Jumper

When I saw the first trailer for Jumper I was very excited . . . and appalled. The special effects were clearly top-shelf and the story line promised a departure from the mundane; but in that I was horrified! I had written a story just like that when I was 15! Someone had stolen my idea! As it is, no one actually stole anything from me, so all I can assume is that Steven Gould and I are great minds and we must have been thinking alike.

In the summer of 1995 I wrote a short story about a group of teenagers who could jump through time and space. I entitled the story The Wall Jumpers because of the “scientific” phenomenon of jumping “the wall” between this space-time continuum to the next. Anyway, I never did anything with the story, but when I started a band later that year I adopted the name. You can learn more about
The WaLL JuMPeRs all throughout my site and at Pure Volume.

Anyway, in my story the protagonists were good guys who policed the world. In Doug Liman’s Jumper, David Rice (Hayden Christensen) is less than an upstanding citizen. After running away from his home at the age of fifteen, he quickly turns to robbing banks to stay alive. The film has certain coming-of-age elements, but few were expanded and even less were resolved. This may have to do with the director’s vision of a Jumper trilogy, but if Liman’sdreams aren’t realized he’s going to wish he’d done more with Rice’s character to show that he really did grow and change. The very first time we see “grown-up” Rice he’s jumping around his apartment as if in a casual, daily routine. At one point he turns on the news and watches, in apparent annoyance, as hundreds of people are stranded in torrents of flooding water. The announcer says it would take a “miracle” to save these people, and Rice changes the channel. This is clearly a hint as to where Liman wants to take the character in future installments . . . I only hope he has the opportunity to do so.

The basic gist of the film is that there’s a thousand year old feud between Jumpers and Palladins. Jumpers can transport themselves instantly to almost any place in the world. Palladins believe only God should have the power of omnipresence. Though I doubt it had anything to do with the their faulty theology, the Palladin’s motivation for hunting down and brutally murdering Jumpers (with the occasional friend and family member thrown in for good measure) was barely believable. It’s one thing to be jealous of someones powers. It’s another thing to do your best to protect the world from those who would misuse their special abilities. But it’s a completely different thing when your motivation is tied up in your view of God: “I’ll gladly brake God’s 6th commandment (don’t murder) because I don’t think He’d want you disappearing from one place and appearing in another without having to use a door.” I don’t know . . . it seemed a little hypocritical and superficial. 

I’m not going to say a lot about the special effects. It’s true they’re first-rate, but I was more impressed by what they went through to createthe effects. First of all, though it may seem hard to believe, they didn’t rely on any more CGI than they had to. I always appreciate that in a special effects movie. Second of all, the people in charge all sat down months before and devoted countless hours to create the effect from a real-world standpoint. What kind of things influence a jump? Would there be reciprocal effects in the atmosphere after a jump? Do things like emotions, distance, and weather variables have an effect on the way the jump looks and the amount of damage created. For example, one of David’s most violent jumps (causing a supreme amount of damage) occurred as he jumped his murdered father to the hospital. A close examination of each of the jumps in the context of the scene show how the director and crew put a lot of emphasis on consistency. Their attention to detail is refreshing in a world of fly-by-night films.

I was extremely leery about the quality of acting when I saw their line up. First of all there was Rachel, a relative newcomer who didn’t really appear on the Hollywood scene until 2003, and hasn’t done too many movies since. Then there’s Sam. Good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson, the words greatest supporting actor. I wasn’t concerned with his screen presence, but I knew he wouldn’t deliver any Oscar winning performances. And lastly the much debated Hayden Christensen. I was sorely disappointed withhis acting in Star Wars II, and he just barely redeemed himself with his performance in Star Wars III. Let’s just say I was curious to see if he’d grown much as an actor or if he still relied on his Australian Soap training to carry him through.

                 

                  

Overall I say the movie delivered. There were fantastic effects, a decent plot, refreshing acting, and lovable characters (Griffen and Milly particularly). I honestly look forward to future installments: I’m curious what they do between Rice and his mother. Oh, you didn’t know? Rice is a Jumper. His mom is a Palladin. That makes for unique family reunions.

Green?

I go green . . . I don’t use my air conditioning.

Unfortunately, in my situation “green” means “greenbacks.” By not using my AC I save a lot of moo-la.

But let’s consider for a moment the “go green” phenomenon we’re being smacked in the face with these days. Firstly, I think it’s a great idea. Saving nonrenewable resources, cutting back on unnecessary waste and mindless consuming is a fantastic idea, but when do we cross the line from idealists to hypocrites?

For example: let’s consider The Green Network? Is their T.V. station going to use less electricity and water than Fox or the Playboy station? Can you really dedicate an entire station to eco-friendly news and shows, all the while burning through just as much jet fuel as everyone else does when they cart their camera crews to Uganda? Is The Green Network’s footprint really going to be smaller than everyone else’s, or are we missing the lumberjack for the trees?

A local radio station in Chicago is having a Green radio show. They’re riding their bikes to downtown Chicago where they plan to interview the pop-rock band Maroon 5. Okay, so you’re riding your bikes. Okay, so the price of admittance is a plastic bag. But c’mon people! Are you telling me Maroon 5 is going to ride their bikes to Chicago? What about all those people driving downtown with their plastic bags? Great, you recycled 300 plastic bags, but how many gallons of fuel (car and jet alike) did you burn through in the process?

It’s like having to drive 10 miles to get to the nearest recycling plant. Yeah, that makes sense.

Here’s my point: By all means, please preserve our planet . . . but don’t undo what you’re doing. We need to be careful that we don’t pull an Oedipus Rex: to save ourselves we become the tool of our own undoing.

Untraceable

 

I’m a pretty decent digital user. I can manage my computer, find almost anything on the web, and occasionally outwit a nasty virus or “hack” my own programs to make them do what I want them to do. That’s about it. Pretty normal stuff.

So when I watch movies like Untraceable, my imagination gets really fired because I don’t get any of the computer jargon they’re tossing around. And while it’s fun to believe they can do that kind of stuff, it’s also extremely scary. Can people infiltrate my computer that easily? Can they steal my life, frame me, or involve me in crime I know nothing about? Can people use the Internet to kill a person?

The thing I really liked about the movie was its platform. The message that the Internet is a dangerous place where twisted and scary things take place every single second of every single day, is a pregnant and timely message. It’s no longer about making bombs or looking at dirty pictures. It’s worse than that. You can watch people participating in the most gruesome and vial practices from bestiality, to rape; murder, to incest. It’s like the whole world is either killing someone or having sex with another. The Internet is a place for anonymous illegal activity and base animal-like behavior. It’s extreme voyeurism at its worst.

During the film a main character is tortured and killed, but in a last ditch attempt to catch the murderer he is able to pass a message to his partner who’s watching the streaming broadcast of his death. His message: “Our Suicide.” In the movie this clue helped the FBI to unravel the killer’s motive and track the perverted SOB down. But the implication of that clue for the real world is cunvulsingly potent.

“Our Suicide.”

As a people, a nation, a generation, we are actively participating in our own suicide. We are killing ourselves by allowing our families, and children, and leaders to become desensitized to the scum of the planet. I used to say that T.V. violence was nothing compared to the Coliseums of old. The ancient Romans were worse than we are because they gloried in stealing the life of innocent people. At least the actors on our plasma screens aren’t actually dying; that’s not their blood; they’ll finish the shoot, receive their check, and head home. But I believe our society won’t tolerate that for much longer. They crave real carnage, and websites like Death.com provide a forum for perverted, sado-masochistic, detestable miscreants who thrive on death and decay.

How long will it be before we start sacrificing our own Christians and televise the whole thing for all to see?

Are we really improving as a society? I don’t really think so. I think technology is revealing our truest fantasies for everyone to see . . . and many of those fantasies are very scary. In Untraceable millions and millions of people actively participated in the murder of three individuals and the attempted murder of a fourth. I believe the director’s portrayal was accurate. I fully believe that people all over the US and the world would log-on and watch every bloody second.

What can we do to stop it? Is there an answer? I believe there is, and it all starts in the home. The government needs to control the world wide web, I think that’s completely legal and necessary. But the first line of defense is to stop rearing a blood-thirsty nation. Parents, monitor your kids. Buy firewalls and filters, block the evil flowing through the fire-wire. There are plenty of people who will continue to promote and view those sights, but hopefully they’ll manage to kill themselves off and a new generation of real Americans who respect each other and are united in the success of humanity will take control.

Then instead of billions of people lusting for gore, those creators of death will find no audience and will be shunned like the vial, twisted, detestable, awful, perverted, sick, excuses for human beings they are.

By the way, if you stumbled upon this blog because you were googling ”bestiality, incest, rape, murder, killwithme.com, death, porn, sex,” or any other sick site . . . this is a message for you:

You are ”our suicide.”

Delusional Sex

Last night So You Think You Can Dance blasted back in full force. Old favorites and contenders made it back to the audition stage. There was growth and versatility. There was stunning new talent and originality dripping off the boards. There were tickets to Vegas going out the door at every turn. And the contortionists and poppers took the night!

But there was also total disaster.

Men in whitey-tighties (a.k.a. “underpants,” and “clean slates”). An Italian egotistical maniac possessed by his own sex-appeal. Super heroes dancing styles no normal person can abide. And Sex. That’s right . . . Sex on stage.

For the past three seasons, “Sex” (preferably known as David) returned to prove to the judges that he is a dancer.

Once again he failed miserably.

The thing is this, there were a lot of people at the auditions who couldn’t dance, but most of them were man and woman enough to admit they couldn’t dance. Granted, there were a handful who had bad attitudes; blaming the judges for ”not knowing talent when they see it,”  and discriminating against “tall people.” But the fact of the matter is . . . most of the contestants who didn’t know the difference between hip-hop and an epileptic siezures understood (deep down inside) that they honestly can’t dance. That’s why many hopefuls resorted to cat costumes, underpants, wrestling masks, and “fat niches.” They knew their dancing would fall flat on it’s face, so they hoped to shock (or gross-out) the judges into giving them a ticket.

But “Sex” was in a category all of his own. He was genuinely delusional. Please, understand that it is not my intention to be mean. I don’t believe in tearing people down unnecessarily, but I do have a MS in counseling and my professional opinion is this guy has some serious problems. I can look past the bad hygiene, the non-existent fashion sense, and the fact that his sole supporter (emotionally and probably financially) is his mother, but I can’t look past the fantasy world he lives in.

When the host of Dance, Cat, asked “Sex” why he came back, he told her that he did a really good job the first two times and that he “almost made it in.” Video recaps quickly showed us that he was lying through the gaps in his teeth. The judges had torn him to shreds. The whole time he stood there completely expressionless, apparently not taking in a word they said. When Cat asked him why he “came back for more,” he was completely incapable of forming a response. Either his speaking skills quit him, or his brain couldn’t grasp why she would ask him that question? We were soon to find out why he didn’t understand the question. 

His routine started out with the same nonmoves and 3rd-grade-dance-class steps that have become his trademark (picture Joe Dirt doing rapid pelvic thrusts. No wait . . . don’t.). Halfway throught the routine he went back and repeated the exact same steps and techniques he just finished doing. It was a replay . . . and it didn’t get any better. But the best part of the routine came at the end when he left the stage. Apparently he thought he was finished because he ran off stage while the music was still playing, and didn’t resurface until Nigel cut the tunes. I guess Sex decided he didn’t need to prove himself anymore. I know I was thankful. I grimmaced through the same disgusting routine . . . twice, why cycle through for a three-peat?

But the real shock, the biggest mind-blowing minute came after his “dance.” The judges, as before, ripped him to shreds. Mia was relatively polite, she said he “grew” from season two’s audition to season three, but that he didn’t grow much for season four. Mary wasn’t polite at all. In fact, she couldn’t believe Mia had been as nice as she had. Mary gave “Sex” the thrashing he deserved. Lastly, it was Nigel who refused to even call him “Sex,” and let the world know that his real name is David. Then the important question was asked, “Do you have any formal training?” David’s answer was appalling

David claimed to have studied dance for “many, many years.” He went on to inform the judges that he’s studied with “many, many” of America’s dance “masters” and that his education and subsequent performances have taken place over the course of “many, many years.” He even said he has “many, many fans” who think his moves are “sexy” (which is the reason he calls himself “Sex” in the first place).

It was actually very sad watching him and his mother interact with the host, each other, and the judges. The family has severe issues to work through, and David needs to come to grips with reality. Unfortunately I don’t think we’ve seen the last of “Sex.”

But hopefully we will see more of David.

When David realizes there’s an serious problem in his life, seeks out help to ground himself in reality, and actually takes real dance lessons . . . I will be glad to see him audition next year. Then, assuming he’s done these things, I think he’ll deserve a ticket to Vegas.

Idol

America got it right!

Little David was adorable. He also had a bunch of talent, especially for his age, but there is no arguing that Big David was the one to win. He is a true proffessional through and through.

I was afraid Archuleta would win by the simple fact that millions of teenie-boppers around the world thought he was cute. But it seems America has their head screwed on tight this year. Kristi won Dancing with the Stars, and David Cook won American Idol. Both contestants proved they were the best, not only in personality appeal, but in sheer talent.

So congratulations David Cook. I’m proud to call you my American Idol.

Dancing with a Star

Kristi deserved it.

In a reality-TV soaked society where– on one end the outcome seems scripted, or on the other side, chosen by an ignorant audience– it’s refreshing to see a competition where the best man (or woman) wins.

The American populace, by and large, has no clue how to dance or sing. But when they take the opportunity to learn from the show’s judges and actually apply what they’ve learned to their voting, the outcome is amazingly accurate.

Season Five’s Dancing with the Stars saw a phenomenal female dancer, Sabrina Bryan, cut incredibly too early. Why? Well, no one knows for sure, but even Dancing’s hosts were completely blindsided by that one. They couldn’t believe it! I couldn’t believe it! In fact . . . I stopped watching. My favorite (and on the most talented of the bunch) was voted off. So why did it happen? Probably because people were voting for their “favorites” without taking talent into consideration.

So, yay for Kristi! She’s no stranger to competition that takes physical finesse and prowess. She was the obvious winner from the beginning, yet she constantly improved. She genuinely earned it.

I’m proud of you Kristi.

I’m proud of you America. You got this one right!

Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

I need your help understanding something. Normally I can “wrap my brain” around very complex ideas, I’ve developed my own existential philosophies, and I consider my emotional levels to be nigh unfathomable. :-) Still, nighttime TV renders me completely flummoxed.

When “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire” first aired, it was the first of its kind to offer contestants a shot at one million dollars. But nowadays I can go on TV, sing 10 songs, and win a million dollars. I can answer 10 questions (pulled from grades 1-5) and win a million dollars. I can even open up 26 random briefcases for a chance to win a million dollars. Better yet, if I try to guess how Americans feel about poll questions I might win $10,000,000! Each of these game shows requires nothing more of me than basic elementary knowledge, memorized song lyrics, or pure dumb luck.

But if you want to showcase your own unique style of prestidigitation (an art that takes years of intense labor to refine and hone) Phenomenon will let you compete for $250,000. If you want to revolutionize your 350 lb. life by dropping that killer fat and entering into a totally healthy and life-extending existence, The Biggest Loser will let you compete for a quarter of a million dollars. Once you’ve dropped that weight you could strut your stuff on America’s Next Top Model and walk away with contracts totaling less than half a million. Better yet, if you want to parade your knowledge (amassed over years of intense scholastic endeavor by the attaining of advanced degrees) Jeopardy will let you compete for less than $100,000 a run.

I don’t get it.

Maybe it’s because I’m not smart enough to play on Jeopardy . . . but I just don’t get it. The nice thing is, I bet you I’m Smarter than a Fifth Grader. So, being smarter than a 10 year old can win me more money than multiple years of extended education!

I’m not sure if it’s a problem of new concept vs. old-school gaming. Maybe people don’t care about the super-hard stuff. Maybe dropping those deadly pounds isn’t important enough to America to drop 1 million dollars on the winner. Maybe we just like to get rich quick without having to break a sweat.

Unfortunately, I can’t give you an answer. I wish I could. I wish it made sense. But I’ll tell you this much, The Biggest Loser is the biggest winner in my book . . . a million dollars or not.

Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix

I am a huge fan of Harry Potter. I don’t care how many foolish mistakes Rowling makes while platforming for her books and ideals, the story she’s created will be remembered as long as there are people who read.

So it follows that I’m a huge fan of anything Potter-related. I own both sets of books: the American and the British releases, and yes . . . there is a difference. I own all the movies. I even own a replica of Harry’s wand. But we’re not here to talk about wands, let’s get to the movie.

Since I am crazy about the story, that makes me a harsher critic. For example, I think Micahel Gambon’s portrayal of Dumbledore has been consistently dismal. If only poor Richard Harris was still with us; he truly understood the complexities of the magnificent character. I also think that certain of the directors (sorry Alfonso. And Mike, you’re almost on my list too) have tried to hard to realize their mundane visions and got in the way of Rowling’s spectacular dream.

But, with all of that said, I think Order of the Phoenixis one of my favorites. On the positive side, this is the best job Michael Gambon has done. He chiseled off that un-Dumbledore-like, roughshod facade and lightened up a bit. I actually enjoyed his performance.

As directing goes, David Yates did a phenomenal job himself. The scenes, acts, shots, and cinematography beautifully complimented the characters and plot-line of Harry Potter.

There were a number of story-changes though. In the past Steve Cloves and Rowling were very close as they crafted the screenplay. In Order, the newcomer Michael Goldenberg worked solo . . . and it shows. His adaptation showcased some important character developments, for example: Ginny’s continued admiration of Harry. Also, in the book Dobby helped Harry find the Room of Requirement. In the movie Neville discovers the room. That’s not a such a bad thing since Dobby’s character makes fewer and fewer appearances while Neville eventually comes into his own.

Still, there were important elements completely jettisoned. Dumbledore and Harry’s heart-to-heart at the end. The revelation that Voldemort is half-possessing Harry was so powerful in the book, but in the movie was thrown away by Severus. And why did Cho have to be the one to turn in Dumbledore’s Army? C’mon! Goldenberg wrote a completely sideline plot just to cater to this changes. Also, when the DA is discovered by Dolores Umbridge, she manages to break into it. Number 1: you can’t break into the Room of Requirement. Number 2: Harry tries to do it throughout the Half Blood Princeand is unsuccessful . . . because it can’t be done. Allowing Umbridge to explode her way in was a poor choice.

Like I said, I’m a detailed critic when it comes to Harry Potter, and there are a number of other things I could say on the subject, but I want to leave you with this.

 The Order of the Phoenixis one of the best Potter films to date. I bought it the day it came out and I don’t regret it. The confrontation between Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Harry is outstanding on every level, and the Triad of Potter (Harry, Ron, & Hermione) improve in their acting with every take.

Olsen’s Rating?

“A” for overall genius, acting, story, cinematography. They would have received an A+ if Goldenberg hadn’t gotten frisky with the script.

The Biggest Screen

Alright, I have to know . . . what is your absolutely favorite movie?

A Less than Heroic Ending

The second season of Heroes came to a close on Monday, 12/3/2007. And if they’re not careful it may stay closed.

I think Heroes is outstanding, I always have. I’m sad the season is over. I fell in love with the characters, the writing, the shooting, everything. The story became one of my all time favorites. Yet, despite all of that I have to admit the second season left me a little wanting. Though the story had some wonderful elements, it lacked the suspenseful moments the first season thrived on. Sure, I wanted to throw my TV off my 3rd story balcony when I saw Noah Bennet get shot, but the prestige was given away too quickly and the effect was ruined. I do give them credit for final moments of the finale. No one saw that coming. And thankfully they didn’t give it away two seconds later. What am I talking about? I’m not telling.

I was also unsure about bringing Sylar back. I know he did a great job. His character was phenomenal! But, do you “kill” a character in the first season., drag his impotent-self by the lapels through the second season, just to say “guess what! He’ll be back in the third!” What new material can Sylar bring to the table? And speaking of over-worked plot lines . . . how much of Mom Petrelli can we really stomach? What varying degrees of world-wide calamity can she cause before we say ”honestly, give us a break”? I wish Adam had knocked her off.

All in all, I will add Heroesto my DVD collection. The overall concept and delivery is fantastic. I was just really bummed by the last half of the second season, and not overly impressed by the finale. Hopefully the producers and writers can collect their thoughts, summon the muse they let get away, and craft a show that will continue to deliver amazing actors handeling stellar lines, and doing heroic acts in an suspenseful and captivating story for all time.

The Power of One

It may be small, but 1 is the strongest number.

Some will argue that “two is better than one,” but those people are about as pleased with a second place ribbon and a silver medal as the next guy. And it appears that television producers agree with the rest of us.

Have you noticed the ever-increasing number of TV programs whose title only has one word?

Heroes
Phenomenon
Bones
Numb3rs
Smallville
K-Ville
Scrubs
Dexter
Weeds
House
Monk
Bleach
Reaper
Life
Lost
Friends
Seinfeld
24 . . . ?

But is there a correlation between popularity and title length? Does “Heroes” sound more enticing than “Everybody Loves Raymond”? What about “Life” compared with “Pushing Daisies?” Doesn’t “Chuck” draw you in more than “My Name is Earl”?

-Out of the 100 top TV shows listed on www.tv.com, 33 have only one word in the title (or a simple sequence of initials like “CSI”).
-Places 1-3 were Smallville, Heroes, and Avatar: The Last Airbender (which everyone shortens to Avatar).
-7 of the top 10 had only one word, and of the last 10 only 2 had short titles.
-The longest title, “I’m a Celebrity: Get Me Out of Here”, was #75.
-In fact, all shows with 5 words or more scored 58 or lower.

Obviously, content and acting factor into a show’s popularity and performance, but it seems one word titles are all the rage. To be honest it’s catchy. People say “cool” when they like something; they don’t say “wicked-killer-awesome-super-righteous-sweet!”

Well, my vote is cast. 1. Heroes, 2. Scrubs, & 3. Phenomenon. One word titles are number one!

What’s your favorite TV show? Does it’s title have one word or more than a measly uno?

Leave your comments and cast your vote. Let’s see if my readers prove or disprove my hypothesis!

Blades of Sorry

I watched Blades of Glory last weekend and witnessed everything I’ve come to expect from Will Ferrell and Jon Heder.

I liked Jon in Napoleon Dynamite, and though his performance in Blades wasn’t a complete removal from Napoleon, it was fun and enjoyable.

With Will I have a love/hate relationship. I hate most of his comedies but love his serious roles. Stranger than Fiction was an outstanding movie and Ferrell’s acting was superb! His acting in Blades reverted back to his extreme knack for silly, slap-stick. Hey, some people go for that. I have to admit I laughed a little.

In the end Blades of Glory was occasionally witty but mostly silly, occasionally funny but mostly sorry, and occasionally clean but mostly not.

I won’t even bother rating this one . . . I’ve already spent too much time talking about it. But if you’re in the mood for farce . . . I guess you can check it out. But I wouldn’t recommend it for kids.

Transformers: More than Met my Expectations

The day I heard the Transformers were being made into a live action movie I was hesitant at best. Hollywood has such an amazing knack for ruining child-hood memories and international icons. If something becomes famous without Hollywood there’s generally little the West Coast can do to boost its appeal.

 

I was actually so tentative to embrace the film I didn’t see it in the theater. Why spend all the money? So I patiently lingered and almost forgot it entirely. The fact that many of my friends (who are all avid movie goers) didn’t have anything to say about it solidified my doubts. Finally one of my co-workers informed me they’d seen Transformers and they liked it. Unfortunately I couldn’t wholeheartedly embrace his opinion . . . he spent most of his time intoxicated. Heck, even Loathing in Las Vegas is cool . . . if you’re on drugs.

 

Well, as you know, Transformers is now on DVD . . . and I’m so glad it is.

 

I don’t know why I waited so long! As a child I loved watching the cartoons and I had a rather large collection of the action figures. Sure, you could waste half your day twisting, snapping, and turning the figures only to end up with a half-robot/half-semi truck, side-show freak, but the cartoons took no dexterity or memorization to enjoy. I even had Transformers bed sheets! Let’s just say the movie lived up to all that’s gone before . . . sheets, cartoons, action figures, underwear, and more.

 

The plot stayed true to the original concepts. Nothing’s worse than adulterating a good story. Hem, hem, Mission Impossible I; Jim Phelps would never become a bad guy. I hate you Jon Voight! Actually, Jon was in Transformers as well and he did a good job. Okay, so you have a hot daughter . . . I forgive you for desecrating Jim Phelps’ memory. Sorry about that, now back to the non-biological extraterrestrials. Transformers was believable and well thought out. All of the sub-plots received their due time and no interesting characters fell through the cracks (except maybe for the cute, computer chick). Though the first half took a teeny-weeny while to get going, the ending made up for it.

 

As to the writing, I give it a one-and-a-half-thumbs-up. Though there was a huge, gaping target with cliché written across the front . . . the writers did a great job missing it. Even the lines taken out of the original series rang genuine. There’s nothing cooler than hearing Optimus Prime say “there’s more to them than meets the eye,” especially when Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, is saying it. I could’ve done without the whole “masturbation” dialogue though, and when will Hollywood stop making adults look like complete morons. Maybe it’s because all the adults in Hollywood are morons . . . I don’t know. Either way, they didn’t inject unrealistic humor too often. Sure, the whole Autobots acting like grade-schoolers in Sam’s backyard was annoying, but it could’ve been worse. Think I’m being too hard? What do you expect from a guy with only half a thumb?

 

The acting was better than the average epic movie. Shia LaBeouf is definitely growing as an actor, and Jon Turturro was fantastic. I was also glad to see the voice of Megatron performed by Hugo Weaving. He rocks. As for the new girl, Megan Fox, I think she gave a stunning performance. Her tow-truck sequence communicated so much raw emotion without a single line.

 

I’ve been saying for a long time “there’s noting you can’t do in movies anymore.” The only room left to grow is in presenting the effects realistically. Well, the Transformers were a genuine work of art. Half the time I tell what was C.G. and what was real. The animators seamlessly worked the computer world and our world into a stunning portrait of realism. I would’ve hated to be the guy who designed the characters; they were so complex and intricate. I can’t wait to see the extra content and find out how they animated the twisting, shifting, flexing machines. There facial expressions and body movements had so much personality. There was the occasional moment where all the gearing metal, exploding buildings, cannon fire, and running made it a little hard to follow the action, but I guess that’s the price of realism.

As to the overall theme, it was consistent and value driven. Freedom of choice and the importance of life are always worth fighting for.  

In the end the Official Olsen Rating gives Transformers a very good score (out of ten).

 

Plot: 9

Writing: 8

Acting: 8

Cinematography: 9

Special Effects: 10

Theme: 9

 

With a combined total an 88%, that makes Transformers an awesome film for the family.

Heroes: Can’t Get Enough

The Heroes episode which aired Monday the 5th, to put it into the vernacular, rocked.

The introduction of the character Adam spun the whole series in an awesome new direction. The writers have astounding way of tying the core characters back together even when their paths have taken them in seemingly opposite directions, or opposite times, or opposite frames of mind, or whatever. And like every good story, just when something good happens to your main character you’d better make sure something terrible appears right on the good’s heels! You’d better believe terrible is here.

On a different front, I’m glad Claire has a romantic interest, but I have to say I miss the father/daughter relationship of the first season. I know, I know, we can’t live in the past, and I like the way Claire’s story looks like its going, but I wish it’d hurry up.

I can’t wait; we’ll soon be finding out what’s so special about Mamma Petrelli and what sets off the whole epidemic. Next Monday’s epidsode is shaping up to be spectacular!

If you’re not watching Heroes you really should. See TV at its best.

The Amazing Spiderman Franchise

So Spiderman III has slammed into the video store. Even though I saw it twice in the theater I still had to rent it the day it came out.

With the exception of The Lord of the Rings, the Spiderman saga has become the most well-developed, well-rounded, and the best cross-genre trilogy ever.  It hits every tone with a pitch-perfect performance. It deals with morality in a real world way. It displays a stunning cross-section of love, action, didactic lessons, drama, suspense, the battle between good and evil, mystery, and superb acting.

From a plot standpoint (with the exception of Do. Oc. and his less than believable, A.I., tentacle-dictated motivation) the trilogy has always been very grounded in realism. Even the sub-plots have risen to almost Rowling-like complexity. What with the Hobgoblin losing his memory and regaining it, and Flint Marco’s involvement with Uncle Ben’s death, the story keeps swinging forward. Of course the main plot points have every eight-legged fanatic totally psyched. Even though Eddie Brock’s physic is scrawnier than expected, the introduction of the vengeful, symbiotic Venom made me soil my proverbial knickers.

In the first film, Mary Jane’s lines were obviously written by a man. But as the franchise has matured, so has MJ’s conversations and internal monologue. She’s speaking like a woman and, though her femininity can be occasionally cliched, she’s much more believable. As always, Peter’s lines are right on; especially in III where his character goes through so much flex and turmoil.

One thing that’s remained consitent since the genesis of the project is the caliber of acting. Toby McGuire is solid and will always be solid. And we must thank Spiderman for introducing us to James Franco who’s acting style has grown dramatically through the series. The same is true for Kirsten who, though she suffered a little from poor-writing-syndrome in the first two movies, is finally getting lines she can work with. Her dumping-Peter-on-the-bridge-bit was outstanding! And welcome newcomer Topher Grace who was able to distance himself from the 70’s and create a wonderfully believable character who did true justice to Eddie Brock. He was given a big break and he broke it well (muscle-less or not). And of course I couldn’t not mention one of my personal favorites . . . Bryce. Miss Howard, daughter of the film icon Ron Howard, is definitely making a name for herself. Her role was played with the grace and passion that ony Bryce Dallas Howard can bring to a scene.

The cinematography, in short, was very well done. It didn’t get in the way of the story but did a wonderful job making the plot-points come alive and drive the movie forward.

What can I say about the action? The special effects were phenomenal. The digital artistry and the practical stunts deserve a round of applause, a cacophony of whoops, and random high-fives. It’s also cool to see how Spidey’s agility and skills have been improving over the three films. Someone thought that one through.

Lastly, the theme is unlike most blockbusters in that it promotes cleanliness and upright living. Its success proves the American people do have a core value system. The franchise fights as strongly for love, redemption, forgiveness, the destruction of bitterness and revenge, hard work, friendship, promises, and good communication as Spiderman did in the epic finally against Venom and the Sandman.

For Spiderman III the Olsen Rating is a solid A:
Plot: 10
Writing: 10
Acting: 9 (hey, not everyone’s perfect)
Cinematography: 10
Special Effects: 10
Theme: 10
Total: 59 out of 60 = 98%.

With a bonus point for having the spinnerets to write a morality-tale in a post-modern world . . . I give it 105%

 Watch it. Buy it. Love it.