Film Review - THE SIMPSONS MOVIE: A Franchise Savior or Much Apu About Nothing?

A lot of intense questions hung over the head of 20th Century Fox's The Simpsons Movie. Would the film restore the glory of the franchise after multiple years of lousy output? Would the translation from TV to film work? Would the returning vintage-era writers (Creator Matt Groening, producer James L. Brooks and 9 more!) mine comic gold once again, delivering something that would have us in the gales of laughter that the entire season 5 did? Would Lenny and Carl finally have their big show-stopping love scene? Well, the answers are simple now: A no, a mild yes, a no... And a (regretful) no again. But let's get to the real nitty gritty here and dissect this sucker like Larry Drake in Dr. Giggles!

But first, lemme run through the story (This really won't take long. Thank God.). The film opens like most episodes do, with a seemingly random event. In this case, the Simpson family attends church, where Grandpa becomes a conduit for a message from God. The warning is garbled at best and mostly ignored by the blissfully ignorant townsfolk. Following this, Homer and Bart have a daring contest that ends with Bart handcuffed naked to a telephone pole, and Homer adopting a hilariously drawn pig. Bart, feeling unloved and questioning Homer's fatherly abilities, begins to ponder finding a more stable paternal figure in neighbor Flanders. All this is interrupted when Homer dumps a large amount of pig dung in recent environmental protection recipient Lake Springfield, thus causing massive pollution in Springfield. Meanwhile, opportunistic (and nefarious) EPA head Russ Cargill (Voiced by Albert Brooks) has Springfield enclosed in a massive dome to prevent the pollution from affecting the rest of the country. Following threats of mob violence from the town, the Simpson family escapes the dome and heads to Alaska, where they learn lessons and must decide whether to return to Springfield to set matters right and thwart Cargill's grim plans.

Hmm. That wasn't as brief as I expected. Well, live and learn.

Anyways, I covered my opinions on the current state of the show in a previous entry (Storm the archives for that stuff.), so I'm not gonna go into too much depth regarding that whole ball of wax. Rather, I'm simply going to state that The Simpson's Movie is a fairly grand improvement on anything featured in the last 7 or so years. But, with that said, it also suffers badly in comparison to every episode within the first decade (Except that wretched Coyote/Hallucination episode - Detailed in my previous entry.). Instead, the film falls squarely in the middle, never really daring to be anything other than an amusing diversion. And with a pedigree like this, that is a bit of a disappointment.

I laughed in The Simpsons Movie. A fair deal, in fact. The first half hour is a wonderful series of random "Simpson-esque" moments that lead from chortle to chuckle. Bart's naked skateboard odyssey across Springfield is a hilarious run with a shockingly funny capper. Individual moments with Ralph, Moe, Krusty, etc get laughs simply through familiarity. Unfortunately, however, once the storyline kicks in the laughs begin to fade. The doming of Springfield, leading into the Alaska material feels like the sorts of stunts that the show went crazy over once flagging inspiration began to kick in. The Simpsons in Brazil, London, Canada, Japan, and so on, times fifty. The Alaska stuff is cute, but has very little effect on the story at large. It's throwaway stuff that unforgivably takes us away from the rich supporting cast that has been the real strength behind the franchise. Instead we get Homer screwing over the family and having to learn a lesson. Virgin territory, I proclaim thee! Oh, and just for fun, we get another horrific existential scene that is a complete rip-off of that God forsaken coyote episode. Needless to say, annoyed disbelief led to simmering rage. In fairness, I will mention that the closing scenes are entertaining, although the action scenes are more perfunctory than necessary... And not overly enthralling.

So, what makes this film (slightly) worth your ten bucks? Well, the jokes are constant, with most getting great reactions from the audience. The voice acting by series regulars Dan Castellaneta (Homer, Grandpa, Krusty, et al.), Julie Kavner (Marge), Nancy Cartwright (Bart), Yeardly Smith (Lisa), Hank Azaria (Apu, Wiggum, Moe), Harry Shearer (Mr. Burns, Smithers, Skinner and many more) and company are dead-on and never falter (Although I suppose they've had almost 2 decades worth of practice by now...). Albert Brooks, one of the most frequent guest stars on the show, has some great scenes here too. As I said in my Pirates 3 review, familiarity goes a long way, and there's something comforting about spending a couple hours with this family in a cool theatre. Director David Silverman has served up a nice looking movie, with plenty of groovy CG moments that give the whole thing a little more depth and richness.

But the film still does feel a bit small when compared with previous attempts at TV-to-movie translations. Both South Park and Beavis & Butt-Head (Neither of whose shows came close to comparing to vintage Simpsons episodes!) did so much more with the form. They both, South Park in particular, dared themselves to aim higher than they ever could on television. They weren't content to simply toss off a extra-length episode. The creative minds behind The Simpsons Movie were, it seems, and so we can be forgiven for feeling underwhelmed when the curtains close. The experience reminded me of seeing Jetsons: The Movie back in 1990. The material is the same, only longer and with a few bells and whistles (Though The Simpsons is infinitely funnier).

Whether or not you are disappointed with this film will really depend on your view of the franchise's strengths and weaknesses. I missed the more obscure and witty film references that were hallmarks of the best episodes. Their targets here, Titanic, Independence Day and Night Of The Living Dead among them, felt too safe and generic. The post-modern material on the other hand, with jokes about the Fox network and the film's very existence, is strong and could have been further emphasized. As well, I can't argue enough over the exclusion of the supporting cast. Further use of them would have benefitted the film hugely. I could happily done without the overabundance of "homages" to classic episodes, as they felt more like desperate attempts to get laughs from proven material (Like in Bean!).

The film ends with the hint of a sequel. Let's hope next time we get something a little more courageous and unsafe. And let's dispense with junky titles like this one and find something cleverer. Bonus points if they call it "The Simpsons: Curious (Yellow)"

3 out of 5

Film Review: HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX: Welcome Back Potter!

I have never read a Harry Potter novel. Not a single one. I've never even flipped through one in a bookstore or library. This fact has drawn gasps from a legion of Potter-philes or whatever they call themselves, and yet I don't see this reality changing. With that said, however, I've greatly enjoyed each instalment in the film franchise and found myself eagerly skipping into the theatre to see this latest adventure The Order Of The Phoenix.

Now, before I dive in, my earlier declaration is both a warning and a promise regarding the content of this review. Most of the critiques I've read spend most of the time detailing how well the film echoes the book. I will not be going into this. I'll be focussing on how the film works, and how it fits with its predecessors. So, no, I won't be complaining about the excising of any Pockolumps or Hing-dinglers or whatever from the original text. This review is for those who have simply seen the movies (Once or twice as opposed to exhaustively) and wanna know if this one is any good.

H'Okay, moving on. Potter 5 opens with young Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) saving himself and his piggish cousin from a pair of Dementors in his hometown in England. This is a no-no, and soon he is up on charges of unlawful use of magic from the Ministry of Magic, who refute the young wizard's insistence that Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has returned. This development brings his uncle Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) into the picture, in the process revealing the titular order, a small army united to battle Voldemort. Discovering that friends Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ronald Weasley (Rupert Grint) are also included leads Harry to feel seriously alone. When he goes before the Ministry he is saved by mentor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) at the last minute, although the Ministry quickly installs their own Dolores Jane Umbridge (Imelda Staunton - left with Smith and Emma Thompson) as the new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher at Hoggwarts. Umbridge quickly takes over the school, revealing her own inner-fascist in the process, and is soon tormenting the students and teachers alike while suppressing the use of magic within the school. In the meantime, Harry, suffering nightmarish visions brought on by Voldemort, secretly bands together a collective group of students together to form an army to battle the dark lord. The film climaxes with the collective storming the Ministry of Magic's headquarters in search of an invaluable prophecy, and Voldemort making another important appearance.

Yeesh. Attempting to paraphrase the plot of this film in a paragraph is rough, and I'm sure any Potter die hard who's gotten this far is shaking with anger over my slipshod summarizing. Let's just say that a lot happens in The Order Of The Phoenix, and my little recount is mere lip service to the greater themes of the actual film.

Okay, now that the messiness is behind us, how is the actual movie? Well, it's absolutely delightful... Until the third act. New director David Yates, while not the auteur that Alfonso Cuaron (Prisoner Of Azkaban) or Mike Newell (Goblet Of Fire) are, is extremely good in handling the material surrounding the day-to-day adventures at Hoggwarts. These passages can often drag a film down, as with Goblet Of Fire and Philosopher's Stone, which both felt over-stuffed and meandering. Yates and new writer Michael Goldenberg gives these scenes a light touch that makes them extremely entertaining and endlessly absorbing. In particular, Miss Umbridge's hostile takeover of Hoggwarts is perhaps the juiciest, and most fun, middle section of perhaps any of the films.

If the film had ended with this section I would have been applauding and announcing it as the greatest Potter film yet. Unfortunately, however, the third act of the film is a fairly uninteresting lump of nonsense. The battle within the Ministry of Magic, where Harry and Co. battle an army of armoured dudes led by the evil Lucius Malfroy (Jason Isaacs) is visually unspectacular and choppy. The bad guys have no real identity and so the battle has little dramatic weight. We never really feel any of the children is truly in danger. I also have to say that, for me, a little wand-fighting goes a loooooong way. The climax features far too many scenes of people knocking each other off their feet with blasts of light, only to have them get up with little or no injury. I've always been a tad confused by these scenes through all the films, as the wands seem to do little more that knock people over or stun them. When one key character is apparently killed during the battle, we don't really understand why, as there is no build-up and little pay-off.

Similarly, Voldemort's big final appearance is as dull as his reveal in Goblet Of Fire. He hisses a lot and makes a lot of vague threats/taunts about coming to the dark side, Harry being too weak, killing all his loved ones, etc. It's like a lesser version of the Darth Vader/Luke battle in The Empire Strikes Back. Frankly, Voldemort (Right) is far more interesting when he is silent. There is a scene that is repeated throughout the film of him standing at a train station in a black suit that is mesmerizingly spooky. Ralph Fiennes gives him a sinister physicality and the briefness of the scene makes it far more frightening. Once he shows up delivering platitudes and threats he becomes a second-tier monster. I'm crossing my fingers that he sticks to the sidelines in the next film.

One other area that the film stumbles is in the effects department. I've always found the film's somewhat hit-and-miss in their CG and Order Of The Phoenix is no exception. The smaller stuff all looks great, Hoggwarts continues to amaze and the world itself is flawless. But whenever there is a big effects moment the results are often hokey. There is an ogre/giant character that looks about as realistic as Shrek. By having him stand next to human characters, his lacklustre rendering is only further emphasized. This is also the case in an important moment featuring centaurs. The final battle scenes are also iffy, with a whole lot of blurring. I also feel I should mention that almost every scene featuring characters flying on brooms fail to even meet the realism of the speeder bike chase from Return Of The Jedi (Made 24 years ago!!!). To be fair however, the dragon-horse things look pretty nifty.

The actors continue to do wonderful jobs, never faltering, and always fully inhabiting their characters. Sadly, Watson and Grint (Right) are sidelined as Harry takes centre stage, although both actors continue to charm. Daniel Radcliffe definitely seems to be growing as an actor, and meets every challenge here admirably. The real joy for me, though, is the Hoggwarts teachers. As in each instalment, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon, etc. continue to endlessly entertain and inject a mature (yet playful) energy that really elevates this franchise to something brilliant. Most of all however, hat off to Imelda Staunton who creates the most boo-able villain of the summer. Her Miss Umbridge, like the demonic bastard sister of Kathy Bates Annie in Misery, is so cheerfully hateful that she blows the generic Voldemort clear off the screen. She steals every scene she's in and, if the Academy were more open-minded, would be a shoe-in for an Oscar nod. I didn't think anyone could top Kenneth Branaugh's Professor Lockhart in Chamber Of Secrets, but Staunton does. Gary Oldman, as Sirius Black is also a joy to watch. Oldman, often prone to playing unapproachable nut jobs projects a real sense of warmth here that is more than welcome. I also have to give special notice to Helena Bonham Carter. Her Bellatrix Lestrange, who is given a crackerjack introduction, is somewhat underdeveloped here but Bonham Carter (Channelling the bride of Frankenstein???) never fails to go gleefully over the top. Also, young Evanna Lynch, as Harry's odd classmate Luna Lovegood gives a truly winning performance and manages to find some real moments of truth that are the most moving moments in the film.

So, I suppose the inevitable question is where does The Order Of The Phoenix place amongst the other films? Unfortunately I have to place it at the bottom of list due to the wildly unsuccessful third act. Like Spider-Man 3, there is a lot of great stuff that get's hampered down by a number of weaknesses. It is important to mention, however, that like the James Bond films, even a lesser Potter film is still far more entertaining than the average blockbuster. These films have a consistency that is refreshing given the fallibility of film franchises these days, and for maybe the first time ever I walked out of a Potter movie eager for the next one. In a summer that has been dominated by impersonal mediocrity, this trip to Hoggwarts feels like a breath of fresh air. Let's just hope that next time the results are a little better.

3.5 out of 5

Film Review: TRANSFORMERS: These Robots Agonize

Transformers is a very bad movie. It's the sort of film where you are bombarded with "fun" until you become exhausted and angry. On top of all that it's destined to be a smash and lead to more soulless hack-job sequels. Many will give Transformers a free pass due to the effects and nostalgia factor... I am not one of them.

The "story" at the empty core of Transformers is so laughably terrible that I was amazed the audience didn't feel downright insulted. It's as if writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman sat around deciding how many ways they could call the audience stupid. It seems that the evil Decepticons have landed on Earth and are attempting to find the magic cube which is the source of their power... or something. They trace it to young Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf - right with Fox), who's great ancestor discovered the frozen body of Decepticon leader Megatron and had a secret code imprinted onto his reading glasses. The Decepticons need this code to find said cube and then rule Earth. Meanwhile, Sam has bought a Camaro (who is secretly the Autobot Bumblebee) and is pining for vapid popular girl Mikaela Barnes (Megan Fox). The two are brought together when Sam is traced through his eBay account (where he is attempting to sell the all important glasses) and becomes caught in the middle of a battle between the Decepticons and the Autobots. The uninteresting subplots detail the Secretary of Defence (Jon Voight - in an embarrassing performance) attempting to figure all this nonsense out with the aid of an unconvincing hacker (Rachael Taylor). Also, two generic army guys (Josh Duhamel & Tyrese Gibson - left) battle robots in the desert and yell variations on "Bring It!" repeatedly. It all wraps up with a staggeringly dull battle in the city where we can't really tell what is going on, and don't much care.

When this movie ended I said to my friend that it seemed like it was written by a 12-year old. I realize now that this is an insult to 12-year olds. This is the type of film that could be written by a young kid with ADD who's been force-fed Red Bulls. Scenes merely happen for no real reason, the story is nonsensical, the characters tissue-paper thin, and the humour as blunt as a fat guy in a clown suit hitting you in the back of the head with a baseball bat. But gee, those robots look nifty, huh?

Now, many people hate on director Michael Bay (Below-left). I am not one of them. I consider The Rock to be one of the best action films of the past decade, and thought The Island was actually pretty cool. I didn't even hate Pearl Harbour! The only stumbling blocks I've had with him were over the migraine inducing Armageddon and the dull Bad Boys II. So, I didn't walk into this one with Bay hatred burning in my heart. But, wow! He has outdone even Armageddon in joyless noise and excess here. The battle scenes are without grace or cleverness. The camera cuts and angles make it near impossible to be able to comprehend what is happening to whom. The final battle between Autobot leader Optimus Prime and Megatron is among the worst special effects battles in recent memory. It makes the city destruction scenes in 1998's Godzilla (A film this commerc... I mean movie reminded me of repeatedly) seem like milestones of brilliant action staging. What's amazing is that the comedy scenes (as painful as they often are) are preferable to the robot combat. With a few exceptions (Bernie Mac and Anthony Anderson manage to score a couple times), the jokes are obvious, unsubtle and frequently cringe-inducing, but at least we can follow them. Although a brain-damaged orangutan probably could too... But despite the very best the writers could come up with, even the humor quickly becomes annoying. There is an endless scene where the Autobots stumble around Sam's yard that is a comedy dead-zone. There's something about Optimus Prime saying "My bad!" that just made me die a little inside. Also, the "masturbation" conversation set-piece is truly awful. Frankly, the quality of the comedy is best exemplified in the scene where one the Autobots "pees" on agent John Turturro. Admittedly, Bay makes all this look glossy, but there are only so many ways to pretty up a manure pile.

The actors may have well just not shown up. Aside from LaBeouf, who is actually quite good and shows enough promise to allow me to hope that this will one day be a mere smudge on a decent resume, the various performers here are up shit creek... er shit Bay without a paddle. Megan Fox (Right) coasts through on looks and a Maxim-style wardrobe, Jon Voight (Below left, with Turturro) manages to make his work in Anaconda look dignified, and John Turturro appears to think he is in a Coen brothers comedy. Josh Duhamel, Rachael Taylor and Tyrese Gibson give extremely convincing performances as department store mannequins. Gibson, a decent actor, has so little to do that I felt embarrassed for him. Duhamel, the most well-rounded of the three, due to the fact we are told he has a wife and child (Who are occasionally cut to during scenes of chaos), would be credited as Soldier #4 in a better movie.

And now the Transformers themselves... Well, the special effects guys at ILM mostly succeed... Even if they have no dramatic weight or presence. Strangely, for the most part, they are shot in murky night shots which make them look dull and lacking in majesty. The first transformation of Bumblebee, a moment that should be awe-inducing, is fumbled by Bay, and is instead a mere afterthought. Only Optimus Prime manages to have a certain grandeur that is impressive when he isn't moving too fast. The main villain, Megatron, is introduced so late that he has little impact. Appropriately, Megatron is voiced by The Matrix's Hugo Weaving, who is at least used to working in an artificial environment devoid of emotion and joy. The rest of the crew are pretty much disposable, with little difference between them. Special notice goes to the Decepticon Frenzy who is like the lovechild of Jar Jar Binks and Short Circuit's Johnny 5 with down-syndrome. He wears on you very quickly and yet gets perhaps the most screen time of any of the robots. What it all comes down to is that if you have seen the trailer you've seen the best the film has to offer. The rest is a slim picking of blur and indistinct detail.

If you had told me in May that Transformers would be the worst flick I'd see this summer I wouldn't have believed you, but here we are. It's a failure on almost every possible story-telling level and makes the stuffed-to-the-gills Pirates 3 look like a model of filmmaking restraint. The audience's positive response left me somewhat saddened by the fact that it is further proof that maybe Hollywood isn't incorrect in underestimating the intelligence of the average movie-goer. A lot of people gave Spider-Man 3 flack for being too strange and all-over-the-map. At least that one tried to do something different and wasn't content to aim for the cheap seats. Transformers is the WWE of summer movies. More than meets the eye indeed.

1.5 out of 5

Film Review: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END: Captain Jack Returns To Find His Franchise Seriously Keelhauled!

Wow, what the heck happened here? I was among the many that hoorawed and rejoiced over the first chapter in this series, The Curse Of The Black Pearl. And while I was never truly begging for a sequel, I found myself tossed and fairly delighted by the imaginative Dead Man's Chest. Through it all I never truly fell into Pirates-mania like the rest of the collective world, but I still felt a glimmer of anticipation for this final disappointing entry, which we will examine and puzzle over today. This film, as you all know, is called At World's End.

Picking up where the last film left us, Pirates 3 follows Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley), Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and their back-from-the-dead associate Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), as they find directions and help in entering Davy Jones' Locker to free Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). From there, the characters commit a truly mind-numbing number of double crosses and deceptive tricks on their way to reunite the Pirate Lords. This act will provide them with the strength to overcome the East India Trading Company, who is aiming to take over the seas with the aid of their new weapon: Davy Jones' The Flying Dutchman. When it's all over, relationships are settled, old feuds are ended, and a movie-goers hope for a truly great film, are long gone.

Now, obviously I skipped over a large amount of detail regarding the story of the film (Unlike my epic sweeping recounting of Spider-Man 3's plot which managed to sound long-winded even to me...). The reason for this is that the film is so stuffed to the gills with "story" that I likely wouldn't finish the task before the film's DVD release.

It's important to mention first and foremost that I don't think Pirates 3 is a bad movie in any way shape or form. It's merely an average film that is a victim of its own hype. So, if you want to skip out on this whole review right now before we head down the dark river of negative criticism Apocalypse Now style, I'm recommending the film in the mildest way possible. It's on the borderline, but manages to tip over into the favourable. But therein lays the rub...

This is a near three hour film with some of the most talented artists in the world involved. Mediocrity should not result from this. The film should either be a great time at the movies, or a spectacular (and likely fascinating) failure. The fact that At World's End manages to be neither is the most frustrating aspect.

What I found truly amazing about this film was how it failed to build upon any of my favorite aspects of its lead-in Dead Man's Chest. Captain Jack is sidelined for the first hour of the film and never really becomes anything more than a supporting character in the film. Sure, he has his funny moments (Though definitely less than the previous films), but they don't really add up because he has so little bearing on what is going on. The first film gave us a mad genius who managed to stay alive only by his sheer insane logic and baffling inventiveness. Here he's like a weird uncle that always manages to stumble into the middle of important events. He's entertaining, but rarely necessary.

I also was eager to see more of the spectacular Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) and his kraken beast. HA! Director Gore Verbinski and writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio shove Jones into the background and write the kraken right out of the picture. Instead they choose to place all the emphasis on the evil (and boring) Lord Cuttler Beckett (Tom Hollander). Beckett is a sneering nemesis in the vein of the most forgettable Bond villains (Like the guy in The Living Daylights), who's most sinister trait is that he wants to rid the seas of pirates. Is this really a bad thing? Erase the wackiness of the whole Black Pearl gang and let's remember that pirates were generally pretty awful individuals. He could be seen as a heroic figure in a different film... Except for the fact that he (SPOILER ALERT) kills Elizabeth's pops (Jonathan Pryce - in a cameo here). Why? I'm not really sure. This plot point is handled so incompetently (and off-screen) that there is no impact to the development. It's a reason for the guy to be booed and hissed at. Now, I'll admit the circumstances in how the Elizabeth finds out are eerily beautiful and dream-like and a testament to the actors and the effects and set design crew, but this development needed a little more underscoring. All of this blundering really only ends up reminding us why the Beckett character should be a bit player. Preferably located 100 ft behind the left shoulder of Davy Jones.

Davy Jones had all the potential to be one of cinema's great villains as well as one of the coolest looking. It's small consolation that he merely winds up with the latter prize (Good job ILM!). The filmmakers make the curious choice to just push him into generic back-up heavy territory. The poignancy of the character, regarding his love-sick heart, is bungled all over the place and his exit from the film is underwhelming to put it lightly. Also annoying is the mere walk-on status given to Norrington (Jack Davenport) who actually became interesting in the previous film.

So, Davy Jones, Jack Sparrow and Norrington are a wash, so who's really running the film? Well, the answer is Keira Knightley and Geoffrey Rush. I know the fans were just clamouring for these two to get more screen time and they get it here. Rush's Barbossa is the more successful choice as Rush plays him with such gusto that he is never dull. Knightley on the other hand lacks the spunk that was present in the other films. Her character really ain't much fun and the plot development that occurs later in the film regarding her is flat-out moronic. It's the type of story turn that makes me cringe every time...

Orlando Bloom is fine, I suppose. He's pleasant without having too much impact on the story. Even his part in the unsatisfying Elizabeth/Will relationship finale is pretty weak. I gotta ask: Did anyone really invest themselves that much in this relationship? It was pleasant enough in the first film but the convoluted turns it's taken over the last two has pretty much killed any goodwill I had towards it.

Completely wasted is Chow Yun-Fat as Siamese pirate Sao Feng. The character's role in the film is pretty pointless and could have easily been excised completely. It appeared to me that his only function was to make the stupid decision that leads to Elizabeth's ridiculous final arc. I must also say that I flabbergasted at how much is given to Naomi Harris' Tia Dalma character. Often incomprehensible, this character never works in large doses and gets bad laughs when her "important" role in the finale is revealed.

Okay, let's push all this negativity aside. Why am I going to recommend (albeit slightly) this troubling film? Well, because familiarity goes a long way. The world created within the film is so immersive that it's hard not to give credit where it's due. This is a universe unto itself that has become a memorable part of the pop culture landscape. It's fun to see all these characters and the wild effects that ILM has cooked up. It must be said that the final forty minute battle scene is pretty amazing to behold and earns the film higher marks for the immense scale and scope involved. This ain't no minor scuffle. I must also admit that while the film doesn't close how I feel it should, it is for the most part a satisfying conclusion to the series. The way it harkens back to the first film is somewhat poetic. It's difficult for a 168 minute movie to not deflate, and the filmmakers come close to succeeding. The film can be a tad frustrating, but it is never dull.

If this series does go on, I can't recommend enough to cut the running times down. These films aren't meant to be so long-winded. They should try to emulate the Indiana Jones films which were stylistically similar but embraced speed and a two hour length. They never felt rushed, and the Pirates films would fit this model beautifully. There is no reason that the third chapter of the series should be the same length as The Godfather. The mythology simply isn't complex or interesting enough to sustain it.

That said, for an uneventful summer night there's worse out there... Though there's also better.

Final Grade: 3 out of 5

Film Review: SPIDER-MAN 3: Spidey Scores Despite Getting Tangled In His Own Web

Hello, I'm back in black... Say just like ol' Spider-Man in the wildly anticipated new chapter that his theatres last night at midnight. I attended the 12:01 at the groovy Imax theatre in the Langley Colossus complex. It was quite a sight! A few hundred of us all a twitter (I've always wanted to type that) over what new adventures that poor sap Peter Parker would find himself in this time...

Okay, truth be told, I pretty much knew all the details due to my obsessive investigation into the film's production over the past two years. What was interesting however, is both how right the gossip was, and how wrong. I'm pleased/concerned to report that Spider-Man 3 is quite a different animal than the brilliant earlier chapters. I'll get to specific instances in a bit, but first I have to throw on my cape and assume my other identity as EXPOSITION MAN! Recanter of vague plot details!

The film starts off quickly after segment numero deuce, with the whole city of New York going Spider-Man crazy. Everyone loves the guy, and Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is feeling pretty damn pleased with himself. As always though, the dude is destined to get slapped down a few pegs. First, his beloved M.J. (Kirsten Dunst), who he is planning to propose to, gets a lousy review for her big Broadway debut. Then the troubled Harry Osborn (James Franco) attacks him, in his new X-treme sports villain attire, receiving amnesia in the ensuing throwdown. Meanwhile, escaped convict Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) is accidentally transformed in the villainous Sandman following an escape from the police. Also, as pretty much the whole world knows, Spidey finds himself a new black suit this time around. The suit, which is an alien symbiote, has hitched a ride on an asteroid/comet (I can't tell the difference) and landed on earth... Right next to Peter Parker's moped.

Fwew. Anyways, soon Peter learns that it was actually Flint Marko who killed his beloved Uncle Ben. It's at this point that the symbiote takes hold of him and Peter starts to slip into a severely angry funk. This has severe consequences on his relationship with M.J. (Who starts to wander over to Harry's side of the field), as well as causes him to seek revenge against the clearly downtrodden Sandman. Amongst all the chaos, we also meet young upstart Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), a competitor for a job at the Daily Bugle. Pete and Eddie's relationship is further tried by Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), Eddie's sorta girlfriend, and Pete's lab partner, who has a crush on ol' Webhead. Eddie is smug and cocky, and eventually becomes the fan favorite Venom, a seething black monster version of Spider-Man (Like you all didn't know that already!). Toss in comic bits from Bruce Campbell, Stan Lee and J.K. Simmons (Returning as the great J. Jonah Jameson.), and a few musical numbers, and a four character battle royale at a construction site, and Spidey 3 is packed to the gills for it's entire 140 minute running time.

So, I know the first question you all have! Is it as good as the other two? Putting it bluntly, no. Before I explain why, I just want to mention that it's always hard reviewing a movie like this because I see it through the geeky comic-fan lens, while the majority of the world won't. I want to also mention that while I raise a number of negative points, I actually think Spidey 3 is a great film-going experience. The running length flew by. However, as with the Star Wars prequels, my intense love for them causes me to be more critical when they falter. So, I'm going to try as hard as possible to keep my reasoning objective, but bear in mind that I'm probably taking the negatives more harshly than you will. Let's get to the breakdown!

Tobey Maguire (Right, with Dunst) is once again spot-on and he never appears foolish, despite a couple of poorly thought out scenes involving Peter's dark side taking over. Maguire is the key to why these films work, and he does good work here. He understands the series Parker character so deeply that we simply accept him without question. His dramatic scenes in this film are strong, and his Spidey moments are snappy and clever. It's only in the film's funky middle where the somewhat moody nature of the character drags Maguire down. I'd like to point out however, a painful scene between him and Dunst on a bridge that is very uncomfortable (In a good way) to watch. Maguire's face translates so much pain that it I found it almost hard to watch. It's going to be extremely difficult to see the role recast in future sequels.

Kirsten Dunst is again reliable as Mary Jane, although the film's writing occasionally fails her. Dunsts has received a lot of criticism for these films, but I still think she really brings something to the franchise. She has a spunk and adorbale quality that works really well. When M.J. is emotionally beaten down she really plays it effectively. That said, I think it was a poor decision to create such false circumstances for Peter and M.J. to breakup. The ensuing bitterness and anger damages our faith in their relationship as a whole, and unfortunately has a slightly negative consequence on the film. Despite dedicated work from the duo, it's becomes hard to see them in any sort of cheery light come film's end.

James Franco (Right) gives probably the strongest performance in the film. His Harry Osborn character is finally given a true dramatic arc that is sometimes tough to watch. Lacking the playfulness of Green Goblin or Doc Ock's storylines, Harry is a study of a good man who is undone by a lifetime of emotional abuse and low self-confidence and esteem. Even as he is suiting up as the New Goblin and battling Peter over the city, we never lump him into the villain category. It's a testament to Franco that Harry becomes the film's strongest point. He's funny, sympathetic, frustrating, and heart-breaking. Of all the resolutions in the film (And there are many!), Harry's has the most impact and stays with us the longest after we leave the theatre.

What made the first two films (Specifically 2) great was how fleshed out the villains were and how they tied into the overall themes. Sandman and Venom are both quite underwritten and don't have the impact they should. Haden Church (Left) has an effective melancholy dignity that, used properly, could have put Sandman right alongside the other greats of the series. His transformation scene alone is the most beautiful and haunting comic-book villain origin scene, I think, in film history. Watch for that moment, it's a joy to watch and arguably the film's highlight. Sandman's backstory is also effective, although emphasized so shallowly that it prevents him from becoming him a great villain. Despite a couple great battle scenes, he seems lost by the end, and his reasoning behind doing what he does is questionable. I also think it was a mistake to spend so much time with Sandman as a bellowing 6 story tall CG monster. It strips him of his tragedy and humanity.

Venom on the other hand, is a completely different story. This is a character that shouldn't probably be here at all. Like Sandman, he's underdeveloped, and yet I have to admit that he too had the potential to be a wonderful villain. Topher Grace (Right) steals every scene he's in, and when Venom finally does show up, he doesn't disappoint. While closer in tone to Carnage (Geek alert!), he still has enough Venom-like characteristics to make him an acceptable translation. I do feel strongly, however, that he should have been saved for a future film, as Grace is so good that the mind boggles at what he could have done with a full film. Let me just say that his mano et mano with Spider-Man is extremely cool.

Falling in the "Glorified Cameo" category is Dallas Howard's Gwen Stacy (Left), who is such an energetic breath of fresh air that the film really loses something when she disappears in the third act. It would have been nice to include her in the story's resolution. Rosemary Harris, as Aunt May, has only a couple scenes where she provides earnest advice, and I felt that each one was effective and properly highlighted the heart of the series. James Cromwell, as Captain Stacy, Gwen's dad, is a throwaway, with little reason to exist. It's unfortunate, as his character was such a warm presence in the comic book series.

Sam Raimi (Right) does a good job again of holding it all together and keeping the whole project from derailing. I love his vision for the series and truly love the quirkiness he brings to the films. Here, he does what he does best, amazing us, moving us, and drawing a few good laughs. His judgment falters, however, in some of the more heavy-handed comic moments. Bruce Campbell's idiot maitre'd is a keeper, as is a fair amount of Pete's 70's era swagger in a key scene. He goes a bit far, however, when Peter channels Jim Carrey's Mask in a jazz club and starts pounding on the piano and dancing up a storm. It's a bizarre moment that while undeniably well-timed and executed, belongs in a completely different movie. I also wish he'd refrain from so many shots of kids yelling "Go Spidey!", "Awesome!" and "Wicked cool!" into the camera. It was something I could look past before, but here it's just tiresome. Also annoying is the ridiculous British reporter in the final battle. She belongs on the cutting room floor.

Spider-Man 3 is a triumph of effects artistry and staging. Every action scene is a joy to behold and reminds us why these films are held in such high regard. If only the film could have found better ways to tie the threads together near the end. Minor characters pop-up and announce details that they likely wouldn't know (Or really should have mentioned earlier... YES, I'm talking to you Butler man!), and characters occasionally ignore their own psychology. If only the writers (Sam & Ivan Raimi, and Alvin Sargent) had better tied the whole thing together. Let me also add that while I applaud their courage in ending the film on such a bittersweet ambiguous note, it robs the audience of the joy they experienced with the exhilarating closings of the previous two films. It is also an odd way to end it in such a fashion as this is likely the last Spidey film to feature any of this creative team. The downbeat tone is going to make it very interesting to see how this film performs in the long run...

In closing, I recommend the film for the strength and imagination behind it. There are great sights to be seen and you are unlikely to be ever bored. Raimi has crafted a truly unusual summer blockbuster that dares to take chances, even if they don't all pan out. This courage elevates the film above most movies of this magnitude and I have a feeling that Spider-Man 3 is going to create some really interesting debates between film-goers. Obviously you can see that my thoughts on the film are somewhat conflicted. I will need to see the film again to establish a more concrete position and view the film without my over-hyped expectations. I do feel it's important to mention that Spider-Man 3 is far better than Ghost Rider, and more satisfying than X-Men: The Last Stand! Now, its up to you all to weigh in with your own opinions.

Despite this film's shortcomings, I'm still praying Raimi and Co. return for Spider-Man 4. Then they can really give us a film that will be a rousing final home-run.

Grade: 4 out of 5

TRANSFORMERS: Weaving A Tapestry Of Anticipation

Hey y'all. Well, it's gonna be a bit quiet here for the next week and a half. I'm nearing the end of my semester and the papers are piling up. So, today's entry is a short one.

The Transformers movie is something of a mild curiosity for me. I wasn't a huge fan of them in the 80's. But take me out of the equation and people are going mental for this movie. This, for them, is the defining film that will complete any unfinished business left from childhood. Me, I just hope it doesn't suck. I'm a bit weary of director Michael Bay still too. I actually liked The Island, and The Rock is one of my faves, but I'm concerned this one will fall into the Armageddon/Bad Boys II category or noisy, flashy garbage.

I must say I was intrigued the other day when it was announced that Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in The Matrix trilogy, V in V For Vendetta) would be voicing arch nemesis Megatron. I had assumed that they would just get the guy who voiced the cartoon show. This decision has upset some of the purists obviously, but I'm pretty indifferent. Weaving has a great voice that really has an amazing unsettling quality. I still think his voicing of the line "Mr. Anderson..." is one of the greats.

So, feel free to throw hate mail my way over my approval of this choice. Frankly, with a cast as bland as Transformers (Shia Labeouf, Jon Voight, Tyrese), I'll take any unconventional choices they make. Oh, how I hope this isn't a 2 and a half hour migraine... ___________________________________________________________________

The other big casting news of the week in the new Indiana Jones IV addition. I mentioned Cate Blanchett's addition a while back, and now we have another ace character actor joining up. It was announced on Tuesday that Ray Winstone would be playing a new ally to Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones.

Now, Ray Winstone (Pictured) may not set off alarms of excitement for you. In fact, I'm guessing a fair amount of you have no idea who the bloke is. Well, his most famous recent role was as Mr. French in The Departed. He was Jack Nicholson's number one guy. He also popped up in Cold Mountain and King Arthur. I've also just been informed that he voiced Mr. Beaver in The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe. Well, whaddya know. Personally, my favorite performance of his was as the retired mobster terrorized by Ben Kinsley in Sexy Beast. Check it out if you haven't seen it.

I really like this choice. I'm pleased that Spielberg and Lucas are filling out the roles with character actors as opposed to superstars. Though, I suppose that's always been the way with these films. Regardless, I'm brightening up to this one. Just stay away from the CG, Lucas!

Okay, gotta get back to the term papers!

Later!

SPIDEY Watch: The Final Frontier

Well guys, this is the last of it. Today Sony released the final trailer for Spider-Man 3 and it's the big enchalada. Venom is now officially released to the world and the movie is just a little over a month away. It's sort of bittersweet in a way. The speculation and little details make a film like this all the more exciting. Now the film will live or die on its quality as opposed to its hype.

So, I'll just say that I've had a lot of fun following the progress of this one. Hopefully, you have to. So, until my review gets posted (Hopefully on May 5th), this is about the last of Spider-Man 3 you'll be seeing in detail here at Pop-Culture Episodes.

I'm swamped with school work right now and don't want to bog this whole thing down in another thousand word extravaganza. So, sit back and enjoy the trailer: http://www.spiderman3oncomcast.com/.


See ya in "BAT Watch".

-Cam



P.S.: That Heath Ledger poster is a fan-made thing. I just thought it looked nifty.