Fantastic Four

Five movies into the summer of the sequel, the first release that is not a third installment is finally here. The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer is merely the second in a series, following 2005’s original that introduced moviegoers to Mr. Fantastic (Ioan Gruffold), The Invisible Woman (Jessica Alba), her brother The Human Torch (Chris Evans), and The Thing (Michael Chiklis). (Audio review here.)

The story in this follow-up is basic superhero stuff, picking up not too long after the last one ended. Mr. Fantastic is getting ready to wed The Invisible Woman, then bad things happen, and The Fantastic Four are called upon to remedy the problem, which involves the Silver Surfer destroying the planet and Dr. Von Doom doing whatever it is he does.

From there the heroes do their hero thing, which is accompanied by just enough side story to form slightly rounded characters and plot. Like its predecessor and the comic books on which they both are based, Silver Surfer is a different breed of superhero movie, one that varies in tone and content from recent renditions of more popular heroes like Batman, Superman, and Spider-man. With its multiple lead characters, Silver Surfer occasionally reminds of the X-Men flicks, but does not match the gravity present in those movies or other recent hits featuring the aforementioned main characters. Those are serious, more intense movies that can create wonderful cinematic experiences that feel more “real”. Not that any of these kinds of movies are truly real, but both of the Fantastic Four movies have a more cartoon-ish feel that distances them from reality.

This is both a blessing and a curse. On the downside, Silver Surfer does not have the emotional attachment that other superhero pictures have or at least desire, which limits the scope of the movie’s power. A surprising side effect is the everyday levity that is provided. If you and your buddies had bizarre superpowers, wouldn’t you frequently be making fun of each other’s gifts and using your own for not entirely kosher reasons? Movies with solo protagonists are rarely able to capture such interactions, but with its tight-knit lead characters, Surfer can and does, with degrees of success that vary like most attempts at humor, from clever and hilarious to flat and unfunny. Nothing is brilliant or profound, everything just creates a casual surface relationship between movie and viewer.

The minimal depth also allows for a streamlined hour and a half movie that has cursory side stories, unexplainable technology, and vague villainous motives, all of which is completely fine, if not preferable. Just as popcorn should not be loaded with substantive fruits and vegetables, popcorn movies like this one should not be loaded down with messages and complications that don’t enhance the story.

The shallow story and characters possessing only one or two dimensions means that the movie never has much chance of succeeding on multiple levels, so if you expect a serious action movie, you will be disappointed with Rise of Silver Surfer, as you likely were with the original. If you expect mindless superhero entertainment and a near carbon copy of the first installment, then you will leave the theater content with what you saw.

Bottom Line: There is a place for movies like this: DVD rental. 5 of 10.

Analog players in a digital world.

The latest movie in this summer of the sequel is a departure from the first three heavyweights of Spider-man 3, Shrek the Third, and Pirates 3. Aimed more at adults than adolescents, Ocean’s Thirteen is the clean-up hitter this summer. In baseball, a clean-up hitter usually has power. Ocean’s Thirteen has star power, perhaps more than any other release this summer, and the movie wields its weapons well. (Audio review here.)

While Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones are not back for this installment, all the men of Ocean’s Eleven and Ocean’s Twelve do reprise their roles. George Clooney and Brad Pitt head up the gang of thieves, aided by Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, and the rest of the crew that moviegoers have come to know over the last six years. The biggest addition to the cast is a name bigger than all of them, and his character is the catalyst for the caper that drives the entire film. The man is Al Pacino, playing a flashy casino owner who incurs the gang’s wrath by betraying Elliott Gould’s Reuben Tishkoff, setting the stage for the rest of the revenge movie.

The first film was a modern classic that thrived on the energy of Las Vegas and the cool confidence of Clooney and Pitt. Twelve lost much of those factors by bouncing around Europe and putting the band of thieves on the run. Thirteen returns to the franchise’s successful roots, taking place predominantly in the colorful world of Sin City and also placing the heroes in control most of the time.

In restoring those two key elements, Ocean’s Thirteen recaptures the spirit of the original. The dialogue isn’t as crisp or smart, but it’s close, and elements of the past glory are present. Things like con-man lingo and everyone bilingually communicating with The Amazing Yen provide well-done unexplained humor. Writers Brian Koppelman and David Levien (who penned quality guy flicks like Rounders and Knockaround Guys) do overuse the borrowed elements, as though they decided to repeat the good parts of the original’s script as often as possible, and the resulting jokes wear a bit thin over the course of the movie.

Returning to Vegas is a wise choice that simplifies the plot. Though staples of heist movies, like double-crosses and sleight of hand, are present, the story is largely straight forward. You know what the guys are going to do; you’re just watching to see how the crew overcomes the various inevitable obstacles. This makes it slightly less entertaining, but also makes for a very comfortable viewing experience, despite the required suspension of disbelief. The cinematography of Steven Soderbergh (under the pseudonym Peter Andrews) helps too; the pictures and transitions are not to the impressive level of Eleven, but they have their moments, as do the quirky uses of titles and graphics.

As is the case in many sequels, the cast slides effortlessly back into their roles. Clooney and Pitt are smooth; Damon is trying to prove himself; Bernie Mac is a fast-talker, etc. As the new guy, Pacino effectively joins the fray with a surprisingly underplayed part. He’s not the big, bold, brash near-caricature that he has morphed into through movies like Scent of a Woman and The Devil’s Advocate. He still looks the over-the-top part with his deep tan and vibrant suits, but he is more kniving than bombastic, which is a very appropriate choice for the movie.

Ocean’s Thirteen is the cinematic version of a lazy river ride at a water park. You hop in your inner tube and cruise around the lengthy pool, admiring the view, chatting with friends, and generally enjoying the laid-back experience. Unlike many of this summer’s blockbusters, it does not bombard you with loud effects or action scenes. It won’t shock and awe you by pulling wool over your eyes with a mind-blowing twist. Instead, gentle turns and reveals are sprinkled throughout, providing an enjoyable two hours spent with familiar and entertaining characters.

Bottom Line: A good summer diversion that returns to the roots of the series. Not as good as the first, but better than the second. 7 of 10.

The Trailer Park.

First some news. I've started writing a movie blog for the Topeka Capital-Journal's website. It should contain roughly the same content that I've been putting up here for a couple years, but with more consistency. I hope for a review a week, plus another post or two. For my first non-review thoughtsI made the first of what should be a series of posts entitled The Trailer Park, a collection of movie trailers. If anyone has trailer suggestions or ideas for posts, feel free to let me know. Unfortunately I don' think there is an RSS feed specifically for me, just for all the CJOnline blogs. I will likely cross-post that stuff here, but I would appreciate a click-through to bump my my hit count. You can even comment if you like, although you will need to register with the site to do so. Just behave.

Now, the first installment of The Trailer Park...

I love movie trailers. They're the cinematic equivalent of baseball's spring training. Just as most every team (except Kansas City) thinks they have a chance to make a playoff run, most trailers promise at least a diverting two hours in the theater, and many offer harbingers of greatness.

On a semi-regular basis, I plan to comment on the underrated art of trailers and share the best (or worst) trailers that I can find. Some will be for soon-to-be-released movies; some will be farther down the road; some will be blasts from the past.

As a side note, the term "trailer" originated back when movie previews used to be shown after feature films. The name stuck even after the previews were moved for obvious reasons. People would simply walk out after the main attraction was over.

Roll film...

Ocean's Thirteen--This week sees the summer's fourth straight big release that is the third in a series (no, the 1960 version doesn't count, because it was impressively boring). Judging strictly from the trailer, it looks like those involved may have recaptured the irreverent humor that made 2001’s Ocean's Eleven so good, rather than imitate the mailed-in Ocean's Twelve. We can only hope.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer—Earlier this week, a new trailer was released, revealing mildly intriguing new subplots. News also leaked that the movie will be rated PG, which is a little surprising since that rating will sometimes alienate older adolescents who think it too tame. The original Fantastic Four was just okay, worthy of a DVD rental. The pieces seem to be there to make this franchise huge, but something doesn’t quite click about the humor and superhero relationships.

Bee Movie--Jerry Seinfeld stars as the lead voice in this animated movie that appears to be aimed primarily at adults. If you like Seinfeld's brand of humor, you'll like the second teaser trailer, which is the better of the two. I'm not convinced that his shtick will play as well over a full-length picture, but I’ll definitely give it a shot in November.

Across the Universe--This is the best (or at least trippiest) trailer of the year. It’s helmed by Julie Taymor, who directed Titus and Frida, but is better known for directing and designing costumes for the Broadway production of The Lion King. This movie looks like a Vietnam Era love story synced with a Beatles soundtrack, which promises to be a great if offbeat theatrical experience. A September 28th release date is set.

Saving Private Ryan--In honor of Wednesday's 63rd anniversary of D-Day (which was ridiculously underplayed in the media), here is a glimpse at the war movie that changed war movies. When I saw this at age eighteen, this film struck me to the core more than any film had before or has since, as I tried to fathom storming Normandy before I could drink. Saving Private Ryan was completely deserving of the Oscar for Best Picture...that inexplicably went to Shakespeare in Love in perhaps the worst decision the Academy has ever made. Yes, I'm still bitter.

Close your eyes and pretend it's all a bad dream.

Batting third in the summer of the sequel lineup is Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End. Shot simultaneously with last year’s Dead Man’s Chest, this one picks up where that one left off. Which is to say…I have no idea. (Audio review here.)

Okay, that’s not entirely true. When last we saw Johnny Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow, he was being swallowed by the giant sea monster Kraken, which means that he's now surrounded by himself in a strange sort of purgatory located, that's right, at world's end.

The story initially involves getting Jack back from Davy Jones' locker, which is necessary in order to save pirates from extinction, because (if you remember from the second one) the British Navy is holding Jones’ heart hostage, and thus forcing him (he's the octopus-faced undead pirate) to exterminate the remaining pirates. If you were able to follow all that, good, because that's the most comprehensible portion of the plot. It's the trunk, from which plot lines and motives sprout like Hydra heads from every possible location, layering on additional story arcs that only complicate things. Hammering out all the whys and hows would take far more time and effort than such a movie is worth. Too often, the details of what's happening are fuzzy or uncertain, which is most frustrating because the plot is actually relatively simple.

Fortunately, that barely matters, because the point of the movie is to create moments and imagery that awe and enchant. On this level, Pirates 3 succeeds wildly. There are battles with visual effects so stunning that they are scarcely noticed. There's a great scene accompanied by wailing electric guitars that calls to mind the classic westerns of Eastwood and Wayne. The dramatic score is again filled with hard-driving strings and horns that rile adrenaline and make for an over-the-top movie experience. Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom are still beautiful people. There's a great cameo by a legendary rocker, and Depp still owns the idiosyncratic Captain Jack in every way possible. Just look at that poster! Is that not the epitome of cinematic coolness?

All these similarities to the first two are good, but also part of the problem. Some sequels (Shrek the Third) get ripped because they are too different from their predecessors. Others get downgraded because they are too similar, which is the category that Pirates 3 falls into. Many of the parts are good, but essentially it's is just more of the same, with an emphasis on the MORE. There is too much here in the almost three hour movie. Continuing the tree trunk analogy, the movie is an out-of-control tree that needs to be pruned back. Clip off those stray branches. Trim the bunny trails and betrayals. Shape the tree into a more presentable and palatable two hours plus.

Bottom Line: Pirates 3 had its moments, and wasn't a bad experience overall, but the exhausting length constantly throws needless curves and double-crosses into the relentless fray. As my dad said at the end, "I hope they stop." 4 of 10.

Where is Shrek?

The first Shrek came out of nowhere, an offbeat fractured fairy tale with a story suitable for kids and jokes aimed at adults. Shrek 2 contained more of the same, particularly the latter, with an emphasis on MORE. The story was cruder, with images and humor that I wouldn't want my kids to see, and overbearingly bloated with gags, as the writers stuffed aural and visual pop culture references in like Mark Mangino at a buffet. Watching the sequel felt like being bludgeoned with a comic hammer that screamed Look what we can do! That progression leads to Shrek the Third, batting second in the summer of the sequel, featuring an underwhelming trailer that threatened to continue the slide of the series. (Audio review here.)

Not unexpectedly, this is the worst of the three, but the reasons for its limited appeal are surprising. The creators heeded the complaints about Shrek 2 containing too many psuedo-clever jokes, which is good. Specific allusions like Mission: Impossible or Lord of the Rings have been largely replaced by general parodies of events like high school life and Broadway musicals. This alteration in humor is welcome but too severe, stripping the franchise of its definitive irreverent nature, which is bad. Shrek 3 swings the comedy pendulum from the in-your-face extreme of the second past the moderation of the first to a unpleasantly safe converse. It frequently feels more like a less saccharine Disney movie than a Shrek movie, complete with a schmaltzy moral at the end.

That's not to say that the movie isn't funny. The writing occasionally crackles; excellent comic timing is pervasive; and the sundry offbeat appearances of noteworthy characters like Captain Hook and Snow White are still entertaining. But on the whole everything feels restrained, like a kid who was reprimanded for doing something wrong and is now afraid to do much of anything. As much as I didn't like all of the prequels' base humor, this one needs more of it. The less flamboyant nature of the movie also diminishes its appeal to children, as does the metamorphosis of Shrek himself from rambunctious troublemaker to calmer father figure, a transformation that makes him more accessible to adults than kids.

In the end, the movie ends up feeling much like the main character. Just as Shrek himself feels that the confinements of the crown prevent him from being himself, the movie feels muzzled, neutered by knee-jerk reactions to the second movie. It isn't gratingly bad, but neither is it actively good. Shrek the Third (good title, by the way) merely idles its way through a rightfully short eighty-seven minutes.

Bottom Line: Third verse, different from the first (and second). Not quite the same, and notably worse. 5 of 10.

Courtesy of the New York Times, here is a meandering but good and interesting collection of thoughts on summer blockbusters, which are generally panned by critics. I don't think I'm as nearly as pretentious as many highbrow critcs, but then again, my Top Ten of last year only contained one or two big releases: M:I-3 in the ten spot and maybe Lady in the Water at number six. I'd like to think I reside in the cinematic mean between art and pop, capable of enjoying both.

There is definitely a place for what I call summertainment. I'm excited that the summer movie season has begun. I don't mind spending a couple hours watching cinematic eye candy like Spider-Man 3. But I have reasonable expectations; I don't anticipate being taken to new heights by any of the sequels in the next few months, but I would like to see good filmmaking. It's like going to a sporting event. I don't always expect phenomenal accomplishments, but I do expect to be diverted for a while, and I want to see teams and individuals play well. For me, good filmmaking or athleticism are part of being entertained. Just because my rating isn't high doesn't mean I didn't enjoy my time. Keep in mind though that like the author mentions, spectacle at its finest is buttressed by substance, as exemplified by films like The Matrix and Batman Begins. Movies like that are too few and far between. That is a shame.

A couple other movie notes: Shrek 3 will be my next movie. Apparently the running length is only 87 minutes. That will almost certainly be its strong point. Conversely, Pirates 3 is nearly twice as long, TWO HOURS AND FORTY-SEVEN MINUTES! Looks like a classic situation of the-trailer-is-better-than-the-movie. That may need to be one of my miscellaneous awards next year. I just need a namesake.

This could be the end of Spider-Man.

Buckle your seat belts. It's time for the summer movie season. Let's get this out of the way first: this is the summer of the sequel. Of the ten most hyped movies in the next four months, eight of them are sequels, and seven of those are at least the third in the series. Sequels are a tricky business, because there are often massive built-in expectations and points of reference. They can't be too similar to the prequels without risking boredom, but if they stray too far from the tone of the original, they risk alienating their audiences. Like last year's summer season, this year kicks off with the third movie in a blockbuster series. In 2006, the first out of the gate was Mission: Impossible 3; in 2007, it is Spider-Man 3. (Audio review here.)

When we last left Spidey three years ago, he had rid the world of Doctor Octopus, and had his identity revealed to his two closest friends, his girlfriend Mary Jane and his buddy/enemy Harry Osborn, whose father was the Green Goblin in the original picture. SM3 picks up not long after, in a New York City where Spider-Man has gone glam, with his name and image plastered all over the media. Peter Parker relishes his newfound fame, so much that it begins to impede his relationship with Mary Jane. As that hits the rocks, he finds himself vulnerable at an inopportune time, which leads to the chaos that forms the crux of the movie.

One strong point of the movie is that is has the same principal cast as first two and also possesses a continuous story arc. Both features (think about it) are actually rarities among superhero trilogies. That definitely helps in the continuity department, because the characters, locations, and relationships are familiar. On the downside, the similarities amplify the fact that little of the movie is original. We've seen Spidey swoop and soar through city canyons, and we've seen him fight nasty villians. With the exception of an early chase scene, nothing is particularly different, either in style or content. That's disappointing, as a Spider-Man movie begs to be exhilarating. Say what you will about the vastly different styles of the three Mission: Impossibles, but each of them had a unique feel that individually defined each movie and made like events more interesting.

While the lack of novelty is disappointing, the most significant attempt at being unique provides the most unusual portion of the movie. As Parker/Spidey undergoes a transformation in the middle act, the movie takes a bizarre turn into romantic comedy. The idea is commendable; too few movies take too few chances. But this one doesn't work. For twenty minutes you understand what is happening, but still can't quite believe it. It would be like if Golden State had gone into a stall offense when they were up 20 against Dallas last night. Sure, it makes sense given the circumstances, but it still feels completely wrong and out of place.

The bigger problem is the end consequence of the emotional speed bump. It's something very rare in superhero movies: Peter Parker is not likeable. Granted, that is part of the point, but when one starts disliking the title character, one loses interest in the movie, and that is huge strike against this kind of flick.

Like the later Batman installments, SM3 also has too many characters and stories for one movie. Instead of completely marginalizing the hero like Batman & Robin did, SM3 races through the stories of the antagonists. Two of the three could easily have filled the requisite two-plus hours in finer fashion. Then the villains' stories could have been fleshed out better to create the rare well-rounded superhero movie. Not only that, but Peter Parker's issues could have been expanded as well, in a manner more like its predecessors. One of the taglines for the movie is The Battle Within, and that promising fight unfortunately is not fully addressed, though in a pleasant surprise, numerous positive themes of responsibility and choice are.

Having said all that, I must provide the disclaimer that Spider-Man just doesn't do it for me. Batman does; Superman does; but Spider-Man doesn't. Maybe it has to do with Tobey Maguire's relatively diminutive stature, that I don't believe he could be a butt-kicking hero. Maybe the face-covering mask dehumanizes Spider-Man for me. Whatever.

People won't care that much; Spider-Man 3 will still make a webful of money. If you like the other two Spider-Man movies, you'll enjoy this one, which isn't painful to watch. There are plenty of characters and eventually plenty of action. But Spider-Man 3 matches its predecessors ways it shouldn't and doesn't match them in ways it should.

Bottom Line: 6 of 10 for the first big release of the summer and perhaps the final Spider-Man movie. Not bad, but nothing special.