::Friday, May 03, 2002::

150 MILLION DOLLARS WASTED - I just got out of Spiderman and I all I can think is, "That stunk." Perhaps my expectations for the films were too high. The trailers and commercails for Spider-man were very convincing. From my first veiwing of the teaser to the remarkably well put together full trailer I wanted to see Spidey do his thing. I am now sorely disappointed. Doubly so becaue I imagined that director Sam Riami would deliver a better product. I have a feeling he probably knows what is wrong with this film better then I do. What likely happened is that the Studio, in this case Colubmia Pictures, pressured him to make more the film they wanted rather then the one he envisioned. But who knows, maybe the visionary director of "A Simple Plan" sold out for this one. Such is the way of Hollywood Blockbusters these days.

The first half of the film is Raimi's and the second half the studios. It is that first half of the film that is taken almost verbatum from the 1962 Amazing Fantasy #15. In comic book movies it is always a mistake to try to remake a character's orgins when the orginal authors have obviously done fine enough if there work is producing a Hollywood blockbuster. Raimi obviously realizes this and spends some good time with Peter Parker as his new powers are unveled to him. It is easy to empahsize with Parker. He's human, not from another planet or a rich reclusive millionaire with bat fetish. He's geeky, shy, a smart teenager with a crush on a cute high school classmate. But this all quickly goes awry. By the time the Green Goblin enters the story we realize something is wrong. Any movie that makes a costume as uninteresting for it's villian as Spider-man does obviously has some problems. The Goblin's face is the boringest villian ever created. Why the filmmakers choose to hid the facial talents of William Dafoe behind that hideous mask, I'll never know. When the Goblin and Spider-man come face to face it's almost comical how we see no mouths moving and no facial movements. It is very distracting to say the least.

At filmjerk.com a few days ago, I read one of the best articles possible on the mess that is Spider-man and more specially all comic book movies in general, The Facer, as the author likes to be called, breaks down the problems with these movies. And he's very right. "Spider-man" doesn't want us to know who spider-man is as much as see what he does. The Facer gets this.

Does Raimi go to the core of what made Spidey the icon that created the very need for a feature film, that being his grounding in reality? Uhh, no. We won't get to see lots of Peter Parker struggling with his own adolescent problems, and the incredible "with great power comes great responsibility" storyline of his comic book origin. No, instead all that will be condensed into a single reel, so that we can have lots of special effects, big balloons, a jackass Green Goblin throwing pumpkin bombs and Kirsten Dunst jiggling around in a wet tee shirt. We'll have a literal interpretation of the comic's visuals (webslinging, wallcrawling, etc.) but the human side (Peter forever changed by Uncle Ben's death) will be lost amidst the noise and sparkly things. Expand that first reel to a full two hours, chop off the rest and maybe you would have gotten it right, Raimi.

The movie speeds by in that effective first hour. It's good there but not as great as it could be. By the end of the film we've forgotten about Uncle Ben or Aunt May, and Mary Jane never becomes a character excpet apparently as a girl that every guy wants to be with. She's ditsy and dumb, wants to be an actress but is not t the self-confident friend, advisor and wife of Peter Parker. Why filmmakers think they can do material better then the those who created it and made it successful enough to warrent a feature film, I will never know.
:: Posted by Citizen Ryan | 9:55:08 PM| Link This ::

O'REILLY AT HIS BEST - Bill O'Reilly's colum for this week, entitled Hide the children!, is pure genius. It is Bill at his best combining aspects of morality and common sense in an attempt to cut away the BS and get to the truth of the matter. The matter at hand here is how parents have let down the current generation of children by pushing the envelope of sexual obsurdity. The age of parents with principles is one that is fading all to quickly. In the article you hear Bill's conservative morality yelling about the junk thrown at the kids but you also hear his more liberal 'there's nothing we can do about it legally because they have a right to be scum' but we certainly have a right to decrey them as the scum they are. And that's the simple truth of it. Something Bill is the very best at getting at.
:: Posted by Citizen Ryan | 5:11:18 PM| Link This ::

STAR WARS SHOT OF THE DAY - Here [>] Howard the Duck becomes a Jedi? Don't tell me George Lucas doesn't have a sense of humor. Want more Episode II shots:


:: Posted by Citizen Ryan | 8:35:08 AM| Link This ::

EBERTMANIA - Tabin rips into me again, this time for my below comments concerning my favorite critic Roger Ebert. John focuses on Ebert's review of Jason X a movie that both of them have apparently seen but I have not. I cannot comment on the movie or John's comments regarding Ebert's review but I have a feeling Ebert is more in tune with what I would say. I have never been a fan of the slasher, horror genre. Besides The Exorcist and maybe The Omen I can't think of one good horror movie I really enjoy. I just cannot enjoy movies that play down to me. For some they are meaningless fun, but I do not enjoy meaningless fun most of the time. John's critique of Ebert being out of touch with audiences when it comes to movies like Jaxon X, is noted and likely true, but when you see as many good movies as Ebert does, since he sees them all, seeing a movie that is dumb and ridicilous like Jason X can be a bore. This is especially trie when compared to better executed horror movies that are out there (Scream qualifies too some degree...at leat the first one does.)

As for Ebert's dissing of one of my top five movies of all time The Usual Suspects that is something I understand out of consistency. Ebert has never been a fan of movies that twist and turn like Suspects did. Witness Fight Club (**stars), Copland (**), Scream 3 (**), What Lies Beneath (**) and Sleeping With the Enemy (*1/2). He even gave only 3 stars to The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable two movies with great twists and great reviews. Ebert tends to rarely like these kinds of movies unless they are done very effectively and the movie is not dependant on them (Witness Dark City).

The man ain't perfect, but I can forgive his Meet Joe Black's, Usual Suspects debacle's because he most importantly shares my feelings towards most movies. On top of that, even when we disagree, his reviews are always informative and interesting. This above all, else makes him a great read. For every Usual Suspect review there are ten Gladiator and another handful of Strange Days reviews.
:: Posted by Citizen Ryan | 8:15:32 AM| Link This ::

NUTS IN THE NORTHWEST - From the Associated Press (via Rob Neyer): "Seattle Mariners fans who tried to wear 'Yankees Suck' T-shirts during a three-game weekend series against New York were told to turn their shirts inside out, take them off or leave. ... 'If you don't pay attention to the small things, you lose control of the neighborhood and it becomes run down and crime infested,'" said Mariners spokeswoman Rebecca Hale."

Now the shirts aren't exactly accurate considering the Yankees have beaten the Mariners the last two years in the AL League Championship but this is just a tad ridicilous. First off if you've ever been to a game at Yankee Stadium you know that the fans there say things much worse then telling the opponent they suck. I just attended a game there 10 days ago and heard any number of things that would make Ms. Hale think the neighborhood around Yankee Stadium resembled Sodom and Gomarroh. Rooting for your team and booing the opponent is part of the fun of competive sports. Are the Yankees so brittle that seeing a shirt which says they suck is going to hurt their feelings? And concerning Ms. Hale's point that, "you don't pay attention to the small things, you lose control of the neighborhood" consider that if a fan is dedicated to the success of their team and determent (in fair play) of their opponents aren't they as likely to be dedicated to the perservation of the neighborhood? It's not a strech at all when you consider that sports teams are always one of the strongest bonds in any city or community. If you move to Seattle you can probably get to know people just by learning about the Mariners and then sitting down with a native and talking about the amazing Ichiro, Lou Pinella's temper and, yes, how much the Yankees suck. It might suprise Ms. Hale that you'd probably make a friend and thus a stronger neighborhood.
:: Posted by Citizen Ryan | 1:18:04 AM| Link This ::

GOOD OLD FLORIDA - Only in Florida could something so obvious take so long to figure it out. But give those folks credit it might take them a while to figure things out but in the end they tend to turn out right ;). Check out this story to find out what I'm talking about - City Clears Pair in Patriotic Wall Dispute. Let's just hope that they don't elect Janet Reno in November (can you imagine?).
:: Posted by Citizen Ryan | 11:29:24 PM| Link This ::

I'M AN INTP - Took this personality test online called the Jung - Myers-Briggs typological approach and found my personality type. According to the description of INTP personalites, which I apparently belong to, by D. Keirsey I'm much like Ayn Rand's Howard Roark charcter from "The Fountainhead". Considering Rand is my favorite author and Roark one of my favorite literary characters I'd say this test is pretty much right on the spot. Interested in what I found I went looking for more and came across a more detailed anaylsis of Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving (me!) by Joe Butt (poor guy). His breakdown of my personality type was even more exact. The following statements struck home:

INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to most anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible... A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending failure... Games NTs seem to especially enjoy include Risk...Chess and word games of all sorts.

Well if writing counts as a word game, and I certainly think it does, then Mr. Butt is right on concerning me. At the end of the article is listed a number of historical and/or famous persons who shared my personality type. Apparently like-minded individuals C. G. Jung, Albert Einstein, James Madison, Bob Newhart and Dwight D. Eisenhower make me think this test is right on but any comparision to the Olsen twins, John Tyler and Former House Speaker Tom Foley (why?) make me realize it's just meaningless fun (...probably).
:: Posted by Citizen Ryan | 6:25:54 AM| Link This ::

NOT GOOD - My girlfriend took the very popular What Muppet Are You(?) test and got this:

	Yuoo ere-a zee Svedeesh Cheff! Yuoo ere-a a guud cuuk, thuoogh yuoo cun't speek Ingleesh fery vell. Bork Bork Bork!
Take the What Muppet Are You? Quiz!

Eek! So tell me what muppet are you?
:: Posted by Citizen Ryan | 6:18:36 AM| Link This ::

SPIDEY'S LONG WAIT - Did you know that Marvel Comics orginally solid the rights and intended for there to be a Spiderman film in 1985? Only in Hollywood could such a sure-fire, much anticipated film get so royally screwed up. Cindy Pearlman details the travels of the film at the end of her article concerning the Summer Movie Season. You'll have to scroll all the way to the bottom if you want the info on the Spiderman debacle. I guess in some way I'm glad the film wasn't made back in 1985 by Canon Films, in 1990 by 21st Century Films or in 1992 by James Cameron. None of the mulitple producers, studios or directors could have handled the project they way the eye of director Sam Raimi has. And now we have the fantastic technological advances to make Spidey look better then ever (certainly better then he would have in 1985). Throw-in Kursten Dunst looking much better then Molly Ringwald with red hair and in a wet t-shirt and I'm thankful Spider-man opens this Friday.
:: Posted by Citizen Ryan | 4:15:29 AM| Link This ::

WHY EBERT'S THE BEST - I read this review of Jason X by Roger Ebert a few days but just reread it again. I laughed out loud for the second time. Ebert is at the top of his game in this review. His ability to mock the irrelevant is his trademark and when you see as many movies as this lucky chap does you know what is irrelevant. Ebert has long been my favorite critic for reviews just like this. What makes him special is that he has been around for so long and has seen so many damn movies that his eyes seems to catch all details. Ebert's reviews are always full of stories, as he drops names left and right and critizes others at the sametime. While I stil can't forgive him for giving three stars to Meet Joe Black his humour and knowledge of movies reserve for him great praise. Witness this sentence from his review of Changing Lanes after describing the set-up:

Ah, but that's far from all. "Changing Lanes" is a thoughtful film that by its very existence shames studio movies that have been dumbed down into cat-and-mouse cartoons.

And later his conclusion:

...the movie dig(s) right down into the depths of the souls, of the values, of these two men. The director, Roger Michell, has made good movies including "Persuasion" and "Notting Hill," but this one seems more like Neil LaBute's "In the Company of Men," or Tolkin's work. It lays these guys out and X-rays them, and by the end of the day, each man's own anger scares him more than the other guy's. This is one of the best movies of the year.

In two breaths Ebert has ripped into the studios that make his job possible and applauded the creators who make it worthwhile. Ebert is the best in the business.
:: Posted by Citizen Ryan | 6:20:07 AM| Link This ::

To read previous entries please go to The Archive