Weekend viewing

Mad Hot Ballroom (Marilyn Agrelo, 2005)
I think I have a fundamental flaw when it comes to my ability to appreciate this movie: I hate children. Since almost the entire appeal of this documentary is in the cuteness of the pre-adolescent children learning ballroom dancing, I was very much underwhelmed. Agrelo skirts some socio-economic issues but doesn't delve too deeply into them, and she doesn't create the kind of suspense or build up the distinctive characters of a movie like Spellbound. Very few of the kids were given enough screen time to be individually memorable, and I couldn't tell which of the three schools Agrelo follows we were seeing at a given time until two of them were eliminated from the competition. Yes, it's cute, and mildly amusing, but not much more so than a newsmagazine segment, and not quite worthy of all its glowing reviews.

It's Alive (Larry Cohen, 1974)
This strikes me as very much in step with the kind of movies David Cronenberg was making in the 1970s, although Cohen has a much more B-movie, whatever works, camp sort of style. But like Cronenberg's 70s work (Shivers, Rabid, especially The Brood), this film (about a killer mutant infant) deals with the horrors of being betrayed by one's own flesh, and the kind of awful things that modern medicine can wreak on an unsuspecting populace. Cohen is known for being campy (the only other movie of his I've seen is The Stuff, about killer mutant ice cream), but this is surprisingly grim and straightforward. The effects are obviously cheap, but Cohen hides that by showing only glimpses of the monster. It's actually sort of slow for a horror movie, and not all that scary, but it deals with some fairly complex themes that are ahead of its time (those Cronenberg movies actually all came later).

New comics 6/22

Astro City: The Dark Age #1 (Kurt Busiek/Brent Anderson, DC/Wildstorm)
Busiek starts an epic Astro City story, 16 issues broken up into four four-issue chapters, about a dark time in the city's history in the 1970s. It's much less optimistic than most of Busiek's AC stories, and it seems that has turned some people off, but to me it's only natural that Busiek would approach this sort of material eventually, and there's still the sense of awe and wonder that his AC stories have. He takes a look at how that awe and wonder has a darker flipside, though, and after the relatively sunny Local Heroes mini, I think this is an interesting direction to take.

Dream Police #1 (J. Michael Straczynski/Mike Deodato, Marvel/Icon)
Wow, was this ever terrible. I didn't really know what to expect from this issue - I didn't even know when I picked it up whether it was an ongoing series or a mini or what (it's actually just a one-shot), and while I've liked some of Straczynski's work (Midnight Nation), I've had little interest in most of his Marvel stuff. The concept here is that a pair of hard-boiled cops (one is called Joe Thursday, har har) patrol the "dreamscape," regulating problems in people's dreams. It seems like an okay idea, but Straczynski goes with this weird deadpan comedy approach that does not work in the slightest. The story is just a bunch of terrible groan-worthy jokes that are all dream-related, and it just goes on and on forever. The deadpan tone gets old after a few pages, and the concept is played out even quicker. Deodato's dark, moody art, while very nice, is completely wrong for the book's tone. As a six- or eight-page short in an anthology, this might have been amusing enough, but as a longer than full-length comic, it's seriously painful to read.

House of M #2 (Brian Michael Bendis/Olivier Coipel, Marvel)
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...I'll probably buy the rest of your stupid mini-series. Yes, I am a total sucker for reading this, since yet again this issue offers nothing you couldn't glean from the previews or solicitation copy. In the new Marvel universe, mutants are in charge, and Bendis takes a tour of this alternate reality, showing what familiar characters are up to in their new situations. It's amusing enough (as long as you're familiar with a large number of Marvel characters), but I've read tons of similar alternate-world stories that pretty much accomplish the same thing. The last couple of pages finally get to what is presumably the engine that will drive the story - Wolverine figures out that something is not right - but at this point we are a quarter of the way through the series and still in the set-up phase. This whole event has been a huge disappointment.

Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere #1 (Mike Carey/Glenn Fabry, DC/Vertigo)
I never would have picked this up if it hadn't come from the DC publicity office. I've never read Gaiman's original Neverwhere novel, and I only read American Gods because I got a free copy when I worked at the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. I thought Gods was mediocre, and Gaiman has never really done much for me. This issue, the first of a nine-issue series adapting Neverwhere, sets up a shadow world of fantasy in London, pretty much a standard sort of thing I'd expect from Gaiman. Carey struggles with adapting the novel to comics, using way too many narrative captions to just dump info, and if I really cared about the story I'd probably be better off just reading the novel anyway.

Noble Causes #11 (Jay Faerber/Fran Bueno, Image)
Just after I complained last issue that the alien adventure plotline was dragging on way too long, Faerber manages to tie it to the body-swap plotline and throw in some revelations about Gaia in the process. A very satisfying issue, plus the awful Opposites Attack back-up strip mercifully comes to an end, and Faerber promises more NC content in future issues. The plans for the upcoming storylines that he describes in the letters page also sound very promising. I'm excited for what's coming up.

Movies opening this week

Bewitched (Nicole Kidman, Will Ferrell, Michael Caine, dir. Nora Ephron)
I have a serious love for the old Bewitched TV show, which I watched all the time on Nick at Nite when I was a kid. I think Samantha Stephens was a big part of my sexual awakening; I'm writing an essay on her sexual allure for next week's Las Vegas Weekly. I've been watching old episodes of the show on DVD and on TV Land to prepare for the essay, and while the show certainly isn't brilliant and often comes across as dated, it does have a fairly sophisticated wit at times, and a complex take on gender politics in its own way. Not so this movie, which is a blah Ephron romantic comedy dressed up with a few bits of magic and an annoyingly convoluted meta premise. I suppose Ephron deserves credit for trying something other than a straight translation of the TV show, but the show-within-a-movie format only opens up a bunch of plot holes. Kidman and Ferrell (basically playing a slight variation on his Anchorman "arrogant asshole celebrity who gets anything he wants" persona) have less than no chemistry, and Ephron totally misses what made the core relationship on the show work, which was that Darrin and Samantha were married and were partners. As TV adaptations go, it could have been worse (and it's better than Kidman's last "comedy," The Stepford Wives), but it still misses the mark. Wide release

Land of the Dead (Simon Baker, Asia Argento, John Leguizamo, Dennis Hopper, dir. George A. Romero)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I hope I don't get any hate mail on this one like I did on Batman Begins and Revenge of the Sith. Romero fans are another subculture who can be very, um, vocal. And I am definitely a Romero fan, which is why I was so disappointed in how generic and pedestrian this movie is. I love Night of the Living Dead, I love Dawn of the Dead, I like Day of the Dead. I like zombie movies. And as a zombie movie, this is okay. It's got some good gore and a couple of decent scares. But it's totally sterilized, and I think a lot of people are just nostalgic for the (admittedly great) things that Romero used to do when they give this a good review. Wide release

Weekend viewing

Well, actually pre-CineVegas viewing, but I'm only now getting around to writing about it.

California Split (Robert Altman, 1974)
Since the last Altman movie I watched was 3 Women, I was kind of relieved that this is more of the kind of Altman movie I expect. Not that it's formulaic, but it's got the character-driven focus, overlapping, loose dialogue and naturalistic acting I've come to expect from an Altman movie. It's also really, really good, and a shame that it's not considered among Altman's masterpieces. Elliott Gould and George Segal are excellent as a pair of degenerate gamblers who, well, gamble degenerately. There's not much in the way of plot, but the characters are drawn so perfectly, and Gould and Segal (who've become sitcom caricatures in their late careers) are so excellent at capturing the characters that the movie is touching and fascinating even when (especially when, really) nothing happens.

Le Petit Soldat (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960)
Godard's second movie, and you can see a lot of what would later lead to themes in movies like Breathless and My Life to Live. The political subject matter kept it out of French theaters for three years, but what was more interesting to me was the volatile relationship between the main characters, a mercurial criminal and a sensitive, needy woman (sound familiar?). Also contains the famous quote "Cinema is truth 24 times a second." It's always strange to hear something in context that you've read so many times before out of context.

CineVegas wrap-up

This was my third year covering the festival, and I managed to see 16 movies in nine days, five more than I saw last year. Of course, there were still plenty of movies that I missed out on, including ones that were intriguing but I just couldn't fit into my schedule, and others that I heard buzz on and would have liked to see but I was already committed to movies I agreed to review in advance. Overall, the festival gets bigger every year, and it's heartening in a town like this to see almost every screening completely packed, and tons of people walking around with locals passes or tickets that they bought rather than just filmmakers, press and sponsors. At the same time, the increased popularity means that some screenings were very hard to get into. I got in line an hour before showtime on a number of popular screenings, many of which only showed one time. I think one of the problems is that the festival is in this in-between phase where it's not yet popular enough to attract an audience based solely on the movies it premieres, so the organizers make deals with distributors to show popular movies from other festivals, but then those deals probably don't allow for more than one showing.

I was disappointed that the best movies I saw - The Aristocrats, Hustle & Flow, Murderball - were all those aforementioned festival favorites that all have distribution already. I'm glad I saw them, and it's good to have them in the festival, but I could see them all when they're released in Vegas over the next couple of months. What I'd really love to see at a festival like this is random obscure movies that are good that I'd never see otherwise. But most of the premieres and movies without distribution that I saw were either bad or mediocre at best. The most interesting was Buy It Now, a strange combination of pseudo-documentary and traditional narrative, whose first half was amazingly good and whose second half just kind of ruined what came before it. Still, the overall effect was a little underwhelming, and none of the other smaller films came even close to that level of quality. I think I might have just picked the wrong movies to review - I heard buzz about a number of smaller movies that I didn't get to see - and next year I should maybe strike a better balance between seeing unknown films and ones that I've heard things about but could catch later in regular release.

I was also disappointed that Standing Still and Vegas Baby, the two films that were produced by local production company Insomnia Entertainment, were so terrible. Unlike most local filmmakers, Insomnia has real financial backers and professional movie people, and they were able to attract some actual mid-level name actors for their two movies and afford pretty high production values. But both movies are poorly written and sloppily edited, and Vegas Baby in particular is just awful, a slapdash juvenile comedy that looks like something you'd find in the cut-out bin at Blockbuster. It's unfortunate that essentially the one local production company with enough money and experience to make real movies with a chance of national distribution is turning out such uninspired crap. After writing negative reviews of both movies, I got an irate e-mail from the head of the company and producer of both movies, calling me "another jealous reporter" and "just a very small time local writer who obviously has some serious jealously [sic] issues." Like nearly everyone who writes me hate mail about a review, he accused me of knowing nothing about movies and being jealous of people who make them. Sadly, his e-mail was about as original as his films.

I learned this year that staying for post-film Q&A sessions is always a bad idea. Toward the beginning of the festival I left before the Q&As because I had to get to another movie quickly or I just thought the film was bad and didn't care what the director had to say about it. But I made the mistake of sticking around for the Q&A for Buy It Now, and after two or three questions I couldn't take it anymore. The kinds of people who ask questions at these things end up telling their entire life story or spending three mintues formulating some obscure question designed to show off how erudite they are that the director then can't even answer. It's painful. Even the awards presentations that I went to - one for Christopher Walken and one for Wim Wenders - were pretty much wastes of time, as the discussions were mostly awkward and unilluminating. Of course I skipped any and all parties and again affirmed my philosophy that I just want to watch movies and not talk to anybody.

On the positive side, one of my favorite films from last year's festival and winner of the Grand Jury Prize, The Talent Given Us, is finally getting a limited release. It opened in New York this week and will be heading to other cities eventually, although there is no word whether it will open in Vegas yet. Roger Ebert just raved about it on his show this week (although Roeper gave it a thumbs down), and it seems to be getting mostly positive reviews. More than anything else, I think, the commercial and critical success of a movie that premiered at CineVegas and won its Grand Jury Prize will help bring legitimacy to the festival.

New comics 6/15

Cable & Deadpool #16 (Fabian Nicieza/Patrick Zircher, Marvel)
This is a sort of placeholder issue before next issue's House of M crossover, with Deadpool traveling to some random alternate realities to look for Cable and...not finding him. Not a whole lot going on here, but still manages to be fairly entertaining.

Captain Gravity and the Power of the Vril #4-5 (Joshua Dysart/Sal Velluto, Penny-Farthing Press)
I missed the fourth issue when it came out, so I caught up with both issues this week. It's still a fun, old-fashioned superhero story, but I'm starting to think that six issues was too long for this story. The plot definitely drags here, and Dysart is starting to lose my interest. It gets bogged down in too much seriousness, and once again I look at the parody ads in the back and think that they should have added some of that sense of humor to the story. The central character remains interesting in that he's insecure in his abilities as a hero, and Velluto's art is great as always. I'm just definitely ready for the wrap-up next issue.

Ex Machina #12 (Brian K. Vaughan/Tony Harris, DC/Vertigo)
Vaughan starts the new storyline off well, with a mysterious new villain who has ties to Mitchell's past. I like the way that Vaughan has made Mitchell unique in a world without superheroes, so I'm a little wary of his introducing another super-powered character, but this looks like the start of another involving mystery. The politics sort of take a back seat in this issue, and the idea of the mayor serving jury duty seems to have less potential than legalizing gay marriage, but next issue promises to amp things up a little.

G.L.A. #3 (Dan Slott/Paul Pelletier, Marvel)
It seems like Slott is just getting started on establishing some long-term plotlines, but the series wraps up next issue. With its fun sense of humor and love for obscure bits of the Marvel universe, this would make for a great ongoing series, but I think it's selling dismally, so my guess is next issue is the last we'll see of these characters for a while.

Mnemovore #3 (Hans Rodionoff & Ray Fawkes/Mike Huddleston, DC/Vertigo)
Rodionoff and Fawkes have progressed from vaguely creepy things happening to some full-blown weird shit, and it mostly works, although they're getting to the point where they need to explain what's going on or it's all going to fall apart. Less scary now that there's more action, but still intriguing.

Powers #11 (Brian Michael Bendis/Michael Avon Oeming, Marvel/Icon)
Bendis has really written himself into a corner with this issue, as he notes on the letters page. I like that while a lot of the first volume was all about Walker, this volume is turning out to be all about Pilgrim, and given how extensively we explored Walker's angst, it's nice to see her getting her due. I am a little concerned as to where Bendis is going with this storyline and that he's making Pilgrim into such a dark character that she won't be fun to read about anymore, but if there's one thing this book has always done, it's shake things up, so I imagine this will all lead to something interesting in the end. The pacing in this issue is padded to the max and perfect fodder for Bendis-haters, but I thought that the series of wordless pages did a good job of conveying the depth of Pilgrim's pit of anger.

Vimanarama #3 (Grant Morrison/Philip Bond, DC/Vertigo)
With this concluding chapter coming a few months late, the story has lost a bit of steam, and Morrison once again seems lost in a sea of his own weird ideas. At the same time, he manages to make the central love story grounded and real, and the best scenes are between Ali and Sofia when they just have little conversations. Bond admirably illustrates all the weird shit that Morrison comes up with, and unlike Seaguy I wasn't completely lost at the end, but ultimately this series doesn't come close to the power of something like We3.

Movies opening this week

Batman Begins (Christian Bale, Katie Holmes, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, dir. Christopher Nolan)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I am definitely in the minority in not liking this one, which is surprising to me. Not so much that having a negative opinion is the minority - this is the kind of movie that is so dour and self-important that critics starved for substance are bound to take it seriously - but that I have that opinion in the first place. This was probably the summer movie I was most looking forward to, being a comic book fan, a Chris Nolan (or at least Memento) fan and a fan of previous Batman movies (the Tim Burton ones). The trailers looked great to me. But I came away disappointed. It's not horrible, and I suppose you have to applaud a movie like this for being ambitious enough to take itself seriously at all, but it's so concerned with realism and respectability that it ends up being mind-numbingly dull. I much prefer a movie like Spider-Man 2, which manages to be both fun and meaningful, often within the same beat. Wide release

Kontroll (Sandor Csanyi, Zoltan Mucsi, Csaba Pindroch, dir. Nimrod Antal)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
A definite style-over-substance sort of deal, but what style. Like a Hungarian version of a David Fincher film, only more obtuse (but in a good way). Much more satisfying than Batman Begins. Opened limited Apr. 1; in Las Vegas this week

New comics 6/8

Fables #38 (Bill Willingham/Mark Buckingham, DC/Vertigo)
Buckingham really shines in this issue with his depiction of the capital city of the Homelands. It's got amazing detail and appropriate epic scope. We get another step closer to finding out who the Adversary is, and the seemingly invincible Boy Blue finally meets his match. Another excellent issue.

Gravity #1 (Sean McKeever/Mike Norton, Marvel)
Marvel launches another great teen book, this one focusing on a novice superhero in New York City. It doesn't have the innovative premise of Runaways or the ties to established characters of Young Avengers, but it's firmly grounded in the Marvel universe, making nice use of former New Warrior Rage (the New Warriors are everywhere this week) and the general superhero atmosphere of Marvel New York. It reminds me strongly of Kurt Busiek's Astro City, but not in a rip-off way; it just has the same grounded tone mixed with a sense of wonder and anchored by a likeable main character. Norton's art is clean and bright, perfect for this traditional superhero style. A really good beginning.

New Warriors #1 (Zeb Wells/Skottie Young, Marvel)
I imagine that a lot of hardcore New Warriors fans are upset about this book (they're probably much more pleased with Rage's appearance in Gravity). It does make some serious changes to the concept and look of the characters, but at the same time Wells does a good job writing them consistently with how they've been portrayed in the past, and even making nods to Warriors continuity. While I enjoyed the original Warriors series and I love the concept of a team of C-list teen heroes, I'm not such a purist that I didn't like Jay Faerber's revival a few years ago, or that I can't like this new series. Wells puts the Warriors on a reality TV show where they help people around the country, and Young's kinetic, graffiti-influenced style has the characters looking like they've never looked before. At the same time, Wells knows how silly his concept is, and uses that as part of the plot. The Warriors are suspicious of Night Thrasher's motives for putting them on TV, and it seems like there is more than meets the eye here. Young's style is different, sure, but he uses classic designs for most of the characters, and the Warriors were theoretically always about youth anyway. On top of that, the issue is funny and tells a complete done-in-one story. Hardcore fans can scoff, but it's a pretty good return for the Warriors as far as I'm concerned.

The Pulse #9 (Brian Michael Bendis/Michael Lark, Marvel)
I am so bored with this book. This issue, the Secret War crossover finally wraps up, we learn absolutely nothing of interest, Bendis continues to turn Jessica into a helpless whiner, demonstrates how much better she was in Alias when he could use swear words, and writes Wolverine way out of character (or so it seemed to me). Next issue? A House of M crossover. That's five straight issues of crossover. I'm pretty sure House of M only lasts one issue, but if the next storyline isn't fantastic, I'm done.

X-Men #171 (Peter Milligan/Salvador Larroca, Marvel)
I said I would drop this book if Milligan's first story arc wasn't any good, and it wasn't, really, but I'm still here. And now this issue is all about the overwrought romantic tensions that Chuck Austen created and that I totally don't care about, plus introduces a lame new femme fatale character with the awful name Foxx (Milligan must love X's; there's also a new character in this issue named Onyxx). Still, Larroca's art is always nice, and Milligan is a better writer than Chris Claremont, and with Astonishing X-Men on such an erratic schedule, this is really the only monthly X-Men fix I get. I should drop it, but I might stick around a little while longer.

CineVegas

Today is the first day of the CineVegas film festival, which I'll be spending the next nine days covering exhaustively for Las Vegas Weekly. You can check out all my reviews as they are written (as well as those from other LVW contributors) here, and I'll try to post an update or two on the general festivities, what's good, what's interesting, and so on. This is as close to Sundance as we get here in Vegas, and it's actually grown to be a respectable festival. Dennis Hopper is the official figurehead, and actually shows up at many of the screenings. Other celebrities make appearances, and this year includes a few exclusive events that are worth notice, including the world premiere of Land of the Dead, and awards presentations to George Romero, Nicolas Cage, Samantha Morton, Christopher Walken, Wim Wenders and Ann-Margret. I'll probably be dead by the time the thing is over, but it should be a good time.

Movies opening this week

High Tension (Cécile de France, Maiwenn Le Besco, Philippe Nahon, dir. Alexandre Aja)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I find it interesting that relatively few reviews of this movie seem to be mentioning its obvious homophobic subtext. Granted, I have mostly skimmed blurbs on Rotten Tomatoes, not perused every review, but to me it came across so strongly that there was no way I could ignore it. Maybe it's because it comes out with the plot twist at the end, or maybe people just don't see it. I don't know. It really bothered me, though, because until that twist (which also sort of invalidates a lot of the action and just plain doesn't make sense), I thought this movie was great, exactly the kind of horror movie I wish we had more of. It was simple and brutal, not overburdened with plot, and very exciting. The middle part still has those strengths, but the end left me so conflicted that I'm still not sure whether to recommend the film or not. Wide release

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Vince Vaughn, dir. Doug Liman)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
This seems to be shaping up to be a love-it-or-hate-it film, and I'm definitely in the love it camp. This is probably the funniest and sexiest movie I've seen in a long time, and while the plot holes are massive, the story gets the basic things it needs to do done right. Some people are seeing it as a suburban satire or a critique of consumerist culture; Karina Longworth at Cinematical called it "almost Bunuelian," and Sean Burns in the Philadelphia Weekly offered this great assessment: "The film reckons that it's only by trashing the paradigm (and literally blowing up the McMansion) that we'll finally start seeing the other person for who they really are." I think they may be overstating it a bit, but any movie that allows for those kinds of freewheeling interpretations and is still giddily entertaining must be doing something right. Wide release

I am huge in Canada

For the last couple of months, I have been appearing weekly on the Charles Adler radio show, a Canadian talk show based in Winnipeg and airing on the radio station CJOB. Once again showing the strange power of the internet, Adler's producer, who is originally from Las Vegas, found a two-year-old story I wrote about stops on I-15 between Los Angeles and Vegas and asked me to come on the show to talk about it (why people in Canada care about roadside stops in the California desert, I'm not quite sure). Apparently my appearance went over well, and I told the producer I'd be happy to come on again if they ever needed any expertise on Vegas. I also mentioned that I was a movie critic, but I figured that if they wanted a movie critic, there must be someone at whatever local papers they have in Winnipeg.

Apparently not, since they had me on the following week, and every week since, to talk about new releases. I am highly amused to be a fixture on "Manitoba's Information Superstation," and somewhat horrified to find that people are actually paying attention to me and remembering what I've said from week to week. A few weeks ago I ended up taking calls from annoyed (but polite; remember, they are Canadian) Star Wars fans. It's all very surreal, especially sitting on the phone at my desk in Vegas and sometimes forgetting that I am being broadcast to all of greater Manitoba. I'm usually on at 3:30 Eastern/12:30 Pacific on Fridays, and if you're so inclined, you can listen to the show here.

Weekend viewing

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (Guy Ritchie, 1998)
After I reviewed Layer Cake, a co-worker insisted I see this movie, which, if I were a more responsible critic and had the luxury of not doing 9789086 other things besides movie reviews, I would have done before reviewing Layer Cake. I did have a general familiarity with Ritchie's signature style - I saw his second movie, Snatch, which was basically a remake of this one with a bigger budget and more famous actors - and, truthfully, Layer Cake really does forge its own path. Anyway, on its own this is an entertaining little film, although not the masterpiece that some seemed to think it was when it first came out. It's very Pulp Fiction, with its wise-cracking gangsters and circuitous plot and vintage soundtrack, but not in a bad way. It's more light-hearted than Pulp Fiction, and it doesn't leave as much of a lasting impression, but I found it thoroughly entertaining.

Sonatine (Takeshi Kitano, 1993)
I didn't know quite what to expect from this movie, and it surprised me in the way that it played with gangster movie conventions. A good third of the movie is set at a seaside house where a bunch of gangsters lay low, just hanging out on the beach, goofing off, playing frisbee and so on. It's a strange contrast with the extreme violence of the beginning and the end. Takeshi manages to insert a good amount of pathos into his lead character (whom he plays himself), with very little dialogue or exposition. The plot was pretty much incomprehensible to me, and I don't think I quite got the alleged beauty of Takeshi's work, but it was an interesting change of pace.

New comics 6/2

House of M #1 (Brian Michael Bendis/Olivier Coipel, Marvel)
Yeah, I'm a sucker. Despite the rapidly declining quality of Bendis's still not finished crossover mini-series Secret War, I have a weakness for big epic crossovers and I even was a little excited about picking this up. Sadly, it's as mediocre as you might imagine, and the first issue accomplishes nothing that you didn't already know was going to happen from the advance interviews. The X-Men and the Avengers get together to decide what to do with the Scarlet Witch, she thinks they plan to kill her and she alters reality to make everything different. This is all set-up, but since it's eight issues I hope that some interesting stuff will happen in the future, and I am enough of a Marvel fan that I want to read this to know what important changes are happening in the Marvel universe. If this were the first issue of Infinite Crisis and were this underwhelming, I probably wouldn't read the rest, since I'm not as dedicated to DC continuity. But it's not, so I'll keep spending the money, and hope that Coipel's appropriately grandiose art and Bendis's certain continuity nods (including, apparently, to the conclusion of the current Astonishing X-Men storyline which hasn't, um, concluded yet) and sharp dialogue are enough to make it worthwhile.

Noble Causes #10 (Jay Faerber/Fran Bueno, Image)
Thank goodness the horrible back-up strip is concluding next issue and Faerber is bringing back the NC flashbacks to replace it. I like how he takes the body-switch plot and resolves it while opening a whole other can of worms; he really is getting to the point where subplots can gestate for a long time and then birth other plots. That said, the space expedition storyline has gone on way too long and really needs to reach some sort of point before I completely lose interest.

Y The Last Man #34 (Brian K. Vaughan/Goran Sudzuka, DC/Vertigo)
I like that after last issue's twist ending, Vaughan goes on and complicates things even more, to the point at which you're not really sure who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in this issue. This storyline doesn't have the urgency of the last one, but it's an interesting and suspenseful tale that's obviously taking us into a whole new world (that is, Australia) for the main cast.

Movies opening this week

3-Iron (Lee Sun-yeong, Jae Hee, Kwon Hyuk-ho, dir. Kim Ki-duk)
I loved about the first two thirds of this movie, and then toward the end it lost my interest a little. The two leads are silent almost the entire film, and Kim and the actors do an amazing job of conveying all sorts of complex emotions just with looks and gestures. The first half, with Jae as a drifter who sneaks into people's houses and does their laundry, takes pictures of himself and fixes household items, is mesmerizing, even more so when he meets Lee's damaged housewife and they form an unspoken bond. When Kim gets into metaphysics in the latter part of the film, it loses some of its simple beauty, but remains a poetic and haunting movie, very much worth seeing. Opened limited Apr. 29; in Las Vegas this week

Cinderella Man (Russell Crowe, Renée Zellweger, Paul Giamatti, dir. Ron Howard)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
Sometimes I wonder if I am too hard on films like this for being predictable and sentimental, because they are, in their own ways, effective at what they do. David Edelstein gives a good defense of liking this movie in spite of its overwhelming schmaltziness, and while I respect his opinion, I still come to the conclusion that no, I am not being too hard on this movie. Films that are accorded this much prestige and Oscar attention should be more daring and demanding. Even Million Dollar Baby, which I thought was horribly overrated, took more risks and did more interesting things. Wide release

Layer Cake (Daniel Craig, Colm Meaney, George Harris, dir. Matthew Vaughn)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
It's sort of a bummer that Vaughn dropped out of directing the next X-Men movie. Not because Layer Cake is all that good (it's not), but because a) he at least has an interesting style and a feel for acting and characters, and b) the supposed top candidates to replace him are Brett Ratner and John Moore, two ultra-generic Hollywood hacks who will turn the franchise into bland action claptrap (most likely). In the meantime, this is a mediocre crime flick that people will forget in a year or two, but it passes the time well enough. Opened limited May 13; in Las Vegas this week

Lords of Dogtown (Emile Hirsch, John Robinson, Victor Rasuk, dir. Catherine Hardwicke)
I haven't seen Stacy Peralta's documentary Dogtown and Z-Boys, which inspired this movie (it's in my NetFlix queue), but from everything I've heard it's much better. Hardwicke shoots some great skateboarding scenes, and, as in her debut film, Thirteen, I like her colorful visual style and flair for atmosphere (it's no surprise she started her career as a production designer), but the script is seriously lacking. The characters are all barely sketched out, and there's no central conflict or story. When Peralta (who wrote this film as well) tries to bring one in, it rings false, and the characters are so thin that it's hard to care about what happens to them. I do have to give props to Heath Ledger for his awesome Val Kilmer impression as the skate shop owner who sponsors the kids. He has a great future as an under-appreciated character actor. Wide release

Weekend viewing

All or Nothing (Mike Leigh, 2002)
I have to admit, I was kind of afraid of Mike Leigh movies before seeing Vera Drake. But I loved that one, so I feel like my fear is conquered. Also, I generally enjoy really depressing movies, so it was probably an irrational fear all along. I didn't find this nearly as good as Vera Drake, but it's still a rich character study with excellent acting and really not as depressing as you might think. Unlike misanthropes like Todd Solondz or Neil LaBute, Leigh finds moments of genuine hope and humanity in the lives of his characters. They may all be working dead-end jobs and harboring seething family resentments, but at the same time they nurture genuine friendships and a strong sense of community. At times the bleakness is almost laughable, but Leigh deflates that by having the characters actually laugh, and allowing the audience to laugh with, not at, them.

Fear and Trembling (Alain Corneau, 2003)
I had kind of a vague interest in this, and then some people told me it was great, and my interest increased, and then I watched it and it was not great. I should have kept the vague interest because then I probably would have been satisfied. It's sort of an awkward cross between Lost in Translation and Secretary, and ultimately takes a pretty simplistic view of Japan. While Translation viewed Japan as a kind of mysterious, incomprehensible world, this film comprehends Japan very well, and sees it (or at least its dominant corporate culture) as sadistic and dehumanizing. The main character supposedly has this great love of Japan, but the whole movie just makes the place seem miserable and Japanese people seem stupid for conforming to its rules.

Four Weddings and a Funeral (Mike Newell, 1994)
This is exactly what I was talking about a few weeks ago with regards to intelligent, funny romantic comedies. Andie MacDowell's strangely flat performance aside, this is just a really entertaining, warm, enjoyable film that focuses on romance without shoving it down our throats. For some reason Richard Curtis (writer of this film, as well as Notting Hill, Bridget Jones's Diary and Love Actually, which he also directed) is always able to make romance believable, even when his films are completely unrealistic. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but what I mean is that while his situations are often fairy tales, his characters feel like real people in love, if such people were confronted with such extraordinary circumstances. It's hard to make an audience really believe in love in the movies, especially in a comedy, and I think Curtis is one of the best at it.

Showgirls (Paul Verhoeven, 1995)
I have a good excuse: I interviewed Joe Eszterhas today, and I had to prepare. Showgirls is being screened as part of this year's CineVegas film festival, in a sidebar on Vegas in the movies. Truthfully, I already had the DVD from NetFlix sitting on my TV before I got the Eszterhas assignment. Why? Well, I suppose there's the value of seeing a cultural touchstone. There's my sometimes unhealthy interest in campy cult classics. Or there's this downright orgasmic review from Slant Magazine, which places Showgirls on its list of "100 Essential Films." I didn't quite reach those heights, but I did get some enjoyment from the camp value and I wasn't bored or annoyed even though the film is more than two hours long. I loved Gina Gershon's performance, because Gina Gershon is awesome in everything. I loved Elizabeth Berkeley's performance in a camp way, especially her ridiculously exaggerated movements that extend her poor dancing into every move her character makes. I'm not really buying into it as "the think-piece object d'art of its time," as Slant calls it, but I'm not about to heap scorn on it either.

The Warriors (Walter Hill, 1979)
Man, this film is really gay. Another result of my interest in camp classics, and I think I have discovered an unfortunate truth: Most people become enamored of such films because they catch them randomly on TV or in a video store and don't know what to expect, thus being surprised by the sheer amusing ridiculousness. When you seek out a movie specifically for that ridiculousness, though, it kind of loses its charm. So, yes, this movie is intensely, hilariously homoerotic, perhaps the least realistic portrayal of gang life in the history of cinema, full of stupid lines and awesomely awful costumes, but I was totally bored, since that was exactly what I expected. I think someone needs to randomly assault me with campy movies I've never heard of so I can experience that joy of discovery.

Season finale roundup

24
I had all but given up on this show, but there were moments in the last half hour of the finale when I saw glimmers of hope for the future. The defeat of Marwan and the destruction of the missile were absurdly anti-climactic, and I went back and forth between being glad that the whole mess was over and pissed that they had wasted so much of my time with it only to brush it off so inconsequentially. After that, though, with the Chinese Consulate out to get Jack, each new wrinkle in the storyline brought to my mind potential for a radically different take on the next season: Jack in a Chinese prison, Jack on the run from his own government, a war between the U.S. and China, Jack dead and CTU in shambles without him, anything. The thing this show needs more than anything is to shake up its formula, get past the same terrorist threats and CTU maneuvering that were tired halfway through the second season. The actual ending, with Jack faking his death and wandering off into the sunset, left me hopeful and even willing to give next season a shot. That is until I read this article, in which co-creator and executive producer Robert Cochran talks about how they will be getting Jack right back in the saddle at CTU, and the word is he'll be dealing with - wait for it - another terrorist threat. For all the press this show gets for being so "daring," the producers are deathly afraid to mess with their formula, which is just about the only thing that would keep me watching. Small glimmer of hope or not, I probably won't be back for the next season.

Alias
Overall this season was a big improvement over last year, especially when they got away from the stand-alone episodes in the second half. That said, the finale was a bit of an anti-climax and maybe a little too absurd for my tastes. The 28 Days Later ripoff zombies? I could have done without them. The cheap shock ending that came out of nowhere? Nothing like the emotional impact of season two's awesome cliffhanger. And this is the culmination of the Rambaldi prophecy? Kind of a limp way to resolve that after years of building it up. Still, there were some great lines and I loved seeing Lena Olin back, however briefly. I think J.J. Abrams may be spreading himself too thin, and unlike Lost, which has a fellow creator and guiding force in Damon Lindelof, this show really suffers without Abrams' strong hand at the helm. I also worry that it will go out with a whimper with next season's move to Thursday, much like Felicity petered out in its fourth season without Abrams around. It'd be a shame to see this show decline like that, and I'll keep my hopes up that it won't happen.

Desperate Housewives
Another to count me out on, as the finale didn't do anything to persuade me that this show didn't just blow its wad in the beginning of the season and have nothing to back up its admittedly intriguing mysteries. I lost interest in why Mary Alice killed herself months ago, and the explanation wasn't shocking and it didn't shed any interesting light on any of the characters. Most importantly, it didn't feel like it had any sort of impact on the lives of the people on the show. I appreciate the effort to set up some new mysteries, but I couldn't care less about what Alfre Woodard's character is hiding in her house. With Rex presumably dead and George the annoying pharmacist signed as a regular for next season, I have very little hope for anything to keep my interest. It's sad to think back to the sharp and often laugh-out-loud dialogue of the pilot and wonder what exactly happened to all the cleverness that this show once had.

Lost
This is one show that had a mediocre finale but will still get me coming back for more. First of all, the penultimate episode was great, and I think the finale would have been much better with the same plot points compressed into one hour. At two hours, it just emphasized how little was actually happening. There were a few great moments (Arzt blowing up, the kidnapping of Walt), but far too many boring non-developments. Overall, though, this has been an incredibly exciting season, and I don't think this is a show that would be well-served by laying all its cards out on the table too soon. At least I have faith that the producers have planned things out ("If you start making it up as you go along, you're in Doomstown," says co-creator and executive producer Damon Lindelof in the new TV Guide), unlike the people who run 24 and regularly admit to having very little in the way of concrete long-term plans.

The O.C.
Of all the shows I was on the fence about, this probably had the strongest overall finale, but it still wasn't enough to get me to tune in next season, especially now that it's going to be on against both Alias and Survivor, both of which I definitely plan to keep watching. It seemed like Josh Schwartz really paid attention to all the problems with the season and addressed them to some extent in the finale. I liked that the kids and adults actually interacted in a meaningful way and their actions had consequences for each other. I liked that they kept to a certain continuity, remembering that characters like Hailey, Caitlyn and Jimmy (who, if he's back for next season as it seemed, is a welcome return) exist, even if they did totally forget about Lindsay. I liked that Seth and Summer weren't totally grating on my nerves, and that the dialogue had genuine humor. The cliffhanger, while better than last year's, still feels like the sort of thing they'll have to quickly backtrack on, and, most importantly, I just don't trust them to come up with sustainable plotlines for more than just one episode. I'd consider watching it if it weren't for the timeslot dilemma; as it is, I have to say goodbye.

Veronica Mars
Saving the best for last, as it were. I've gone on and on about how great this show is, both here and in my TV column for Las Vegas Weekly, so I'll keep the gushing brief: This was an excellent and very satisfying ending to both the season and the Lilly Kane murder mystery. I thought the penultimate episode, with Veronica finding out who raped her, was a little too cluttered with characters from the past, and the finale struck a perfect balance between showing us people we want to see and not losing focus on the central drama. I am very happy that UPN is bringing the show back next season, even if it's going to be on against my second favorite show, Lost. I do worry a little that it will be hard to come up with a second-season mystery as compelling as the first, but I put all my trust in Rob Thomas and his team that they'll accomplish it.

New comics 5/25

The Expatriate #2 (B. Clay Moore/Jason Latour, Image)
It may end up being a problem that the least interesting character so far is the protagonist. I still like this book, especially Latour's stylish, noir-style art, but I think we are going to have to get to know the title character much better before he becomes worth caring about. The plot in this issue was a little tough to follow, but all that aside, I still think this is a good read with a promising concept and I'm sticking with it for now.

Girls #1 (Joshua Luna & Jonathan Luna, Image)
I heard many good things about the Luna brothers' Ultra, and I plan to pick up the trade on that one at some point. In the meantime, I thought I'd get in on the ground floor of their new series. I have to say, I am not at all impressed. Even their sort of ethereal art, reminsicent of Joshua Middleton's work, which was a big part of what looked interesting about Ultra to me, falls short in this issue. It even looks rushed in places. The dialogue is stilted and unrealistic, and the main character is highly unlikeable. I'm not sure if this is going to take a supernatural turn or stay grounded in everyday life (the ending was a little ambiguous), but I'm not sticking around to find out. A definite disappointment.

The New West #2 (Jimmy Palmiotti/Phil Noto, Black Bull)
I really liked the first issue of this two-parter, and the wrap-up is a little less enjoyable. The great noir tone (this book actually has quite a bit in common with The Expatriate) sort of takes a backseat to an orgy of violence in this issue, coming off less Sam Spade and more Dirty Harry. Which is fine, but it's not exactly what I was hoping for after the first issue. Noto's art is still wonderful and stylish and pretty much unique in comics; I can't wait to see what he does next (a guest stint on The Expatriate would be great). It's too bad that Palmiotti basically destroys the unique world he created for the story at the end of this issue; it'd be an interesting setting for future tales.

Runaways #4 (Bryan K. Vaughan/Adrian Alphona, Marvel)
This was a stronger issue than the last two, with Vaughan taking what appeared to be odd characterization of some of the Excelsior characters in the last issue and showing it to be character evolution. I really hope he either keeps those characters around or gets to write them into their own book. The dialogue was crisp as ever, and the revelation about Victor's parentage, while not a huge shock, does open some interesting doors.

X-Men #170 (Peter Milligan/Salvador Larroca, Marvel)
This issue wraps up one of the most disjointed story arcs ever in a very anticlimactic fashion. Paul O'Brien says it well: I want to like Milligan on this book, but he's nearly unable to tell a coherent story. I planned to drop the book if the first arc failed to impress me, but it's been so up and down that I'll give it one more issue before I decide.

Movies opening this week

Madagascar (Voices of Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, Jada Pinkett Smith, dir. Eric Darnell and Tom McGrath)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
By now, everyone's pretty much aware of the Pixar=awesome and DreamWorks=crass, empty commercialism dichotomy, so I don't think we need to go over it again. This isn't nearly as bad as Shark Tale, but it's totally forgettable. I really think a big part of the problem with these movies is the pathological need to shoehorn in big stars for all the voices without regard for whether they are right for the parts. All the main voice actors totally phone it in here. I think a throwback to the days when actors who specialized in voice work played most of the roles in animated features would breathe some life into some of these movies. As I said to someone today, where is our modern Mel Blanc? The way animated films are cast nowadays, we'll never get one. Wide release

New comics 5/18

Cable & Deadpool #15 (Fabian Nicieza/Patrick Zircher, Marvel)
Last issue felt a little rushed and light on the humor, but this one is back on track, with some great lines from Deadpool and some much-needed additions to the supporting cast. I'm not sure there's a great need for yet another alternate universe, but I trust that Nicieza will have it go somewhere interesting, and probably bring in more underused Marvel universe characters that I'll be happy to see.

Ex Machina #11 (Bryan K. Vaughan/Tony Harris, DC/Wildstorm)
I must not have realized that last issue was the end of a story arc, because I was completely surprised to discover that this was a stand-alone issue, with only a couple of panels addressing what happened in #10. It was okay on its own, but the stuff from "Tag" feels very unresolved, and this was a jarring shfit from last issue's bloodbath to a much more low-key tale.

Young Avengers #4 (Allan Heinberg/Jim Cheung, Marvel)
Now that the shock of how good this book really is has worn off, I didn't have quite the same glee reading this issue as I did the past few. Much of it is a big fight scene, although Heinberg does an excellent job of dropping little details here and there about the main characters, who were all such mysteries in the first issue. I like the slowly evolving team dynamic, and even if this issue didn't end with quite the wallop as the first ones, I still can't wait to find out what happens next. This remains one of the best examples of superhero writing at Marvel right now.

Also out this week: Livewires #4. I had planned on finishing this series out, but looking at it in the store I just had zero interest. I was so impressed with Adam Warren when I first read his Gen 13 mini-series, but after two of those, a Dirty Pair collection and half of Livewires, I've come to realize that his characters are all the same, his jokes are repetitive, and his stories have no plots. Some of Livewires was amusing, but not enough for it to be worth the time and money it would cost to finish it.

Movies opening this week

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (Hayden Christensen, Ewan McGregor, Ian McDiarmid, Natalie Portman, dir. George Lucas)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
There are a couple of little indie movies opening in Vegas this week, but I didn't get around to seeing them, and of course no one gives a shit about anything this week except Star Wars. Seriously, I am sick to fucking death of talking about this movie and its concomitant cultural phenomenon. I already declaimed on the general subject of Star Wars in this post, and my thoughts on the movie are all in the review. In a nutshell: Eh. If you like it, though, please, see it, enjoy it, but don't talk to me about it. I'd really like to move on. Really, really wide release

Weekend viewing

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (Robert Fuest, 1971)
Sublimely ridiculous Vincent Price horror movie, with Price as the titular doctor, who speaks through a hole in his neck and designs insane, baroque death traps to exact revenge on a group of doctors whom he blames for his wife's death. There are probably a million other Price movies I should see first, but a friend recommended this so I figured I'd give it a whirl and I was not disappointed. It's full of surprisingly sly humor, awesomely over-the-top set design, and Price acting his ass off without even moving his lips. How can you beat that?

The Enterprise finale and the future of Star Trek

I've been an intermittent Star Trek fan since I was 13 or 14, watching the last few seasons of The Next Generation fairly regularly, really getting into Deep Space Nine (my personal favorite), watching one or two seasons of Voyager and seeing all the TNG movies in the theater. I've caught various original series and older TNG repeats from time to time, and seen about half of the original series movies. It's weird how there's this impression about Trek fans that there are only two positions to have about Trek: Either you are an obsessed fan who can quote inane trivia at length, or you have no interest in the franchise. Say "I'm a Star Trek fan," and people immediately assume the former. Nevertheless, I'm a genuine casual fan, which means I like it but I didn't hesitate to stop watching Enterprise after the first season failed to impress me.

Which means it's been a few years since I watched the latest Trek incarnation, although that didn't stop me from tuning in to the show's finale on Friday. I never watched the Voyager finale, but the Enterprise finale is different for two reasons: One is that it's essentially the finale of the whole franchise, at least for now, and the other is that it featured a controversial connection to the TNG cast and characters. Some fans are outraged by the episode, and Jolene Blalock, who played Enterprise's Vulcan T'Pol, went so far as to call it "appalling." Something like that I couldn't pass up watching.

I guess I don't care enough about Trek right now or Enterprise in particular to be actually appalled by the finale, but it's clear that Trek stewards Rick Berman and Brannon Braga (who inspire virulent hatred in a certain set of the franchise's fans) misconstrued what fans want and how to give a proper send-off to the show that some people, at least, have invested four years in. As some have noted, connecting the show with TNG characters would have sent some fans into ecstasy were it in a different episode; much of the supposed strength of this last season has been attributed to tying the show closer to Trek continuity. But a show's finale shouldn't feature that show's characters as secondary, no matter what you think of them. Furthermore, Berman and Braga failed to make the TNG connection feel anything more than cursory; if it had more weight and resonance, it might be easier to justify.

Then there was the death of Trip Tucker, the ship's engineer and by many accounts the show's best character. Killing a character in a finale almost always seems cheap to me, although sometimes it does add more weight and resonance if done properly. But like the TNG connection, Trip's death felt cursory and pointless, an easy way to make the episode seem more important than it really was. Ultimately Berman and Braga did a disservice to Enterprise's loyal viewers, if not to Trek fans as a whole.

I never liked Enterprise that much anyway, so I wasn't too broken up about the way the finale was handled or the fact that it was going off the air. Like many Trek fans, I think giving the franchise a rest is a smart move. Enterprise always suffered from the same problems as the Star Wars prequels, I thought, in that the writers were always constrained by having to leave the universe pretty much where everyone knows it ends up in the shows and movies that take place later. When the Enterprise writers strayed from that and tried to strike out in new directions, it only served to damage what I think is the greatest thing about the larger Trek franchise: Its impeccably crafted sense of history and continuity.

I ruminated a little on the future of Trek in this column, but I didn't really have enough space to get into it deeply. I do think the rest period is important, but I think what's more important is what they come back with. To me, Enterprise was a sign that the producers had run out of ideas, and it was never thought through thoroughly enough to work, as evidenced by the clear continuity issues. I think the stand-alone movie idea that has been mentioned is smart, and I think if they do another show it should also be substantially different in concept from the previous ones. Ideas that have been bandied about forever, like the Starfleet Academy show or the show that focuses on outlaws in the Trek universe, are good, but I think almost more important than the concept is the team behind the scenes. Both in the films and the series, a strong new voice is needed. I think the smartest thing to do with the next Trek film would be to hire an already established director with a clear personal style who has a distinct vision for Trek. There have to be filmmakers out there who grew up Trek fans and would love to have a crack at the franchise. The James Bond producers were stupid not to give Quentin Tarantino a shot when he basically begged to do a Bond movie; Trek producers should find their version of Tarantino.

For the next show, the same thing should apply. Find an established TV writer-producer and let them have creative freedom, with Berman and Braga either not involved or very much in the background. I think Trek as a universe and a concept has almost limitless life left in it; the trick is to find creative talent with just as much life to reinvigorate it.

New comics 5/11

Astonishing X-Men #10 (Joss Whedon/John Cassaday, Marvel)
The ending of the last issue worried me, since the whole "Danger Room comes alive and attacks the X-Men" plot seemed a little cliched and uninteresting, and unfortunately in this issue Whedon doesn't do much to convince me otherwise. At least he brings back the S.W.O.R.D. subplot with the aliens from the Breakworld, and hints at an overarching storyline for the whole first year's worth of issues. The bulk of this issue, though, is the X-Men fighting the Danger Room, which, while Cassaday makes it look pretty, is mostly just your standard fight scene, peppered with some of Whedon's sharp dialogue. Not the series' best issue.

Captain America and the Falcon #14 (Christopher Priest/Dan Jurgens, Marvel)
The series sort of putters to its conclusion, and I'm pretty much past caring. Priest finally manages to make me the political nuances of Captain America somewhat interesting, but it's too little too late. I feel like this was a series that never really found its footing, changing artists constantly and lacking direction in the plotting. I do like Priest's take on the Falcon, though, and I hope this issue's ambiguous ending will lead into his much-rumored Falcon series, and that Marvel will finally give him the chance to really develop a series that he hasn't had since Black Panther ended.

Desolation Jones #1 (Warren Ellis/J.H. Williams III, DC/Wildstorm)
Ellis finally launches a new ongoing series, and it seems like this will be the true heir to Transmetropolitan. His recent Marvel superhero work has left me cold, so I was greatly looking forward to this. It doesn't disappoint, although it's full of stock Ellis-isms, and the main character is your standard Ellis appalling bastard protagonist. Still, the concept is intriguing, Williams' art is, as always, breathtaking, and I hope that the ongoing format and creator-owned status will allow Ellis to cut loose like he hasn't in quite some time.

Fables #37 (Bill Willingham/Mark Buckingham, DC/Vertigo)
The Boy Blue story continues to offer an interesting glimpse into the Homelands, and allows Buckingham to cut loose with some absolutely wonderful fantasy artwork. Willingham seems to be leading up to some big revelations about the Adversary and I'm sure he'll deliver.

Mnemovore #2 (Hans Rodionoff & Ray Fawkes/Mike Huddleston, DC/Vertigo)
More creepy atmosphere with not much in the way of explanation. I have a feeling this will read better in a collected edition, but two issues in I might as well stick it out. The concept remains intriguing, and Huddleston's art is evocatively creepy; I just hope Rodionoff and Fawkes can back up the strange set-up with an equally interesting follow-through.

The Rann/Thanagar War #1 (Dave Gibbons/Ivan Reis, DC)
The last of the Infinite Crisis tie-ins to launch, and honestly the one I found most accessible. Gibbons effectively conveys the epic scale of the galactic war, explains fairly clearly who the players are, and sets the stakes. Reis' art is also good at illustrating the scale of the battles, and the book looks very nice overall. It's still not enough to get me reading further issues, since I don't care enough about the overarching event, but it's the first of the tie-ins that hasn't made me feel hopelessly lost.

Movies opening this week

In the Realms of the Unreal (documentary, dir. Jessica Yu)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
Not that I'm complaining about smaller movies making it to Vegas (I was kind of lukewarm on this one, but whatever), but sometimes I wonder about the logic of releasing a movie such as this, which has the look of a well-made PBS special (not surprisingly, it will air on PBS's POV in August) in theaters barely a month before it hits video. Who's paying nine bucks to see this on a big screen? Someone is, I guess, but it seems like an odd move to me. Opened limited Dec. 22; in Las Vegas this week

Mindhunters (Kathryn Morris, Jonny Lee Miller, LL Cool J, dir. Renny Harlin)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
Like pretty much every Harlin film, this is getting torn apart by critics. It did sit on the shelf at Miramax for over two years, and is probably only getting released now because of the housecleaning that's going on with the departure of the Weinsteins. But dammit, Harlin deserves better. The art of crafting an awesomely trashy movie is not widespread in Hollywood anymore; most trashy movies are just trash. And plenty of Harlin's movies are that, too, it's just that when he actually pulls something fun and entertaining out of his ass (like this one, or Deep Blue Sea), most critics are too biased to realize it. Wide release

Monster-in-Law (Jennifer Lopez, Jane Fonda, Michael Vartan, dir. Robert Luketic)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
Things like this make me wonder: A friend of mine requested that I take him and his girlfriend to the screening of this film, because the girlfriend really wanted to see it. So, good friend that I am, I brought them along to what I expected would be a terrible movie (and it was). My friend hated it. His girlfriend, however, had a great time. The audience, too, laughed uproariously at nearly every joke. At another screening the next day, I overheard the theater's promotions manager telling some people about how he had just seen Monster-in-Law, and how much he loved it. He specifically went on and on about how great the joke about the size of J. Lo's butt was. Now, I'd really like to believe that the average movie-goer is not this dumb or tasteless. I don't want to become one of those elitist critics who look down on the unwashed masses and their inability to appreciate Czech art movies or whatever. In particular, I'd like to think that my friend's girlfriend doesn't have hopelessly horrible taste in movies (sadly, though, that's not true; her taste is appalling).

Apparently my friend and his girlfriend had a long discussion after seeing the movie, in which she defended her enjoyment of the movie by bringing up the alleged gender divide in movie appreciation. She likes these crappy romantic comedies, she argues, while guys like crappy action movies. And I really hate this argument. Because liking crappy action movies is just as bad as liking crappy romantic comedies. They're both evidence of poor taste, and Hollywood just loves the idea that there's this impenetrable gender divide that allows them to make different types of crappy movies that people will defend on some bullshit idea of gender identification. Liking crappy movies is lame, whether you're male or female. Excusing your taste by essentially saying, "Well, all men/women like these kinds of crappy movies" is even worse. The opposite is true, too, of course; hating all romantic comedies because they're "too girly" or all action movies because they're "too macho" is ridiculous. There are some really charming, well-written, funny romantic comedies with solid character development. Robert Luketic has even directed two of them (Legally Blonde and the underrated Win a Date With Tad Hamilton!). And of course there are exciting, well-written action movies with solid character development, too, although sadly I can't think of too many recent ones. Using stereotypes to excuse poor taste is sad, and exactly what big studios want you to do. But I can't erase all the people in the theater who laughed during this movie (including that incredibly annoying promotions guy, who's a man, so he has no stereotype excuse). And that makes me sad. Wide release

Weekend viewing

Cronos (Guillermo del Toro, 1993)
Del Toro is a director I always feel like I should like, but all of his films end up leaving me feeling sort of underwhelmed. I keep watching more in hopes of being more impressed, and now I've seen all of them without getting there. This one again has flashes of things that interest me, but overall it sort of left me cold. Del Toro has an interesting take on the vampire concept, which is so far from the traditional ideas that I'm not even sure it qualifies as a vampire story at all. I think that's the problem I had with this movie - it's not sure if it wants to be a creepy cautionary tale, a goofy horror-comedy, or a supernatural meditation on aging. It tries to be all three and doesn't quite succeed. Still, like most del Toro films, there was enough for me to like that I'll watch whatever he does next in hopes of finding that undefinable quality that will make me like it as much as I think I should.

New comics 5/4

Fallen Angel #20 (Peter David/David Lopez, DC)
Peter David has all but confirmed that the series will be continuing (most likely at IDW), so it's less disappointing that these last two issues have been a bit of an anticlimax. Honestly, with the resolution in issue 18, I would have been satisfied with the series just ending there, although I'll definitely pick it up in its new incarnation. This issue does at least advance some new subplots along with tying up the Sachs & Violens guest appearance, but as a closer to the series it's definitely less than satisfying.

G.L.A. #2 (Dan Slott/Paul Pelletier, Marvel)
There's a better balance of humor and seriousness than in the last issue, and Slott again succeeds in making these goofy characters interesting. He wallows a little excessively in obscure Marvel continuity, which I can appreciate because I'm familiar with a lot of it, but is sort of self-indulgent. Overall, though, this is stronger than the first issue, and is a fun superhero read with nice art and some great humor.

Villains United #1 (Gail Simone/Dale Eaglesham, DC)
Again, I am only reading these Infinite Crisis tie-ins because DC keeps sending them to me, and this one once again is full of characters I've never heard of referring to incidents I know nothing about. It is perhaps a little more accessible than Day of Vengeance and The OMAC Project, and Simone has a flair for snappy dialogue, but it's still just a small part of a larger story that hasn't grabbed my interest, and as such I doubt I'll bother with future issues (unless DC keeps sending them for free).

Y The Last Man #33 (Brian K. Vaughan/Goran Sudzuka, DC/Vertigo)
Sometimes I get complacent reading this book and then Vaughan pulls another crazy twist and forces me to sit back up and pay attention. This was one of those times. Not that the twist at the end of this issue was as shocking as some have been in the past, but I at least didn't see it coming, and it made me look at this somewhat low-key arc in a new way. I also like the way the relationships are developing among Yorick, Dr. Mann and 355, and I loved Yorick's sad acknowledgement in this issue that the death of all the males means he truly has no friends. The poor guy keeps hooking up with the wrong women, and he does so again here, but it always leads the story in interesting places.

Movies opening this week

Crash (Don Cheadle, Matt Dillon, Chris "Ludacris" Bridges, a bunch of other famous people who want Oscars, dir. Paul Haggis)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
I definitely hated this movie, although I didn't find it quite as vile as other self-righteous, pretentious films like Spanglish and The Upside of Anger. I don't have trouble necessarily with Haggis' overall message, that racism is still prevalent in our society and colors many of our social interactions, and that it's sometimes a cover for other emotional problems. That's all true and there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. The problem is that Haggis points it out over and over for 113 minutes, completely blinded to the possibility of any other motivations existing for anything anyone does, ever. By turning race and racism into the be-all, end-all of human interaction, he actually ends up belittling it. Because the problem with racism isn't that it's out there, front and center, in all of our interactions, but that it's insidious and sometimes unconscious and mixes in with all the other thoughts and feelings that go into how we deal with one another. That's the philosophical problem. Dramatically, the problem is that Haggis is so single-minded in pursuing his profound thoughts on racism that he creates completely unbelievable characters who exist only to provide whatever lesson Haggis is looking to promote. This is the worst kind of preachy, ineffective film, because people clearly think it's profound (most reviews are glowing). I didn't much care for Haggis' work on Million Dollar Baby, but at least that script had the advantage of Clint Eastwood's direction and some classy acting. Haggis' direction is sloppy, and most of his actors overdo it. I think I probably didn't convey my vitriol well enough in my review; both A.O. Scott and David Edelstein offer more elegant take-downs than I was able to manage. Wide release

Kingdom of Heaven (Orlando Bloom, Eva Green, Jeremy Irons, dir. Ridley Scott)
I'm not much for these period war epics in general, although I liked Gladiator and I think that Scott can be an excellent director given the right material. He doesn't really cut it here, though, and the best moments are all done better in Gladiator anyway. I didn't mind Bloom as the hero, who is this kind of soft-spoken, reluctant leader; I thought he had the right amount of gravitas while retaining the right amount of innocence. Someone like Russell Crowe probably wouldn't have worked in the part. But the story is so confused; Scott makes the Crusades into this battle for human rights, and while I admire the sentiment the writing isn't clever enough to get the politics into the story in a way that makes sense. No one would give the speech that Bloom gives about defending Jerusalem not for God, but for men; it just wasn't the way anyone thought back then. I think those issues ultimately take a back seat to the fact that it's just plain not a very good movie, slow and boring and with uninspired battles. Rent Gladiator instead. Wide release

Palindromes (Sharon Wilkins, Ellen Barkin, Debra Monk, dir. Todd Solondz)
My review in Las Vegas Weekly
Most people seem to have these very strong opinions about Todd Solondz, but seriously I could give a shit. I saw Welcome to the Dollhouse a while ago, and I remember being very underwhelmed. I didn't hate it, but it wasn't some revelation to me as it was to many. I never saw Happiness or Storytelling, and I don't have much of an urge to. As far as this one goes, some critics really hated it, but I am somewhat sympathetic to Solondz's nihilistic viewpoint, so what bothered me mainly was the narrative device of having the main character played by all the different actors. It was distracting far more than it was illuminating, and it just served as misdirection from the fact that Aviva was annoying and uninteresting. I think Solondz's main problem is less his toxic worldview than his increasing inability to tell a compelling story. Opened limited April 13; in Las Vegas this week

Revisiting Star Wars

Yes, everyone and anyone is posting about Star Wars right now. Darth Vader even has a much-linked blog of his own. My excuse is that I watched the previous five Star Wars films out of professional obligation over the last two weeks, to prepare for reviewing Revenge of the Sith, and now I feel the need to unburden myself. I hadn't seen the original trilogy since its last theatrical release in 1997, and Episodes I and II since their original releases in 1999 and 2002, respectively. Were it not for the aforementioned professional obligation, I doubt I would have watched the films again for a long time, if ever. I notice, though, that George Lucas has this way of re-packaging his movies every few years, so that even those without professional obligations feel the need to watch the movies again, whether for geek cred or just to keep up with pop culture or mainstream cinema. The point is, I resent being made to watch these movies so many damn times as some sort of cultural requisite.

Not that I hate Star Wars. I'm a sci-fi fan and, sure, a geek, so there's a certain inherent appeal for me in movies about space ships and laser blasters and aliens and cyborgs and all that. I like a popcorn movie if it's done well, and while I vastly prefer Star Trek or Blade Runner or the Alien series or the first Matrix, I can appreciate the appeal of the original trilogy on a fun, adventure-serial level. But the cultural weight and fannish obsession attached to Star Wars just baffles me. Sitting down with these movies again, I was struck first of all by how hokey, stilted and amateurish the original trilogy, especially A New Hope, is. The writing, even when Lucas handed off screenplay duties to others, is atrocious. So many of the complaints lodged against the newer films are easily borne out in the original trilogy if you take off your nostalgia blinders. Anakin is whiny in The Phantom Menace? Check out how whiny Luke is in A New Hope. The Anakin/Amidala love story is stiff and underdveloped? It's Romeo and Juliet compared to the Han/Leia love story, which amounts to two or three scenes of bickering followed by a declaration of love.

A friend of mine kept insisting to me, while I was complaining to him about watching these movies, that The Empire Strikes Back really does live up to the hype, that it alone is a truly great movie. And, sure, it's the best of the original trilogy and probably the best overall. But it's only the best because it's an incomplete picture of Lucas's vision. It ends on a down note, but that's only to set up the redemption in Return of the Jedi. It's not a movie with a sad ending, or a movie in which the bad guys win; it's a transition between two movies with uplifting, happy endings in which the good guys triumph. It would never exist on its own, and all of its great story beats are either great in how they contrast to what happened in A New Hope, or undone by what comes later in Jedi.

As for the newer films, I do think they aren't nearly as inferior to the old ones as people make them out to be, but that doesn't mean that they're any good. The Phantom Menace is easily the worst of the whole series, although it's got a few thrilling sequences (the pod race, the battle between Darth Maul and Qui-Gon Jinn) and the effects and design sense are breathtaking. Not only are there obvious improvements in technology, but I think in general the design of the sci-fi elements (droids, ships, aliens, cities) in the newer films is superior to the older ones. The main problem, of course, is the plotting. Even in Attack of the Clones, when there is a clearer villain and a clearer engine driving the story, it is harder to tell immediately what is at stake and what drives the characters to do what they do. In the original trilogy, the breakdown is simple: The Empire is bad, the Rebels are good, and the Rebels must defeat the Empire. Black and white (for the most part), just like the old serials that Lucas was emulating. But in the new trilogy, the threat is more subtle: It's about backroom political dealings, business alliances and subtle shifts of power. Not that subtlety is bad; it's just that it certainly isn't something that Lucas does well, and what should be subtle comes off only as confusing. I challenge you to give me a concise summary of the plot of The Phantom Menace.

Maybe Revenge of the Sith will change all that. Despite my better judgment, I find myself getting a little excited about it. It will, like Empire, be dark, even if that darkness is only in transition to the triumph of the original trilogy. It will have a clear plot, with clearer good and bad guys (or so it seems). Maybe it will have some better writing and acting, although with Lucas handling the screenplay and direction, I'm skeptical. Mostly, though, it'll mean that once I see it, I'll be free of my obligations to watch these damn movies again.

Until, that is, the 3-D versions come out in 2007. Damn you, Lucas!

New comics 4/27

Day of Vengeance #1 (Bill Willingham/Justiniano, DC)
I only even bothered with this and any other Infinite Crisis stuff because it came in the mail from DC publicity. I have little to no interest in this crossover, and, since I know comparably little about DC universe minutiae, I doubt I'll get much out of it anyway. That suspicion was borne out reading Countdown and the first issue of The Omac Project, and again here. I like Bill Willingham, and I like mystical characters, but this is bogged down in obscure continuity that means nothing to me and plotting sent down from on high, so all Willingham is really doing is filling in the blanks. This apparently had roots in a supernatural team book Willingham proposed once, and as a stand-alone entity that would probably be a good read. But as a cog in a machine I already don't care about, this isn't worth my time.

Otherworld #2 (Phil Jimenez, DC/Vertigo)
I wasn't all that thrilled with Jimenez's first issue, but I figured I'd give him another chance since I got the first one free. This isn't much better, though, as I still can't tell any of the characters apart, so I don't care what happens to them, and Jimenez has failed to engage my interest in the overarching mystical plot either. His art is still wonderful, and he's still giving himself all manner of cool and weird things to draw. If this were four issues I might stick around to see how the story turns out, but I'm not reading 10 more issues just in case it might get interesting.

The Pact #1 (Jim Valentino, Image)
I'm a sucker for Image "universe" crossovers for some reason; I guess I always really liked the idea that these creator-owned characters could form their own universe like the DC and Marvel ones. I read Shattered Image, a pretty good series written by Kurt Busiek, and Valentino's own Altered Image, which wasn't nearly as good. Most of the characters involved in those series aren't at Image anymore, which illustrates one of the main problems in making a shared universe out of creator-owned properties, and the big-gun Image characters that are still at the company (Spawn, Savage Dragon, Witchblade, etc.) don't show up in this series. Instead we get a team formed with Invincible, Firebreather, Shadowhawk and Zephyr from Noble Causes. As first issues go this is okay, with a pretty generic superhero story setting up a basic team formation. Valentino does manage to get a little but of each character's unique backstory in there, and if this were a set-up for an ongoing I'd wait a little bit to see what happens. But it's actually four issues by four different creative teams (one by each of the characters' creators), so I have a feeling it will end up being four unrelated stories that are probably fun but inconsequential (like this one). I'm not really sure that's worth my money.

X-Men: Phoenix - Endsong #5 (Greg Pak/Greg Land, Marvel)
This series started out well but kind of fizzles out at the end, with the conclusion little more than a "clap if you believe in fairies" device that is hokey and anticlimactic. Still, Pak has told a story that feels more important than what's going on in any of the main books, and done so mostly with engaging writing. I found Land's artwork too stiff and airbrushed at first, but it's grown on me, and I'd be interested to see both of them tackle more X-Men stuff in the future.