Errol Flynn: An Original Pirate of the Caribbean

by Eric Szyszka

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End brought a successful close to the Disney franchise this past summer. Right? With this trilogy now complete one thing is definite -- the fate of the pirate movie is now up for grabs. The genre has proven to be a credible money-making genre for the first time since Classic Hollywood, so naturally, we have to wonder, what's next? One rumor that has been floating around has been a Captain Blood remake. Well, in light of this, I think we should reflect on the original remake, the star making performance, and the legacy it gave birth to. That's right, there's an earlier silent Blood film that predates Errol Flynn's. However, it was Flynn that without a doubt redefined the term "swashbuckler" for us all. He helped launch a legacy that continues into the multiplexes to this day after only a few trip up investments—remember Cutthroat Island? Try not to.

Errol Flynn, for me, will always be the definition of adventure. Long before Johnny Depp decided to put on eye-liner and portray an aging rock star-gone-pirate, Errol conquered these waters and with his own bravado – late 20^th century pop culture not required. Flynn portrayed a sympathetic man in pretty much every role from his sold into slavery freedom story of Captain Blood to The Sea Hawk and even surprisingly in the bio-pic of General George Custer whom I never could think of being a sympathetic role until Flynn tackled it and proved us all wrong with They Died With Their Boots On.

In Captain Blood, Errol is Dr. Peter Blood (great name, right?) and he is arrested for performing medical procedures on enemies of the crown. This means one thing of course, being sold into slavery. His distaste for monarchy, authority, and the aristocracy fuels his character. He even resists allowing the beautiful Arabella (Olivia De Havilland) to purchase him. Eventually, when about to meet the end, pirates attack which allows him to escape the Jamaican plantation he's been sent to. The attack is an utter convenience Blood recognizes in such a way we just have to laugh and go with it: "This is what I call a timely interruption! Though what'll come of it - the devil himself only knows!" After this, Captain Blood is born, and he will have revenge on the throne all while hitting a divide among pirates, giving him the major antagonist in the form of Basil Rathbone. Without giving too much away, this movie makes for a fun ride of action, the high seas, and a sense of morality within its piracy that would probably make young audiences of today simply groan. Fortunately, while Blood wants to reap justice, he isn't exactly a Rambo-esque figure. Flynn is, however, probably one of the biggest influences on the modern day action hero.

Flynn had a charming honesty in his work, while the acting while might not have been as momentous as a Marlon Brando or Daniel Day-Lewis performance; he gave us truly touching parts without it looking as if he was trying. You felt as if you were there with him and Olivia De Havilland through their many pit falls and love affairs (and eight films together.) You were laughing with him during his jokes. You dodged swords with him (okay, maybe some bad wording there considering his numerous sex scandals and accusations.) Through all this, the superb method in which Errol Flynn injected both charm, jokes, and action together definitely marks a path towards the one-liners of our Die Hards and Schwarzeneggers but in Flynn's case they were done with restraint, elegance, and certainly weren't as knee-slappingly funny for funny's sake. In short, when Flynn did it, it worked.

His personal life was a subject of the tabloids, gossip, and court proceedings and did that interfere with the work? No, it actually might have only benefited it. He gave us a fun-loving character that in many ways reflected his own personality as evident through some interviews and his auto-biography, “My Wicked, Wicked Ways.” His roles hated authority just as much as he did, i.e. the constant arguments with Jack Warner and Michael Curtiz. His escapades with women and sailing must have also helped him build his structure for these swashbuckler roles.

Flynn was a profound figure and I can not think of a single actor of this generation that could even fill his socks let alone his boots. We'll see if a remake really materializes or not. In the mean time, I implore you, check out the work of Errol Flynn. Don't just stop with Captain Blood and Robin Hood though! Keep digging beyond the work with Curtiz to the films he did with the tremendously talented director Raoul Walsh such as They Died With Their Boots On or the down-right Indiana Jones-like Desperate Journey in which Errol and Ronald Reagan go behind Nazi enemy lines and literally fist fight their way out. I'd also recommend Vincent Sherman's The Adventures of Don Juan (the part he was born to play.) So, what are you waiting for? Get in like Flynn on Errol Flynn.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End was released on DVD December 4th, 2007.

George A. Romero's Diary of Misplaced Anger

by Andrew Jupin

Since its inception, the medium of film has been a tool that grants filmmakers the option of implanting their social and or political opinions into their work. This is something that is possible in both documentaries and narratives, and it can also span any and all genres. Often times the better, more effective social and political criticisms are buried in very subtle fashion within a film’s subtext. Leaving things out in the open and blatantly obvious to the audience can become nagging, especially when the film feels like it’s beating you over the head with the filmmaker’s opinions or ideals. One particular area of film that is very successful at burying social commentary is horror.

At first glance, the Horror is a complete throw-away genre. Often times it is the genre that people—especially the naive film scholar newbie—will take the least seriously. And why shouldn’t they? After all it is just blood, guts, murder, monsters and breasts, right?

Right?

Thankfully the answer is a resounding “no.” The realm of horror has actually produced some of the greatest works of cinematic social commentary the world has ever seen. The Mother of all horrific social innovation came in 1968, when an independent, amateur filmmaker from Pittsburgh introduced the world to the threat of a different kind, an undead kind.

The filmmaker was of course George A. Romero and the film was his seminal Night of the Living Dead. In the film, Romero tells the story of a group of people—a new version of the modern, American family if you will—who are trapped inside a farmhouse as the recently deceased are beginning to rise once again and preying on the living. Romero’s commentary on the new combinations of families beginning to take shape around the time of the film are subtle and clever. What better place to start a new kind of family than a quaint, super-American farmhouse? Everything is set in place: the dining table with its dainty tablecloth, the television in the parlor for the family to gather around after a hearty meal. The only problem is that the ‘people’ outside—the zombies or in the analytic sense, the old, the backwards thinking, the repressed—are trying to break into this new household and destroy it before it can begin.

And so the story goes. The outsiders eventually do break in, cause chaos, and in the end, the sole survivor of the Farmhouse Family is destroyed by the living—the Ignorant Living who exist amongst the Outsiders—on the assumption that he is one of the undead. Or is it because he is African American? Romero leaves it out in the open.

Romero’s zombie legacy has carried onto into other socially critical films, some masterpieces, some who get the job done in a sense and some complete and utter failures. The masterpieces include the aforementioned Night and his follow-up: 1978’s Dawn of the Dead. The failures unfortunately include Romero’s twenty-first century career revival (no pun intended), 2005’s Land of the Dead and his most recent outing into the zombie-verse, the cinema verite docu-terror, Diary of the Dead.

Before I go too far into this diatribe, I just want to make it perfectly clear that if you are looking for the usual Romero horror flare here, the guy still has it. The thrills, chills and gore have all returned and they all make the movie—for the most part—pretty fun, albeit it familiar and semi-mind numbing.

The reason I bothered to give the minor horror history lesson further up was so I would be able to contrast it to the direction and style Romero has given to his latest film. People remember George Romero’s zombie films for two reasons. One, because of all the great gore effects and carnage. Two, because of his biting social commentary and perfected execution of satire just when the moment calls for it. The cracks in the foundation can be seen as early as his middle-of-the-road third zombie film, Day of the Dead (1985). But the real collapse is his over-the-top, Bush vs. The Rest of America overtones in Land. In the film, Denis Hopper plays a billionaire who the people look to as their leader; even when all he does is sit high above the streets of the city, far away from the carnage down below, removed from any and all trouble or strife. Sound familiar? In the end it is the zombies—this time representing the downtrodden Americans—who rise up and eventually overthrow their demonic ruler.

The out in the open angst is even worse in Diary. In the film, a group of students are on the set of a senior thesis mummy movie—really?—when news of the zombie epidemic hits the radio airwaves. The director of the film decides that he should continue shooting throughout their long journey through the Pennsylvania back roads in order to capture and preserve their experiences and to show the world what is really happening. During the film, the camera shakes its way through hospitals, safe houses, dark woods and mansions all filled with the usual zombie attacks. Also along for the ride is Romero’s blatant hatred for news media. He makes it more than obvious by having every character repeat at least twice—and our filmmaker hero many more times—that broadcast news can’t be trusted, that producers put a spin on every story that comes across their desk, that the audience is being manipulated and that they need to seek out alternative sources of information (like You Tube and Myspace apparently.) This is the extent of most of the dialogue that happens on camera when they aren’t talking about how important it is that they stay alive and make sure to expose the truth.

One key scene in particular was very reminiscent of a much more well-done scene from Night. In the opening moments of Diary, news footage is shown of a domestic murder suicide. A husband has shot his wife to death and then turned the gun on himself. The reporter, who doesn’t know she’s being filmed at the time, makes crass remarks about how the family is Hispanic. We get it. The white-run news media judge minorities and will make decisions based on race to improve their ratings. This instantly reminded me of the scene from Night that I mentioned earlier involving the surviving member of the farmhouse party, who is black. The white sheriff orders his white deputy to shoot the man in the head before they even know if he has been turned into a zombie or not. Did they do this on purpose? Did they shoot him because he was a zombie or because he was black? Romero doesn’t give a straight answer in this first film. He leaves it up to the audience to decide, but reveals a little more of his opinion by juxtaposing the black man being shot with images of zombies being hung from trees and shot, and the dead man’s body being thrown onto a burning pile of exterminated zombies.

It’s almost as if Romero doesn’t trust what he is capturing on film to get his opinions across. Instead he now feels the need to hammer the point home by bludgeoning his audience with useless character dialogue; dialogue that just blurts out what Romero wants to say. His messages and opinions that, forty years ago, were concealed under a thick level of brilliant filmmaking, critical imagery, and the calm, cool, collectedness of a savvy horror director.

If Romero was an angry filmmaker in 1968 and still able to produce a calculated work like Night of the Living Dead, then he must be a severely pissed off filmmaker today to create an obvious film like Diary of the Dead. A filmmaker so mad, he lets precision and form take a knee while pretty-faced, fresh meat actors act as squawk boxes for his social soapbox of unrest. Take a breath, George.

A Look Back at the Too Few Roles of Heath Ledger

by Brett Parker

Academy Award nominee Heath Ledger, best known for his roles in the Oscar-winning Brokeback Mountain and the upcoming The Dark Knight, passed away in his New York City apartment on Tuesday, January 22nd.

I am not here to speculate about the details of his death. The media will undoubtedly produce shameless analogies of his demise within the following weeks to come. I am here to remember the rich and fascinating career of the ever-talented Ledger. To observe his career is to observe how an actor can transform himself from a charming teen idol into a method chameleon of the highest caliber. When Hollywood was ready to pin him down as just another pretty-boy actor, Ledger ran off the walls and found himself playing off-beat and unconventional characters, each performance sharpening his skills and nourishing his talents.

Throughout his early school years, Heath had shown a strong passion for the dramatic arts. By the time he was 17, Heath had packed up and moved to Sydney, Australia to try his hand at Australian productions. Heath found himself taking small roles in various films and short-lived television series. His most memorable Australian stint in the early days was the crime film Two Hands. Nonetheless, Ledger found the confidence to move to America and audition for roles there.

Ledger landed his first big break in 10 Things I Hate About You, a hopelessly quirky yet strangely enjoyable teen comedy. Ledger’s popularity in the role catapulted him to “It Boy” status in Hollywood. It was this new-found leverage in tinsel town that landed him in the Mel Gibson blockbuster, The Patriot, which is more-or-less considered the definite film about the American Revolution. My favorite film from Ledger’s teen-idol-era would have to be A Knight’s Tale, which starred Ledger as a medieval squire who lies about his identity to become a knight who competes in jousting. Not only is the film fresh and hilarious, but is a wonderful example of how pop music can be used to elevate the mood of a film.

Despite his growing popularity, Ledger was reportedly terrified of being an It Boy in much the same way Johnny Depp was terrified of being just another “Hollywood product.” This caused Ledger to cast out and take on unconventional roles in smaller cinematic fares. He played a suicidal prison guard in Monster’s Ball, an Australian outlaw in Ned Kelly, and a skateboard mentor in Lords of Dogtown. While Ledger eventually dabbed in big budget productions, such as The Four Feathers and The Brothers Grimm, his characters were still more complex and more colorful than you’d expect from a typical Hollywood star.

His best and most famous role came when he appeared in Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain, which told the story of two male cowboys in love and being unable to express it fully. Ledger played Ennis Del Mar, an introverted and complex cowboy who is damaged by his repressed feelings for fellow cowboy, Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal). What was so special about Ledger’s performance was the fact that he had never dug so deep into a character before and transformed himself completely. He mastered the performance with the skills of a great method actor: altering his speech, mannerisms, and overall demeanor. His portrayal of Ennis is one of the most heartbreaking male performances in the history of cinema. Ledger’s performance is very subtle and reserved, yet we can sense every feeling of love and devastation that grips Ennis throughout the film. The 2005 Best Actor Oscar may have gone to Philip Seymour Hoffman for his wonderful and showy performance in Capote, but there are those that argue Ledger truly deserved the statue. His performance not only shattered stereotypes and conventions, but announced Ledger as an important acting talent of modern cinema.

Following the runaway success of Brokeback Mountain, Ledger continued to challenge himself with both fun and offbeat characters. He received good reviews for his portrayal of a heroin addict in Candy and I especially liked him in Casanova, in which he was cast in the title role of the legendary womanizer. Casanova is one of my favorite historical figures, and while the film doesn’t do him full justice, Ledger was certainly perfect in the role, conveying an effortless wit and confidence the role demanded.

While Brokeback Mountain shows Ledger’s best performance, I feel his best overall film is Todd Haynes’ I’m Not There, my pick for the best film of 2007. Ledger plays Robbie Clark, a famous movie star who is meant to represent the Dylan of the Blood on the Tracks era. Robbie’s marriage and divorce to the lovely Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) mirrors Dylan’s real life marriage and divorce from Sarah Lownds. While all the other actors explore Dylan’s head, Ledger wonderfully explores Dylan’s heart. His scenes depict Dylan’s joy in finding love and his heartbreak from the isolation of being a mythic celebrity. Perhaps Ledger drew on his own celebrity experiences and his separation from Michelle Williams as a starting point for his performance, which stands strongly with the other great performances in this film

Audiences will get a chance to see Ledger’s final, completed performance this summer in The Dark Knight; the sequel to Batman Begins that casts Ledger as the legendary comic villain, the Joker. While the film has yet to be seen in order to judge the performance, early previews suggest Ledger will be nothing short of exciting and masterful. While the Joker has always been depicted as wild and zany, Ledger’s performance promises to be more edgy and terrifying. If it’s any consolation, the film’s director, Christopher Nolan, can’t stop raving about Ledger and his performance. He’s been quoted as saying Ledger’s performance will be “extraordinary” and that Ledger himself is a “fearless” actor.

It’s been said that Warner Bros. is reportedly nervous in finding ways to market Ledger’s final film, feeling audiences will be uneasy about it. They shouldn’t worry. I recently took in a film at a packed Manhattan multiplex on a Friday night and The Dark Knight trailer was shown. The audience was pretty silent throughout while exciting clips of the Joker were shown. As the trailer ended, some yahoo in the back shouted “HEATH LEDGER!!!” Upon hearing that, the audience erupted with cheers and applause for the movie star. It may not have been the classiest ovation, but never in my life have I seen a movie star get such applause after a coming attraction.

If ever there was an actor that deserved applause, it’s Heath Ledger. He explored his craft like a true artist and conducted himself like the perfect gentleman. Like Marlon Brando and Johnny Depp before him, he broke rules of how to be a movie star and demonstrated fresh new ways in which an actor can matter. He was admirable in the way he threw self-preservation and vanity in the trash and reveled in creativity and conviction. He was in total command of his career and hungered for work that was raw and real. Of course an audience of moviegoers applauded him. Who wouldn’t applaud an actor based on those ideals?

Highlight on Cult - C.H.U.D.

by Andrew Jupin

If it is one thing that I’m always a sucker for in film it has to be grand shots of old New York. I’m talking about the kind of New York that doesn’t really exist today if you really want to split hairs about it—and I will. In today’s ‘on location’ films set in New York, there grit and grime is gone. The essence of New York that came alive so brightly with the films of Woody Allen or Sidney Lumet is gone. These films exemplify the true greatness of New York and how magnificent of a city it actually is. In these films, we get to see the grit, the grime, the people, the neighborhoods, the anonymous streets and businesses. It is to the credit of filmmakers like Woody Allen and Sidney Lumet that we are so blessed with these on location images. Having recently watched Serpico, one scene that is immediately coming to mind is when Serpico is having a secret meeting with the upper Brass under the Hell’s Gate Bridge in Astoria. Such a random spot to shoot a scene, but it’s just so incredible to look at.

Now with all the Lumet-loving aside, bigger Hollywood pictures aren’t the only place you can go for great examples of prestigious, old New York. A great way to find these great images of old New York is to simply take the budget out of the equation and add some screams. That’s right: low-budget horror films. And one of the best and campiest films to come out of the 1980’s was a little horror film directed by Douglas Cheek in 1984.

This film is C.H.U.D.

Growing up, C.H.U.D. was always a mystery to me. I was fortunate enough to have an uncle who had seen all the lost classics, Plan 9From Outer Space, A Boy and His Dog, Repo Man, etc. And C.H.U.D. was a film in a long list of camp, cult and just plain out-there films that he was a fan of and wanted to pass down to me. So one day we hit the video store in search of this modern camp ‘masterpiece’ as he kept referring to it as. Unfortunately we were only able to come up with the film’s comedic sequel: C.H.U.D. 2: Bud the C.H.U.D. And it wasn’t until years later, as a cinema student sitting with my friends in a crammed dorm room, was I able to get my hands on the lost classic.

The film’s premise is very simple—I suppose: people have been disappearing off the streets of downtown Manhattan all from around the same police precinct. So the precinct captain, Captain Bosch (played with great enthusiasm and seriousness by the hilariously mustachioed Christopher Curry) starts to believe that these disappearances are related. He starts asking around to some of his local informants including a street-smart, man-of-the-people, AJ ‘The Reverend’ Shepherd (another super-serious performance in the film, this time coming from an out-there, big-haired Daniel Stern). As luck would have it, the street people that The Reverend takes care of have been getting attacked underground by what they insist are monsters.

Also hot on the trail is George Cooper, an ex-fashion photographer who is trying to take a more serious turn with his work. Rounding out the ‘big three’ of this cast is John Heard playing Cooper with all the seriousness and enthusiasm as the rest of the cast of the film. I honestly think that that is what adds a lot to the camp value of this film. All of the performances are so dead-on as far as intensity goes. All the actors are really going for it.

The rest of the story is a bit convoluted, but it’s the old “the government is covering up a massive chemical dumping scam that’s going on beneath the city and accidentally turning its underground inhabitants into flesh eating monsters” storyline.

On top of all the flesh-eating terror, one of the best parts of C.H.U.D. is all the on location shooting. The entire film was shot on location in New York, right out in the streets, in all the dark alleys, real neighborhoods and perfect venues. At one point in the film there is a sequence that starts at the break of dawn. The first few seconds capture the World Trade Center just as the sun is rising and it really makes for quite the beautiful shot. It’s a really great reminder of what the city once looked like and audiences are very fortunate that this film is just one of many that have preserved New York’s former image. It’s also funny that because films like C.H.U.D. are pretty much all but forgotten outside of the camp and cult worlds, they don’t fall victim to any kind of digital restoration or ‘correction’ that would possibly remove the World Trade Center or something like that. Instead, these films are left just as they were and just how they should be.

C.H.U.D. is a great example of a real campy film that stays alive through word-of-mouth. It’s really great to see all these well-known character actors just as they were starting out making films—in one of the final scenes, a very young John Goodman even makes an appearance playing a cop who flirts with a waitress at a diner. The story is absolutely absurd and the gore effects are actually pretty good. For such a nothing-budget film, the gore and monster effects actually turn out to be pretty believable.

If you haven’t seen C.H.U.D. before, the best way to watch it is to grab a few of your closest friends, get some beer and some food, sit back and crack every single joke you can. I would say a good eighty-nine percent of the dialogue is delivered with (unintentionally) hilarious timing and you and all your friends will have a great time laughing along to the film.

Oh and the acronym? Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers or C.H.U.D.

Allen's 'Cassandra's Dream' Leaves a Bigger Than Expected Impression

by Brett Parker

Critics have not exactly been kind to Woody Allen’s latest film, Cassandra’s Dream. It scored a 46% rating at rottentomatoes.com, giving it a “rotten” status. The general consensus appears to be that the film pales in comparison to Sidney Lumet’s Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead and Allen’s own Match Point. Even critics who liked the film label it as contrived, watered-down Allen. Me? I couldn’t have loved it more! While exploring his usual themes of class, morals, and murder, Allen has crafted one of his most entertaining pictures ever; a film that leaves no emotion unturned and no audience member out of its grasp. How excited I was to kick off the New Year with a powerhouse film! It’s been a long time since I’ve been this worked up over a film and even longer since I’ve been so baffled by a film’s negative reception.

Colin Farrell and Ewan McGregor star as Terry and Ian, two working class brothers in London. Terry is a mechanic with a sweet girlfriend (Sally Hawkins) and a huge gambling problem. Ian is the co-manager of his father’s restaurant and dreams of one day hitting it rich by purchasing hotels in Los Angeles. As the film unravels, the brothers run into financial anxieties. Terry owes serious money to loan sharks after losing big in a poker game while Ian wants serious money to impress a high maintenance actress (Hayley Atwell). Terry and Ian come up with the idea of asking their rich Uncle Howard (Tom Wilkinson) for the dough.

Uncle Howard is a rich business owner in China who agrees to see the boys on a visit to London one afternoon. He agrees to help the boys with their financial troubles if they do a huge favor for him. He wants them to murder a business aquatince (Philip Davis) who is threatening to reveal information that could destroy Howard. At first the boys are shocked by this request, but Howard is an intense persuader who plays the family loyalty card and ultimately has the boys agree to do it. The rest of the film plays like a philosophical conversation on committing murder and dealing with its aftermath.

Cassandra’s Dream is that rare film that absorbs you from the start and holds your eyes on the screen the whole time. You get caught up in the drama and you honestly don’t know where the film is going to lead you. Allen wisely avoids elaborate plot twists and police involvements and instead focuses strictly on the psychology of the two brothers as they are pushed to their emotional brinks. This might seem limiting in another film, but McGregor and Farrell expertly play their parts to perfection and sell you on every nuance in the screenplay. McGregor is skillfully empathetic with Ian even in the face of overwhelming selfishness. Farrell gives one of his best performances as the disintegrating Terry, the brother who has the hardest time facing the idea of murdering someone and being completely unable to live with himself after the crime has been carried out. Farrell is awesome in the way he makes us feel Terry’s every feeling of guilt and depression. He plays Terry as if emotions are literally trying to burst through his face.

Critics are perhaps right to compare this film with Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, a film with a very similar premise. Indeed, it is hard to watch Cassandra’s Dream without even lightly thinking about the other film in the back of your mind. Both films involve two brothers carrying out a crime to settle financial woes with the emotional weight of the crime’s aftermath sending them both on a downward spiral into tragedy. Lord knows Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead is a wonderful film. It’s a smart and inventive heist film that catches a legendary director in the wonderful act of crafting a film as if he were a fresh, young innovator. Yet in the end, I prefer Cassandra’s Dream. It fleshes out its moral ideas more strongly, weaves more complex motivations, and brings more emotional weight to it. It basically brings deeper and more thoughtful dialogue to the moral dilemmas at hand. My only problem with Lumet’s film is the way it marches through its emotional developments without fully expressing its weight. It all leads to an interesting climax that I wanted to buy, but in the back of my mind I never fully did (would Albert Finney really do what does in the end?).

The other complaints about the film involve the fact that Allen is repeating themes in this film he already explored superbly in Crimes and Misdemeanors and Match Point. Granted, but one would find that the true pleasure in auteur filmmaking is the fact that strong themes are repeated film after film. It can be fascinating watching an auteur take ideas they feel strong about and film similar variations on them movie after movie. Just look at the way Howard Hawks kept “remaking” Rio Bravo. Look at how justified he was in his decision to do so. I’d rather see Allen remake the same film over and over than watch most Hollywood directors churn out countless pictures.

In a time of clunky, unremarkable filmmaking, we should get over ourselves and realize how special a Woody Allen film like this truly is. It’s superbly framed, masterfully acted, and fascinating in its emotional complexities. It is patient, attentive, and emotionally stirring. Allen doesn’t rely on plot twists and a flashy visual style; he tells the film with straight-forward simplicity that helps flesh out its underlying drama more effectively.

There are those who might think I’m bonkers calling Cassandra’s Dream a great film, but what makes a film great anyway? Usually it’s when a film presents a highly-original idea in an awesome manner or when every element of a film is done to perfection. Well I feel this film is perfection. I don’t think anything could’ve been more entertaining to me. I sat down in the theater, was excitedly involved the whole time, and couldn’t take my eyes off the screen. For the rest of the weekend, I couldn’t stop thinking about it and I can’t wait to see it again. If that doesn’t make a film great, I don’t know what does!

Top Ten Films of 2007

by Brett Parker
While 2007 was a great year for films, it was also a rather gloomy one. As I look over the films that have made my top ten list, I realize that they are skilled and wonderful films that showcase rather dark and bleak aspects of humanity and society. Even Hot Fuzz, probably the cheeriest film on my list, is a blood-soaked comedy that shows a hilariously frightening side of a controlling society. I realize that since the dawn of the medium, great films have always had heartbreak, death, and despair as its staples. Yet this year, I strongly felt those traits above all others as I marched through the cinema. It seemed mostly cloudy with very little sunshine.

Perhaps this gloomy film season is a reflection of the gloominess of 2007 itself. I’ve heard very few people talk about what a positive year this has been. There was a lot to frown about. The economy was rather chaotic, celebrity culture became suffocating, and the horrors of the Iraq Rolling Stone even published a very witty essay on why this year specifically sucked. If the content of films is indeed a reflection of the society they were produced in, then it only makes sense that these darker times produced darker films. Nonetheless, there were still cinematic wonders to behold and unforgettable performances that will stand the test of time. So let’s celebrate the best of the year and hope that 2008 is a bit sunnier: war continue on.

1) I’m Not There

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a more inventive, defiant, or original film that was released this year. Todd Haynes has made a surreal Bob Dylan biopic that challenges not only the ever-changing images of Dylan himself but also the very idea of the musical biopic. Haynes used six different actors (Marcus Carl Franklin, Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Cate Blanchett, Richard Gere, and Ben Whinshaw) to portray Dylan at various stages in his life and each actor nails their challenging mission to convey Dylan’s unique essence. Blanchett, giving the year’s best female performance, is especially impressive with her dead-on portrayal of the public Dylan we remember the strongest. I myself was not that much of a Dylan fan walking into the theatre, but I found myself in utter fascination with this film from start to finish. It breaks all the rules of the biopic while reinventing them at the same time. Not since The Doors has a musical biopic been so refreshingly trippy and not since Donnie Darko has a cinematic enigma been so much fun to analyze.

2) American Gangster

Ridley Scott brings his distinct eye for grand canvases to the age-old conventions of the gangster picture and creates one of the rawest and most dramatic examples of the genre ever to emerge out of Hollywood. Denzel Washington is absolute dynamite as Frank Lucas, the Harlem crime lord who took the New York drug trade by storm with his Vietnamese Heroin, Blue Magic. Russell Crowe, wonderful as always, is Richie Roberts, the unbending cop who relentlessly tries to take down Lucas’ inner-city empire. Certain aspects of this film may feel familiar to students of Scarface, New Jack City, and King of New York, but make no mistake about it: American Gangster is the smartest and best-looking crime-lord film to ever grace the screen. Scott brilliantly depicts the rise and fall of a modern gangster while pounding home hard-hitting ideas on capitalism, character, and crime.

3) 3:10 to Yuma

Christian Bale and Russell Crowe are two of the most exciting actors working in film today. Having these two read the phone book on-screen would be entertaining. Having them face-off with each other in an action-packed and thoughtful western is fascinating beyond belief. Crowe is a viscous outlaw captured by the law and Bale is an honest rancher hired to escort the villainous cowboy to a prison train at gunpoint. What ensues is a battle of wills and a growing connection between the two that makes for the most dramatic screen team of the year. It says something that their scenes of dialogue are just as exciting as the shootout sequences, which are crafted to perfection. The best westerns have always been layered with underlying meanings and 3:10 to Yuma is rich with compelling ideas scratching beneath the surface. The Freudian homoeroticism is interesting, not only between Crowe and Bale but also Crowe and Ben Foster, who plays the overly-devoted sidekick to Crowe’s outlaw. And the ending says more about Bush America than most people realize.

4) No Country For Old Men

At first glance, No Country for Old Men is so defiant of conventions that it throws you. It veers down a specific path until it casts off on its own and creates its own new direction. On repeat viewings, you realize the brilliance of it all and how this film cuts deeper than most thrillers dare. What starts off as a compelling chase thriller transcends into a deep meditation on the cruel randomness of death and the blind justice of fate. As Anton Chigurh, the sadistic bounty hunter trailing a suitcase of stolen drug money through the Texas landscape, Javier Bardhem creates not only one of the best performances of the year, but one of the great monsters of modern cinema. It’s one of the very best films ever made by the Coen Brothers.

5) There Will Be Blood

We all know Paul Thomas Anderson can be the most inventive of directors and that Daniel Day-Lewis the most forceful of actors, so it almost goes without saying that putting these two together for There Will Be Blood is a cinematic force to reckon with. In telling the story of Daniel Plainview, a cold-hearted oil tycoon drilling for California oil at the dawn of the 20^th century, the film says so much about greed, faith, and corruption of the soul that film analysts can write whole books about it for years to come. While the film evokes memories of Citizen Kane, Giant, and McCabe & Mrs. Miller, There Will be Blood has a sublime quality to it that makes it feel unique. Indeed, Anderson is a filmmaker who seems effortless in making projects feel refreshingly original. And what a performance by Day-Lewis! He isn’t just a great actor here, he is a force of nature that will rock you to your very core! We should just give him the Oscar right now!

6) Beowulf

Using the motion-capture animation effects that was popularized in The Polar Express, Robert Zemeckis unleashes Beowulf, the eye-popping visual effects popcorn ride of the year. Yet the real treat is the care and attention given to the drama and emotions of the story. In telling the ancient tale of the brave warrior who slayed three mystical monsters, the film goes the extra mile to express the psychology, the weaknesses, and the egotistical flaws of its main hero. Much credit is due to the wonderful Ray Winstone, cast as the heroic Beowulf. CGI effects may have been used to give the heavyset Winstone a chiseled exterior, but it’s his hellfire voice and spirit that breathes thrills and chills into his character and the film itself. His Beowulf not only joins Achilles and Maximus among the great movie warriors, but also Marty McFly and Forrest Gump among the great Zemeckis protagonists.

7) We Own the Night

Does We Own the Night play on age-old cop movie formulas? Sure. Is it over-the-top and a tad melodramatic for its own good? Probably. Is it ridiculously exciting in its acting and staging? You bet! We Own the Night is like watching an old school drama filled with a gritty-indie sensibility. The action scenes are fresh and inventive while the performances are focused and intense. Joaquin Phoenix and Mark Wahlberg are electrifying as two brothers on opposite sides of the law in 1980s New York. It may not be groundbreaking cinema, but this film is like an adrenaline shot of excitement that reminds us why we go to the movies in the first place.

8) Talk to Me

In telling the story of Petey Greene, the groundbreaking radio talk show host who was a major voice of Black change in the late 60s, Talk to Me covers several different layers of Petey’s life and hits on countless emotional bases with an effortless, heartwarming charm. The film doesn’t just tell Petey’s story, it explores the responsibilities of social change, the nature of selling out in show business, and how a black man should conduct himself in an ever-changing society. It’s funny, cool, heartbreaking, feel-good, sad, and touching all at once. Great credit is due to Don Cheadle and Chiwetel Ejiofor, who create an on-screen friendship that is both thoughtful and touching. Their final scene together in a pool hall will unexpectedly tug at your heartstrings.

9) The Darjeeling Limited

Wes Anderson has created his most puzzling yet most meditative work to date with The Darjeeling Limited, the story of three estranged brothers on a spiritual journey in India What makes the film so special is how Anderson has big things to say about family and spirituality yet allows the audience to find those messages on its own. This is not an easy film that spells-things-out, but it compels its audience to dig in and unearth its deep thoughts. If nothing else, the film further builds Anderson’s already solid reputation as a brilliant auteur. following the death of their father.

10) Hot Fuzz

The Judd Apatow gang scored big laughs this year with Knocked Up and Superbad, but the honor of funniest comedy of the year goes to Hot Fuzz, the hilarious cop spoof from the crew that brought you Shaun of the Dead. Not only does the film brilliantly send up cop-film clichés, but it also pokes fun at the quick-cutting grandeur of the Michael Bay The laughs just don’t stop coming in this comic thrill ride, especially if you’re an action movie junkie. And this isn’t just a talking heads comedy that sacrifices technical skills for laughs. Director Edgar Wright crafts the film with great cinematic precision and helps create characters and a plot we actually care about outside of the laughs. Simon Pegg is solid as tough super cop Nick Angel, but the real laugh riot here is Nick Frost as the bumbling Danny Butterman. Forget Seth Rogen, the real comedic treasure of the year is Frost, a goofy and sincere oaf who’ll have you in stitches almost every time he’s on camera. Whether he’s plowing through fences, chasing swans, or giving himself massive ice cream headaches, Frost effortlessly creates the best comedic performance of the year. action style.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

-Atonement

-Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead

-Eastern Promises

-Michael Clayton

-Once

-Superbad

OTHER THINGS I REALLY LOVED AT THE MOVIES THIS YEAR

-Johnny Depp channeling David Bowie in Sweeney Todd.

-The Beatles sequence in Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story.

-“Pop Goes My Heart” from Music and Lyrics (Oscar, take notice for Best Song).

-The fact that Justin Timberlake is a talented actor and isn’t just filler in Alpha Dog.

-Jay-Z reinventing the power of the “inspired” soundtrack with his American Gangster album.

-The relaxed final moments of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End.

-I…drink…your…MILKSHAKE!!!!

Reiner's 'Bucket List' is Terminally Ill Emotionally

by Brett Parker

Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman have never acted together in a feature film and now they find themselves starring together in the Rob Reiner comedy, The Bucket List. This film provides the stars with the rather difficult task of distracting an audience from a film that lacks considerable realism, wit, logic, and good special effects. It’s a testament to both actors’ talents, I think, that in spite of the films many flaws, The Bucket List still comes across as entertaining and amusing.

Nicholson and Freeman both star as terminal cancer patients with only months to live. Nicholson is Edward Cole, a medical billionaire who owns the very hospital he is being cared for in, while Freeman is Carter Chambers, a mechanic with a loving extended family who wishes him well everyday at the hospital. Both Edward and Carter share a hospital room and despite their differences, they develop a friendship based mostly on their empathy for each other’s illness. One day, Edward notices Carter scribbling away at notepad and discovers he is making a “bucket list,” a list of all the things Carter wants to do with his life before he “kicks the bucket.”Being a billionaire with no close relatives, Edward realizes he can finance Carter’s bucket list dreams with money that will just go to waste anyways. Cringing at the thought of spending their remaining days in a hospital, Edward and Carter decide to up and travel around the world, fulfilling their wishes on the list. These wishes include skydiving, dining in France, seeing the Pyramids, etc. Edward and Carter have an exhilarating time and really grow close with each other. However, when Carter’s family begs him to come home and secrets are revealed about Edward’s own family history, the two realize that staring down death is more complicated than they thought.

The Bucket List is like eating a really tasty candy bar that you know is really bad for you health-wise. At face value, it’s an enjoyable film. Entertainment-wise, you can do a whole lot worse than watching Nicholson and Freeman living it up all over the world. Yet when you apply logical thought to the finer points of the script, you realize there is a whole lot wrong with this picture. If two men were really dying of cancer, would they really have enough energy to go running around the globe and jump out of airplanes like they do? Would Carter’s wife (Beverly Todd) really be as patient as she is about her husband wanting to spend his remaining days with a wild billionaire instead of with his own family? And this may be a small detail, but would a lifelong mechanic work on a car’s engine while smoking a cigarette? If that thing drops, it could send the fuel line up in flames!

One can usually be forgiving of a flawed screenplay if other parts of the film are of better quality, but The Bucket List shows weakness elsewhere outside of the script. Throughout the film, Edward and Carter visit exotic locations around the globe such as the Taj Mahal, Africa, and Hong Kong. Instead of filming Nicholson and Freeman in these actual locations, the scenes instead take place on unconvincing made-up sets filled in with clunky CGI effects. So obvious are the effects here that you can almost swear to seeing the blue screen placed behind the actors. At first, I thought maybe the filmmakers were trying to brighten the locations up to make them look more sublime, kind of like the dream-like New York City from Vanilla Sky, but who am I kidding? This was obviously done because the producers didn’t want to shell out the dough to send Nicholson and Freeman all over the world.

Also lacking is funny dialogue. You’d think Nicholson and Freeman talking about death and traveling would have you in stitches, but I found myself barely even chuckling throughout the viewing. I don’t know if the stars improvised at all, but they should’ve been given a lot more room for it than they were obviously given here.

Yet it is Nicholson and Freeman themselves who help to redeem this movie for its flaws. They allow certain complexities and details into their characters that give them more depth than is usually allowed in sappy dramadies. I mentioned Carter’s wife earlier. At first you ask yourself how a dying man could abandon his wife to go run off with a complete stranger. Carter tells us why, eventually, stating how his marriage wasn’t as fulfilling as he’d hoped it be. Some may find this to be a cruel and out-of-character, but it actually reveals a human honesty within the character that is a surprise to us. It is also revealed that Edward does not get along with his adult daughter. Instead of the usual father-daughter complications to explain the rift, we discover that his daughter had an abusive husband and Edward called a guy who “takes care of things” to take the husband out of the picture. The husband wasn’t killed, but he never came back. You have to admit this is dark stuff for this kind of entertainment, but that’s probably why it is so welcomed here. Nicholson and Freeman sell this as where lesser actors would fail miserably.

So what we have here is an amusing tearjerker filled with serious logical problems. But with Rob Reiner at the helm, how could we not see this coming? Reiner is a director who’s turned sacrificing logic in favor of sentiment into something of a director’s trademark. He’s had his hits (Stand by Me, A Few Good Men), he’s had his misses (The Story of Us, North) but for the most part, he’s dealt in emotionally-charged Hollywood fare that poses serious questions in terms of plot. I’m reminded of the time I saw Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds with a friend of mine. Most of the audience was furious with the bleak thriller’s rather happy ending. When I asked my friend about the ending, he stated “of course it was a happy ending. I knew that walking in. It’s Spielberg at the helm. Sometimes you have to know who you’re watching.”

That appears to be true of Reiner. If you pay to see one of his films and complain about too much sappiness and a lack of realism, perhaps it’s your own fault. If you want a realistic and deep film about living and dying, look elsewhere. If you want to watch two legendary actors dance their way through a sea of Hollywood sentiment, this is the flick for you.

Joe Wright's Atonement: Good 'til the Last Emotionally Draining Drop

by Brett Parker

Atonement is a film that starts off overflowing with smoldering sensuality then spirals into grim devastation. The fact that I am saying this about a World War II British melodrama suggests how special and unique the film really is. The previews make it look like another stuffy and stiff British romance, but director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice) springs too many visual and narrative surprises on us to allow that to happen.

The film opens on a luxurious British estate in 1935. We meet Briony (Saoirse Ronan), a spunky, creative little girl who announces she has just written a new play. Briony is the youngest child in the wealthy Tallis family, which also includes her older sister, Cecilia (Keira Knightley). Cecilia is a rebellious woman of privilege who is as attractive as she is stuck-up. Also on the estate grounds is Robbie Turner (James McAvoy), the son of the housekeeper who was educated at Oxford with financial help from Cecilia’s father. Both Cecilia and Robbie were classmates at Oxford yet steered clear of each other. Cecilia’s brother (Patrick Kennedy) thinks this was due to class differences, but we suspect it may be because of the strong, sexual tension between them.

These three serve as the principal characters in this story and their situation begins to unravel during one hot summer day on the estate. Briony unwittingly witnesses a series of sexual episodes between Cecilia and Robbie. These episodes include a wet meeting at a fountain, an explicit love note, and a sexual rendezvous on a bookcase. To Briony, these situations make Robbie come across as a sexual predator. To Cecilia and Robbie, they realize they are just young people who can’t control their passions. Briony is conflicted by her feelings towards Robbie and the raw sexuality that is hitting her like a ton of bricks. Later that evening, Briony comes across her cousin Lola (Juno Temple) being involved in what appears to be a sexual attack. Although her memory of what happened is vague, Briony accuses Robbie of attacking Lola and he is quickly hauled off to jail.

This opens up the film’s darker and tragic chapters, in which Robbie evades prison by joining the British army, Cecilia joins the war effort, and Briony becomes a war nurse in an effort to redeem herself for the emotional damage she has caused others as well as herself. I will not reveal what happens to these characters, only to say that we witness the overwhelming emotional damage they’ve experienced as a result of that fateful day until a surprise in the end is revealed and we realize not only the true nature of events, but that Briony may have experienced the worst internal grief of all.

Atonement is a film that is able to penetrate the formalities of British melodrama and exposes raw emotions and sexuality we may not have noticed before. Indeed, the sexuality in the film’s beginning almost scorches the screen. Cecilia and Robbie’s sexual encounter in the mansion library, shot without a score and in close-ups, is probably the best sex scene of the year. It is when the film descends into its tragic second half that the actors are able to run wild with raw, intense emotions that are scarcely fleshed out in this genre.

And what actors Wright has assembled for this piece! Keira Knightley reaches new heights of sensuality and grace in her portrayal of Cecilia while James McAvoy proves he is getting better and better with each film he does. McAvoy is a force to be reckoned with, painting Robbie’s passions and anger with the skill of a seasoned veteran. The scene in which Robbie finally and angrily confronts a grown-up Briony (Romola Garai) is acted to perfection. And what a find 13-year-old Saoirse Ronan is! Her portrayal of Briony is a sensational showcase of internalized characterizations and conflicts. I’m not one of those critics who go nuts over child actors, but Ronan is the real deal. She’s mastered emotions in this film that most actresses in their twenties still wrestle with. I hope the academy takes notice.

Joe Wright also deserves serious Oscar consideration. He breaks away from several genre conventions and breathes fresh and inventive visualizations throughout the film. The way in which the opening scenes’ point of view shifts between Briony and Robbie is skillfully handled. The film’s much talked-about one take shot, in which Robbie walks through the devastating aftermath of a war battle, is a rich and wonderful shot that deserves its acclaim. The film’s production design and costumes all look great and Wright presents it with an exciting vision not typical of this kind of filmmaking.

The film’s epilogue even adds to the richness of the narrative by revealing a twist that redefines most of what we’ve witnessed in this film. It reveals the nature of an unreliable narrator as well as the painful contrast between what happens in our memory versus what happens in reality. At first, I though this ending was a bit of a cheat, but considering Briony’s literary and imaginative nature as well as the typewriter sound interwoven throughout the film, I realized the twist only enriches the film’s complex ideas on the nature of atonement.

My only complaint about the film is that I wish it completely broke free of its genre formalities and tried for something entirely original. There are still passages in this film that walk and talk like typical wartime romances, with their sappy music and breathless declarations of love. Perhaps the film should’ve made like Marie Antionette and completely shattered convention with wild creativity. Not with punk music or American slang of course, but with more of Wright’s effective eye for filmmaking.

Yet this is only a minor complaint. I could just be being a spoiled movie brat. Atonement is one of the best acted, best looking, and most thoughtful examples of a genre I’ve never been really passionate about. Just to find one that is watchable would be enough, but to find one that plays on your emotions and has you thinking about it days after you’ve seen it, now there’s something I don’t find everyday!

I Am Legend: Not Exactly Leaping off the Page

by Brett Parker


Richard Matheson’s "I Am Legend" is one of the all-time great horror novels as well as one of my personal favorites. The story imagines a post-apocalyptic world in which an ordinary man named Robert Neville is the only survivor after mankind was struck by a deadly virus. This virus turned the rest of mankind into blood-thirsty vampires, making Neville the only source of fresh blood left on the planet. The novel shows how Neville gathers tools and weapons by day and fights off countless vampires at night, who all know where he lives. In order to survive, Neville has to reexamine everything humans have ever known about vampires, including their vulnerabilities to garlic, mirrors, and Catholicism. So the novel was not only an exciting survivor tale but also a clever study of the vampire mythology. It all leads to a chilling climax in which we painfully discover how the book got its title.

I understand that when novels are adapted to big screen Hollywood fare, elements of the novel suffer or disappear in the translation. However, I find it supremely disappointing that Francis Lawrence’s take on I Am Legend has elbowed the vampires right out of the film. Instead, we see Neville battling light-sensitive Zombies spawned from a biochemical accident. Nothing against Zombies, but they’ve been done to death in today’s Hollywood. They’ve been done to terrifying perfection in 28 Days Later and delicious camp in Planet Terror. While they will never be accused of being boring, they hardly feel as original nowadays as vampires could be. The novel had such a fresh and fascinating view of vampires, so why discard them for the big screen? Why throw out such an original idea for a concept that’s been done to death before? It also doesn’t help that the Zombie effects are probably the cheesiest CGI work of this year.

It’s a testament to Lawrence’s filmmaking, as well as star Will Smith’s talents, that in spite of its significant flaws, I Am Legend is still an exceptional popcorn film. While the novel explored major ideas of vampires, it also held great focus on the idea of a man living in isolation and dealing with his overwhelming feelings of loss and dread. So its kind of a miracle that this Hollywood film tailored for mass audiences spends more time on those human elements of the story as opposed to the sci-fi ones.

The film stars Will Smith in the role of Neville. Neville is a biochemical engineer who tried helplessly to discover a cure for a super virus that was quickly wiping out the human race. Three years pass and that virus has wiped out all of humanity except for Neville himself, who had discovered that for some reason he was immune. Neville spends his days living in a deserted New York City doing things any one of us would do: drive a sports car, rent movies, play golf on the deck of the Intrepid. He is accompanied by his dog Sam, who is his sole companion in this post-apocalyptic world. At night, Neville must hide himself from countless infected Zombies. They were once humans, but the viral infections have mutated them into hostile, nocturnal creatures that are like a cross between the monsters from The Descent and Crash Test Dummies. The film follows Neville as he tries to find a cure that could maybe reverse the effects of the Zombies and make them humans once again.
So of course the bad news of the film is the Zombies themselves. They are not explained very well nor do they look very convincing. In the novel, Matheson explained the Vampires down to the tiniest detail. In the film, we’re left with big questions about these strange creatures. Why are they light sensitive? Do they hunger for humans or just want to hurt them on principle? How smart are they? If the virus caused their bodies to decay, how come their agility is enhanced? It doesn’t help matters that the Zombies embody some of the worst special effects work in recent years. The Zombies are like CGI-Animated video game targets that make the ridiculous robots of I, Robot look like Johnny Five. For beings that used to be human, I don’t buy that a super virus can give them the texture of Shrek. It’s funny how some CGI work can be so convincing (as in, for example, The Aviator) while work like this makes it seem damaging to a film. I guess it truly is an art form, with some works of art better than others.

It is ultimately the focus on Will Smith’s portrayal of Neville that saves the film. Like Tom Hanks in Cast Away, Smith holds our attention even though there are long, silent passages where it is solely him on screen. It says something that his human moments upstage the big special effect sequences. Whether he’s talking about Bob Marley, going berserk on a mannequin, or talking to a dog, Smith helps to keep things as interesting as they should be. I especially liked a heartbreaking moment where Smith begs a female mannequin to “please say hello to me.”

Perhaps I shouldn’t have whipped the film so badly for not being as good as the novel. Fans of literature always have their personal issues with the film adaptations of their favorite books. Perhaps my issues with I Am Legend are very well my own. On its own, I Am Legend is a very gripping and interesting flick with big moments of excitement you are not soon to forget. These moments include the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge, a hunt for deer through Times Square, and a white-knuckled scene in a dark warehouse. And while the ending is not as bleak or as terrifying as in the novel, it must be said that it’s less confusing and more hopeful. The film is definitely worth seeing, but considering the source material, it could’ve been legendary.

New to DVD: The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

by Brett Parker

If I were eight-years-old, I’d probably be thrilled out of my mind with the Fantastic Four movies. As a grown man, I find them to be cheap and underwhelming. This is a deep disappointment, seeing as how I always enjoyed the comics and that the films have the right idea about the material. Yet it’s hard watching good ideas coming up short on depth, resonance, and great opportunities for observational humor.

The sequel continues in the celebrity and supernatural adventures of the Fantastic Four, a group of scientists who were transformed into superheroes thanks to the powers of a cosmic storm. There’s Reed Richards/”Mr. Fantastic” (Ioan Gruffudd), who can stretch his rubber body to infinity, Sue Storm/”Invisible Woman” (Jessica Alba), who can turn herself invisible and protect herself with a powerful force-field, Johnny Storm/”The Human Torch” (Chris Evans), Sue’s brother who can turn his entire body into a flying ball of fire, and Ben Grimm/”The Thing” (Michael Chiklis), whose body is encrusted in an oversized rock shell. Since the events of the last film, the group has become overnight celebrities in the media while Reed and Sue got engaged. The first half of the film follows the Four as they embrace their new-found fame all while preparing for Reed and Sue’s big wedding, which gets about as much press as a Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie wedding would. The second half of the film turns more adventurous as the four encounter the Silver Surfer (a CGI creation voiced by Laurence Fishburne), an alien being who is sent to Earth by galactic forces to prepare for its destruction. The four struggle to stop the Silver Surfer and get to the bottom of his agenda. Things grow even more complicated when old nemesis Dr. Doom (Julian McMahon) resurfaces to wreak havoc.

To be sure, Rise of the Silver Surfer is a sequel that improves on the original. It’s funnier, more exciting, and has better special-effects sequences. For me, the best part of this material has always been the celebrity-worship of the Fantastic Four. Not only are these characters brave superheroes, but also media superstars who share the tabloids with Paris and Lindsay. Both films show the group dealing with paparazzi, product placement, and their own celebrity images. This film plays as a better example of these ideals, even if its fullest potential isn’t realized. The funniest scene comes when Johnny and Ben take Reed clubbing on the New York It plays like a goofy shotgun marriage between Marvel Comics and Entourage. The sequel also displays more thrilling action sequences supported by impressive visuals. The big “teaser trailer” scene in which Johnny chases the Silver Surfer through the air is a roller-coaster of fun and the introduction of the famous “Fantasticar” is put to great use in an exciting climax. In terms of special effects, the Silver Surfer himself proves to be a fascinating creation. He has the look of a silver academy award brought to life. He has the same compelling CGI aura of Gollum or King Kong. It’s also a nice stroke to have Laurence Fishburne’s smooth vocals breathe life into this famed character, as he dispenses corny yet fun fortune cookie wisdom. There’s always a choice, he teaches us. Wow, deep stuff. The Surfer should write a book with Phil Jackson.

Rise of the Silver Surfer is competent, harmless entertainment with a breezy comic book sensibility young fans will eat up, but I essentially have the same problems I had with the first film: it’s too much of a one-dimensional, juvenile enterprise that doesn’t dig deep into the wonderful ideas lurking within the material. We’ve reached a point in cinema where Superhero films are no longer disposable pop ventures but serious, powerhouse entertainments of the highest caliber. When it comes to this genre, Batman Begins and Superman Returns write the book. Batman Begins asked hard questions about its hero’s mythology and realized its full dramatic weight, making for a character study of endless fascination. Superman Returns may have been more of a traditional superhero adventure, but it used wonderful minimalist drama to flesh out the peculiar, melancholy emotions hidden within the material, making for something really unique. The popular Spider-Man series may have been rooted more in a quirky, comic universe but it snuck in moments of adult drama that could truly level you.

At a time when movies are digging deep and getting creative with its superheroes, Fantastic Four is keeping things boringly simple with cheap comic book sensibilities. Batman Begins helmer Christopher Nolan once explained that superhero movies truly work when it is realized that what works great in comic books does not necessarily work on the big screen. Fantastic Four appears to be unaware of this ideal, for the film plays like something that would work great in the comics but looks goofy and flat on screen.

To hear the scrapped pre-production ideas for Fantastic Four is to hear the exact direction the series should’ve taken. Both Steven Soderbergh and Peyton Reed were considered to direct. George Clooney was considered to play Rex Reed. John C. Reiley was considered to play the Thing. The original script read as an observational mockumentary of the Four’s fame, ala A Hard Day’s Night. What fun that all would’ve been. Sigh. Perhaps these bigger names could’ve rescued Fantastic Four from its second-rate fate. Tim Story is a director who had a modest success with Barbershop, yet I don’t think he’s suited for a superhero canvas. When you’re prepping a multi-million dollar franchise, hiring the director of Taxi might not be the wisest choice. This guy makes Brett Ratner look like Martin Scorsese. The performances are also flat and don’t make the characters as interesting as they should be. Only Chris Evans and Jessica Alba really have the big screen presence and charisma superhero characters demand.

I hope Hollywood wakes up and realizes the potential of the Fantastic Four franchise. There’s great humor and adventure to be had with these folks. I think some new screenwriters and a new director would be good for the series. Unless, by some miracle, Tim Story wakes up and realizes that films can be very special and deep works of art instead of just cheap Hollywood The Fantastic Four are characters of wonderful color and excitement, yet HollywoodHoward the Duck. products. treats it like its

The most interesting extra on the DVD is the behind-the-scenes production diary which shows stitched-together footage of the filming. What makes it interesting is not the crafting of the film, but the peculiar nature of Tim Story’s presence. He is seen in the footage as being extremely quiet and passive. Everyone else, from the production designers to the cinematographer, appear to be doing all the work while Story just nods approvingly. It made me think of Christopher Nolan when he made Batman Begins. There were stories of the great passion he put into the script and how he went beyond the call of duty in overseeing every day of production on the set. By comparison, Story appears more as a clueless bystander on his film set and that probably helps to explain the problems with the film I wrote about above.

As for the rest of the extras, there’s mini production features that overlook individual aspects of the film and a director’s commentary that will be as interesting as the viewer found the film to be. I was surprisingly impressed with the film’s deleted scenes, which are brief but would’ve added nice touches to the final cut. They include Johnny worrying about his action figure sales, Ben and Johnny running errands for Reed and Sue’s wedding, and Dr. Doom revealing the cold metal beneath his face. Overall, this appears to be the case of a DVD double-disc, special edition package whose special features are not enough to support the sinking film it is being featured with.