The Frederick Collection - Vol 1: Out Of Sight (1998)

Ever hear of the Criterion Collection?  It's a super high-end, uber-pretentious series of laserdiscs, DVD's, and Blu Rays for hard-core film snobs.  Naturally, I love it, and by extension want to appropriate it.  No, I don't have the bread to buy the rights to films, digitally remaster them, and sell them online for $40 a pop.  But I can make a list.

I present The Frederick Collection. An ongoing series of articles about classic, negligible, and moderately entertaining films that have one thing in common;  I consider them all to be essential viewing.

THE FREDERICK COLLECTION (1)

OUT OF SIGHT (1998)

THE BACKSTORY

In the late nineties, Steven Soderbergh needed a hit.  A decade prior, he had become the face of the Indie Film Movement with his debut feature, "Sex, Lies, and Videotape".  His follow-ups, such as Kafka and Schizopolis, were even more intriguing and experimental.  Unlike the directors of today, he was not using his indie success simply as a springboard to mainstream entertainment.  But he was a man who wanted to expand his scope, and not work solely in the world of arthouse.

In the late nineties, George Clooney needed a hit.  Following his breakout success on ER, his Hollywood career was a bunch of middling tripe; One Fine Day, The Peacemaker, Batman & Robin.  Nothing memorable or noteworthy.  And, having seen the fall of David Caruso before him, he knew there was a time limit on jump-starting his film career. . .

In the late nineties, Elmore Leonard was a hit.  His crime novels were a primary inspiration for writer/director Quentin Tarantino, who used that inspiration to craft one of the most influential films of all time - Pulp Fiction.  Appropriately enough, after the success of Pulp Fiction, Elmore Leonard's books became highly sought after material for adaptation, with Tarantino himself turning Leonard's book Rum Punch into his follow-up film, Jackie Brown.

So, after some initial hesitation, Soderbergh jumped at the chance to direct an adaptation of Leonard's 1996 crime romance novel Out Of Sight, which was being produced by the sure hand of Danny DeVito (Pulp Fiction, Get Shorty, LA Confidential).  It turned out to be the right choice for everyone involved:  While not being a big hit, it was critically acclaimed, and it proved that not only could Soderbergh make a solid piece of mainstream entertainment, but that Clooney had the chops to be this generation's Cary Grant.

THE SYNOPSIS

Jack Foley (George Clooney) is a professional bank robber on the lam.  Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez) is a tough-as-nails US Marshal.  It's an unlikely romance, and one that could end up getting the both of them killed.

WHY IT'S ESSENTIAL

People, when describing Elmore Leonard's work, often use the term "cool".  This is completely accurate, but "cool" can be interpreted several different ways.  The film version of Get Shorty had a "hyper-stylized, super slick" kind of coolness.  Tarantino's Jackie Brown was a "hanging with record store hipsters, listening to obscure Motown" kind of cool.  And Out Of Sight?  It's a "having a beer with your best friend in the world" kind of cool;  a truly chilled, laid back vibe.  Never has gunplay and criminal behavior felt so relaxing - and never has the tone of a Leonard book felt so accurately represented.

Not to say that it's a straight lift from the novel:  The book is told in a fairly straightforward, chronological fashion; whereas screenwriter Scott Frank begins the film with a contextless scene of Clooney exiting a building, ripping off his tie, and proceeding to rob the nearest bank.  While constant time-shifts in films can be extremely gimmicky (see 21 Grams), here it's used in a dramatically effective manner.  Even scenes within scenes are chronologically shaky, as evidenced by Soderbergh's cross-cutting between Clooney's tryst with Lopez, and their eventual sexual liason.  That sex scene, in which hardly anything is shown, is quite possibly one of the most erotic moments in cinema history.

Leonard specializes in "tough guy" banter, in the tradition of Hammett and Chandler, and the actors chosen for this - Clooney, Rhames, Cheadle - are some of the few in Hollywood who could actually pull it off.  In lesser hands, a character like Maurice Miller would be cartoonish (Imagine him as played by Zeus "Tiny" Lister), but as portrayed by Don Cheadle, he's believable, funny. . .  and sometimes really scary.

Veteran editor, and multiple Academy Award nominee (winner, in fact, for Lawrence Of Arabia) Anne V. Coates does an effective job of jumping smoothly between multiple characters in multiple time periods.  David Holmes, best known at the time for his album "This Film's Crap, Let's Slash The Seats", drives the score with propulsive, jazzy/hip-hop beats and quiet, sensuous sonaral immersions.  Cinematographer Elliot Davis, who had previously worked with Soderbergh on a couple of films, helped to redefine and solidify Soderbergh's style with this one (Grainy photography; hand-held, documentary style camerawork), before, ironically, never working with him again.

IN CONCLUSION

There's a huge difference between "trying to be cool" and "being cool", and this movie just IS fucking cool.  Whether it's effortless or not, it certainly feels that way.  And while it often feels like Soderbergh's more financially successful latter career has been in an attempt to chase this particular dragon again (This is nothing if not a model for the Ocean's 11 series), he's never quite been able to match its "off the cuff" feeling.

So sit back, pop this baby into the machine, and give it a watch.  Forget Jennifer Lopez's horrible pop music.  Forget George Clooney's continued reuse of this archtype.  Forget how Steve Zahn's career completely went to shit.  Watch a cinematic jazz song, in which every note is exactly where it should be.

How you gonna do me like that, Criterion Collection?!

I thought we were boys.

The Criterion Collection, in case you're unaware, is a pretentious, and delightful, company that brings high quality versions of "important classic and contemporary films" into the loving hands of film geeks worldwide.  In the last year, they've expanded into streaming content, releasing around 100 titles on Netflix Instant, a few at a time, and just a handful of titles on Hulu.

In a completely unexpected move (by me, anyway), they've decided to stop streaming films on Netflix, and will exclusively be streaming their content on Hulu's pay version, "Hulu Plus".  As of yesterday, they've dumped a full 100 films on their site, with another 700 on the way!

But why Hulu?  In their press release, Criterion stated that they've been unsatisfied with Netflix's set-up; specifically citing the lack of a dedicated Criterion section, or even any way to directly search for Criterion titles.  It's a valid complaint; I fucking love Netflix, but they aren't exactly user friendly.  There have been a few different versions of The Matrix released on DVD, but it's listing on the Netflix Queue doesn't indicate which version you're going to get.  I got Silence Of The Lambs in the mail, and not only wasn't it the Criterion version, it was a crappy pan-and-scan edition.  The Instant movies are also a crapshoot:  You've got some beautiful transfers for a lot of the films, but any of the Starz Play ones (which often aren't labelled) are extremely pixelated and terrible looking.

Small quibbles, but worth noting.  I understand Criterion's frustration.  But, again. . .  Hulu?!  Maybe it's just my lack of inexperience with it, but I haven't been terribly impressed by Hulu so far.  The ads in the middle of the show are annoying (Which, apparently, you'll still sit through even with the pay service!  The caveat is that Criterion movies will only have ads at the beginning of the film).  The video quality is "Meh";  the higher end Netflix transfers I've seen are WAY beyond anything I've watched on Hulu.  And the interface, other than having a "dedicated Criterion section", isn't any less awkward than Netflix. In fact, I'd say it's even harder to find things!

They're charging $7.99 a month for Hulu Plus, which, when you consider the 800 Criterion movies soon  to be at your disposal, doesn't sound too bad.  But there are a couple of problems, for me at least.  Mainly,  that everything else on there is shit.  Netflix Instant is a movie service that happens to have some television; Hulu is a television service that incidentally has some movies.  And it's not even GOOD television.  I mean, I guess it's cool that every episode of Psych is at my fingertips, but since I'm never going to watch that show, it doesn't do me much good.  I would be purchasing the service solely for the Criterion movies.

I don't know.  Maybe I'll try out the free trial, and get back to you guys with a review.  Unless one of you Criterion hounds out there has already taken the plunge?

Beyond Intellectual Property: Story Archtypes That Have Developed A Life Of Their Own

The creation of any story is the combination of several influences.  Life.  Imagination.  And, quite often, other stories.  So it comes as no surprise that we often read about rapscallions very much in the mold of Huckleberry Finn, and watch the serialized television adventures of lawyers who could be kith and kin to Perry Mason.

But there are certain imaginary worlds which have made such an impact, that they've been wrestled from the grasp of their makers.  The creators, or often creator, of these concepts can no longer hold sole claim to them.  They have, due to their resonance, become part of the creative lexicon.

I present an admittedly incomplete listing of the complex story types that no longer require the slightest degree of exposition, despite having no tangible connection to the real world.

THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE

There certainly exists folklore about zombies, originating from Caribbean Voodoo practices, and there have been legends and stories about the walking dead feasting on the living, in novels such as Dracula and I Am Legend.  But the public perception of what a zombie is in the 21st century is completely the creation of one man:  George A. Romero.  With his films Night Of The Living Dead (1968), and later Dawn Of The Dead (1978), Romero created an entire post-apocalyptic landscape, and a terrifying monster complete with it's own set of "rules".  Ask any random Grandmother that you run into, one who's never seen a horror film in her life, and she'd be able to tell you that you have to kill a zombie with a headshot.

TOLKIENIAN FANTASY

The name practically explains itself:  Any fantasy novel, movie, comic book; etc, that has directly, or indirectly, been heavily influenced by J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece, The Lord Of The Rings (1954).  A story itself inspired by ancient legends, such as the stories of Gilgamesh and Beowulf, and certainly following the works of other writers, such as Robert E. Howard (Conan the Barbarian) and George MacDonald (The Princess and the Goblin), but it solidified the concept of a somewhat-medieval, rich-in-history, and filled with magical races fantasy world.  Some concepts became standard and expected as genre conventions:  Elves are noble and wise, usually divided into "woodland" and "high" classes.  Dwarves hearty, and obsessed with mining.  The race of man being flawed, but somehow central and important (You see that theme in modern science fiction quite a bit, as well).  From Dungeons & Dragons to World Of Warcraft, Tolkien's legacy is unmistakeable.

THE INTERGALACTIC EMPIRE/REPUBLIC

This one is more difficult to cite a direct source for:  It's a combination of the traditions of Planetary Romance (A sci-fi adventure story in the "lost world" style, ala the John Carter Of Mars novels), and Space Operas (Similar in style, but focusing more on interplanetary travel).  It's a short-hand, widely-accepted concept that in the far future (or far-flung, distant past, in some cases), the known galaxy will be populated by a coalition of several different kinds of space-faring races, all working together (to some degree or another).  Often, as in Tolkienian Fantasy, the human race is given some special trait, such as the ability to have more than one type of personality amongst the entirety of their species.  Pulp characters such as Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon laid the foundation for this, which was further solidified in Frank Herbert's epic novel Dune (1965).  Dune itself actually features very few non-humans, but it grafted the concept of a Galactic Civilization into the public consciousness.  The television show Star Trek (1966-1969) and the film Star Wars (1977), expanded the concept to a much larger audience than ever before.

A WORLD OF SUPERHEROES

In the beginning, there was Superman.  Then came Batman, The Flash, and Green Lantern, all entertaining children with their separate comic adventures.  In All-Star Comics # 3 (1940), DC Comics came up with the idea of a team of superheroes, sharing the same universe.  From that point forward, and more-so following the superhero Silver Age of the 1960's, it became standard practice for superheroes to inhabit an entire world filled with thousands of different superheroes, supervillains, and other sci-fi concepts.  Not only are the X-Men living in a world that fears and hates their fellow mutantkind, but also in a world that has Gamma-irradiated monsters, shield-wielding unfrozen soldiers, and flying-surfboard riding aliens.  This is perhaps the most bizarre shared concept of them all, since it relies on several different kinds of characters all coincidentally gaining superhuman powers from a statistically improbable amount of separate, unrelated sources.

IN CONCLUSION

This list could go on and on (and I might be inclined to sequelize it), but I just wanted to give you a taste of how we take certain conventions for granted.  These worlds, these concepts, don't actually exist, so it's interesting to see how we almost subconsciously react to them as if they had.

NEW X-MEN TRAILER!!!!

I'll just let this speak for itself, for starters.



Doesn't give you too much;  Given the rushed production schedule, I'll guessing they still have a ton of FX work to do.  As it is, though;  looking good.  Winter's Bone's Jennifer Lawrence looks appropriately creepy.  I love the retro vibe.  It's interesting. . .  This "era" of the X-Men is almost entirely a creation of the cinema.  Yes, Magneto and Xavier did once work together, and Magneto even led the X-Men at one point, but the mutants they're using, and the plots, are all being mixed together in new and interesting ways.  It's a lot more exciting then watching another tired "Why can't I remember Weapon X?" plotline.

Looks like McAvoy captures a bit of Patrick Stewart's timbre, at least, but Fassbender is just like "Fuck it.  Magneto's Irish in this.  Deal with it."

The 16 year old living inside me is geeking out hardcore about this!

'Drive', then 'Run': Ryan Gosling returns to his Genre roots

Before becoming a Leo DiCaprio for a new generation by starring in The Notebook, and before garnering critical acclaim for his performances in such indie dramas as Half Nelson and Blue Valentine, Ryan Gosling had a plum role as part of a Leopold and Loeb-like pair of killers in the thriller Murder By Numbers.  A film that I, for one, quite enjoyed.  Fuck off.

Cut to:  Several years later.  Blah blah "Blow Up Doll", yadda yadda "Crack Addict". . .  Ok, here's something interesting!  Gosling's next, actually potentially interesting movie to come out is titled Drive, in which he plays a wheelman (Not the nautical kind.  An assistant bank robber.) who's marked for death after screwing up a job.  Albert Brooks plays the big bad, and you've got a supporting cast that includes Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Christina Hendricks, and Ron Perlman.  It's directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, who you likely DON'T know from such films as the trippy viking film Valhalla Rising (Read my review here), and real-life prison/bio/cult film Bronson.  To top off the awesome, you've got Bryan Singer's go-to cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel shooting this bitch, so Christina is going to look better then you ever thought possible.

But that's old news;  on to the new news!  Bryan Singer's a good segue person here; For years, he's been trying to make a new adaptation/remake of Logan's Run, the 60's William F. Nolan novel turned 70's Michael York vehicle.  In the book, future society has one unbreakable rule;  Thou Shall Not Age.  Kids run the world until their twenty-first birthday, at which time they're expected to willfully kill themselves in group, ritual suicide.  The story follows one boy who's job is to chase, and kill, the kids who run away from their "civic duty";  until he decides to go on the run himself.

In the seventies film adaptation, which took several liberties, the age of enforced death was raised to 30.  Looks like they're following suit in the remake; Ryan Gosling has just signed on to play the lead, from a script by 28 Days Later writer Alex Garland.  Singer has made himself unavailable, being deep into production on his version of Jack The Giant Killer, so it's looking like the director is going to be;  Nicolas Winding Refn!

You may not have seen any of Refn's films yet, but trust me;  this is great news.  The Dane has got a great eye, and a wide range of styles.  I can't wait to see what happens when he's unleashed upon a sci-fi world, with a budget.

Via The Hollywood Reporter

"Orphan" Director Stakes His Claim On The Dracula Legend

Jaume Collet-Serra, director of the surprisingly entertaining Orphan, and the upcoming Liam Neeson thriller Unknown, will next be directing Harker.  It's the story of Jonathan Harker, the haunted narrator of the first half of the novel Dracula, but portrayed in an entirely new light.  Here, Harker is a Scotland Yard detective, and Dracula is his quarry.

The description kind of bores me, but I'm willing to hold out hope.  I enjoyed Orphan quite a bit, and I'm by no means a Dracula purist;  The novel is a bit of a bore, and there hasn't been an accurate adaptation made yet.  Bring on the revisionist goofiness!

But who should play Harker, a character previously portrayed, infamously, by Keanu Reeves?  Or Dracula?

Via Deadline

Fantastic Voyage Remake Hires The Most Boring Director Possible

Darren Aronofsy.  Paul Greengrass.  Loius Leterrier.  Timur Bekmambetov.  Jonathan Mostow.  All directors bandied about as potential helmers of the 3D, James Cameron produced remake/readaptation of Fantastic Voyage.  Who did they finally decide on?

Shawn Levy.  You may know him from such films as:  Cheaper By The Dozen (remake).  The Pink Panther (remake).  And Night At The Museum. . .  One AND two!!!

I have faith in Cameron as a director, but his last producing effort, Sanctum, just got it's ass handed to it by The Roommate.  Here's hoping that Levy's upcoming film, the ludicrous looking Real Steel, has given a Cameron a greater degree of confidence in his abilities than I have.

Via Deadline

Simon Beaufoy Has Gone To The Dogs

Sorry for the tease; No, there isn't a Rowlf spinoff movie in development.  But Academy Award winning screenwriter, and previous Danny Boyle collaborator, Simon Beaufoy is adapting Toby Barlow's acclaimed novel Sharp Teeth, for a possible future collaboration with said director.

The book is about the romance between a dogcatcher and a werewolf, set in Los Angeles.  It's also a detective story, and a violent gangland tale (Or "tail"; the gangs are all werewolves), done in a poetic style.

Anybody out there read it?  It sounds ridiculous, but I love Danny Boyle's choice of bizarre and dangerous material so far.  Here's hoping he does it, and it turns out as well as 28 Days Later.

Via BBC America

Super Bowl Movie Previews: Scrutinized and Dissected

Back in the day, Super Bowl trailers were like a late Christmas for movie fans.  Often, it was our very first look at footage from films that we barely knew anything about.  Then the internet happened.

Since the advent of web sites like Ain't It Cool News and Dark Horizons, I no longer have to watch Entertainment Tonight for my daily news fix (Thank the pantheon!), nor are Super Bowl commercials much of a surprise anymore.  Since the beginning of the new millenium, it seems like studios are barely trying to wow us, as is evidenced by some of the teasers on display here.  Some, however, carry on the time honored tradition, giving us just a taste of excitement.

Here's all the biggies, from Worst to Best.  As teasers, that is.  But I'll throw my guesses in as to the quality of the respective film, as well.

DRIVE ANGRY




MOVIE - The movie actually sounds like a blast:  Nicholas Cage escapes from Hell, looking to rescue his granddaughter from a group of Satanists, with the assistance of a Saint Of Killers-style handgun and a rad car.  Amber Heard shows up in Daisy Dukes.

TEASER - Now;  Exactly how much of that is gleaned from the trailer?  It looks like just another stupid Cage film, and the announcer, and quotes, are completely unnecessary.  Do you think the target audience for this cares whether it's critically acclaimed or not?

THE EAGLE



MOVIE - Yawn.

TEASER - This film is an obvious dump, coming out at this time of year, and being the type of movie that it is.  It's funny that the studios spend as much, or more, advertising their obvious failures as they do their successes.

RIO



MOVIE - Looks like it could go either way.  I've seen the opening musical number, which is nice.  It is from the director of the last Ice Age movie, which made me pretty damn sleepy.

TEASER - Too fast (too furious?).  Comedy highlight is birds bouncing off a butt?!  Meh.

LIMITLESS



MOVIE - They should've called it "Urban Legends 4".  You're using 100% of your brain, dumbass.  That aside, this Lawnmower Man-lite premise sounds kind of fun.

TEASER - It sells it on premise alone, but not in a way that sticks in your head.

PRIEST



MOVIE - The Dragnet theme song.

TEASER - A little action, some monsters, a post-apocalyptic wasteland. . .  but it's all very familiar, and seems small in scope.

JUST GO WITH IT



MOVIE - "Ow! My balls!"

TEASER - Well;  they do know their audience.  I don't know a damn thing about this movie from the trailer, except that there's a pair of gigantic, jiggly breasts at some point.

RANGO



MOVIE - Um. . .  Dunno.  Can't really get much of a sense of the thing.  Verbinski's directed good shit (Pirates Of The Caribbean) and bad shit (The Mexican) in the past.

TEASER - Probably a little TOO much of a teaser.  You gotta sell us on this with more than "Johnny Depp voices a lizard.  In a western (?!).  In a Hunter S. Thompson shirt".  It annoys more than intrigues.

COWBOYS AND ALIENS



MOVIE - This one could be fun.  Love the premise, love the cast. . .  Jon Favreau does good work when inspired (Don't blame him for Iron Man 2; It got rushed into production), and this sounds like a passion project for him.  Could suck, but I'm hoping it's fun.

TEASER - It's tough for non-nerds to get past the title.  They did a good job of laying out the basics here.  Serious.  Badass.  Neckedness.

THOR



MOVIE - Looks a little too small-scale for the story of an Asgardian warrior.  He basically just beats up a robot, thereby saving a small town in New Mexico?  Prove me wrong Kenneth Branagh.

TEASER - Ladies:  A shirtless Australian beefcake.  Fellas:  Shit blowing up, and people being kicked.

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES



MOVIE - I have faith in every element of this film, except the director.  Rob Marshall potentially sinking this franchise aside, it looks to be just as much fun as the previous installments, minus the excessive exposition of At World's End.

TEASER - Not much we haven't seen in previous trailers.  There's no "OOH!" shot, like skeleton pirates walking underwater.  Again;  fuck Rob Marshall.

FAST FIVE



MOVIE - Probably dumb/fun, like the rest of the series.  Didn't see the last one, but Tokyo Drift was a marked improvement in the level of car stunts, and this looks like it ups the ante.

TEASER - Solid.  Good use of adrenaline-pumping music and visuals, and the promise that "Yes, this is a Versus film:  Diesel v Rock".

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES



MOVIE - The director, Jon Liebesman, has a pretty piss-poor resume so far, so I'm not holding out much hope for this one.  Looks like 2012:  Plotless and full of destruction.

TEASER - But the destruction looks so good.  They've been doing a good job of pulling the wool over people's eyes with this one.

CAPTAIN AMERICA

MOVIE - Looks kinda fun.  Too early to tell, for sure.  It's cool to see Chris Evans, who's been doing some great character work, finally blow up like this.

TEASER - Plays like a sped-up and cut down version of a theatrical trailer (Which, I'm guessing, it is).  I'd rank this lower if the footage didn't look so great.  And PLEASE;  Lose the "The First Avenger" tagline, ok?

TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON


Transformers 'Dark of The Moon' Super Bowl Trailer (720p) from Michael Bay Dot Com on Vimeo.

MOVIE - I absolutely HATED the first film;  but I kinda liked the second one.  It's so ridiculously over-the-top, it's essentially the Mecha version of Bad Boys II.  It's Michael Bay.  Will it be stupid?  Yes.  Will the fx and photography look good?  Indeed.

TEASER - Perfect, very classic style Super Bowl spot.  This is how you do "epic", people!

SUPER 8



MOVIE - I'm sure it'll be like JJ Abram's other directorial efforts; Entertaining and forgettable.  His predilection to the saccharine will not be helped by the presence of children.

TEASER - Like Transformers, this is a Steven Spielberg production, and it shows.  Everything in the trailer has a "Amblin in the 80's" vibe.  Good use of mystery and atmosphere to sell the flick and start the hype machine.


Well, unless I missed any, that's about that.  Let me know which ones you liked!

The Year I Say "No" To Mediocrity

You may have noticed that I haven't published a review of Michel Gondry's Green Hornet film (Or much of anything in the last week.  Sorry!  Life catches up with you sometimes, etc).  The reason for this is simple;  I haven't seen it, and have no intention to.  Not this year, at least.  For this year, Two-Thousand and Eleven Anno Domini, I declare my one resolution as to never intentionally absorb any form of entertainment that looks. . .  "Meh".  Even if, as in the case of Green Hornet, it looks like it could be a slightly positive "Meh".

Since everyone loves lists, conflict, and art, you can find any number of "The Top 100 Greatest _____ " via Google.  Books, albums, movies, tv shows. . .  You name it, somebody's made a list about it.  Go ahead, take a look;  I'll wait.

You're back?  Ok.  Taste is arbitrary, but you'll notice certain works popping up over and over again.  Citizen Kane, Anna Karenina, Mass in B minor. . .  How many of these types of things have you personally experienced?  And, whether you ultimately find them to be enjoyable or not, aren't they at least worth a look or listen?

Why do we avoid the greatest artistic creations of our own, or all time?  Perhaps it's a rejection of perceived snobbery;  As Americans, we buy into the dream of doing whatever we want, whenever we want to, and being above reproach.  No one's going to tell us what to do, or more importantly what to like.  Perhaps we're daunted by the prospect of putting effort into our entertainment time.  When we come home from a long, hard day at work, perhaps the massively-populated Russian historical drama of the early 19th Century,War & Peace, isn't the first thing that comes to mind as a good way to "wind down" with a six-pack.

Both of those have a ring of truth to them, but I think the greatest culprit in our embrace of the mundane is the convenience of the mediocre.  It isn't just you and War & Peace sitting on a desert island, with your only other form of entertainment being the garbing of crabs.  You've got a weeks worth of various forms of Law & Order on TiVo!  Time to catch up on all the "ripped from the headlines" action that you've been missing (Doubly important for having not read the headlines in the first place).

I'm less susceptible than some;  I haven't owned Cable for several years, and have no internal urge to devour whatever's in the popular consciousness at the moment (Hello, Oprah's Book Club).  But I have my vices, to be sure.  What's the draw of something like Green Hornet?  Well, based on the trailer, the plot seems to involve people being kicked, and things blowing up.  Those are two things that I find enjoyable in my zoetropic lightshows.  I also, correctly, think that all films are meant to be seen in the theater (All rude behavior of the modern audience to the contrary).  And despite my general avoidance of popular culture, I do like to stay abreast of Nerd Culture; seeing something like Green Hornet on it's opening weekend allows me to join in the internet version of watercooler conversation, and absorb the latest winner/loser in the overarching category of Genre.

Let me dissect that last paragraph.  Yes, I do like people being kicked, and things blowing up.  I also like story and characters.  And in a completely shallow way (I claim no other level of depth), things blowing up are much more satisfying when framed properly.  That's why I can't really get into the excesses of a lot of modern-day Japanese genre cinema.  The aficionados love the extremes to which films like Tokyo Gore Police go, but I implore the director:  Don't use a woman with an alligator-mouthed vagina dentata simply as a gag --- Make me FEEL her character (?!?!!).

Yes, all films are meant to be seen in the theater.  Films that are worth seeing in the first place.  But Green Hornet (Sorry to keep picking on you, innocent movie.  You just happen to be the right example at the right time.)?!  It might be passably entertaining;  I might even watch it on video next year.  But would I regret never seeing it?  I think not.  I also think that behind the scenes special features on DVD's and Blu Rays are great, but I'm never going to watch "The Making Of Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans".

And "staying in the conversation"?  Let's change the conversation.  I know that studios have to sell their films, and movie sites need to stay afloat;  Hence, the never ending debate over a film like Green Hornet, as if it were worth discussing on the same level as something like Lars van Trier's Dogville.  And there's the great irony;  Dogville, a fantastic, narratively rich film, will be seen by less than a fraction of the audience that Hornet has.

Life is short, kids.  Why settle for second, third, fourth, or fifth best?  This year, let's go for platinum.

Cinematic Showdown!: Lord Of The Rings vs Pirates Of The Caribbean - Part Three

IT'S THE FINAL ROUND!!!!

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING

VS

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END

. . . FIGHT!!!

Return Of The King had a lot of ground to cover;  In addition to the (near) entirety of the novel, they're also forced, due to a decision to play everything out chronologically, to include several scenes from the previous novel, The Two Towers.  Because of the cramped narrative, the forward momentum of the story, and the larger-than-life battle scenes, it ends up shedding a lot of the fat that The Two Towers had.    Despite it's length, and now infamous multiple endings, it really does run like a well-oiled machine.  Trust me; With some of the shit that's in that book, they could've made it a LOT longer.

The cheesiness and pretentiousness that should've been exclusively saved for the climax actually works quite well in the climax.  And despite that, and in good contrast, this is the most "Peter Jackson-ey" installment of the trilogy:  You've got ghost warriors, "hero" monsters, giant spiders; it's a fun, goofy good time.

Pirates, after their extremely solid first two entries, takes a sharp dive with this second part of the Davy Jones story.  After two films of light-hearted, swashbuckling banter and antics starring a cast of backstabbers and cutthroats, we begin this film with the hanging of a child (?!), and the doom and gloom never lets up.  Where did this come from, exactly?  Am I now supposed to take the mythology of the series with dead seriousness?  Am I supposed to feel bad that the government is cracking down on pirates?  I mean, I get it; they represent "freedom", and the parallels to Wild Bunch style westerns are readily apparent, buuutttt. . .  I mean they're thieves, murderers and rapists, right?  These are the "good guys" that I'm supposed to shed a tear for?  The previous films were a perfect balance of romance, horror, action and comedy, and this film tilts the balance heavily towards drama, in the process sucking a great deal of the fun out of the thing.

In response to criticisms that Pirates 2 & 3 don't make sense;  they do, but you have to be paying attention to understand them.  That said; What's the point of the whole Calypso/Davy Jones romance arc?  If you removed it from the film, it wouldn't effect the story at all, really.  By adding more and more mythology onto the pile, it fills valuable time with exposition that could be used for some sorely missed comedy.  The shift in Jones' character from Ultimate Badass to Lacky Of Ultimate Badass really deflates the conflict that was built up to a fever pitch by the end of Dead Man's Chest.  I get the shift of Beckett being the Final Boss, but Davy Jones needs to be bigger, scarier and in a greater degree of control than they portray him here.

Biggest problem with At World's End?  This is Keira Knightley's movie, in essence, and a real chance for her character to shine.  But, she pretty much drops the ball.  She was used well in the first film (as background eye-candy), but I don't buy her transition from society girl to pirate king.  She's more whiny than angry.

FREDERICK OPINES

THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING - MASTERPIECE

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END - GOOD


So, if I tally these scores up. . .  We actually have a tie!  I honesty didn't think that LOTR had a chance, but POTC pooched it up enough in the final round, and Rings brought it's A-game, so that they both ended on even turf.

The battle is over, but the war continues.  The fourth Pirates film is released this year, and an adaptation of The Hobbit, again directed by Peter Jackson, just went into production.