Linkenstein

What follows is a strange amalgam of old and new links. It's a frankenstein roundup, stitched together over the past four days from aborted link posts that were accidentally unposted... until now. "IT'S ALIVE!"


/Film Jon Hamm as Superman?
Movie|Line's failed/jokey photoshop attempt at the same thing utterly delights me (pictured left)
I Just Want to Be Perfect Black Swan website devoted to Nina's (Natalie Portman) psyche.
Cinema Blend a look at the newly announced cast of The Hobbit. With pics. Why do I feel that this movie is going to be such a disaster when I love the LotR trilogy? I guess I've lost faith in Peter Jackson given that the beauty of King Kong was smothered by a lack of self-editing and then we got the disastrous The Lovely Bones.

ONTD Rachel McAdams and Michael Sheen. I must have slept through this pairing. This is news to me.
Cinematical Pixar gives its first female director the book (Brenda Chapman was to helm The Brave previously due out in 2012...but you know, I assume this could delay the movie). Boo.
Montages (in Norwegian) a look at what's coming up very soon in Norwegian film. The writer is most excited for The King of  Bastøy starring Stellan Skarsgard, Kristoffer Joner and Benjamin Helstad. The film takes place in 1915 and is based on a true story about a youth prison. Hmmm. Could it be next year's Oscar submission? It's never too early to start thinking about that given that the Oscar eligibility calendar is already in the 2011 film year now when it comes to Best Foreign Language Film.

(Partially) Off Cinema
Tiger Beatdown "No One is Ever On Your Side" excellent, excellent article on Mad Men's Betty Draper Francis. A must read for fans of the show in case you missed it.
Benefit of the Doubt on Metroid, feminism and the Aliens franchise (if you're curious as to why that's suddenly in the air again, it's due to the box set's release Alien Anthology.)
Moby Lives on literature's problems in reflecting our internet ruled new world: timeliness or timelessness?
The Faster Times a list of all the new shows coming to Broadway in the spring.
The Oatmeal How to Pet a Cat. Hee

Something That's Really Bothering Me
Did you read the NY Times piece about the shortage of memorable lines in the movies these days? I suppose it's only helping them that everyone has been talking about the piece and linking to it (like me) for a couple of days but I do not understand the response. I've only read a couple of "in response" articles but they seemed to join in the lament. The article cites 90s films like Terminator 2, Forrest Gump and Jerry Maguire as among the last mammoth 'quotables.' Some response articles are saying things like "yeah, it's sad that movies aren't literate anymore..." I'm sorry but Forrest F'in Gump and Jerry Maguire are not literate movies. They just had fun simple catchphrases. Why are people equating catchphrase-making with great screenwriting and extrapolating that into a lament for the state of modern cinema? Does that mean that Arnold Schwarzenegger movies deserved Best Screenplay Oscars?  A lack of catchphrases does not a poor screenplay make. The article makes a vague statement indicating that these things can take time,  citing "Plastics" from The Graduate as a line that percolated before boiling. But then it blames The Social Network for not having a great lines (um, excuse me? It has hundreds of great lines... it'll just take awhile for a few  of them to rise to the top) Meanwhile The Big Lebowski is praised for "The Dude abides." Listen. The Coen Bros write great dialogue. But I was around in 1998 when The Big Lebowski premiered. It was received with pockets of enthusiasm (as their pictures usually are) but mostly a shrug, and some considered it a small setback after Fargo (which had been nearly as popular as Raising Arizona, their first mainstream breakthrough. Lebowski wasn't.) It was only years later after obsessive fandom had successfully added several fresh coats of "classic" paint on Lebowski that people were incessantly quoting its dialogue and acting like it was this huge hit and of the best films of the 90s.

The article does suddenly remember that "I drink your milkshake" (There Will Be Blood) permeated pop culture but completely forgets about "I wish I knew how to quit you" (Brokeback Mountain) which was quoted just about as often as movie lines ever get quoted. And then there are any number of lines from Mean Girls (Best Shot subject this week!) as reader Dom pointed out a few days ago. You or someone you know quotes that movie every day. I know, right. 

I guarantee you that "milkshake" and "quit you"will never disappear. And that 5 years from now, some line from The Social Network will still be in the public vernacular. One day people might not even remember where they first heard the line they end up using from The Social Network it may dig so deep down into the bone marrow of everyday conversation. You think everyone who has ever said "fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night" was thinking of All About Eve (or had even seen All About Eve) when they first said it?

Which is Hotter?

JA from MNPP here. I do these posts over at my blog all the time but for today in honor of Terence Stamp's 71st birthday I decided to import the fun over here to The Film Experience. Although Stamp has plenty of roles I've found delicious through the years - Toby Dammit in Fellini's spellbinding third of Spirits of the Dead, the entire-family-screwing Visitor in Pasolini's Teorema, Soderbergh's The Limey - the following two are arguably his most iconic. They're my faves, at least. So naturally we must choose between them! Which is hotter...

Terence Stamp as General Zod in Superman II,
or Bernadette in The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert?

.

poll by twiigs.com

..

i said your link your link your link is my drug

Variety finds the new Robin Hood too self serious. [gladiator voice] Are you not entertained unsurprised?
Movie|Line "The Summer of Discontent" why is this summer so empty and 2011 so packed?
USA Today the latest info on Julie Taymor's The Tempest starring Helen Mirren
Boing Boing Star Wars in 2 minutes with Legos
Dear Old Hollywood a Goonies 25th anniversary celebration coming up in June


Marie Claire Fatal Attraction going on stage by Christmas. Happy uh Christmas bunny haters
Just Jared Awwww, the Supermen together. Makes one miss Christopher Reeve though (sigh)
In Contention poster and images from Biutiful starring Javier Bardem
After Elton Neil Patrick Harris ranks Hollywood men. I can't believe he went there
Queerty why can't Cam & Mitch kiss on Modern Family? This is a weird topic since same sex kissing happens literally every week on Brothers & Sisters. That particular TV taboo has long since been broken

Finally, have you seen the Betty White SNL yet?



This compilation is helpful for those of us who get around to these things later. I tried to watch yesterday on Hulu -- I can't be bound by air times! -- and then reading opinion pieces from around the web I realized that I'd somehow missed some of the skits. So I'm hoping this video has them all. Which was your favorite? I lol'ed about the census taker (the 'kitten' in Betty's lap... priceless) and "just let her stay home and lez". Teehee

Robots and Scientists and Planes (Oh My!)

Jose here, to remind you of an underrated gem from 2004.



When I was a child I was addicted to Superman. Not the Christopher Reeve movies and obviously not the weird TV show with Teri Hatcher, but the classic animated shorts from the 1930s. We had a VHS tape which I could watch for hours and hours completely enthralled by the terrific stories, the foreign adventures and even the sense of menace and doom conveyed by Dave Fleischer in under ten minutes.

Years later I had the same feeling watching Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. Kerry Conran's debut film was a tribute to this era which featured giants robots, timeless kingdoms atop the Himalayas, perky reporters and heroines with eye patches.
Everything in the film is CGI, except for the actors, which gives it a retro-futuristic air. With nods to Dave Fleischer, Flash Gordon, Indiana Jones (which is itself a tribute to serials) and The Wizard of Oz, the film is a treat for film buffs who will have a great time with all the references.

But the film's joy isn't only in its referential nature. It's also a heck of an adventure film in which plot has little relevance and over the top is always the way to go. Gwyneth Paltrow is wonderful as reporter Polly Perkins and for those who think she takes herself too seriously, you can see her having actual fun in this one!

Jude Law is glorious and dashing and Angelina Jolie is splendid in what amounts to a glorified cameo. Unsurprisingly the film was a box office failure and Conran hasn't made a film since. Laurence Olivier was the villain! Come on!

That's sad, because in terms of energy and pure love for the movies, not many films made in the past decade can be compared to Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. In a perfect world the captain would be fighting the crab aliens from Méliès Trip to the Moon...

"Come and Kneel Before Zod!"

Turning 70 is something everyone (who doesn't die first) will do. Hitting your 47th year as a consistently employed screen actor is not something many actors can do. So here's to longevity and to silver fox Terence Stamp on his 70th birthday. Whether you primarily think of him as The Limey, "Bernadette" in The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, "General Zod" in Superman II or Billy Budd himself, I hope that you occasionally think of him.

Stamp in 1967

Those eyes!

Few peepers can rival his in the icy blue hypnotic gaze department. Except for maybe Ralph Fiennes' (Paul Newman is in a class of his own since his ice can also emanate real warmth. How is this even possible? A topic for another day)

While we're celebrating Stamp here's the actor talking about beauty in the 60s and the trailer to Billy Budd, the film that made him a star and brought him his one and only Oscar nomination (it's a shame he didn't receive another for Priscilla if you ask me).



They don't name check gossip columnists in movie trailers anymore, do they?

More Terence?
Here's a fan site if you want to see more pics, a rumor about a sequel to The Limey, and I heartily recommend Dan Callahan's great piece on the actor from earlier this year. Which begins, memorably, like so

"What do you feel about your penis?” asks Terence Stamp, in his almost comically deep baritone voice...

read the rest at The House Next Door Online.
*

If you could...

...have the hair of one movie character rather than your own whose would it be? I think I might opt for Superman's spit curl or anything with a widow's peak. [This comment question is sponsored by Nathaniel's freshly shaved head and very random brain]

Affleckology

So I finally watched Gone Baby Gone. A decent film but, for me, too lacking in that something "extra"...some specialness required to push it from crime film into the realm of engaging human drama. There were a lot of questionable directorial choices made and needlessly confusing editing. Strangely, even when the film is trying to hold your hand with voiceover recalls of things you've just barely heard, it doesn't always make a lot of sense. 

But let's talk about the Brothers Affleck for a moment. After Baby and especially The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford you have to recognize (if you haven't already --and why haven't you?) that Casey Affleck is bonafide... a true actor. That scene that you've already seen in the trailer (even if you haven't seen the picture) you know the one where he says "...and I know a lot of people". I love that. How can you be so menacing when you weigh 98 lbs and you look like you're about to doze off? Casey the Sleeping Menace. There's a whole lot of heavy lidded angst going on with that one (even moreso in Jesse James). I think he's a fine actor but I don't think he should ever co-star with Kirsten Dunst and Tobey Maguire. That'd be way too much somnabulistic angst. Narcolepsy: The Movie!

Ben Affleck is a generous guy. He's a better actor than he's gotten credit for (though I suppose the universe got balance there by making him a bigger movie star than he had any right to be) and he's also just giving giving giving to others. Matt Damon gets eternal love and support. Ben gifted his career to Jennifer Lopez (not really her fault that she had no real use for it) in what is now ancient history. Presently he allows the actors to rule Gone Baby Gone even when he should probably take more charge. And now, when he's been down and out, he gives us his little brother as his lead player... Here, take this younger more talented version of me. Nice guy to a fault, huh?

I know the reviews were rapturous for him as a director but I'm chalking that up to one of those weird groupthink things that happen when celebrities 

a) defy expectations 

b) earn our sympathy or 

c) deserve second chances... 

all three of which unarguably apply to Ben Affleck, whether or not one thinks of Gone Baby Gone as a mediocre effort or a great one. I do hope he makes another picture though. I assume it'll be much stronger. Look at the superman-style leap that George Clooney made from  messy indulgent first film (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind) to controlled terrific sophomore effort (Good Night, and Good Luck). 

Hollywoodland

As soon as the lights came up after the screening of Hollywoodland I knew I wouldn't have the drive to write a full review. It's one of those movies that you can see potential in but that you can't work up energy to root for: unfulfilling.

The film is about an investigation into the death of TV's first Superman George Reeves (Ben Affleck, exceptionally well cast). Choosing an unsolved mystery as a story is not necessarily a problem, but it requires deft handling. This type of crime film comes with an obvious storytelling risk: no ending. Choosing to focus on the investigation, which is obviously doomed (see also: unsolved) is where the problem comes in I think. That's shooting yourself in the foot. It makes for impotent drama. A straightforward approach to the story of George Reeves would've been more effective. The investigation and its attempts at parallel emotional journeys don't fuse well with the flashbacks.

I felt bad for Adrien Brody who shoulders the impotent half of the film. He's had a rough time following up The Pianist. I enjoy him as an actor but his intensity is wasted in this film. You spend all of his scenes waiting to get back to the Superman story. That's where the film engages interest, even if it still doesn't dive deep enough into the murky psychologies it introduces.
C+

Since it's not a special film overall the big question is this: Can Ben Affleck make it to the Supporting Actor Oscar shortlist? This is the kind of role they love played by the kind of actor they love to reward for career CPR. But will that be enough to generate votes since Hollywoodland won't be a contender elsewhere?

Hollywoodland

As soon as the lights came up after the screening of Hollywoodland I knew I wouldn't have the drive to write a full review. It's one of those movies that you can see potential in but that you can't work up energy to root for: unfulfilling.

The film is about an investigation into the death of TV's first Superman George Reeves (Ben Affleck, exceptionally well cast). Choosing an unsolved mystery as a story is not necessarily a problem, but it requires deft handling. This type of crime film comes with an obvious storytelling risk: no ending. Choosing to focus on the investigation, which is obviously doomed (see also: unsolved) is where the problem comes in I think. That's shooting yourself in the foot. It makes for impotent drama. A straightforward approach to the story of George Reeves would've been more effective. The investigation and its attempts at parallel emotional journeys don't fuse well with the flashbacks.

I felt bad for Adrien Brody who shoulders the impotent half of the film. He's had a rough time following up The Pianist. I enjoy him as an actor but his intensity is wasted in this film. You spend all of his scenes waiting to get back to the Superman story. That's where the film engages interest, even if it still doesn't dive deep enough into the murky psychologies it introduces.
C+

Since it's not a special film overall the big question is this: Can Ben Affleck make it to the Supporting Actor Oscar shortlist? This is the kind of role they love played by the kind of actor they love to reward for career CPR. But will that be enough to generate votes since Hollywoodland won't be a contender elsewhere?

Superlink

Supersummer Deep Focus on 2006's directors and blockbusters.
Supergay European Films on the upcoming French oddity Poltergay
Superwoman Oh No They Didn't! with the first logical explanation I've heard as to why Madonna can't get radio play for Get Together -despite being more popular right now than she's been in years and despite the song being completely awesome.
Superman But I Always Liked a Good Storm loves the big Kryptonite plagued lug and doesn't care who knows.
Supermovie IDLRZ on Little Miss Sunshine
Supertrainofthought Jake Weird rides the peace train.
Supertease popbytes with a look at John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus
Superwhat? Sci-Fi's new series "who wants to be a superhero" begins. Perhaps the superhero genre has reached the saturation point.

Superannoying is this post. I'll stop now.

Superlink

Supersummer Deep Focus on 2006's directors and blockbusters.
Supergay European Films on the upcoming French oddity Poltergay
Superwoman Oh No They Didn't! with the first logical explanation I've heard as to why Madonna can't get radio play for Get Together -despite being more popular right now than she's been in years and despite the song being completely awesome.
Superman But I Always Liked a Good Storm loves the big Kryptonite plagued lug and doesn't care who knows.
Supermovie IDLRZ on Little Miss Sunshine
Supertrainofthought Jake Weird rides the peace train.
Supertease popbytes with a look at John Cameron Mitchell's Shortbus
Superwhat? Sci-Fi's new series "who wants to be a superhero" begins. Perhaps the superhero genre has reached the saturation point.

Superannoying is this post. I'll stop now.

Lois Lane. Lost in Translation

Though I enjoyed Superman Returns (and hopefully there'll be a review to come) I think one of its principal deficiencies is in its reimagining of Lois Lane. Otherwise in this film you'll find an unmistakable reverence for previous incarnations of its characters, particularly the Man of Steel himself. Superman has been away five years according to the plot but he's barely changed at all. He's still old-fashioned, heroic, and pure of heart. Bryan Singer and Co. weren't trying to update him for what's fashionable for heroes today: no sudden dark side emerges a la popular comic-to-movie heroes like Batman and Wolverine. So why then the new and quite changed Lois?


In the drawing above from an early Superman comicbook you might notice that Lois resembles a certain queen of screwball. She's like a 2D Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday. The great thing about Lois Lane was that she was in a very modern sense, Superman's equal. (Even a previous tv version was wise to this calling the series "Lois & Clark") Or, more specifically, and to great comic effect: she absolutely believed that she was. One of her most endearing traits is that though she is narratively always the classic "damsel in distress", it's the last persona she'd ever picture for herself.

Which is why it's so hilarious and perfect in the first couple of Supermans that Margot Kidder is gritty, odd, gutsy and weirdly sexy/disarming. Take the classic oft-quoted exchange when Superman catches Lois falling from a building:

Superman: "I've got you."
Lois: "You've got me. Who's got you?"

That is Lois Lane. A little funny. A little too abrasive. A little blind to her own vulnerabilities. And this is why Parker Posey, stuck cracking us up in the background as Lex's girl, should have been cast in the role. It's the first thing my friend and I said to each other when we were exiting the theater. 'Why wasn't Parker Lois instead?' In the new film the feisty Lois gets shut up tight inside of Kate Bosworth's soft, lovely, brokenhearted damsel in distress. Lois is still the teensiest bit mouthy but she's far more generically 'the girl who is waiting for her man to save her.' The way I see it, the real Superman would never have been able to pick her out of a crowd.

[For more discussion of this same issue, there's a good conversation going on over @ Cinemarati. -ed]

tags: Kate Bosworth, movies, cinema, comic books, Bryan Singer, Parker Posey, Superman, films, Superman Returns

Lois Lane. Lost in Translation

Though I enjoyed Superman Returns (and hopefully there'll be a review to come) I think one of its principal deficiencies is in its reimagining of Lois Lane. Otherwise in this film you'll find an unmistakable reverence for previous incarnations of its characters, particularly the Man of Steel himself. Superman has been away five years according to the plot but he's barely changed at all. He's still old-fashioned, heroic, and pure of heart. Bryan Singer and Co. weren't trying to update him for what's fashionable for heroes today: no sudden dark side emerges a la popular comic-to-movie heroes like Batman and Wolverine. So why then the new and quite changed Lois?


In the drawing above from an early Superman comicbook you might notice that Lois resembles a certain queen of screwball. She's like a 2D Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday. The great thing about Lois Lane was that she was in a very modern sense, Superman's equal. (Even a previous tv version was wise to this calling the series "Lois & Clark") Or, more specifically, and to great comic effect: she absolutely believed that she was. One of her most endearing traits is that though she is narratively always the classic "damsel in distress", it's the last persona she'd ever picture for herself.

Which is why it's so hilarious and perfect in the first couple of Supermans that Margot Kidder is gritty, odd, gutsy and weirdly sexy/disarming. Take the classic oft-quoted exchange when Superman catches Lois falling from a building:

Superman: "I've got you."
Lois: "You've got me. Who's got you?"

That is Lois Lane. A little funny. A little too abrasive. A little blind to her own vulnerabilities. And this is why Parker Posey, stuck cracking us up in the background as Lex's girl, should have been cast in the role. It's the first thing my friend and I said to each other when we were exiting the theater. 'Why wasn't Parker Lois instead?' In the new film the feisty Lois gets shut up tight inside of Kate Bosworth's soft, lovely, brokenhearted damsel in distress. Lois is still the teensiest bit mouthy but she's far more generically 'the girl who is waiting for her man to save her.' The way I see it, the real Superman would never have been able to pick her out of a crowd.

[For more discussion of this same issue, there's a good conversation going on over @ Cinemarati. -ed]

tags: Kate Bosworth, movies, cinema, comic books, Bryan Singer, Parker Posey, Superman, films, Superman Returns

Superyuck

So last night I am in the movie theater watching Superman Returns with friends. I am a sit in the middle type o guy, always nestled between moviegoing companions like they're my bodyguards or posse. I somehow ended up on the end (what!?!) and was thus dependent on the kindness of strangers to enjoy the movie. I prayed for them to keep quiet, etc... Which they did ...

...until those lipsmacking, tongue slamming and shirt rustling noises began. Yes, the couple next to me cooed, tongued, and all but dropped to the sticky theater floor whenever the film was inbetween super setpieces. which is to say: they did this a lot since Superman Returns is pretty snail paced as these things go. I can't for the life of me figure out what event in Superman Returns --which is very nostalgia driven, G rated and sexless --prompted this tsunami of hormones in them. But boy howdy they weren't about to stop even though I was practically climbing into my girlfriend's lap to escape them.

Ewww.

At least the movie was good.

Superyuck

So last night I am in the movie theater watching Superman Returns with friends. I am a sit in the middle type o guy, always nestled between moviegoing companions like they're my bodyguards or posse. I somehow ended up on the end (what!?!) and was thus dependent on the kindness of strangers to enjoy the movie. I prayed for them to keep quiet, etc... Which they did ...

...until those lipsmacking, tongue slamming and shirt rustling noises began. Yes, the couple next to me cooed, tongued, and all but dropped to the sticky theater floor whenever the film was inbetween super setpieces. which is to say: they did this a lot since Superman Returns is pretty snail paced as these things go. I can't for the life of me figure out what event in Superman Returns --which is very nostalgia driven, G rated and sexless --prompted this tsunami of hormones in them. But boy howdy they weren't about to stop even though I was practically climbing into my girlfriend's lap to escape them.

Ewww.

At least the movie was good.

How Comic Book Films Will Die

I feel like this has been a terrible terrible month for fans of superhero films. First we had the huge disappointment of X-Men: The Last Stand (I thought I'd be over it but it's lazy mediocrity continues to grate), than that hideous Ghost Rider trailer. Seriously who WHO while watching Daredevil and Elektra thought that this man should ever get near another comic book franchise again?

And when did Marvel lose their smarts about how to manage their lucrative properties? They were so handily beating DC at the superhero movie game and then they just started getting sloppy. Any old director, any old comic will do. Just slap it up there on the screen, make another 100 million. Don't they realize that these things have a cumulative effect and the money will be shortlived. Did they not notice that this is how the very successful Superman and Batman franchise died for DC? Didn't they notice that it took 10 years and a director as talented as Chris Nolan to get the Bat franchise out of the dank laughable cave it had carved for itself? And didn't they notice it took millions upon millions of false starts and decades to restore Superman's luster? If in fact that's what has happened. We are assuming that this new one is good. Don't they realize that a sequel to Fantastic Four will be like when they made a sequel to Charlies Angels? If the public thought the first was kinda dumb, they aren't going to get all excited for a second...

So what put this huge stick up my ass? you may be asking, curious about this sudden rant. It was this little tidbit at 'Coming Soon' about the new Spider-Man film. If we learned anything from Batman sequels and X-Men sequels it's this: The more villians and characters you add, the crappier the movies get. These are not Robert Altman movies. Trust me when I tell you that if Robert Altman's characters had superpowers and were required to go through three or four action setpieces in the course of the running time, he'd have the smarts to whittle down the ensemble.

Movies are 90 to 120ish minutes long. They are not television series. Nor are they monthly comic books. These truths ought to be self evident. There's only so much story you can tell. And why waste an audiences first impression of a great comic book character by making it a cameo? Why don't they just get in the pay cable series business instead?

Now, I trust Sam Raimi. He's made two of the best superhero movies ever. I expect the third will be good too. But four villains in Spider-Man 3??? really? The one villian plan worked pretty darn well in the first two movies, didn't it? You got time for all that backstory? Or will this third film be released in installments like Lord of the Rings?

tags: movies, XMen, Comic Books, X-Men, Marvel, film, DC, Box Office, Spiderman, Batman

How Comic Book Films Will Die

I feel like this has been a terrible terrible month for fans of superhero films. First we had the huge disappointment of X-Men: The Last Stand (I thought I'd be over it but it's lazy mediocrity continues to grate), than that hideous Ghost Rider trailer. Seriously who WHO while watching Daredevil and Elektra thought that this man should ever get near another comic book franchise again?

And when did Marvel lose their smarts about how to manage their lucrative properties? They were so handily beating DC at the superhero movie game and then they just started getting sloppy. Any old director, any old comic will do. Just slap it up there on the screen, make another 100 million. Don't they realize that these things have a cumulative effect and the money will be shortlived. Did they not notice that this is how the very successful Superman and Batman franchise died for DC? Didn't they notice that it took 10 years and a director as talented as Chris Nolan to get the Bat franchise out of the dank laughable cave it had carved for itself? And didn't they notice it took millions upon millions of false starts and decades to restore Superman's luster? If in fact that's what has happened. We are assuming that this new one is good. Don't they realize that a sequel to Fantastic Four will be like when they made a sequel to Charlies Angels? If the public thought the first was kinda dumb, they aren't going to get all excited for a second...

So what put this huge stick up my ass? you may be asking, curious about this sudden rant. It was this little tidbit at 'Coming Soon' about the new Spider-Man film. If we learned anything from Batman sequels and X-Men sequels it's this: The more villians and characters you add, the crappier the movies get. These are not Robert Altman movies. Trust me when I tell you that if Robert Altman's characters had superpowers and were required to go through three or four action setpieces in the course of the running time, he'd have the smarts to whittle down the ensemble.

Movies are 90 to 120ish minutes long. They are not television series. Nor are they monthly comic books. These truths ought to be self evident. There's only so much story you can tell. And why waste an audiences first impression of a great comic book character by making it a cameo? Why don't they just get in the pay cable series business instead?

Now, I trust Sam Raimi. He's made two of the best superhero movies ever. I expect the third will be good too. But four villains in Spider-Man 3??? really? The one villian plan worked pretty darn well in the first two movies, didn't it? You got time for all that backstory? Or will this third film be released in installments like Lord of the Rings?

tags: movies, XMen, Comic Books, X-Men, Marvel, film, DC, Box Office, Spiderman, Batman

Superman is Sixty-Eight

Superman was born in 1938. He looks damn fine for a sixty-eight year old, don't you agree? I've read several different dates of birth as his actual birthday. At first I was under the impression that it was today, June 1st. But I keep reading different things. From my very limited knowledge of the comic character (never been a big Supes reader) I think February 29th is the character's birthday within the comicbooks. Am I right? wrong? Do you care? I'm hearing differing dates for the official birthday of the character in actuality. May 30th? June 1st? Who knows?

At any rate, Superman Returns flies into theaters on Wednesday, June 28th (two days earlier than planned --which is nice. I like Wednesday openings. They used to be all the rage but seem to have faded in the past few years. So Happy Birthday Supes, whenever that actual day is!


Suggested Super Sites to Search:
Superman Super SiteMany Men of Steel and more...
Superman Homepage news, trivia, comic reviews
Blue Tights Network Production video of the new film and more...
Superdickery Galleries of Superman behaving badly. Funny.
Wikipedia's Superman Page
& two blogs carefully ogling those blue tights for you:
My New Plaid Pants
Towleroad

and a final interesting article to look at:
"The Myth of Superman" from Loonyblog

Superman is Sixty-Eight

Superman was born in 1938. He looks damn fine for a sixty-eight year old, don't you agree? I've read several different dates of birth as his actual birthday. At first I was under the impression that it was today, June 1st. But I keep reading different things. From my very limited knowledge of the comic character (never been a big Supes reader) I think February 29th is the character's birthday within the comicbooks. Am I right? wrong? Do you care? I'm hearing differing dates for the official birthday of the character in actuality. May 30th? June 1st? Who knows?

At any rate, Superman Returns flies into theaters on Wednesday, June 28th (two days earlier than planned --which is nice. I like Wednesday openings. They used to be all the rage but seem to have faded in the past few years. So Happy Birthday Supes, whenever that actual day is!


Suggested Super Sites to Search:
Superman Super SiteMany Men of Steel and more...
Superman Homepage news, trivia, comic reviews
Blue Tights Network Production video of the new film and more...
Superdickery Galleries of Superman behaving badly. Funny.
Wikipedia's Superman Page
& two blogs carefully ogling those blue tights for you:
My New Plaid Pants
Towleroad

and a final interesting article to look at:
"The Myth of Superman" from Loonyblog