Mild Mannered, my new web series, is on it’s way. We have two days of filming done, and we are just getting started. It’s been a really wonderful experience. If you haven’t been to the website yet then check it out now. I’ll wait www.mildmanneredtheshow.com

But just in case you are too lazy to click that link, I’ll embed a little behind the scenes video I cut of the first day of the production. I plan on having one of these posted for every shoot. And a new behind the scenes vid should be posted on the site later today.

So how appropriate that there is a ton of Superhero cinema news in the world.

SUPERMAN LIVES

Zack Snyder has been hired to direct the new Superman film. And I’m not really sure how I feel about it. Christopher Nolan was responsible for getting the project off the ground which is a definite plus. But beyond that I’m not sure how much involvement he’ll have. The script is written by David Goyer, who is incredibly hit and miss. His work with Nolan has been his best stuff though. But thank god Goyer isn’t directing it. Blade Trinity or the Unborn anyone?

But Snyder is the true wild card.  He has yet to make anything that resonates beyond his admittedly cool visual style. Snyders time ramping fetish could be pretty spectacular in a Superman film. I just hope he can bring the substance as well as the spectacle. His Watchmen film is a hollow mess. So obsessed at being faithful to the source material that it actually misses the whole point of it. But I did really enjoy his animated film The Legend of the Guardians. Though being and animated film, it’s hard to tell if Snyder was responsible for the heart that film has an abundance of. Hopefully the script is good.  Nolan liked Goyers take enough to use his clout at warner brothers to get it made. But at this point I have absolutely no idea what to expect.  Either way, it has to be better than Superman Returns. Right? Wowzers. The point is, Superman has to have heart and I’m just not sure Snyder can supply that. But I sincerely hope I am wrong.

HERE COME THE AVENGERS

Marvel has begun they’re marketing blitz with both Thor and Captain America on the horizon. It’s a very surreal time for comic book fans. We’re used to siting in our rooms, pitching our perfect versions of films for characters that we figured would never get their own films. Let alone giant Hollywood tent-pole style movies. But here we are with new footage from each film. And my thoughts? Because I know you care so much

Well the initial footage and teaser for Thor looked a little silly. It’s hard to pull off big Shakespearean like gravitas in a superhero film. Donner just barely managed to make it work in Superman. But the second trailer for Thor sets up a lot more humor and broadened the scope enough to make me curious. It doesn’t seem like a complete homerun, but did we ever imagine a Thor movie would be?

Captain America on the other hand looks like a heck of a lot of fun. Which is surprising. I’ve never been a fan of the character in the comics. People often complain about Superman being a big boyscout but I always thought Captain America was worse. Plus this could take a slant towards the annoyingly patriotic. The kind that boasts an almost propoganda like pride in whatever American ideals we have labeled ourselves with this week. But I’m pretty pleased they decided to go with the ww2 setting. And this superbowl ad sells the movie as a high adventure film ala Raiders of the Lost Ark. It also sells a focus on the man more than the symbol which is always the key to a great superhero film.

I like Chris Evans. I like the look of the film. And Joss Whedon did a pass on the script. So suddenly Captain America is one of my must see films. Who would have thought that? Plus it has the Tucci!

Also, they should have just released the below trailer. Propaganda or not, it would have kicked ass.

We also saw the release of the X-men First Class trailer.

It’s a prequel (boo) directed by the guy who made Kick-Ass (double-boo) and was allegedly rushed into production (did any of the X-men films actually go through pre-production?) The trailer is interesting, but I already hate the fact that the marketing relies heavily on knowing the other films. Hopefully it works as it’s own movie, but it’s hard to enjoy a film when you already know where the characters are going. So will anyone be surprised when Magneto betrays his friends and becomes a villain?

GREEN MEANS STOP

The Green Hornet is a prime example of why most action-adventure-comedies don’t work. The comedy in these films usually goes broad, which undercuts the realism of the situations. Once that realism is shattered in scenes that are designed to make you laugh, but also don’t make sense in the real world, it’s difficult to bring the tone back to a place of true peril. And a true sense of danger is what makes action exciting. That’s the real problem, most people value the humor over the action. But they actually need to coexist. If the Green Hornet chose to be a straight comedy, then it would have no need for an action packed third act. Or at least one that attempts to be as straightforward. Chose your world, and stick to it. Films like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard work well because they ground the humor in some sense of reality (this is of course not counting their sequels which inevitably suffer from this very problem). It’s that reality that makes the stakes real. It’s not always necessary, but I think any film should have a very clear sense of what the end product is. Are we a comedy with action, or are we an action comedy? Take Hott Fuzz for example. At no point does it stop being a comedy. There is action, but it’s always played for the joke. And ultimately it knows this. Shootouts are punctuated by funny almost self aware one liners and sight gags. Car chases have geese. The action is meant to be part of the comedy. It’s a film The Green Hornet could have learned a lot from.

Seth Rogen’s Script with Evan Goldberg is really tone deaf in this regard. It’s a film about a rich kid who decides to fight crime for the simple reason of doing something with his life. I get the concept they were going for. A superhero film that also plays as a buddy comedy of sorts. And their ideas of playing with the notions of sidekicks who are better than the heroes is a really fun one. Having Rogen be the lesser of the two seems like the perfect idea. Imagine Rogen chatting up a storm as his kick ass sidekick does most of the work. But you still have to understand and believe why Rogen would want to do this and that he ultimately could. This never happens. Nor do we even get any sort of arc for the Green Hornet. Heck, most origin films come standard with this. The road to becoming a superhero is, if nothing else, a pre-packaged arc. The character starts out normal and ends a hero. But Rogen is the same guy the whole movie. Sure he goes through the motions, but dramatically we never feel it. He never learns anything, or improves. He’s a straight line.

Michel Gondry directed this film, but you wouldn’t know it save for a few touches here or there. And the real shame is that there a few moments where it works. Moments where the Green Hornet and Kato are gleeful in the destruction they get to cause. And during those moments you realize that had they got the formula right, The Green Hornet could have been a very fun and unique film. But it would have taken someone with an understanding of tone to re-work the story so that Rogen’s douchey character went through an actual change, so that by the films fun ending, it mattered. the results here feel like Seth Rogen playing an action hero, but not being one.

There have been several films like this before The Blair Witch Project. But a) I have not seen them and b) I feel this is the film that made the genre what it is today.

I have very distinct memories of the first time I saw a clip from The Blair With Project, a film that I still very much love. It was late at night, and I was watching the IFC channel. A segment came on about the movie, portraying it as a mystery and real. They showed the classic confessional scene, where Heather is snotting all over the camera. It chilled me to my core and effectively terrified me for the rest of the night. Of course eventually the cat was out of the bag, and we found out it was fake. So imagine my surprise when I went to see the film in theaters and it terrified me all over again.

The key elements that make this now established genre work are

1. A group of talented, natural actors.

2. The use of a realistic camera.

3. A plausible reason to keep the camera rolling.

4. Vague ideas and imagery of an unseen (or unwanted) force.

Blair Witch set the bar very high as it was a perfect blend of all these elements.  From the creepy but real interviews at the beginning, to the sounds of children playing in the night outside their tent, Blair Witch sustains a slow burn as we learn more and more of their predicament. Capped off by one of the creepiest images I’ve seen on film.

Something about that image above was so unsettling to me. Still is. I loved the ambiguity of the threat. How we were left staring at the edges of the frame, filling in the holes with our most unimaginable terrors.

There were imitators. But Paranormal Activity was the first to come along and make the model lucrative again. It had a terrific concept. A couple is experiencing unexplained noises in the night so the boyfriend buys a video camera to document the goings on. And the rest is history. What I really enjoyed about this film was the simplistic set up. Again we have realistic actors improvising their lines. We also have the similar slow burn effect, as the escalation of creepy imagery builds and builds to what is an ultimately unsatisfying ending. They play with fun concepts here, from the haunting being a demon as opposed to a ghost, to the idea that this force is following Katie and therefore can’t be run from. The boyfriends refusal to stop filming seemed un-realistic at a certain point, but overall I thought it was insanely clever and unnerving.

Cloverfield was an attempt to use the genre in a more “Monster Movie” type of way. It had a similar structure but it left out some of the key ingredients. The actors are fine in their own right but the characters they play aren’t really likable or natural. The very nature of their trek through the city after the monster’s first attack just doesn’t make logical sense. Neither does the constant video recording. So the illusion is shattered.  I found myself constantly questioning why they kept filming.  It never made sense.

Paranormal Activity 2 is better than the first while enriching it at the same time. The pacing is better, the scares wilder, and it has images and scenes that are creepy as hell. The characters are infinitely more likeable and the addition of security cameras (added after a mysterious break in in which nothing is stolen) is a genius idea. The film effortlessly re-creates the feeling one gets when alone in a big house. That unease is felt throughout and builds to an ending in a basement that is my favorite excuse to keep a camera rolling in any of these film (besides [REC] 2. More on that below.). The father, in a blackout, rushes into the basement for reasons I won’t explain and uses a night vision camera as his way of seeing in the dark. It’s such a perfect idea, one that is a great change of pace from the stationary camera we watch for most of the film. Both films show you very little, but enough for you to once again fill in the gaps with your own imagination. Which is always scarier. Well almost always.

It’s rare for a horror film to scare me beyond the all too familiar jump scares that are a common staple. And indeed the spanish horror film’s [REC] 1 and 2 have they’re fair share of boo moments. But they also got under my skin in such a profound way that I’m pretty sure when I’m alone in a dark place it’s this films imagery that will come to mind and give me all sorts of anxiety. And the best trick of all is I’m happy about that.

The first film plays out as a tv news shoot gone horribly awry. We get a single cameraman’s view of the events, and the filmmakers are ingenious in how they use the camera, and explain why it stays on. [REC] (gotta love the brackets) is indeed a “found footage” film in the vein of the Blair Witch Project and Paranormal activity. The acting is terrific and feels incredibly real. And when the shit hit’s the fan and zombie’s star running amok one can’t help but smile. It’s the tone that makes the film memorable. Somewhere in the formula, they manage to infuse a sense of fun into the proceedings. The scares come often, mixed with a fair helping of incredibly creepy imagery. And then you get to the end. Holy shit. I won’t spoil it for you, but my girlfriend described it as such, “The most terrifying thing I have ever seen on film.” And I agree. An image so disturbing and terrifying that I found myself panic-stricken after the credits began to roll. We had to immediately turn on the special features in hopes that they could show us how this end image was created so we could subdue our fears and tell ourselves it wasn’t real. It helped, for a moment. But like I said, when I’m alone and in the dark, that’s the image that comes to mind. It replaces the sister stricken with spina bifida from Pet cemetary. Image included

That was what I imagined in the dark. Always. Because my brain is a dick. I couldn’t even find and post the creepiest image of this character because I didn’t want to have to look at it as I wrote this.

Then I learned of a sequel and sought it out. And was insanely pleased with the results. [REC] 2 is not a better film. It uses the same found footage scenario but to a lesser believability. But what it lacked in realism it more than made up for in pure horror goodness. Once again the scares come often, as do the creepy images. And the whole way we are teased that the image that terrified us would return. Again I won’t spoil it for you, but it does not disappoint. Though I will admit that when it arrives its not as terrifying. I later deduced it was because my girlfriend and I were so freaking terrified of it’s return that when it did, and it didn’t cause us to die of panic, perhaps it lessened it’s grip on us. Of course that night, in the dark, the image remained

I’m often critical of horror as a genre for its shameless attempts to either rip off better movies or give you the bare minimum of entertainment the average moviegoers require.  I like creepy images and concepts that work on an emotional and visceral level. Spanish directors Juame Balaguero and Paco Plaza have and incredible handle on what’s scares us and do so with a fun spirit an incredible craftsmanship. [REC] and it’s sequel are thrill-rides in every sense of the word, and if you are a horror fan then by all means seek them out, if you dare

The question is can the genre continue after so many have covered similar ground? And I’m not really sure the answer. I just saw The Last Exorcism which was creepy but also ended in a truly preposterous way robbing the film of what it had earned throughout the first half. It’ll take a lot of creativity to broaden the spectrum of what these films are capable of, but I look forward to hopefully still being surprised by its effectiveness.

If I am missing any films, or you have suggestions of others please leave a comment. I’d love to know more.

And so, with the new year, I re-affirm my goals to produce something great. And I think I have something great in the new web-series I’m producing called Mild Mannered. It’s a comedy set in a world where superheroes exist. But it’s focus is on the average people and has fun with how un-impressed they would become if the fantastical was an ever-day occurence. It’s also a pretty touching coming of age story between two friends as they grow and move on with their lives. And it has people in tights. you can’t go wrong there. My goal is to produce six episodes. I’ve written four. We have also done some casting and have gathered a pretty spectacular group of actors who are gonna make me seem far more talented than I am I’ll have more updates soon on the project and have set a goal to finish the final episodes, a 2 part epic, by weeks end. I’m really exited about the project, and am determined to do it right. And of course I decided to start production in December. So yeah, filming hasn’t commenced yet. Blame it on the holidays mixed with rain and a suddenly full work schedule. But in the meantime I’ve been working on scripts, finalizing the website, and basically getting everything into place. I really believe in this project, and my cast and crew seem to as well. So now it’s time to put up or shut up Even thought I’m not really sure what that phrase means. Odd.

But also, since I have set up an ambitious production, I have also added another venture I hope to pursue. Because the sure path to success is to bite of more than you can chew obviously I’ve entitled it iPhone cinema, and my goal is to start producing shorts using my iPhone 4 as my primary camera. I posted a while ago about being in the market for a small but good camcorder and proclaimed my joy upon the release of the iPhone 4. It does indeed record nice video and I have decided to make a new short every month. They’ll  be simple and completely filmed with the new phone. Why would I do this you ask? Well first off because it’ll be fun and secondly because there is something nostalgic about producing simple shorts by yourself or with a friend. Maybe it’ll keep me young So I ask that you, gentle reader, keep me accountable for this silly endeavor. And if anyone want’s to join in on the fun, by all means let me know.

So that’s what I’m planning for myself. There may be bigger news down the line as I make some big steps towards making my dreams come true. got the girl, now it’s time to get the career .

Sooo many winkey faces. Ah heck, here is a few more

As I mentioned in my review of Tron: Legacy, I saw it as a double feature with Black Swan. And while I gave Tron the full review, I figured for things I really do love, there is no need to go into detail about plot as much as just gush about what I love and why. So away we go. And yes, if you continue reading and haven’t seen the film ,you will be spoiled

I haven’t been a huge fan of Darren Aronofsky. I have never seen PI. Requiem for a Dream is incredibly executed but far too dire for my tastes. I did enjoy the Fountain. And the Wrestler once again ended too dire for me. So why is it that his next film, which is arguably more dire than any film he has made, is one of my favorites of the year? It’s all in the realization of what the film truly is.

You know that moment early in a film when you are presented with an abstract image? It’s the moment where the filmmakers are telling you something isn’t right with the world. It happens often, but at least for me, most times it represents a setting of mood more than actual context. Much like my other favorite film of the year, Inception, Black Swan is constantly feeding you imagery that in retrospect makes sense, but during the movie is jarring and frightening. And not in a twist ending sort of way. Black Swan builds that way, but ultimately proves to be a brilliant portrayal of what madness must feel like.  From the time the movie starts, we are with Natalie Portman’s Nina. And from frame one, Nina is on the edge. Natalie Portman’s performance is as breathtaking as you’ve heard. And just like Daniel Day Lewis, she utterly transforms herself.(And if you are reading this Mark, then yes, I put this performance up there with Daniel Plainview This is even more exciting as the film itself is about an artist seeking to transform herself, and the consequences of seeking perfection. Watching Portman become completley unhindged herself is a chilling thing to behold, and it draws fun parallels with her character. If Portman hadn’t been able to transform along with Nina, then the movie wouldn’t have worked. Portman plays Nina as achingly fragile, quite capable of playing the innocent white swan, but completely unable to become the black swan in her company’s production of the ballet. It’s totally convincing. And this all builds until we reach the final nights performance, when Nina completely loses her mind and herself, and dances without abandon. In an incredible sequence we watch as Nina physically transforms into the black swan on stage, symbolizing the perfection to which Nina has embraced the role, but also showing how unhinged she has become. Because in that moment I do believe Nina thinks she is the black swan. This is followed by an incredible moment as Nina walks off stage, breathing in orgasmic waves, completely lost in her creation. In that moment I understood. She may have lost her mind, but it felt really good. That’s a terrifying conceit, that perhaps sometimes madness just feels good. Besides, Nina has just performed the dance of her career, and that mixed with the empowerment she has finally embraced is a wonderful metaphor for girls becoming women, and the horror and joy that comes with claiming one’s sexuality.

The performances throughout are nuanced and loaded with subtext. Arnofsky really has a talent for subversively telling you who characters are through the minor details. We get all the information we need never feeling devoid of enough detail but also never being inundated with on the nose explanations or exposition. This may seem like a given process for any film, but it’s very discouraging how rarely it is done. And done well.

The film made me reflect on what madness might feel like. Not what it looks like but how it feels. How it is both terrifying and liberating. And how one can lose their grip on reality. And in Nina’s case do so for the sake of her art. And I guess ultimately the films greatest triumph for me was in how it took dance and almost transformed it into a massive metaphor for anyone with a goal and an obsession. And how if we aren’t surrounded by the right people, or if we push ourselves to hard,  we can easily slip away.  Not that I think Nina’s story is evocative of all cases of lost minds. But more just an illustration on how that might feel.

So while at films end Nina fades away, it’s not so much dire in my mind as transcendent. Because it’s so rare for someone to use the metaphors that film so easily portrays to express something as complex as the losing of one’s mind in such a visceral fashion. And maybe because at frame one I knew looking into Ms. Portmans eyes that she was already lost, I was relived by her final release. Movies have tackled the subrject before, but much like in most Christopher Nolan films, Black Swan is completely obsessed with it’s subject matter and finds limitless parallels between The ballet of the white Swan and Nina’s story. From her repressed sexuality to her fragile mind. And also, it draws parallels to Portmans transformation as an actress. And at the end of the day, that’s just kind of cool.

Is it a good movie? Not really. But Mr. Baruchel’s performance is terrific. Every moment he is on screen I believe what is happening simply because of the emotional resonance Jay imbues the character with. He’s instantly likable and endearing. Heck, he even tears up a few times because of the stress of what the character is going through. The script is awful, but Jay Baruchel shines. It’s so rare for a performance to be so grounded in such a bad movie that I dare say he made me enjoy it. This, plus his great performance in Undeclared and even some terrific voice acting in How to Train your Dragon make Jay a guy I’ll watch a movie for. So yep, time to pop in “She’s Out of My League” Because I owe him that much

The opening to the film is bold and kind of awesome. We hear Kevin Flynn talk about the world of the grid, then we see lines start to form what appear to be circuits, then those meld into a bird’s eye view of a city street. As he finishes his small monologue we pan up to see the film’s title sitting vertically on a skyscraper (oddly sans the legacy subtitle). The daft punk music kicks in and for a split second I thought “awesome.” And that was the only time.

 
The plot is your basic summer film. There is a villain with designs for world domination and he seeks an item that will help him do it. He is building an army. We have a young hero with a wise older companion who is a wizard. And the villains and hero’s go from point A, to B, and then finally to C all the while trading the magic Mcguffin back and forth. But this is nothing new and by now when you watch a film like this you kind of ease into the formula, knowing full well what you are in for. But for me, the failings of the plot came from the father/son story. I lost my father five years ago to a heart attack, so films with story lines about fathers and sons affect me deeply. In the film, Sam Flynn loses his father. He disappears for I think ten years or so. When Sam enters the world of Tron, part of me felt like he was going to the after life, or hades in greek mythology, to bring his father back from oblivion. I waited for the moment they would be reunited, because I thought it would affect me. So the first time Sam sees his father (who in this case is the villain who looks like dad but is not) I was shocked by the utter lack of emotion. Sure, this isn’t really his dad, but Sam thinks it is and barely emotes. Knowing me, I’d be a blubbering mess. That’s the whole movie. Emotional connection is void (though some could argue in a world of programs that might make sense) and the emotional core of this tale, a son traveling to a strange and exotic land to rescue his dad, seems kind of hollow. Some people are fine with that and I don’t fault them. But for me it’s infuriating. Why make a movie at all if you’re not interested in the human condition? I know, I know, it’s just Tron. By why should we hold it by different standards? It’s like assuming a child is stupid so you lower the grade point average for him.

 
The movie is frustratingly full of almost cool moments. In the first film, we watch as a laser scans Flynn in small cubes into the world of Tron. Then we are flying through abstract grids and animations, as if we are making the journey ourselves to the digital world. Ever since they announced this new film in 3d I immediately assumed this would happen again, and that in 3d it would be both a neat nod to the first film and a great excuse to do some cool 3d fly-throughs. But in this film, the laser goes off and it’s almost a jarring hard cut to Sam sitting in an identical room. (by the way, I’m curious if a person who hadn’t seen the first film would even understand the concept) The idea being when he steps outside it’s like Dorothy stepping into the Technicolor world of Oz. But it’s handled in an awkward fashion, and we see some of the world before we get our big 3d technicolor moment. In another missed opportunity, when Flynn is explaining what happened to his son, we are shown (in correlation with the voice over of course) young Flynn building this world with Clu and Tron. And sadly the world Flynn starts from looks nothing like the old Tron. This doesn’t make sense to me because when Flynn is building this world, it’s in the late eighties, so why would it look so much like the modern Tron world and nothing like the original? I think for true Tron fans, as well as novices, this would have been a really fun moment to re-visit the old style. Show how he started to adapt it to this sleek and modern look. It’s a minor complaint, but it’s a design element like most in the movie, that looks cool but seems to have not been really thought through. Later on, a fight breaks out in a nightclub and Flynn shows up, touching the floor and shutting off the lights. If I hadn’t read the reviews, and known ahead of time that he wasn’t going to lay a smack down ala Neo, I would have been very disappointed. Having him show up and do nothing seems like a complete waste of time. In fact he does very little that is impressive and then during the finale he uses abilities that seem to have been thought up on the spot because they seemed to be the type of powers that could have been useful throughout the film.

Tron never establishes the rules of this world. For example, Fynns disc is supposedly the key to the villains plan for world domination. And Flynn can exist without having it attached to his back because it is stolen during the movie and he survives. So why wear it on your back if it’s that important? The whole time I kept asking these questions to myself, and watched as they never attempted to answer them. And I’m not complaining because I need to have everything spoon fed to me. But telling me something doesn’t give it any weight if the character reactions aren’t valid. There is no gravity to the situation.  So how do we feel danger? How do we understand the dire consequences if our characters don’t seem afraid to die?  If this is a new world independent of what we saw in tron and completely independent of users, why have identity discs? Why play games? If you can make it look “real” why make it look so stylized? It’s not completely illogical to think Flynn would put some flare on it but why not explain it a little. Plus it makes you think, why did the original Tron world look the way it did if no one designed it? Why, if these are programs, do they need a visual world to interface? In Flynns new world, what are there programs for? And why, if there are beings who sprout fully self-aware, would the programs, who don’t have matching users in the real world, act as if they have A.I. as well? Most people wont care, but this is the stuff that’s fun to think of as a writer, so it’s frustrating to see someone tell a story in which they don’t care. We live in a world where things can be explained. Computers aren’t magic, they are very real. We hold small versions in our hands. So we’re savvy enough where we kind of need answers or at least perceive a logical progression when it comes to technology. As the matrix proves, you can have a heady and outrageous concept and still present it in a realistic fashion. If anything, the characters whose purposes were to be our video game avatars would now be our phone avatars or our laptops. Plus this world seems isolated from everything which seems like a missed opportunity because the world of the original Tron existed without the internet, so imagine the strange possibilities one could mine from that if suddenly it was a worldwide grid. Just seems like a waste. It’s amusing that a story which is convoluted enough to warrant several flashbacks would also seem so paper-thin.

 
As I mentioned above, we saw a double feature with Black Swan. And it was interesting to go from a visually dazzling film which makes no attempt to tell story visually, to a film that tells everything visually or let’s you build the pieces yourself. Ultimately that’s because the filmmakers weren’t starting from a place of just telling a story. That HAS to be the reason to make a movie, and time and time again we have to sit through frustratingly bland films that want to be real movies, but just can’t quite get there because at their hearts they were made for the wrong reasons. Tron Legacy is a perfect example. The first Tron survived on originality and iconic imagery. This film has nothing new to bring to the table.

But you know what, there is only one persons review that really matters. And I leave you with his review. End of line.

At this moment, Tron: Legacy is holding on to a fresh rating at rotten tomatoes of 64%. It’s been a slow decline, but much slower than I anticipated considering almost every site I read reviews on panned it. And harshly enough that the movie maintaining its fresh rating seems odd to me. Then I started looking at the posted clips of reviews and noticed something interesting. Here is a quote for a review deemed un-fresh “A hyper-slick sequel to the heady 1982 man-versus-machine action-adventure, Tron Legacy represents a souped-up chassis built around an engine that doesn’t start.” So to me that reads “Great visuals, not a great story.” Here is a positive one “Who cares what it has to say when it looks this good?” okay, that sounds like the review before, although this guy doesn’t seem to care that it’s story is lacking and so I would agree it’s positive. Here is another positive one “TRON: Legacy may be the best movie I’ve ever seen that possesses a truly awful script.” Okay, that doesn’t sound positive to me. And yet, it is a fresh rating. So I dug deeper. This review is from Gabe Leibowitz of Film and Felt. And in his review he also states “the screenplay alternates between predictably hokey (a sunrise sequence is particularly galling), and flat-out cheesy (most of the dialogue exchanges).” Also he says “It’s very entertaining, and accomplishes its goals with gusto—its strengths are so prominent that it’s easy to view its weaknesses as quibbles rather than serious detractions, presuming you go in with proper expectations.” That last one is the killer. It’s entertaining, as long as you aren’t looking for a good movie. Is that a positive review? Rotten tomatoes thinks so.

Look, I’m not writing this from a place of bitterness, or from some suspicion of a conspiracy (although it is Disney so I wouldn’t put it past them). No one wants to make a bad movie. But when they do, but it’s pretty and expensive, why are we so much more forgiving? I just think it’s hilarious that a site dedicated to collecting data from all reviews in order to come up with a rating on if the movie is “Fresh” meaning “good” or not seems to have such varying ideas on what reviews are actually positive. But I’m a genre fan, and so things like this make it harder for “good” genre films to get made or seen. The more we support a film just because it’s pretty, the less the studios will care about putting time into actually having a story worth telling. It’s just a little disheartening.

I’ll leave you with more “fresh” quotes

“Sleek but not so sophisticated, Tron: Legacy arrives pre-programmed to deliver the visual goods without ever replicating genuine human emotions.”

“A film that awes and bores in frustratingly equal measure. Visually and musically, it’s a triumph. Dramatically, it needs some re-wiring.”

“While 21st-century effects and a cutting-edge dance score make this a stunning virtual ride, the underlying concept feels as far-fetched as ever.”

P.S. For a movie called Tron: Legacy, the Legacy seeming to evoke the father son relationship between Flynn and his Son ( also denoting a passing of some sort of torch which never works) where the freak is Tron? If he has just a 2 second cameo why name the movie after him?

LOST AND FOUND
Yup, lost ended. And they explained nothing. Instead, what we got was a nice little wrap up. The kind that actually has nothing to do with plot or the story at hand. Instead it’s a nice distraction from what Lost was really about, so you can think “Oh how beautiful is this ending?” But it isn’t. I just watched the entirety of Six Feet Under (which is worth it’s own post) but it’s finale is similar in certain ways. It shows us our characters end in life. But it was thematically sound for that show. It was a show about life and death, so it made complete sense to end the show by presenting us with each characters ultimate demise. Lost, on the other hand, kind of tacked this on. And while it seems like it got the wanted effect, I think time will eventually tell on this one. Because they didn’t have the answers. For some, the fun is in the constant theorizing and contemplation which will now go on forever. For me, the fun is in the mystery. And a mystery is only as good as it’s conclusion. Lost, in the end, was a show about people. So why even have all the science fiction overtones? Could you not garner the same results by simply telling a story about survivors of a plane crash? Stranded on an island, forced to survive with total strangers? Why introduce polar bears and smoke monsters if all it adds up to is this is important because it’s the place where good friends met. And it was sad and disappointing and ultimately meaningless.

IS JOSS THE BOSS?
Comic Con is just around the corner and the big news is whether or not Marvel will bring out the Avengers, and Joss Whedon as their leader. It still hasn’t been officially announced though, which I find kind of odd and scary. Joss has been attached to other properties before that fell by the wayside. And while there are tons of reports of his interaction with Marvel and other involved in developing that universe, still no official word. Here is hoping Joss struts out on that stage with a big’ol grin on his face. I really hope he gets to do this. And as a P.S. I’m sad Norton won’t be returning as the Hulk. I liked him in the role.

GREEN LANTERN, THOR, CAPTAIN AMERICA, OH MY
How weird is it to see these classic comic book characters being brought to life now? Who would have thought anyone would be at all interested in making a Thor movie? But what I find interesting is the different approaches both DC and Marvel are taking in bringing their characters ti life. Especially in how on the nose the Marvel characters are looking. The Green Lantern on the other hand is looking kind of silly. The first DC character to come along from Warner Brothers since The Dark Knight made oodles of cash. And here I thought they might follow Nolan’s lead and ground their universe. It just comes off as silly and very CG. Though I appreciate the effort to go bout the costume in a different way. Maybe it will look better in motion?

INCEPTION
Seeing it tonight. I may poo myself Early word is very strong. Hope I feel the same about it.

So I started with you general camcorders. Sony makes a wonderful handcam camcorder that is truly extraordinary. But it comes with some hesitation. The nicest one is almost a grand. And at that price, one might as well spend the extra money and get something professional.

Next I looked at the plethora of small handheld hd camera’s being developed at an alarming rate. One of the more popular one’s is the flip camera. Is very tiny, shoots hd video, and has a built in usb port for easy file transferring. They range in price around $100-$300. The video quality is pretty good. But a major issue is that the camera is too light. It picks up even the most minute hand shake. So it’s hard to pull the trigger.

At nab my boss picked me up an hd hero. It’s a little box of a camera designed to be the ultimate sport pov camera. It’s a heck of a little device. But it’s lack of any kind of view finder, plus it’s extremely wide angle lens makes it great for pov but not for an every day camcorder.

Then, my prayers were answered. Apple announced the iPhone 4 – with hd video recording. Holy crap Apple! I had already planned on getting the new phone before I heard about this. But after, I was completely sold. Leave it to apple to look ahead and realize that we all should have a device in our pockets that can record video, shoot photos, play music and games, and also be a freaking phone. I’ve only seen a single sample of the video quality, but it’s enough to make me a very happy man. And now, the 14 year old kid inside of me is ready to make some movies with a very tiny camera

Welcome to the Rant.

there be spoilers ahead matey…

I didn’t hate Iron Man 2. I was just left kind of mildly entertained. It didn’t really stand out why in the beginning. But after a while I realized why I couldn’t connect. So I thought I would type it all out. Cause after all, that’s what Schneiblog is all about.

1. Tony has no arc – In the first film, Tony makes weapons for the government. He is a pretty self-centered guy.  Then he is kidnapped and faced with the gruesome reality that his weapons aren’t just used by the good guys. In essence he has had a hand in the slaughtering of millions of innocents. This hit’s Tony appropriately hard, and he creates the Iron Man suite to combat the people who do harm with his tech. In the sequel, well Tony has reverted to becoming A pretty self centered guy after announcing he is Iron Man and essentially single handedly causing world piece. He now has to deal with the world demanding this technology from him, to which he says no. Now, considering the plot of part one, I would imagine the idea of governments demanding his technology would make a pretty good continuation on the themes of power, and the responsibility behind it. Tony has seen that even in the hands of people he once trusted (Jeff Bridges in the first film) power can corrupt. But then, during an odd skirmish, his best friend essentially steals a suit and takes it to the government. This should make Tony furious. He’s been betrayed by his best friend who fears Tony is out of control. And worst yet, delivered that suit to the government who Tony denied. It’s essentially theft. But Tony never makes mention of it. Let alone the fact that Tony, with his nearly limitless technology, couldn’t override the suite (as the villain does in the finale) and just send it on home. Instead he could care less and continues his non-arc. He’s more concerned with the fact that he is dieing. But wouldn’t it have been more heroic if he kept ignoring his own mortality? If the suit is powerful enough to cause world piece, should he be so passive as to let one fly out his front door essentially?
2. The Villian has no arc – Whiplash wants revenge for the fact that Tony’s dad essentially stole Whiplash’s fathers ideas for the arc reactor and banished him to Russia. Whiplash’s plan it seems is to wound Tony, not kill him, in front of millions to show the world Tony is weak. And it kind of doesn’t make any sense. As whiplash says later, if you make god bleed then everyone won’t believe in him anymore. The conceit being that once people see someone face Iron Man, the bad dudes will come out of the woodwork. Only they don’t. Cause no one has the tech to face Iron Man. So, Whiplash is kept off to the side the entire movie. He builds the tech and then once again goes after Tony. This time to kill him? I mean Whiplash’s plan pretty much was to show up and kick ass. He didn’t have an escape plan. He didn’t wear a mask. Nor did he seem concerned when caught. So why not just kill Tony? And why, when Justin Hammer shows up and hires him to build new tech, does he then decide to try and kill Iron Man? Not only that, but he get’s closer to doing it in his first attempt, then when he has literally dozens of robots chasing Stark. In a lot of ways I couldn’t help but think of the dark knight. Even the scene with Tony and whiplash (the only one they share where they aren’t fighting) Whiplash mocks Tony, essentially stateing that society would consume him. Only they don’t. They can’t. Here, it would make more sense for Whiplash to create the tech, and release it to the world before he had his showdown with Stark. Suddenly every baddy in town has the means to create a suit. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate revenge? To let society eat him up by providing the means. And maybe in the process Whiplash could have pointed Tony’s dad out as being the fraud as he is. But in this world, the only one with the means to build the tech first would be Justin Hammer. This leads me to a point 3.
3. Justin Hammer is an Idiot – As villains go, Justin Hammer is one of the dumbest ever. I love me some Sam Rockwell, but his character is just insanely naïve and ridiculous. He’s essentially a mirror image of what Tony once was. And that would work, if Tony had learned his lesson and was a more reserved public figure. But Tony is still outrageous and self-centered. So it’s just like having a second ass walking around. Not to mention, Hammer doesn’t seem all that intelligent. Like an arms dealer who made a ton of money but has little to no clue how things actually work. Whiplash essentially walks all over him. If Hammer had been over the top in public, but in private been alarmingly dangerous, maybe it would have worked. But there are no layers, and as fun as Rockwell is, the character himself poses no threat to stark and is a patsy to whiplash’s motives. This could even work if his tech seemed viable. But it’s presented as if Hammer’s technology is years behind Starks. Whiplash single handedly makes it work. Now what if instead of Hammer breaking whiplash out of prison, whiplash had released his tech as I mentioned earlier. Well then hammer wouldn’t need him. Hammer could have used the schematics that Whiplash released and started making his own weapons. Have the conflict between Hammer and Stark erupt. Because Tony doesn’t want the military having this power and Hammer is handing it over for the right price. Hammer then becomes the true mirror image. What Tony once was. The physical manifestation of Tony’s demons. Instead, he’s just kind of silly. And I’m sorry, but the bit with his ultimate weapon fizzling just completely robs Hammer of any kind of weight.
4. Tony’s dad is a tool – There is an entire subplot built around Tony’s father. And essentially states that his dad was stern with him because he actually cared and knew his little boy was brilliant. It’s a lot of assumptions on his fathers part. But more to the point it seems proven true that his dad did in fact screw over whiplash’s dad. So to me, he’s a jerk. It makes the emotional scenes between Tony and recording of his father impotent.
5. Iron Man is not a hero, nor in the movie much – This is my last point. Iron Man doesn’t do much in this movie. Tony Stark does. And you feel it. He suits up three times for battle. The first is with whiplash, the second is a drunken battle with his friend. The third is a battle with whiplash. In the finale, innocent bystanders are involved but everything is aimed at Tony. So he’s actually caused the mayhem. He let his friend get away with and iron Man suit. It’s all really his fault. So the finale isn’t exciting cause it’s Tony cleaning up his own mess. He’s stood by unaware that his villains were scheming, and uncaring that his government had his technology. He’s too busy creating a new element to save his life. I’m not saying one shouldn’t try to save themselves. But it’s often the hero who puts himself in peril for the good of the people. Isn’t that what a hero is? In the first film Tony is fighting to save people. And fighting to keep his technology out of the wrong hands. And while I think the sequel is trying desperately to keep down that road, it’s too concerned with weaving in unnecessary elements to do so. If this were about Tony’s demons. The ramifications of his actions as Iron Man then it might work. It kind of is in the movie, but not in a way that makes you invested in Iron Man. Tony seems more dangerous than the villains. He’s obviously unbalanced and in this film it’s not very charming. It’s reckless. I know in the comics he battled being an alcoholic and lord knows I don’t want to see that version of Iron Man. But if the villains and drama of this film stemmed from Tony’s new found responsibility of becoming Iron Man. In reaction to how trigger happy he is. Maybe then it would count. If Iron Man, being poisoned by the suit that once saved his live, were fighting to protect the people from the threat of his own technology in the hands of  a man who resembled the person Tony was trying to change. Then maybe it could have worked. I think that was the intention, if not the result.

I think everyone involved did well with what they had. I think the actors are the reason why the movie isn’t awful. And I must admit I loved everything involved in the Marvel universe and am still ready for an Avengers film. Robert Downey and Sam Jackson had a good chemistry and it would be fun to see that in a team film.

Random Annoyances:

If whiplash can remotely control dozens of suits with minimum keystrokes, then why can’t he fry his own computers? Black widow shows up and Whiplash has vanished, but why does he leave all his computers running?

If the mini arc reactor in Tony’s chest is what powers the suits, then how can Rhodey just hop in one and start it? Why does it have it’s own arc reactor inside as shown later on? Why would he essentially leave his car with the keys in the ignition? Or more to the point, if the suit is designed to attach to the arc reactor in Tony’s chest, then why is there room to add one independently?

And how exactly is Rhodey so good and working the suit? Has he done it before? Been in training? He knows how to work it like a pro in the film. Even though it seems to be his first time. But in the first movie it takes Tony a while to get that good at it.

Why on gods green earth does Whiplash take his mask off during a battle? He does it twice during the final scene. Why can’t anyone shoot him in the head? Tony and Rhodey combine they’re repulsors to blow him up, but if they’re hands are free why not just shoot him?

Why would the final drones who have been chasing Tony and shooting non stop land one after the other and wait for Tony to put his shield down before shooting? Why wouldn’t they enter, guns a blazing like before?

More to the point, how could whiplash do so much secret stuff while under constant surveillance at Hammer facility? No one noticed the giant suit he was making? Or the whips? Where did her hide them? And why is he so good at writing software? He’s a physicist. And a hacker? Does this bug anyone else? Like, in general? How come everyone is a freaking amazing hacker in movies? And never use a freaking mouse?

And just so you don’t think I hated it. Here are a few things I liked.

-       Scarlette Johanson.

-       The suitcase Iron Man suit is pretty awesome.

-       All the shield stuff was enjoyable

-       Thors hammer

-       The Captain America shield bit was nice.

Oh, and for a split second, I thought we might get Back Widow vs. Whiplash. That would have made me very happy.