rating that all the other films in the saga have received. As an adult, I am glad that Lucas chose to show these scenes exactly the way he wanted to, but I must admit that had he toned these scenes down a notch or two, or possibly removed them entirely, relying on implied rather than overt violence and gore, the film as a whole would not have suffered.
Parents of young children, go see this one yourselves before allowing your kids to go. The 13 year mark denoted in the PG-13 rating is probably about the right dividing line for this film, though every child is different, of course. You know you want to see it more than once anyway, so this can be your excuse! See it yourself and use your best judgment for each of your children.

For the record, tears were not shed from these eyes during my first viewing of this film. To Lucas’ credit, though, there were a couple of times when I got caught up in the emotion of the story and had to consciously battle against welling up.

Conclusion
For what will probably be the last Star Wars film ever, I felt that I owed it to myself to keep tradition and attend the Midnight showing. As I explained previously, this is not just ‘going to the movies,’ the Midnight show is an event, and I am glad that I went.

Finally, in order of release, here are my rankings of each of the films that make up the Star Wars saga:

Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope 9/10
Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back 10/10
Star Wars: Episode VI – The Return of the Jedi 8/10
Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace 8/10
Star Wars: Episode II – The Attack of the Clones 7/10
Star Wars: Episode III – The Revenge of the Sith 8/10

Hannah's First Movie

Sorry this has taken so long to get posted. I have a few pictures that I would have liked to add to this post, but I'm having trouble getting pics off my camera right now. The computer's on it last legs, I'm afraid. I was hoping to find a way to get the pics on here, but I've given up for now.

Last weekend -- like, not this past weekend, but the weekend before that, Christy's parents paid us a visit. They were returning from a cross-country driving trip and stopped here before returning home to Michigan. They had driven out to California for a family wedding and to visit Christy's brother, Andrew and his family. It sounds like they had a good trip. They were able to take things at their own pace. They only travelled during daylight hours so that they could see the country. When they got tired, they slept; when they got hungy . . . they ate. Just like Forrest Gump!

Friday night, we all went to The Cinema Grill in Indianapolis and saw Because Of Winn-Dixie. This was Hannah's first theatrical movie experience. I was a little nervous about taking a three-year-old to a movie, but she did really well. She just ate her food and watched the show. She talked very little, but seemed to understand that when she did, that she needed to whisper. She had to go "potty" once, but that's to be expected I guess. Overall, a very good "first movie" experience, though, she'll forever be confused when she goes to normal cinemas wondering why there are no tables and why nobody's coming to ask her what she would like to eat!

On the way home, we stopped at a Cold Stone Creamery. I highly recommend their Breathless Bostom Cream Pie. I have them make it with their Cake Batter Ice Cream, though. Yummy!

We had big plans Saturday to go to the Indianapolis Zoo for the morning. Luckily, Christy's Dad heard about the Mini-Marathon happening in Indianapolis Saturday Morning. A quick call to the Zoo confirmed that the only access road to the Zoo would be closed until the afternoon. Blast!

After Christy's parents left to make their final stop in Ohio before returning home, we went to my Parents' house for Mother's Day, a day early. Hannah helped Grandpa plant his garden.

Turned out nice that we didn't have to travel on Mother's day. We were able to relax a little bit.

Films Recently Watched:

Priming for Episode III on Wednesday night/Thursday morning:
Star Wars: Episode II - The Attack of the Clones (2002) dir. by George Lucas
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) dir. by George Lucas

Ice Age (2002) dir. by Chris Wedge & Carlos Saldanha

Catching up on my, 'Dennis Quaid saves the day against all odds' films (if only I could have found The Alamo, it could have been a triple-feature -- oh well):
The Flight of the Phoenix (2004) dir. by John Moore
The Day After Tomorrow (2004) dir. by Roland Emmerich

The Third Man (1949) dir. by Carol Reed

Jerry Seinfeld: I'm Telling You for the Last Time (1998) (TV) dir. by Marty Callner
OK, so it's not a film. Very funny, though. I was laughing uncontrollably through a couple of bits. It's been a long time since I've laughed so hard.

That Funny Feeling (1965) dir. by Richard Thorpe
After seeing the Bobby Darin biopic, Beyond The Sea and also after seeing his character featured on an episode of American Dreams (we did finish Season One of this excellent television series, by the way), we were kind of interested in seeing a movie that starred the real life Bobby Darin, so I picked up this DVD from the library. Starring both Bobby Darin and his real life wife, Sandra Dee,

Apart from a desire to see Bobby Darin and/or Sandra Dee on screen together, do yourself a favor and watch Billy Wilder's similar, but far superior, The Apartment, instead.

Because Of Winn-Dixie (2005) dir. by Wayne Wang
Cute, but mostly uninspired.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) dir. by Stanley Kubrick

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) (Extended) - dir. by Peter Jackson
Again, found the extended edition at the library. In my opinion, this is the weakest of the three films. This time, the extended edition does little to improve on the theatrical release. My favorite added scene, though, is Faramir's flashback to Boromir's re-taking of Osgiliath and the interaction between Boromir, Faramir and Denethor there. The content of that scene influences events in both the first and third films in this trilogy.

Cheaper By The Decade

Films Recently Watched:

Cheaper by the Dozen (1950) dir. by Walter Lang

Efficiency expert, Frank Gilbreth (masterfully played by Indianapolis native, Clifton Webb) manages his large family the only way he knows how...efficiently. A sweet portrayal of this true story which shows the end of an era of innocence and paternalism.

Cheaper by the Dozen (2003) dir. by Shawn Levy

This "remake" features a college football coach, Tom Baker (played by Steve Martin) who also manages his large family the only way he knows how...badly.

Actually watched these back-to-back the other night. Though both list Frank B. Gilbreth Jr. and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey (real life son and daughter) as writers, these two films are "similar" by name only.

What Christy and I didn't understand was why the remake couldn't have been much more similar to the original. I assume that the idea of an "efficiency expert" was a relatively new concept in the 1920's, but we thought it still would have worked for a modern day remake. Now, I don't know that Steve Martin could have pulled off the "efficiency expert" role and perhaps that is the answer. I think the 2003 version was adapted as a vehicle Steve Martin and I guess I can see a writer/director saying, "I don't see Steve being able to pull off the efficiency expert vibe so let's move in a completely different direction...let's make him a...um...football coach, yeah, a football coach."

Anyway, unless you've got a daughter (or son) who just HAS to see the remake because they want to see Hilary Duff, do your whole family a favor and watch the superior, original, Cheaper by the Dozen.

Other alternatives (to the 2003 "remake"):
Spy Kids - Family friendly in both content and message, this 2001 Action/Adventure is more fun, more engaging, better made, and has a decent 5.1 surround soundtrack.
Daddy Day Care - If seeing a dozen or more unruly kids screaming and running around a house is your bag, try this one, instead.

The Phantom of the Opera

Films Recently Watched:



Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom Of The Opera (2004) dir. by Joel Schumacher

Though my High School friends and I were obsessed with the music and story of ALW's Phantom, I've still never seen a stage production of this musical. I wore out my "Highlights" cassette tape, borrowed books from the library dealing with the production, I once even started to read the original (1911) novel by Gaston Leroux, though I didn't make it very far before giving it up.

I liked this as a movie. There is definitely something exhilarating about seeing a live performance, but I would hope that those who have seen this live would give the film a chance.

It's unfortunate that this has been critically dismissed for the most part. Why is it that often, the most creative criticism that can be mustered with regard to musicals is that the characters sing? Give me a break, it's a freaking MUSICAL! Sorry to be so apologetic about it. Is that a paradox?

I loved getting reacquainted with this show. It had been a long time since I'd thought much about Phantom and I did nothing in preparation for seeing it. Several songs brought a grin of recognition when they began. I had even forgotten entirely about the songs, Prima Donna, and Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again.

The music was great, the sets and costumes were lavish, the colors were vivid, the performances were right on; what's not to love?

I think that the source of any legitimate criticism would either have to be with the original musical or the adaptation to film.

If you don't like the stage show of Phantom, you're unlikely to enjoy the film. According to those that have seen both, it is extremely faithful to the stage production, possibly to a fault. I can see that an effect designed for the stage might shock and amaze during a live show, but on screen, that same effect may fizzle simply due to the fact that the movie-going-audience has been spoiled by bigger and better Hollywood special effects.

Give it a chance.

Currently playing in select cities. Opening Nationwide this Friday, January 21, 2005.

Locations and Showtimes

The Incredibles

Films Recently Watched:
The Incredibles (2004) Dir. by Brad Bird

Christy and I each took part of Friday off and after eating lunch together, went to see Pixar's new film, The Incredibles. It's been a while since we've been to the movies together. It was great. In Anderson, this film was showing at our new cinema, Mounds Mall 10 with all digital sound, all stadium seating, big screens, comfortable seats and competitive prices. By going for a matinee on opening day we happily missed the crowds that were undoubtedly attending the later shows. There were a few small children in our showing, but they seemed to be well-behaved, as were the adults (believe it or not).

Basic Plot: The world has now rejected the once-popular "Supers" (those with extraordinary powers) and has forced them to live ordinary lives in the suburbs. But when a new threat is discovered, they come out of hiding in order to 'Save the day.' It's X-Men meets James Bond meets Malcolm in the Middle if you can imagine that.

The Incredibles marks a series of "firsts" for Pixar (noted below).

The Incredibles is the brain-child of Brad Bird, writer and director. He also wrote (for the screen) and directed another one of my favorites in animation, The Iron Giant (1999). This is the first time Pixar has "farmed out" the director's chair for one of their films, but they put it in good hands.

For those planning to go and are familiar with Pixar's tradition of making the end credits worth staying through, this is no exception, in my opinion. The end credits design is very unique. Though there are not outtakes or animated characters of any kind during the end credits, the design is cool and there are multiple storyboards to view while the multitude of individuals involved with the creation of this film scroll by.

This is the first time that human characters have been the lead characters in a Pixar film. Though most of their other films have a human element, the lead characters have been Toys, Bugs, Monsters, and Fish. They might have been able to fake movement by these other characters, but humans know how humans move and if it isn't right on screen, one can usually sense it at some level. I must say that they have nailed human motion in this film. I know it sounds clichéd, but for the most part, I forgot that these characters were animated and accepted them as human. The voice-acting only supports what Pixar is doing technically. Craig T. Nelson (from the television series Coach) is perfect as both the superhero, Mr. Incredible and as is alter-ego, Bob Parr. Other voice talent includes Holly Hunter, Samuel L. Jackson, Wallace Shawn, and Pixar's lucky charm, John Ratzenberger. The music by Michael Giacchino also plays a supporting role. The very James Bond-like music provides an excellent backdrop for the on-screen action. Realistic sets, lighting, textures, etc. also give a satisfying environment for the characters without being distracting.

This is the first time one of Pixar's feature-length films has received a rating other than G. The Incredibles is rated PG and rightly so. Parents should take the PG rating seriously.

Finally, as an added bonus, even before the feature film begins, you have the opportunity to see one short film Boundin' by Pixar and two teaser trailers for upcoming films, Revenge of the Sith and Pixar's next one, Cars. The short film, Boundin' was cute. Personally, I enjoyed their short film, For the Birds, which showed with Monsters, Inc. and an older short, Knick Knack, which I believe showed with Finding Nemo (it's on the DVD, at least) more than Boundin', but it was OK. Also from Pixar, a sneak peek at their 2005 film, Cars. It's a little hard to tell where they're going with this, but there are some good gags even in this short preview and it's Pixar, so you can bet that it will be great! Lastly, though I had seen the teaser trailer for the new Star Wars film, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, on a friend's computer at work on Thursday, it was very cool to see it on the big screen. From what they show, it appears that it will nicely tie up the Prequels and lead into Episode IV and the rest of the original trilogy. Can't wait until May 19, 2005 for that!

Duel

Films recently watched:

Duel (1971) dir. by Steven Spielberg

I caught some of this one on TV when I was a teenager. It is very engaging and I remember getting "sucked in" to the story. For seemingly no reason, a big-rig oil tanker decides to torment David Mann (played by Dennis Weaver) as he is trying to drive across the California desert. It begins as today's average case of what we now call "road rage" but ends up with Mann fighting for his life against this psychotic truck in a desperate game of cat and mouse (please forgive the lame cliché).

One fascinating aspect to this film is that Spielberg absolutely refuses to show us the driver of the truck. Is this a story of man vs. man or is it man vs. machine? We may see the driver's arm out the window or his boots under the truck, but who is this maniac driver and why is he trying to kill David Mann? Spielberg does an excellent job of putting us in Mann's head, providing his inner dialogue and shooting much of the time from Mann's point of view. Dennis Weaver also does an amazing job of helping us feel the moments of sheer panic and elated relief that his character goes through again and again.

If you can stand the suspense, I definitely recommend this. The new Collector's Edition DVD does justice to this film. The audio and video elements are clean and better than what you might expect from a 1971 film made for television. Also some nice bonus features on this including an interview with Steven Spielberg discussing this film.

For any fellow OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) advocates out there, because this film was made for American television, the correct aspect ratio of this film is approx. 1.33:1. That means that the image will fill a standard television screen. Duel was released theatrically in Europe and for that, it was expanded to 1.85:1, but it was filmed with a 1.33 frame in mind, so that is the correct way to view it.

(pointless funny trivia from imdb)
When Carey Loftin, the stunt man playing the truck driver, asked Spielberg what his motivation was for tormenting the car driver, Spielberg told him "You're a dirty, rotten, no-good son of a bitch." Loftin replied, "Kid, you hired the right man."