Pilot Season reviews, part 1: "Scorpion" and "Madam Secretary"

So we started watching the timeshifted pilots tonight... mixed bag thus far.


Scorpion:

Interesting premise if done well, interesting characters if written and handled properly, cast may be a bit hit or miss, but it's hard to tell because...

...Unfortunately, the writing and direction has the worst case of "pilotitis" I've ever seen. Nothing but quick cuts, bang bang go go, no regard for plausibility, nothing but smash bang yell smash bang...

It's Bayhem, done badly.

And I quote...

Bobby: Dear gods, their writers are idiots 

Chris: No Bobby... their technical consultants are idiots. Good technical consultants could have made this work. People who know aviation, communications, security, computers and networks. 

...Well, that or the showrunner just ignored the tech geeks while they screamed "dear god no, that's incredibly stupid, you just can not do that". 

Bobby: ...Chris... 

Chris: Yes Bobby? 

Bobby: Why aren't we working in Hollywood as technical consultants? 

Chris: Because we'd be homicidal within minutes.

And:

Bobby: Hmm... Scorpion might actually be good... as a drinking game.

I sincerely hope that this level of crapitude was because for the pilot, the plot, and the details, were effectively "lorem impsum BOOM!!!", so that idiot network execs to get interested in the show.

I will bet money that the elevator pitch... or at least the first line in the script coverage... on this was "It's 24, meets "Criminal Minds", meets "The big Bang Theory".

We'll give it a couple episodes, see how it does in the initial order.


Madam Secretary:

Another elevator pitch show: "It's "Zero Dark Thirty", meets "The West Wing", meets "Scandal", but the lead is a hot blonde, with a hot college professor husband, who has sexy students.

... and it's BLOODY AWFUL. 

Basically, everything is wrong. The cast should be great... nope. The writing is simultaneously mundane and melodramatic. The cinematography, sound design, and production design are entirely wrong... The show looks, feels, and sounds wrong.

Tea Leone demonstrates all the animation and expression of a somewhat wobbly block of pleasantly shaped wood. Every character (or performance) seems to be from a slightly (or dramatically) different show than every other character.

Stay away... stay far away.

Pilot Season... Give it a little time...

It's TV premier season, and this year has a lot of reasonably ambitious pilots, some of which show some potential for being great, but are going to take some establishing before they get good... if they get good: Gotham, The Flash, Constantine, Forever, Scorpion etc...

So, what happens if you see the pilot, and really WANT to like the show, but the pilot is only "Meh"?

...or worse, it's really close to like... halfway great, but there are a few things which subtract from it to make it either "meh" (Agents of Shield anyone?), or a couple specific things which really turn you off?

Let me just say... give it time...

Don't dismiss something which has the potential to be great, just because they didn't get it right at first.

There are a lot of shows that are now considered all time greats, where the first half season wasn't great, but they found their feet in the second half.

Actually, in some cases like "Cheers", ST:TNG, or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" even the whole first season was not great, but the networks or production companies trusted the shows enough to renew.

Unfortunately, that almost never happens anymore, because networks don't stay long behind a low rated show... Hell, they'll pull a moderately rated show after 3 episodes if they were expecting higher and have a decent replacement prepped. Sometimes though they'll give a full season pickup pre-air, and the show starts mediocre, but they'll let it run through the whole season to find it's feet.

First thing is to remember, it's just a pilot.

For a pilot, the production values, and shooting scripts... even the characters, and cast in some cases... may be significantly different from the initial pickup shows. You can't really tell from the pilot what the final product is going to look like. If you like the concept and the characters, you've got to give it at least 3 episodes.

If after 3 episodes, you're still in the "Man, I want to like this show, but they're just not quite there" zone, you have to remember those 3 episodes were all written and produced before airing. In fact, the first 6, 8, or even 10 or 12 episodes will have been produced before the pilot is ever aired (though not usually 12... 6 would be common). This means they haven't really seen what the show is doing in front of a real audience yet, and they haven't had a chance to make adjustments.

Sometimes, particularly if it's a production values problem, the show will get better over time because the initial production order was on a lower budget, and the next 3 or 6 will be better.

This is particularly true of higher budget long lead time shows, with a lot of postproduction work... I.E. science fiction, fantasy, and adventure shows like the ones I mention above. They have a much longer lead time, with more episodes in the pipeline simultaneously, so it takes them longer to adjust to the audience reactions.

Also remember, this is the age of six channel multi-terabyte DVRs, streaming services, and bittorrent.

If after 3 episodes you till like the concept and the characters, but not enough to watch every week, or there's still a couple things that turn you off, wait a while, then come back.

If the show doesn't get a full season pickup, then you don't need to bother.

If it gets picked up, let the previously filmed episodes burn off, then watch the first episode filmed after the pickup. If they have the details fixed by then, you can go back and fill in.

... and of course, there's always bingewatching in the winter hiatus, or after it shows up on netflix.

Luc, Lucy, and the Meaning of Life.

Just watched Scarlet Johansson in Luc Bessons "Lucy".

Yeah...

Lots of fan service certainly.

VERY VERY VERY DUMB...

Also, in many ways it goes far beyond "homage" and into "total blowjob" territory for Yuen Woo-Ping, John Woo, and Park Chan-Wook... and to Hong Kong and Korean (and of course being a Luc Besson film, french and italian) cinema in general... To the point of some shot for shot "homages", and very explicit callbacks and stunt casting.

Frankly, that was part of the fan service.

I didn't like ScarJo's performance choices and/or Bessons choices in directing her performance... but that was a matter of personal preference and taste. I don't think it was actually a bad performance, I think she was executing what she and Besson wanted... I just didn't care for those choices.

It was REALLY short. It also made very extensive use of stock footage; to the point that I think without it, the whole film minus credits (it's listed as 90 minutes with credits. We timed the actual film content as 83 minutes from opening shot to closing shot) would have been under 60 minutes.

Fun. Not good. Not so horrible as to wrap around and be great.

If you're a film geek... particularly if you love hong kong and korean action movies it's a good "bad movie night" movie

6 word movie reviews

Django Unchained: Not bad... Way too damn long¹

Jack Reacher: Good action... Cruise is too short²

Footnotes:

¹Django Unchained is 2 hours 45 minutes long. If you do a google search of "Django Unchanged" and "too damn long", you get over 100,000 results.

²Jack Reacher the character, is supposed to be a very big man, at 6'5 and 250lbs (and actually as described, would be closer to 285-300lbs).  Tom Cruise is 5'7 (and visibly wearing 4" lifts in the film. His co-star is 5'9" and wears uncharacteristic for hollywood low heels), and about 170lbs. He's buff, but he isn't in any way big.

In the Mailbox today...

Marco Rubios new bio/memoir "An American Son"

Full disclosure, his publisher sent me a review copy (as they did to a number of conservative and libertarian bloggers). I'll be reading it and posting a review shortly. The book will be publicly available starting tomorrow, and can be pre-ordered from Amazon now (links below).

For those who don't know, Rubio is the junior senator from Florida, and former speaker of the Florida house (a post he held after only 6 years in the statehouse, having been elected at the age of 29, and elected speaker at only 35). One of the youngest senators at only 41, Rubio is the son of cuban immigrants, a devout catholic, and a solid conservative of the tea party persuasion.

For my own tastes... Rubio is great on economics, generally great on business, great on foreign policy, good on guns (not quite great, but a B+ is good enough for a senator), not so great on personal freedom.

My one big issue with Rubio is that he's VERY socially conservative, and largely religiously based in that regard. As a philosophical libertarian who happens to be a Republican... I'm not thrilled with folks who think the government should be involved in these areas at all, never mind supporting extension of the governments current reach. Also, specifically, he supports constitutional amendments on social and moral issues... something I STRONGLY oppose.

Other than that though... hey, I like the guy.

Rubio was elected by a 20 point margin of victory over his nearest competitor... and that's a hell of a story...

His nearest competitor was then sitting Republican governor Charlie Crist; who Rubio first beat in the states Republican primary, largely as a result of Tea Party voters.

Rather than drop out however, Crist decided to run as an independent against Rubio in the general election. This was largely taken poorly by both Tea Party oriented voters, and the majority of the states Republican base. Crist's strategy was to use his popularity among independents, and centrist republicans and democrats, plus his seeming rebellion against the party and particularly "against the radical right and the Tea Party", to build a "moderate" coalition for victory.

That strategy backfired BADLY.

Rubio earned 48.9% of the vote, to Crist's 29.7%... with the democratic competitor Kendrick Meek, coming in a distant third with 20.2% (basically he was a sacrificial lamb, and only the hardcore dems voted for him, with about half the democrats voting for Crist).

This made Rubio the poster boy for the "Tea Party Revolution" of 2010 that the media played up so much, and for a time made him the target of speculation about him pulling a Republican version of the Obama play, and running for president in 2012.

Rubio was very clear that he had no intention of seeking either the presidential or vice presidential nomination in 2012... However, Romneys problems with the conservative and libertarian portions of the Republican and independent electorate, have got speculation among the media running high that Rubio will be chosen as Romneys running mate.

My personal opinion, is that Rubio doesn't want to be vice president in 2012; he wants to be president in 2016 or 2020 (and he'll be much more "electable" then, simply by getting to look more like what the electorate expects a president to look like... i.e. "Older than 41")... but it's a lot easier to get to the big chair from the little chair, than it is from the senate floor, and somehow, I don't think he'll say no if he's asked. \

As to what this book, being released now, might mean?

I stand behind my previous statement.


At any rate, look for a review in this space in the next few days. In the meantime, here's the links to buy the book, and for Rubios tour events:

Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Son-Senator-Marco-Rubio/dp/1595230947

Barnes & Noble:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/an-american-son-senator-marco-rubio/1108857608

Rubio's book tour:
http://www.facebook.com/AnAmericanSon/events

Rubios Twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/marcorubio

A few reviews from my weeks "staycation"

So, over last week I resolved to get a fair bit of reading done; and so I did, though not the 10-12 books I'd hoped.

A couple of the books I did read were throwaways, but I thought I would give a couple of thumbnail reviews of the more interesting, irritating, or significant choices.

First, to non-fiction:

"At Home: A brief history of private life" by Bill Bryson: Filled with Brysons normal humor, but perhaps a bit plodding at times. A lot of very interesting information, in great detail; but not as much narrative flair as Bryson usually displys. Still, a recommended read.



"Adapt: Why success always starts with failure" by Tim Harford: Among my favorite economist/authors (and surprisingly, there are a number of folks in this category) here Harford writes a broad but shallow treatment of exactly what it says on the tin. He takes a look at a number of conspicuous failures in the past, and how and why those involved did or did not manage to turn the experience into a success. Not as good as his earlier book "The Undercover Economist", and in some areas disappointingly shallow and repetitive; but again, still a recommended read.

"Primetime Propaganda" by Ben Shapiro:

Yaknow... I wanted to like this book. It's got lots of great information and informative and revelatory interviews, and I think it's an important book. I think you SHOULD read it.

But it's not a good book.

It's just badly written. It's repetitive, it lacks focus, it's far too long, it has no real coherent narrative structure (just as important in nonfiction as in fiction; but entirely different in class and style). It's amateurish. It veers from formal to informal language and style. There are multiple authorial voices here almost; and at times it's difficult to understand if the author is trying to relate conversationally, or to narrate, or if something is factual history, or narrative exposition etc...

I really do think you should read it, but at 400 some pages in hardcover (I read it on my phone and computer as a kindle book) and with the style issues... It was not an easy read.

"The Secret Knowledge" by David Mamet: Everything I said about style in the previous book? Reverse it. God does Mamet know how to write (not that anyone culturally literate could doubt that at this point). There isn't a huge amount of content there, but what is there is... everything you might ask for. It's presented logically, humorously, with flow and style... You want to keep reading. It's a good book, about important and interesting stuff, well written by someone who knows how to use language to express themselves masterfully.

And on to fiction:

"A taint in the blood" by S.M. Stirling": The first in a now two book series (I believe it's planned as a five book, but with Stirling you never know), I found it somewhat difficult to get into. The pacing and flow are odd. The characters are interesting, but the pacing and drive of the novel doesn't let us get into them very much.

It's not bad at all, it just doesn't grab you, and it was harder to finish. The book definitely does get better as it goes... it just takes a while to get there.

This book feels very much the setup to a much bigger story, and I presume we will see a lot more character and plot development and exposition, over the next few novels. I am also told that many people felt the same about the first book, and the second was much better... so a half recommendation.

"Hit list", an Anita Blake book, by Laurell k.Hamilton: It's been a long time since I read a new Anita Blake book, and actually wished it were longer. Several have been too short, but I definitely didn't want them to keep going. This book is a completely different story, both literally and figuratively.

For Anita Blake fans, this book is ENTIRELY an Anita and Edward book (and that's a great thing). Also, there's only two sex scenes in the whole book, and they're actually not bad.

Not only that, but Anita seems to be... Anita again. Not just the authors fantasy life played out on the pages (this may have something to do with the author going back to her husband, after a few years "finding her new self" romping through the BDSM community in St. Louis).

That said, Hamilton still hasn't regained her ability to end a book. This ending is a major letdown... huge buildup (multibook), no release... Anti-climactic doesn't begin. She doesn't even describe the climax or the denouement, just barely mentioning it in passing.

It's an OK book, almost a good book. It's certainly the best book Laurell K. Hamilton has written since before Narcissus in Chains; and a hopeful sign for the future of the character. If you're a Blake fan, read it.

"Against All Enemies" by Tom Clancy and Peter Telep: Tom Clancy didn't write a word of this novel.

I have read every word of prose Tom Clancy has ever written. I know his writing. Hell, I know his authorial voice and style so well, if given an outline of a story, and some primary character sketches, I could probably write a Clancy novel myself.

In fact, that's pretty much what Clancy has done with the Ryanverse for the last 10 years or so; in that he clearly didn't write the last few novels, but only gave an outline and some character sketches and details to a ghostwriter who wrote them for him.

Peter Telep didn't even do that.

This book is not in Clancys signature style. It does not use Clancys language or idion. It doesn't have his pacing or plotting. It lacks his technical detail or experience. It lacks his attention to detail, and avoidance of simple technical mistakes (especially mistakes about the organizations he is writing about, and their basic firearms and equipment).

However, at least they are crediting his co-author this time.

This book is supposed to introduce a new protagonist in Clancys Ryanverse:Part 2 (Jack Ryan Jr. universe), Hal Moore, an ex Navy SEAL (as it happens, the name is taken from two actual ex SEALs) gone to work in the clandestine service of the CIA.

And that's where the problems begin; because Telep is not familiar enough with the world of the CIA to write it convincingly. For one thing, CIA officers are constantly referred to as "Operatives". There is a big difference and I'm not going to get into it now; but it's a mistake that Clancy not only does not make in books he writes, but one he actually had a character point out as a mistake at one point.

Now, here's the thing...

The book aint bad.

The first third is actually quite good (minus the somewhat jarring technical errors), and other than wrapping up some things too quickly (definitely sequel bait), the last third is pretty good. The middle bogs down rather badly though; and it's in this section that most of the authors failures to understand the world they are writing about worsen the issues.

I think that given a good technical consultant and a good editor, the next book in the series could be excellent. The writer obviously knows what he's doing, and writes quite well... eh just doesn't know what he is writing about well enough.

and finally...

Carte Blanche a new James Bond novel by Jeffery Deaver:

James Bond gets rebooted to today. Specifically, as a contemporary adult, born in 1979. Seriously. Instead of a cold war spy and veteran of World War two, Bond is now a 32 year old veteran of the Afghan war. Almost all the classic characters are here, rebooted to contemporary as well (M [here, Admiral sir Miles Messervy... as he should be], Moneypenny, Mary Goodnight, Bill Tanner, Felix Leiter, Rene Mathis... Sadly not Major Boothroyd, but I believe that was done out of respect for Desmond Llewelyn, so I'm ok with that).

...

Ok, I HATE this idea. Really, really hate it...

...BUT

If you're going to continue the Bond books in a contemporary setting (as they always have been from all the followon authors after Fleming) it's probably necessary.

Deaver is a good writer. He knows his business, and other than inserting what I consider to be somewhat excessive britishisms (Deaver is an American from the south and is overcompensating) and a few more nods and head bobs to establishing some of the touchstones of the character than are probably necessary in the first novel...

It's actually pretty good.

It's a bit short, and more than a bit frenetically paced; but so were the original Fleming books.

Really, it's quite good, and I recommend it... I'm just not sure... It's good, but is it really James Bond.

Also, I understand choosing Jeffery Deaver for this. He knows the genre. He himself is a huge James Bond fan. He's a very good writer with a built in fanbase.

But... Deaver needs someone to help him with something. Someone to really help him with the "feel" and flair, and essential Britishness (particularly the cruel, hard, but passionate scots nature of Bond) that is Bond...

It's good... But... is this really James Bond?

Medal of Honor... the short SHORT version

So, after about 8 hours of gameplay, INCLUDING mission restarts etc (and there were plenty of those)... I finished the single player campaign mode of the new Medal of Honor game a couple hours ago and have started playing through "Tier 1 mode"; which is single player, against the clock, with accuracy bonuses and trophies, against the rest of the world. I haven't tried the true multiplayer mode yet.

It's a pretty decent game, but as usual there are some common irritations. Concealment/cover mechanics are crap. Damage modeling is poor (gee theres a shock). Aim modeling is poor (again, all games do this).

That said, overall, I like the gameplay, and the graphics are great.

Also, this has to be the first combat sim I've seen that showed AFSOC (PJ, CCT) personnel deployed as integral team members with other special operations ground forces. Unfortunately, your only playable characters (at least in single player)are a SEAL and a Ranger, but hey, it's a start.

My biggest problem though, is that the single player campaign is stupidly short. For $60 I expect a lot more single player content.

I don't really see tier 1 mode as much of an enhancement to the concept; unless they offer a bunch of DLC later (which I think is likely).

There is a limited selection of weapons, but the ones they do give you are generally useful; and they are VERY well modeled cosmetically.

Unfortunately, they are not well modeled for recoil or other shooting characteristics (they get optics laughably bad for example, though still better than most other games), or for damage.

For example, there are five weapons in the game that fire 7.62x51 (the M-14 EBR, M110, the G3, and the M60-E3). All have similar barrel lengths, and will fire the same NATO spec ammo (though the M-14 is probably firing the 168gr smk load). Ammo is not interchangeable (some justification for that in that you aren't going to unload G3 mags and reload the single rounds into M14 mags in the middle of a firefight), and does WILDLY different damage, even in single shot mode, at the same range, to the same target etc... etc...

The same goes for the two guns that shoot 7.62x54r. The Dragunov is a one shot instant kill, the PKM isn't. Same round, same range, same barrel length...

Apparently, according to this game, 5.56 nato has the same damage characteristics as an undercharged BB gun, unless you use it for head shots when it becomes a death laser. At least ALL the 5.56 weapons damage modeling sucks equally, and they are all relatively accurate.

The MOST irritating damage mechanic to me is that I can hit someone multiple times center chest with a 5.56 or even a 7.62, they'll fall, and then a few seconds later they will get back up and keep fighting. Sometimes I can do this three or four times before they finally decide to die... But amazingly, they don't do this when I take them down with a 9mm pistol (admittedly it takes 4-6 shots to do so).

In this game, the only sure kills (except with the .50 which kills if you hit their toenail), are center head. Eventually, you figure out to only go for headshots, or use snapshot burst fire with the reticle.

Ammo is irritatingly rare for pickup weapons. The whole point of a pickup weapon is that you have unlimited resupply based on your kills. You can walk over to a dozen guys you just killed, and none of them have any ammo (though you can see their G3s with mags RIGHT THERE).

Also, as is almost always the case, there is no weapon malfunction mechanic.

All that said, these are flaws common to most games in the genre. You have to balance gameplay, game mechanics, and fun, with realism.

Overall, not yet having tried multiplayer, I'd say its a good, fun game; but too expensive.

If multi-player proves to be spectacular, great. However, given my past experiences with the majority of people who play multiplayer combat simulations (i.e. Douchebags and 14 year olds)... I'm not exactly optimistic.

If they offer a lot of good DLC, that might also make up for it.

That said, for $60 I got a solid 8 hours of entertainment in the single player campaign, and I'll probably get another 40 out of Tier 1 mode just as stress relief... Better bang for buck than a couple of movies.

Forgive me for saying so....

...but Kickass, really did Kick Major ASS.

I mean, how often do you get to see a cute little girl make dick jokes and kill a bunch of guys (like 20 or so).

Plus, she picks up guns off the bad guys when she kills them, and she never leaves a live one on the ground behind her. That's two of my major action movie pet peeves subverted (in one scene even).

If on the other hand you are offended by the thought of a 10 year old girl swearing like a sailor and blowing peoples heads off...

...Seriously? Why are you reading my web site? Cuz that shit is funny as fuck.

Get it on BluRay... the fountains of blood from the exploding heads really pop.

Book Review: Hostile Intent by Michael Walsh

Hostile Intent by Michael Walsh

In short, one of the worst books I have ever finished reading.

I've STARTED to read worse books, but put them down at some point, never to return. This one I actually finished; because it has a lot of potential, but is ultimately worse for taking that potential and ruining it by amateurish mistakes, and what I can only call authorial laziness.

This book is a perfect illustration how a book can be reasonably well written, yet be awful.

Between the basic technical errors, the tropes, and the cliches... basically I only finished reading the book to see if it got any worse (it did. Continuously. With every page).

The book almost seems to be the result of a computer program taking every bad technothriller cliche, and combining them with "hard boiled" characters and dialog etc... to spit out the "optimal technothriller novel". Like one of those scriptwriting computer programs.

A sample of some of the more egregious idiocies:

"supercomputers powered by the Large Hadron Collider"

"running the Level Six double-bind ciphers through IMDB-Pro"

... really, they get MUCH worse, and litter the book, on nearly every page. There are even extended passages about cryptography, and high performance computing, that read like they were created by throwing buzzwords into a blender and pouring them out onto the page.

And yet, the actual "mechanics of writing" part, the pacing, the non technical dialog, the scene setting; all were reasonably well done.

Clearly, Walsh is a decent writer, who simply knows absolutely nothing about the subject he chose to write about. From his language choices, phrasing, pacing, and scene setting in fact, I'd peg him as a television screenwriter.

If Walsh would get a couple of good technical advisers who know guns and computers, and a group of beta readers, I'm willing to bet the sequel (and there is certainly a sequel, presuming the book earns out; and given that it's had good press and good blurbs I assume it will... probably already has) will be MUCH better.

A lot of folks on the right, conservative, or just anti-lefty side of things have been giving the book positive reviews, because it takes a big swing at leftist ideologies (and certain thinly disguised individuals); but to my mindthat kind of thinking is harmful.

Just because a book espouses a position or opinion you agree with doesn't mean you have to like it, or support it (or for that matter SHOULD, never mind "have to"). Judge a book by what it should be, not by its ideology, or the ideology of the author.

Books are art, and entertainment, and a means of distributing information. This book fails on all three counts.

It COULD be entertaining, if the fundamental errors were fixed (cliches and tropes are ok for the genre... otherwise they wouldn't have become cliches) but it isnt... unless, like me, you enjoy things that are "so bad they're good", and this book just about qualifies.

I'm dead serious though, if the guy would just get some technical advisers on guns, computers, the military, and private security... Hell, I volunteer, for free.

Michael Walsh, if you are out there, I DO know a hell of a lot about what you've chosen to write about, and I've got a bunch of friends who do too. We'll read your stuff, and tell you where you got it wrong.

Most of us read every other author in the genre too, and we get the political message, and the ideology you're working with, the way a BOS/NY/LA editor won't.

I think most of us would do it just so there's one less book full of gun and computer errors out there...

Brütal Legend is Brütally Awesome

Brütal Legend arrived on my doorstep Friday afternoon, and I managed to finish it early this evening after work.

That means two things, one good, one bad:

1. The game is awesome and engrossing. It's well paced, and involves you with a continuing progression of challenge that means you can play it for 6 hours straight and not get bored.

2. The game is really really short.

No, really really short. I got about 12 hours of game play out of it; and that was half sandbox time. There was only about six hours in the main storyline.

Oh and the side missions are pretty pointless and repetitive, so you can't really extend the play value with those. There's basically no replay value in the single player mode.

The game is kind of an odd fusion of genres; a combination of arcade style melee combat, the ever popular GTA style sandbox drive and fight mission gaming, and resource/unit management based real time strategy.

Oh and of course, METAL!!!!!

If you aren't a big fan of heavy metal, you're going to hate this game. EVERYTHING about this game is metal. The character names, the artwork, the dialog, and of course, the soundtrack; which is a world tour of the history of metal, with 108 songs from 75 bands, spread across the major metal genres (including two songs written just for the game)...

...Though admittedly, the list is heavily weighted towards early 80s metal (which I consider a GOOD thing).

Also, the voice actors are totaly metal; featuring Ozzy Osbourne, Rob Halford, Lemmy, Lita Ford and (debatably metal, and seriously irritating to many people) Jack Black as the main character.

Oh, and continuing his long tradition of kinky bastards, demons, and deliciously evil bad guys; Tim Curry voices the big bad.

If on the other hand you LOVE metal, as I do; the game is great fun.

Is it worth the $56 (for the PS3 anyway)? It was for me. 12 hours worth of entertainment is three fairly long books, 6 movies, maybe 3 dinners out... all of which are roughly comparable more or less in cost (unless you go for library books or rental movies anyway).

There's a different debate out there, as to the escalating costs of video games in general and as to whether those costs are justified; but that's an argument for a different post.

I say, if you like metal, don't hate Jack Black, and like sandbox games; go for it.

Oh, and "The Superfluous Umlauts" would be a great name for a rock band.

En Vin Verite

If you have any interest at all in wine, you should really read some of the several excellent books and articles, or the also excellent documentary, about the 1976 Judgement of Paris.

If you have no interest in wine, you probably have no idea of the significance of that even; but perhaps you'll enjoy a story about the French being hoist on their own petard of arrogance and snobbery.

The judgment of Paris, in this case (it also refers to an earlier event in fine art), refers to a blind tasting of French and California wines, conducted in France in 1976.

It was expected by everyone, especially the organizer of the event; that the French would win handily. Even the U.S. vintners were sure the French would win; if only due to chauvinism and cheating (it was fully expected by the California vintners that the "blind test" would not be).

Instead, a California chardonnay ( Chateau Montelena) was the unanimous top choice of whites by all the judges, and a California Cabernet (Stags Leap) the top choice of reds (though only just edging out the next two French wines).

Prior to this result (and the famous George Tabor Time Magazine article documenting it, and linked up above), very few in the wine world took California wines... or for that matter, any wines not from France... seriously.

After?

Well, in every significant blind tasting since, American wines (mostly California, but some from Washington or Oregon) have beaten French wines.

Every time.

Not only that, but worldwide, California wines outsell French wines by as much as 8 to 1 in some years (French wine, because of the climate, tends to be strongly vintage dependent. Better California wines tend to be much more consistent), and have in general outsold French wines every year since 1982.

Funny thing though: I think the best of Oregon and Washington, and even the best of Chile and Australia; are now better than the best of the same varietals, out of either France OR California.

At any rate, I just watched a dramatization of the events surrounding the Judgement, called "Bottle Shock", and starring... everyone really (seriously, almost every role is a name, or a familiar face).

I know that the movie wasn't very true to the real events, but I enjoyed it very much. I especially enjoyed the performances of Bill Pullman and Alan Rickman (honestly, it's rare I don't like Rickman)... and I didn't absolutely hate Chris "Captain Kirk Jr." Pine.

I won't call it a great movie, but it was fun; and if you like wine, worth watching.

Restaurant Review: Toby Keiths "I Love This Bar & Grill"

The final word right up front: I'll give it a C, but with potential.


The Setup

One of the benefits of living in Phoenix, is that we are often used as a test market for various products, services, and concepts. For example, we generally get new candy bars, soft drinks, and other foods test marketed here, and even movie previews long before other markets see them.

Because we're a market with a relatively low cost of doing business, cheap land, and high value demographics; we've also been used as the opening market, or one of the early markets, for a number of chain restaurants.

For a while there it was retired sports stars; but recently the big thing has been musicians (I'm not counting Alice Coopers place which has been here for 15 years). We had Carlos Santanas joint "Maria Maria" open up here about 18 months ago, a number of others open since; and just last weekend, Toby Keiths "I Love This Bar & Grill".

Actually from what I understand, we were intended to be the second location for the chain (the first outside of Tobys home state of Oklahoma), but the restaurant has been delayed for the last three years, and had to change sites; so instead we're I believe the fourth location (the others are in Oklahoma city, the Chicago suburbs and Las Vegas)

Mel has been wanting to go ever since she heard the place was coming; but we wisely avoided opening weekend, and decided to head out this past Friday instead.

The Review

First impressions? It's big, and it's loud. Very big, and VERY loud in fact.

The place is about 20,000 square feet, 200 foot plus wide with a HUGE 85 foot long guitar shaped bar running right down the middle; a dining area to one side, and a live music stage and smaller dining are to the other, plus outside seating.

There is no question, the bar is the focus of the restaurant. It's a gleaming neon lit show piece that takes up at least 1/3 their floor space. However it's also where the largest concentration of loudspeakers is. When you're within 20 feet of the bar, conversation is impossible.

In fact it's difficult to hear yourself think. I have a very loud voice, and I had to shout to make myself heard to the greater and hostess.

The music is a mix of country, classic rock, southern rock, and a little hard rock. Basically, if you'd hear it at a NASCAR tailgate, they'd be playing it at TKILTB&G.

... a word on that... Seriously, I know branding is important, but don't you feel silly saying "I'm going to "Toby Keiths 'I Love This Bar & Grill" I mean if nothing else, isn't it a little long?

Sure, it's a natural branding fit, but seriously...

While we were there, the live band of the night started up, and they were very good (I unfortunately didn't catch their name); but even louder than the recorded music.

At any rate, it was simply too loud inside to enjoy a meal, even at the far end of the seating area; so we chose to eat outside (many, if not most, restaurants in Arizona have outside seating).

The service is friendly, clean and neat. The women who they have titled "Whiskey Girls" (more of that branding thing) all wear the same "uniform" of a tank top, cutoff jean shorts or skirts, and cowboy boots, while the men have a more mundane short sleeve button down shirt, jeans, and boots.

The menu is pretty solid. Neither very large, nor limited, they offer a good selection of choices; though as you'd expect, focused on the beef and pork end of the spectrum. The dishes have a slight "country" feel to them, but it's the "suburban" country version. So there's no collard greens, but there ARE fried bologna sandwhiches.

The drinks were good, as was the beer which they had an acceptable selection of; at a slightly above average but not outrageous price for the class of place, and they were well sized. Oh and they serve them in Mason jars, which I always like.

This is where we hit our second point of dissatisfaction however. The fact is, I just don't think the place is a good value for money.

We ordered a single appetizer, the "buffalo" wings (they were good, but they weren't buffalo wings, They used a slightly sweet, slightly hot, thin vinegar based sauce) and the relatively small platter (8 whole wings; drums and winglets not disjointed as is typical) was $10. More typical pricing in this region would have been $6.99 to $8.99.

Other appetizers were in the $7.99 to $8.99 range, and although we didnt order any we did see them on other tables, and they appeared a little smaller than one would expect for the price.

Mel ordered the rib plate at $14.99 for a half rack, and two sides; and I ordered the "Fish and Game", at $22.99, a 10oz peppercorn sirloin and fried shrimp with two sides (and the most expensive thing on the menu).

They also sell the same peppercorn sirloin with two sides (but no shrimp) for $15.99; which honestly is a bit high for just a sirloin. $12.99 to $14.99 would be more in-line with other casual dining places offering a 10oz. For $15.99 I'd be expecting a 12oz or even 14oz steak from a similar place.

So, for $22.99 I expected a LOT of shrimp. In fact I expected a big portion of everything. If you're going to charge for it, bring it right?

There was a little 4oz (at most) soupcon of mac and cheese, a scattering of fries, a tiny little sirloin, and THREE tiny little shrimp.

Now remember, the exact same plate without the shrimp was $15.99; so they charged me $7 for THREE shrimp; and they weren't even big shrimp.

For $7 I expect at least a half dozen 16-20s or at the very least 21-25s; these were 26-30s (one size above "popcorn shrimp"), and there were 3 of them.

Mels "half rack" was more like a 1/3 rack; with the same portions of sides as mine.

Let me just say to balance off my criticism a little, the food was good. It wasn't great, but it wasn't at all bad. It was just the pricing for the portion that I was unhappy with.

The desserts were the highlight of the meal, and unlike the rest, quite reasonably priced. For $5 you got a reasonable sized slice of pie, cake, etc... Or a couple of deep fried twinkies swimming in a huge bowl of strawberries and whipped cream (which is obviously what I got). Mel got the pumpkin pecan pie and declared it delicious.

The total for our meal: an appetizer, two drinks, two entrees, and two desserts; came out to just about $70.

That isn't BAD, but it's $10 more than I'd be paying for the same thing at say an Applebees/Chilis/Fridays/Etc... for a similar quality of food (and all of those portions would be larger). Worse, it's only $10 less than I'd be paying at say, Claim Jumper; which would give me much more, and better, food.

Oh there is one point of great value on the menu: The burgers and sandwiches, although we didn't order them, look excellent; and they're priced very well ($7.99 with fries for a plain 1/2lb burger or lower cost sandwich to $12.99 for the super deluxe items).

The service was a bit iffy. There were some slowdowns and some little mistakes; but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. This was just their second weekend up and running, and the staff were obviously trying hard; they just didn't have their crew or their routines sorted out yet. That will come in time, and I expect the service will eventually match the great attitude that the staff all seemed to have.

The Good: Great friendly attitude, good drinks, great desserts, big burgers at a good price, good menu overall

The Bad: The overly loud music, service isn't sorted out yet (give them a chance though)

The Ugly: $7 for three tiny shrimp

Would I recommend "Toby Keiths 'I Love This Bar & Grill" ?

No, I don't think so. I wouldn't warn you off of it, but I'm hovering somewhere between neutral, and slightly negative (thus the "C" grade above).

We had a good time, and an OK meal, but the negatives outweight the positives for me.

If they turned the music down, and dropped the price on everything by $1 or $2; or upped the portion size on everything by 20%, I'd recommend it in a heartbeat.

As it is, I'd say give it a pass, unless you just want to have a drink, a burger, and dessert; and listen to country. Then you'd be playing to their strengths, and none of the complaints I had would apply.

If you're interested, here's another review of the place.

A simple review of a simple move - Monsters Vs. Aliens

Cute, sweet, fun, funny, kid safe, inoffensive, simple, and a little shallow.

Lots of pop culture references, and references to classic b movies trops. Straightforward plot. Very little in the way of story depth or character development.

Enjoy it for what it is, don't expect anything more, and you'll love it. Don't try and make it into Wall-E or "The Incredibles".

Quis custodiet ipso custodes

Nos vigilo custodes.

Indeed we do.

I’ve been struggling with how to review this movie since I walked out of the theater last night.

A few weeks ago someone asked me to explain “Watchmen” to them, and my response was “there is no way I can possibly give you an adequate explanation without telling you the entire story”; and that’s the problem I face here.

This could easily either be a 20 page mass of spoilers, shoutouts, pleasures and gripes, with some substance to it; or it can be a single paragraph or two, with some meaningless superlatives and diminutives.

I’m going to try and split the difference, and explain what I think is good and not so good about the movie; while keeping it relatively simple, and relatively spoiler free.

First things first, “Watchmen” is the best adaptation of a comic book into a film ever released.

This does not mean it is the “best comic book movie ever”; because I think that “Dark Knight”, “Iron Man”, and possibly “Spiderman 2″ were better as straight films. Watchmen is a better adaptation, and there is a big difference there.

Is it a good movie? Oh very much yes. However, it is a confusing, thickly layered, EXTREMELY violent, and disturbing film; with so much detail you need to see it multiple times to get it all.

On one level, it works as a straightforward action film. The fights and other action sequences are great; and the pacing and plotting work to keep everything moving and flowing.

Just as a “comic book film” it also works. The cinematography, production design, and costuming are amazing. For those of that persuasion, Malin Ackerman is unbelievably hot. For the other side, Billy Crudup is very, very naked for the entire film (and surprisingly good, in a VERY difficult roles). Jacky Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and Patrick Wilson all gave spectacular performances as Rorschach, the Comedian, and Night owl respectively.

As a morality play and social satire it works as well. Importantly, it is not just a nearly 3 hour gigantic anti-American anti-conservative rant, as some web sites are claiming (the GN was somewhat more so, but not so much as most people seem to think. As I said above, it is essentially libertarian in nature).

It is an indictment of many things in modern western culture without a doubt (though more subtle in this than the graphic novel), but I don’t think you could call it anti-American.

It is however, very much, anti-superhero… or more specifically anti-superman (in the neitzcheian ubermensch sense) in particular. Who watches the watchmen indeed.

Watchmen is very much a libertarian movie.

At a high level, it is a denunciation of popular fascism and oligarchy. At a deeper level, one of the central dilemmas of the movie is the conflict between objectivism, absolutism, pragmatism, and utilitarianism.

The whole story and concept behind Watchmen is a very strong indictment of the “perfect man” concept in political and social philosophy (which isn’t what it sounds like. If you aren’t familiar, there’s a lot of research you need to do to bring yourself up to speed).

At core, the political and philosophical underpinning of Watchmen, is an exhortation to individual integrity, morality, and sovereignty.

Which of course is why so many people don’t understand it; because for many, the entire notions of true individualism and liberty are alien.

So what didn’t work?

Nixon… in fact all of the politicians, captains of industry etc… portrayed in the film were nothing more than thinly drawn caricatures, used almost for comic relief. They should have had a creepy menace to them, but the makeup and performance choices Snyder made reduces them to parody.

I thought Matthew Goode was horrible as Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias. His characterization was ridiculous, and wooden at the same time.

Malin Ackerman, though amazingly beautiful with great screen presence, has the emotive range of a turnip. I’ve noted this in her other roles, so you can’t blame the writing.

Also, given that same writing, Jacky Earle Haley, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and Patrick Wilson gave great performances; so again, you can’t blame the writing.

Other than that, my criticisms are structural.

The fact is, there is only so much material you can pack into a movie. Even at a 2:45 runtime (yes, it really is that long. No, you don’t notice) this movie is busting at the seams, and still has to cut about 1/3 of the content of the graphic novel (1/2 if you count the “black freighter” material, which was made available as web videos, and will be released on DVD in two weeks).

I think they made the best choices possible given the constraints they were under. They chose to focus primarily on the main storyline, with reasonably well done fill-ins and exposition of the back story.

The thing that makes this just a good movie and not a great movie (and what in fact might have positioned it as an oscar contender, and I mean that quite seriously) is the missing or abbreviated backstory.

Without it, the characters of Sally and Laurie Juspeczyk/Jupiter i.e. the Silk Specter I and II; and that of Hollis Mason and Dan Dreiberg i.e. Nightowl I and II; are all somewhat thinly drawn.

Some things in the film appear to have very little or very thin motivation behind them. This is especially true of the actions of Ozymandias.

Silouhette, and the other watchmen, are essentially left out entirely; barely mentioned in passing. They were still minor characters in the GN, or more specifically subsidiary characters only slightly linked to the main plotline; but there was much more to them than in the film, and I think the film suffers a bit for it.

Also, the motivations of Dr. Manhattan, and the impact of the personal choices he makes are somewhat muddied or lost without that fuller backstory (and especially without a more fully fleshed Silk Specter).

I have to balance that criticism against the sheer effort of trying to fit it all in. To fully flesh out that background would take at least 5 hours.

As I understand it, the script as shot came in at over three and a half hours, and even with what they left in the script, they had to cut 45 minutes to make time (and to be sure of an R and not an NC-17). I do hope that with the Blu-Ray release, we get a full unrated extended cut.

Some fans of the GN are disappointed that the movie isn’t even darker, more violent, and more disturbing etc… Personally, I think they did an excellent job of capturing the atmosphere (excepting the characterization of Nixon… they missed the boat completely there); and they pulled no punches on the violence or sex.

Yes, there was even more violence, and more sex (and more sexual violence for that matter) in the GN; but it wasn’t necessary for that to be in the movie. Believe me, we got the point.

There is one VERY different twist to things from the GN that has hardcore purists pissed off; but in the end makes much more sense from a story, and dramatic perspective.

Overall, I’m going to give Watchmen a very strong recommendation. I think they made the most faithful possible adaptation of one of the greatest graphical novels of all time; and the result was a very good movie. My only reservation is that it could have been a great movie, but it would have required another hour of screen time.

The Unit Nukes the Fridge

The first two seasons of "The Unit" were really good fun. Interesting stories, decent technical accuracy, good writing and characterization... all in all the best fictional military show on broadcast TV (cable has done some interesting things as well of course).

Unfortunately, in season 3 you could say the show jumped the shark. It was still worth watching, but the quality of writing declined dramatically; and of course the writers strike killed season 3... though in retrospect, perhaps that was for the best.

Perhaps the change can be illustrated best in the change of theme music for season 3. Season 1 and 2 used a jody, "fired up", as the theme; and it suited the show perfectly. In season 3, they changed to an 80s'stastic, Richard Marks sounding cheese fest of a theme song, "walk the fire".

In the first two seasons, it was clear that the writers really understood the characters and situation. In the third season however, it seems that the writers had no concept of the characters they were writing, or the stories they were telling.

Frankly, most of the stories, and the actions the characters took and motivations they conveyed; simply didn't make sense.

The fourth season has only become worse. Looking at the credits, it seems that the entire writing staff from the first two seasons is gone; and at this oint the producers of the show are doing all the writing.

Not a good thing.

Today, the show definitively nuked the fridge.

For those who are unfamiliar with the phrase, it's derived from the scene in the most recent Indiana Jones movie, where Indy survives a nuclear blast by locking himself in a refrigerator, which is then blown several miles across the landscape.

By now I'm sure most of you know the term "jumped the shark"; as that moment when a show has peaked, and is clearly on a downhill slide. Well nuking the fridge is where that slide hits a cliff.

Basically, it's something so ridiculous and stupid, that it takes an otherwise good show or movie, and completely breaks the immersion. The whole story loses credibility, and you can't take the show seriously anymore.

I understand what the writers were doing; this same story has worked for other shows before; but those shows were not supposed to be gritty, realistic, military action dramas.

I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen the episode yet; but honestly, if you're a fan of the show, it's just going to disappoint and irritate you.

Looking at the list of remaining episodes for the year on IMDB or Wikipedia gives me no confidence that they will be any better.

The show is currently on a contingency basis at episode 12; with no full season order for the remainder of the year. There are currently four episodes remaining in the can, with another 8 not under contract.

There's no announcement as to whether it's going to be cancelled next year; but it's not looking good for pickup.

Longer review to come - One line about "Tropic Thunder"

Tropic thunder is literally the funniest movie I've seen in years; and if you don't see it you are depriving yourself of the best "laugh out loud so hard you cry" comedy since Mel Brooks last made a good movie.

Comic Books, Superheros, Lovem or Hatem, See Dark Knight

Because it's just a damn good movie.

I'm not going to be able to write much of a review here without spoilers, so I'll keep it brief. I've heard people saying this is the best comic book movie ever, or the best superhero movie ever... and I disagree with both of those (those are a tossup between "Sin City", and "300"; and "Iron Man" respectively) but only just off the mark in either case.

The important thing to note though, is that whether you like comic movies and superheros, or hate them; if you like good movies (as opposed to "fine cinema") you're going to like Dark Knight.

Note perfect performances; the only problem being, there are so many great characters there, that there isn't enough screen time for any of them (including the two leads by the way)... In fact I'd say the real star of the pic is Gery Oldman as Gordon, rather than Christian Bale.

There were only two plot devices, one that showed up twice, the other just once; that made me hit my suspensions of disbelief wall... which for a superhero movie is pretty damn good by the by. One was simply overly and unnecessarily complex and elaborate, and unnecessary to use when they did (being cool for coolness sake is somtimes OK; this time it didn't work); and the other made me yell out in the theater "Damn... physics just got made batmans bitch".

There are some DAMN good twists... not exactly completely unpredictable (especially if you know the comic), but very well executed.

Oh and a semi-almost-kinda-littlebitofa spoiler here for just a second. For those of you upset about a particular twist... Remember, there was no body, and the joker is twisted enough to have done any sort of thing... so don't count on what you saw being what you saw.

So, seriously, just go see it. At two and a half hours, it was still too short. I could've at for another half hour and not cared... maybe another hour... it was that good.

A Few Quick Movie Reviews

I realized that we've been remiss in posting reviews of the movies we've been to recently. For the most part sheer laziness is to blame (well... sheer laziness, AND a lot of "life stuff" and "work stuff")

So, just some quick hits.

1. Kung Fu Panda:
   
   Best animated kids movie I've seen since "The Incredibles". Fun every minute, attention grabbing, beautifully animated without drawing attention to the animation. Yes, the story is cliched, but actually, that in itself is a bit of geeky metahumor, as an homage to classic Kung Fu movies.
   
   Also, the voice acting was great. Dustin Hoffman was BRILLIANT, and Jack Black was fun, and funny, without being irritating.
   
   
2. Wanted:
   
   This is without a doubt the best gun movie since "Equilibrium". Is it ridiculous? YES! But in a good way.
   
   The stunts are definitely over the top, but it fits with the rest of the movie, the style and the substance; and it all works. Jolie is great, in an atypically understated and quiet kind of way, and James McAvoy was great fun to watch, as he goes from Tobey Maguire to Jason Statham over the course of the picture. Oh and a couple of real fun "Tyler Durden" moments.
   
   
3. Get Smart:
   
   Funny, sweet, action packed, very human, never sappy or irritating. Steve Carrel and Anne Hathaway were damn near perfect . They didnt try to replace Don Adams and Barbara Felden, so much as to respect and honor them. Some of the writing (especially the pacing) could have been a bit better, bit the chemistry, wit, and performances made up for it.
   
   Out of this list, if you arent a comic book fanboy, this is the movie I'd see.
   
   
4. The Hulk:
   
   Nowhere near as good as Iron Man, but fitting in with the Marvel universe very well. Edward Norton was Edward Norton (sweet, "complicated", sarcastic, wry etc...), Liv Tyler was Liv Tyler (think "Armageddon"). The bad guys are VERY VERY BAD AND EVIL, the good guys... Well, there really aren't any good guys, except in relation to the bad guys.
   
   I'm making it sound worse than it is; it's a good movie, worth seeing, but neither a great movie, nor a great comic book movie. It's really more of a setup for the expanded Marvel universe movies coming over the next three years.
   
   
5. Hancock:
   
   Holy crap this was a fun, and funny movie. There were moments when I was literally reduced to tears of laughter, as was the whole theater with me.
   
   Will Smith was completely perfect; managing to mix humor, with anger, and loss, and grit... GREAT performance. At first I thought Batemans performance was a bit awkward.. more shades of "Arrested Development" than what it should have been, but over time his character grew on me.
   
   I wasn't too impressed with Charlize Theron here; I felt she was a bit one dimensional, both in writing and in performance. Not entirely her fault, but Smith and Bateman did a good job with equally one dimensional characters.
   
   The only real problem with the movie is a lack of depth. Most people went into this movie presuming that it was based on a long standing but obscure comic book (as "Wanted" was for example). In fact, the movie was written as sort of an excercise "what would you write, iif you were to write a comic book movie from scratch, without any source material". So, you end up with a lot of potential there, that is wrapped up a bit neatly, and left unexplored.
   
   Some critics found this aspect of the film disappointing enough to review it poorly. I say, treat the film as a traditional short form science fiction story (which is basically what it is), and you'll love it. Expect too much out of it... well, this isn't exactly "The Dark Knight Returns".
   
   
6. Hellboy II:
   
   Don't let what I'm about to say put you off this movie...
   
   I was disappointed.
   
   Don't get me wrong, I really liked it. The movie was beautiful, and fun, and exceptionally well acted by the leads. Ron Perlman put in a more human, and funnier, performance under all that makeup, than most actors are capable of on their best day. Selma Blair was a bit one dimensional, but had a great (and VERY sexy) presence and chemistry with Red.
   
   I was also greatly impressed by the performance offered by Luke Goss (an actor I generally don't like) as Prince Nuada; who again played off Perlman very well; though it should be noted they worked together in heavy makeup before (in Blade II).
   
   Also both the cinematography, and the general run of the direction, were excellent. It was a beautiful movie, at the same time both large, and claustrophobic (intentionally). There were a couple of really great set pieces.
   
   Where I was disappointed, was in the story. There was SO much potential there, that just wasn't realized. The depth of the backstory is in the character, and the storyline explored here, to really have made this a classic of the genre...
   
   Which may in fact have been part of the problem. The thickness of that back story may have got in the way of the storytelling a little bit; because Del Toro wanted to touch all sorts of areas; but couldnt go deeply where he needed to to make those areas important... or in some cases even make sense.
   
   Honestly, there were SO many plot points raised, and dropped. SO many unfollowed leads, or story elements jsut barely touched and either abandoned or adressed shallowly; that it hurt the movie.
   
   What bugs me the most though, is that the quality was there, what they really needed was more time to explore; and they could have had it. The movie was only 110 minutes with credits; and audiences in this genre are fully prepared to sit for 150 plus credits. If they had taken the 150 minutes, this movie would have been spectacular. As it was, it was just OK. A competent sequel that you should see, but nothign to write home about.
   
   Here's hoping for a directors cut.
   

Tony Stark... Yeah, He's Iron Man

So I took a couple hours off work today to go see Iron Man, on the biggest digital screen in the state.

How best to sum it up...

At 2:06 it was too short. I can't wait to buy it on Blu-Ray. I can't wait to watch 2 and 3. It blows the Spiderman and X-Men series completely out of the water; then shoots them with repulsors while they're in the air, knocking them into low earth orbit.

Robert Downey Jr. is MADE to play Tony Stark. The performances from Downey, Paltrow, and Bridges (as Pepper Potts, and Obadiah Stane respectively) were all excellent; but this is probably Downeys the best since Chaplin.

I was slightly disappointed in Terrence Howards performance as Jim "Rhodey" Rhodes (Starks Air Force Lt. Col. best friend); but I don't think that was so much his fault, as it was the pace of the movie and the relative lack of material for him in it. Apparently his role was orignally much larger, but over 40 minutes was trimmed from the inital cut (and lord I hope we see an extended version on Blu-Ray).

My only criticism is that there is either too much, or not enough. By which I mean that there is SO much story to cover, and action surrounding it, that the character development is a bit light for everyone except Stark.

Now, if you're an initiate into the Marvel Universe, you already know the back (and side, and diagonal) stories; so that's not AS big a deal, but it definitely feels like there could have been another hour of story in there.

That said, you don't NEED to be a pre-fan for this; the material stands very well on its own. Mel had never even heard of Iron Man before; and has only the sketchiest knowledge of the marvel universe; but she still loved it.

Unsurprisingly, there is plenty of setup for sequels 2 and 3 (already under contract, but not yet in production). Unless I miss my guess, we're going to see War Machine (kind of a gimme given Rhodes presence) and Nick Fury in ep. 2 at the very least.

Oh and as with all Marvel movies, look for the secret cameos; including one from Rage Against the Machine/Audioslave guitarist Tom Morello (who provided music for the movie).

This marks Marvels first in house effort; ending their partnership with the more traditional studio development organizations to take creative control over their movies after the commercial success, but artistic failure of Spiderman 3; and the huge disappointment all around that was X3.

I have to say, I'm favorably impressed. They seem to have spared no effort in getting it right. Great attention was paid to fitting into the Marvel universe; but the story wasn't put on rails either; the creative team were allowed the freedom to experiment. For example, Favreau (the director) moved Stark to the west coast (used to great effect here by the way), and Obadiah Stane was completely moved through the timeline. Also, Favreau and Downey together wrote or re-wrote most of Starks dialogue (also to great effect).

The next release is going to be a new Incredible Hulk (retconning, and having no relationship to the disastrous Ang Lee helmed Hulk movie); and from the trailers looks like it might actually be worth seeing (plus, it's got Edward Norton and Tim Roth, who are both generally very good).

If you look at their in development slate at IMDB... Well, let's just say I'm both excited and worried at the prospect.

So, if you like action, see Iron Man. If you like Comedy, see Iron Man. If you like comic book movies, See Iron Man. Iron Man is made of win.

His pretty, but badly written, materials

Well, Mel and I went and saw "The Golden Compass" today; and I thought y'all might appreciate a review.

Ok, first things first, the "anti-god" thing. I've read the books; and honestly, they're pretty good. That said, I have to say Pullman is an immature twat who conflates religion with totalitarian fascism. He has written books which are militantly anti-fascist, but honestly not anti-god. He THINKS he's being anti-god, but his version of god is a grotesque parody. Somehow, he doesn't understand that god isn't some big cosmic Great Oz/Hitler.

Now, none of that really matters for the movie. There's none of the anti-god stuff in there, and a heck of a lot of anti fascist stuff in there... Actually, there isn't a heck of a lot of the books in there at all.

So, with that out of the way, let's talk about why this movie wasn't any damn good.

It's very pretty.

Everything else is bad.

There is basically no writing here. The director, Chris Weitz, who also adapted the screenplay; seemingly took random 30 second excerpts from the book, and threw them at the wall to see what stuck. His previous directing experience is limited to "American Pie", and "About a Boy"; both of which he co-wrote and co-directed with his brother. He also wrote Antz, and "The Nutty Professor 2"... which should really tell you all you need to know.

There is almost no plot, and what's there is cliche and hackneyed. There is absolutely no character development. Random people you don't know or care about appear and disappear for no apparent reason and with no apparent motivation; do something either completely obvious, or completely inexplicable; and then poof, it's on to the next thing.

The direction, and the cutting choices they made make no sense. Story arcs begin, travel on for a moment, and then turn around or end suddenly with no apparent justification; just to get a touchstone from the book in and then move on; or to establish some point for later without actually having to make it fit properly in the story.

The editing...

Well, I suppose someone must like that style, given its frequent use in commercials, and reality Television.

A film geek aside: I can't believe that Anne Coates was the editor of this film. She's one of the greatest editors of all time, and credited as the editor here; but it's so far out of her visual style... I have to think that one of the people billed under her as assistant editors was in fact the primary and Coates was the supervising editor. The film is really much more in the visual style of Peter Honess, whose work is entirely unsuited to this genre (though generally not BAD).

The animation was, as I said, gorgeous; but the compositing and syncing with the live action actors was just a tiny bit off; which threw all the animated characters (and that's half the characters in the movie) straight through the uncanny valley, and out into the "irritating landfill". The wonderfully rendered animated characters were very clearly not actually part of the environment they were seen in... and for that matter, the environment itself was often clearly not part of the same world as the live action actors.

What annoyed me most from a technical perspective actually, was that the voice acting was just bad.

The voices coming out of the mouths of the animated characters... well, they weren't coming out of the mouths of those characters. At no time was the illusion created that those animated animals were actually speaking. There was little tone or inflection, what was there was not appropriate to the situations or character animations; and when the characters spoke, there was no environmental or ambient noise in the ADR mix; so the speech sounded exactly like what it was, actors reading lines in a recording studio.

Honestly though, all of this could have been made up for, if there was any heart, or presence to the film.

I watched this, and ultimately, it felt hollow to me. There was nothing that resonated. Nothing that made me care about what I was watching. There was no honesty, no emotion, no character... no soul.

Was there anything good about the movie?

Certainly, there were lots of good points. In fact, I don't want to create the impression that this was a BAD movie; it wasn't at all bad... it just wasn't good.

Nicole Kidman gave an excellent performance. What little there was of it on the screen (she gets about 20 minutes of screen time), was completely captivating. You simply could not take your eyes off her when she was in frame; and that wasn't simply because she is beautiful (which she undoubtedly is; and which the costuming, makeup, and production design emphasized and magnified exquisitely), but because she has true presence.

Daniel Craigs few minutes of screen time were decent (he is the central "hero" of the trilogy, but his role is mostly an introduction in this movie). Sam Elliot was... Sam Elliot. He plays essentially the same character in every movie, and he's good at it.

Also, the production design is just fantastic. A combination of fantasy, Victorian London, and a steampunk wet dream. If you love coal, brass, steam, lace, jacobs ladders, Van de Graf generators, and ether goggles; you'll love this movie just for the visuals (though the lighting was surprisingly bad... perhaps to make the poorly composited animation look better?)

You are likely to see many positive reviews of this movie over the next few days. I can reasonably assure you those reviews are not positive because of the quality of the movie, but because the film critics want to stick a finger in the eye of the religious twits who have been trying to get the movie pulled off screens all over the country. In fact, I'd bet some of them don't even bother watching the movie before expressing their full throated support (of course I think that's often true for a lot of critics, and a lot of movies).

Don't see this movie. Not because it's anti-god; but because it's just not good.