The Middle Room

2011, Worst to Best

2011-12-30T19:07:00.000-08:00

The Middle Room has never looked favorably on top 10 lists. Are we so shallow, so simplistic, that we must examine only the good? Is not a year defined by both ups and downs, positive and negative?

And so, it only serves to reason that, in order to truly lay a year to rest, we must examine it in all its facets. Therefore, we present to you now a list of every single new movie with a theatrical release we watched this year, arranged from our least to most favorite:

16. Green Lantern: There's a case to be made that this may not quite be the worst movie we sat through this year, but there's no question it was the most disappointing. From the start, it was clear the filmmakers were adapting the right material: this was a modern version of the character, complete with the Lantern Corps in all its glory. On paper, it was precisely the formula used by Marvel to churn out film after film of geeky fun. But this movie sucked. The direction felt like it was lifted from bad sitcoms: nothing had any force or drama. So, for screwing up what we'd hoped would be our favorite live-action movie of the year, we're placing this dead last.

15. The Green Hornet: We actually caught this on DVD, having more important things to do than go see it in the theater. It wasn't all bad: there were some cool action sequences and funny moments, but it really failed to sell the idea of the Green Hornet. This character was a precursor to Batman and has some cool aspects - he's one of the few superheroes who manipulates his identities to achieve indirect results, for example. This movie tried to play the whole concept for laughs, as though the movie was too cool to adapt the Hornet and instead mocked it. The results were mixed, at best.

14. Cars 2: We actually liked Cars 2 quite a bit, despite the fact it was a really, really bad movie. The fact it's so low on this list is more reflective of how strong the other thirteen movies we saw were - this was, in fact, a very good year for film. But it was a bad year for Pixar. Everything that has made Pixar films work is missing: the movie's saving grace is that there's a brutally violent spy flick buried between scenes of Larry the Cable Guy trying to drive the audience to suicide. But the spy scenes actually deliver something cool, provided you have the patience to watch the rest.

13. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol: This was a solid action movie, though we disagree with nearly every critic on the planet, all of whom seem convinced it was the best in the series. Sure, there were some awesome sequences, but the plot failed to create tension or deliver a single interesting twist. This falls short of the third entry in the series, which was far more engrossing.

12. The Adventures of Tintin: A solid CG pulp adventure, Tintin was certainly enjoyable. Most years, it would have ranked much higher, but there were a lot of good films released in 2011. And, while it was definitely fun, it never felt like it was anything more. Neither the characters nor the story managed to draw us in and make the movie particularly memorable.

11. Thor: This misses the top 10 by a hair. It was a spectacular movie, and the visual portrayal of Asgard was kind of fantastic. But ultimately, it was a great comedy/love story, while only being a good superhero movie. Everything felt toned down and de-powered to keep it grounded. It was a great film, but this fact kept us from really getting caught in its world.

10. Winnie the Pooh: If you'd asked us a year ago to bet on our top movie of 2011, we'd have pointed to this. The fact it's so far down our list is more reflective of our expectations than the movie's shortcomings. But, frankly, there were shortcomings. The story-line was a mess, due to the writers' insistence on dissecting the original stories then reassembling the pieces. On top of that, the music just didn't win us over the way the songs in the original did. All that said, the animation was beautiful and the voice casting was just about perfect, so it's still a great little movie.

9. Rango: This was probably the most bizarre movie we saw this year, which is saying something given the list includes Arthur Christmas and Cowboys and Aliens. Rango is positively engrossing and fascinating on several levels. However, it might be a little too weird for its own good. The characters aren't actually likable and some of the film's twists come off as weird for the sake of weird. But make no mistake: it's one of the most innovative and ambitious movies we saw this year.

Note: numbers 8 though 4 are basically a tie. Depending on the time of day, we'd likely arrange these differently: all were extremely good movies.

8. Cowboys and Aliens: Yeah, we know we're the only ones who actually like this movie, but that's okay. The film is nothing like what we'd expected. We went in anticipating a dark, alien horror/adventure set in the old west. What we got was a zany buddy-adventure movie with aliens, lasers, and gunfighters. But that's cool: we really like those things, too.

7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2: Most people we've spoken to who have actually read the books rank this lower. Apparently, it's basically a by-the-numbers adaptation that adds very little. Having not read any of the novels, we found it an extremely exciting, emotionally engrossing conclusion to the films.

6. X-Men: First Class: This was shoved back two spots because we dislike how the movie handled most of its supporting cast. But every sequence with Charles and/or Magneto was phenomenal. The scenes with Erik tracking down and murdering Nazis were among the most satisfying ever filmed in a superhero movie. And then there's that cameo. Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. Brilliant.

5. Rise of the Planet of the Apes: Who expected Rise of the Planet of the Apes to make this or any other best-of list? Certainly not Fox, who released it in August with a modest marketing campaign. But this thing took us all by surprise. The story focuses on Caesar, a super-intelligent ape who is actually written well and depicted effectively. The movie sells its premise with shocking competency, allowing this to blow away all expectations.

4. Captain America: The First Avenger: While we have issues with this film - especially with the fact that Captain America doesn't fight a single Nazi in the movie (unless you count Hydra agents, which you shouldn't) - there's no denying it was one of the most fun superhero films ever made.

The last five were a bit difficult to assign, and we're not sure about the order. But we feel fairly confident in the top three; both in the fact they belong at the top and in their respective order:

3. The Muppets: There's a reason this was one of the most popular movies of the year: it was damn good. The movie's decision to focus on three new characters, two humans and a new, generic Muppet, took courage. From the moment we heard that, we couldn't get our minds around why they would make the choice. But it turned out being an extremely inspired move. The movie has been accused by some of not focusing on the Muppets, but we don't believe this is fair. The brilliance in using new characters is that the movie is instead able to explore what the Muppets are and how they're viewed within their universe. It's a complex movie. And it's also a hell of a lot of fun.

2. Arthur Christmas: We knew very little about Arthur Christmas prior to its release. The trailers we'd seen were less than intriguing. Then came the reviews, which were overwhelmingly positive. Based on its score on Rotten Tomatoes, we decided to give the flick a shot. And it was amazing. The character work was very developed, the writing was strong, and the jokes were hilarious. If you miss this in the theaters, make sure you check it out on DVD next Christmas: it's fantastic.

1. Kung Fu Panda 2: What a weird year. Not only does Pixar not deserve the Oscar for Animated Picture, their offering doesn't even deserve a nomination. In our opinion, this one deserves the prize (though we won't be offended if Arthur Christmas, Rango, or even Winnie the Pooh steals it). Yeah, it was a fantastic year for animation, but a horrible one for Pixar. But Kung Fu Panda 2 took up the slack. This was everything we hoped the sequel would be and then some. This skipped the cheap jokes and childish antics that held back the first one, instead unleashing what we consider the single coolest movie of the year. It was smart, dramatic, funny, and - most importantly - absolutely kick ass. The fights in this thing were beautiful, the villain was scary, and the heroes were awesome.

Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

2011-09-03T20:21:00.000-07:00

For the second time this summer, Fox has failed to produce a bad movie based on a beloved property, and has instead provided us with yet another prequel which revitalizes a franchise, over-performs at the box office, and wows audiences. We suspect several high-ranking executives will lose their jobs; at the very least, we can't imagine either director will be welcome back to work at the studio again.

You see, Fox has something of a reputation. This is the company that procrastinated so long after X-Men 2, Bryan Singer left for studios that would actually let him work. Only when they were safely rid of his competence, did Fox hire Brett Ratner to rush X-Men 3 to theaters.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes certainly contains Fox's fingerprints, particularly in the casting. One part after another is type cast: who runs the facility where apes are kept caged: how about the guy who played William Stryker? What about his border-line sociopathic son: is Draco Malfoy free? We need someone to wear a motion-capture suit and pretend they're an ape: Andy Serkis.

There's every indication that Fox was trying to crank out a mediocre movie. But something must have gone horribly wrong, because Rise of the Planet of the Apes was awesome.

Perhaps the problem was in the script, which used the absurdity of the premise as a backdrop to explore Caesar's character, making him the center of the movie while relegating humans to the supporting cast. Or the issue may have been with the director, who clearly grasped the movie's potential and somehow made it happen. Alternatively, you can blame Weta Digital, who handled the effects with their usual attention to realism and character. The cast was likewise solid, providing performances that were insightful or at least fun, as needed. In particular, Serkis's portrayal of Caesar was absolutely genius.

Like First Class before it, Rise of the Planet of the Apes reminds us that a prequel can work. Four stars on a scale relative to Blade Runner's five.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 17: Blade: Trinity

2011-08-28T18:44:00.000-07:00

Wesley Snipes is currently imprisoned, ostensibly because of tax evasion, the same charge that brought down Al Capone. We are certain that, had they been able to prosecute Snipes for his involvement in Blade: Trinity, the FBI would certainly have done so. At least justice is served, albeit on a technicality.

The main problem with Blade Trinity is that Blade one and two were actually good movies - very good, in fact. And number three just doesn't live up to expectations. When the best thing about your movie is Ryan Reynolds auditioning to be Deadpool, you've got a problem.

There's a lot wrong with Trinity. The movie elevates insulting its audience's intelligence almost to an art form. This is a film where humans engage in fist fights with vampires and win, despite the fact the entire series has been spent establishing that vampires are superhumanly strong and fast. People literally shrug off punches which should be able to pulverize concrete - was anyone thinking while they were filming this?

And then there's Whistler. Both Whistlers, in fact. When the second installment bent over backwards to retcon Abraham Whistler's death in the first movie, we accepted it on principle (comic books have been retconning away deaths almost since their invention). But why resurrect the series' most interesting character in the second movie only to kill him at the start of the third? His death here didn't seem to have any real lasting consequences or impact.

Then there's his daughter, Abigail, who regularly beats up vampires while listening to her iPod. While driving to seek vengeance on a group of vampires who just murdered her friends, she spends her time assembling a set list to listen to. We are unclear whether this was supposed to be funny, whimsical, or perhaps gritty and realistic. Whatever the intent, the end result is simply bewildering.

But none of this compares with the movie's villain, who is (after a fashion) supposed to be Dracula. If you were to actively go out and try to cast the least appropriate actor alive for the role, we suspect you'd wind up choosing someone like Macaulay Culkin or Jason Alexander, and either would have made for a more entertaining Dracula than Dominic Purcell, best known for starring in the short-lived Fox show John Doe. Describing him as non-threatening is an understatement. When Purcell is stalking or killing his victims, it's incredibly challenging to stay awake.

It's unclear whether Blade: Trinity is supposed to be more horror or action, an important distinction, as we don't know whether to call it one of the least interesting horror movies of the past decade or one of the most boring action movies we've ever seen. Perhaps it can be both.

Regardless, this is a movie lacking impact. It's slow, pointless, and completely inoffensive. Pull out the harsh language, and we doubt there's enough gore or violence to even warrant an R rating. This isn't sickening, like Punisher: War Zone, nor is the embodiment of sleaze, like Frank Miller's The Spirit. In the end, it's just a tedious exercise that lacks the thrills of your average made-for-TV movie. What a waste of time.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 16: Electra

2011-08-23T18:39:00.000-07:00

Electra ultimately only has two flaws; unfortunately, they are not minor: 1. the movie ultimately misses the point, and 2. it is dull. That The Middle Room remains divided over which is the more serious infraction should serve to illustrate just how completely the film misses said point.

We are not experts on the comics Electra springs from, however we have some familiarity with the character. The movie portrays Electra as something of a reluctant assassin who kills because she's good at it, though the film strongly implies she hates the work.

This is, in a word, wrong.

It is our understanding that Electra does not generally do things she does not enjoy. She seems to be largely portrayed as something of psychotic killer, albeit a fairly affable one. She is, in some ways, a female counterpart to Wolverine.

To tedious effect, the movie attempts to explore Electra's deep seated psychological state, particularly her emotional state. This is, once more, a mistake. In fact, it's more or less the exact mistake made in X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

It is important to appreciate the fact that Electra is a character created by Frank Miller, a man who does not write female characters with complex psychological states (he tried once, and within 24 hours, three prostitutes were found dead and a large sum of hush money was trading hands).

While we appreciate the sentiment of wanting to add some substance to the character, it ultimately eliminates the point of the film altogether. Electra exists to be a ridiculous ninja assassin who assassinates ridiculous ninjas. That's what makes her fun: attempting to add gravitas will not end well.

In the movie's defense, there were a handful of fight sequences which were kind of fun, as well as a number of interesting supernatural supervillains for Electra to kill. The cold opening was a decent enough depiction of the character - likely as accurate as anything we'll ever see on the screen - and Jennifer Gardner certainly looks the part when she's not sniffling or crying (pity that eliminates most of the movie).

Despite making many of the same mistakes as Wolverine, this was ultimately far less offensive. But don't expect even something on the level of Ghost Rider.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 15: Catwoman

2011-08-19T19:41:00.000-07:00

We saw this in the theater. Yes, it's true. We did not pay for the experience - a box set of Batman the Animated Series contained a free pass, and we used it.

We hated this movie, despising it for mismanaging the concept. And we swore to never watch it again.

Be did we not also swear to track down and watch - or re-watch - the worst of the worst superhero movies ever made? How is one to weigh oaths?

Well, we found an old scale in the back of The Middle Room and set our promises upon it. It turned out our promise to you outweighed the one we'd sworn to ourselves, so onto our Netflix queue it went.

This next part is difficult for us. Do not think we didn't debate the merits of keeping this to ourselves, of neither speaking nor writing the truth.

But that's just it, isn't it? The truth is the lifeblood of The Middle Room. Without a belief in the Universal concept of truth, what is an icosahedron but a three-dimensional, twenty sided polygonal device? Are we to believe it's turning is random?

No - it cannot be so. Truth exists, and the icosahedron exists to reveal it. And so must we.

We watched Catwoman for a second time. And we kind of enjoyed it.

It was bad; to be sure, a wasted opportunity to use a fantastic actress to explore one of DC's most misunderstood characters. Halle Berry could have made an excellent Selina Kyle, and instead they recast her as Peter Parker.

In structure, this was an attempt to recreate the success of Spiderman. And everything about the movie was bad - the writing, the direction, and especially the effects.

But it was gloriously bad, hilariously bad. It wasn't so bad as to be good, but it was so bad it was interesting and funny. Really funny. And actually kind of fun, provided you know what you're getting into.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 14: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2011-08-16T13:42:00.000-07:00

We could have skipped this - perhaps we should have - since this is a relatively new movie. We went when it was released in 2009, seeing and reviewing it on its opening day.

We remember thinking it was bad. In fact, we remember considering it awful. But when we came across a copy at the library, we felt we owed it to you to give it another shot.

We actually thought this time might be different. After all, we went in the first time not knowing what to expect and saw it on the big screen, which can sometimes be unforgiving. Now, re-watching it at home, we allowed ourselves to imagine it might not be so bad.

Our delusions were soon shattered. X-Men: Origins: Wolverine is, if anything, worse than we'd remembered it. After the film ended, we checked our initial review and saw we'd given it 1.5 stars. Chalk that up to weakness: this was a one star film if ever there was one.

What's baffling about Wolverine is that it ever came into being. Were a team of master filmmakers to set out with an unlimited budget and the express goal of producing a Wolverine movie that boring, they would have no doubt returned humiliated with a far more interesting picture than this. Producing a bad Wolverine movie is easy to imagine, but a boring one: how does that happen?

The movie's dull pacing and melodramatic storyline are draining, and the fact that Jackman and Schreiber are well cast only means there are good actors meandering through the pointless and meaningless drivel that form the backbone of the picture. Nothing begins to make sense: the villain's plans are so inanely overcomplicated, it's all but impossible to comprehend a scenario where he could have won. The minor characters are at best vague reflections of their comic counterparts. And the action sequences oscillate between being garish and boring.

The most shocking aspect of this movie may be that there's little indication the filmmakers realized they were producing something this bad. The direction suggests they believed they were making an epic, a dramatic tragedy that would appease its audience and critics both. It's a pity they didn't realize the truth: if they'd dropped some of the pretense and embraced camp it may actually have relieved some of the tedium that permeates this movie.

Not much, but anything would have helped.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 13: Supergirl

2011-08-09T17:21:00.000-07:00

Supergirl first appeared in comics in 1959. For years she was a popular and iconic character. In 1984, she got her own movie. One year later, in 1985, DC Comics killed her. Having just seen said movie, we suspect the timing wasn't entirely coincidental.

That Supergirl is a dull, stupid, poorly made movie is hardly surprising. After all, the basis of this experiment requires us to track down the worst of the worst and examine them. And Supergirl is brimming with many of the same flaws we've seen a dozen times: bad script, bad directing, and bad acting, to name a few.

But the long list of things Supergirl does wrong is fundamentally less interesting that the shorter list of things the movie does right. The character is, for the most part, a decent adaptation of her comic origin, and - unlike the Superman movies - she actually faces off against a few giant monsters reminiscent of the type that plagued her and her cousin back in the golden age. The monsters were quite a bit cooler than we would have expected, given every other aspect of the movie. One, a giant, invisible beast, involved some outright impressive model work, and the other, a more traditional demon, had a fantastic design.
Never mind that the fights themselves were pitifully inadequate.

In addition, while Superman himself fails to appear in person (apparently due to scheduling conflicts), the movie does a good job of maintaining the presence of his legacy. From posters of The Man of Steel to supporting roles for Lois's cousin and even Jimmy Olsen, this feels solidly in continuity with the Reeve movies.

Finally, the movie actually bothers to explore the Phantom Zone, even if the portrayal offered is wanting.

Before we give the impression that all of this makes up for the film's flaws, however, we assure you this was as bad - if not worse - than either Superman III or IV.

There are dozens of problems with this movie, but the worst is pacing. The film spends an absurd amount of time on Supergirl's secret identity, friends, and her would-be boyfriend. None of it is remotely interesting.

Adding insult to injury, none of it makes sense, either. The premise of the movie is that the power source of Argo City (which survived the destruction of Krypton somehow) is lost. Without this, her family and neighbors will die in a matter of days, so Supergirl runs off to Earth to get it back. She brings a bracelet with her which functions as a homing device.

Remember, she has mere days to locate the device or everyone she cares about will perish.

So she enrolls in school, plays field hockey, and hangs out with Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane's niece. At one point, she allows a lead towards the energy source to get away rather than endangering her completely superfluous secret identity.

But that's all par for the course, because absolutely nothing in this movie makes sense. The most telling scene may be one of the first. Upon arriving to Earth, Supergirl sets out in search of the missing McGuffin. She winds up talking to a pair of lecherous truckers, clearly intent on assaulting (and likely raping) her.

Let's set aside the fact the movie plays this for comedy.

She's wearing a suit like Superman's, and she identifies herself as his cousin. Her attackers don't believe her - fair enough: why would they? They make their intentions clear, and she promptly lifts one of them into the air by his chin before using her Superbreath to blow him through the wall of a construction site.

The other trucker then draws a knife and says, "You shouldn't have done that," because evidently he's the second stupidest person to exist in any of the myriad parallel Earths. We say second because someone on Earth Prime had to write that scene.

The entire movie plays out like this. If the movie had been less boring, some of these sequences might have qualified for an exemption under the "so bad it's good" clause of film quality. But, as it was, there was little redemption.

It's a bad movie - a very bad one, in fact - with a few scenes and concepts showing real potential. But, when all was said and done, the things the movie did competently may have made it worse: there was a clear blueprint stamped across the screen for how Supergirl could have been a worthwhile movie - even a great one. Knowing that makes the end result all the more painful to behold. It's like they were taunting us.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 12: Punisher: War Zone

2011-08-07T15:11:00.000-07:00

Punisher: War Zone is the most recent of the Punisher films, and is the only one we in The Middle Room have actually seen. There have been three made to date; one released back in 1989, and two more recent. We would have taken any of the movies for this project, had they been readily available. As it is, we stumbled across this at our local library, where some sadistic person appears to have "donated" it.

Normally, we wouldn't watch a movie that was part of a series out of order, but every Punisher movie made to date has been a reboot. This, we understand, is due to the fact that every Punisher movie made to date has been an abysmal failure.

Before we go on, we feel it's important to stress that there was nothing remotely redeeming about this movie. Like many of the movies we've seen in this experiment, it was unclear what the movie was trying to be. The direction felt like it was intended for kids, with comedic jokes and over-the-top delivery. Several characters were played purely for slapstick. However, seeing as the "R" rating was attached for grotesque scenes of gore, young audiences were more or less out of the question.

If anything, War Zone felt like it was trying to be Robocop. However, it failed to deliver comedy that was actually funny, violence that was actually shocking, characters who were actually interesting, or any kind of subversive message. Instead, it was a tedious exercise in gore and badly-staged action sequences.

This wasn't the worst movie we've seen in the "Give Us Your Worst" series. But it's definitely in the lower half. If this doesn't immediately come off as sufficiently negative, we suggest you review our previous installments.

Cowboys & Aliens & Movie Critics

2011-07-30T10:10:00.000-07:00

While the final score is still settling, Cowboys & Aliens looks to be scoring around 44% positive on Rotten Tomatoes, which begs the question of how critics could be so far off. Because Cowboys & Aliens kicks ass.

Despite often being reviled as the lowest form of life on the planet, professional movie critics - on average - tend to be right about most movies. The Tomatometer is, more often than not, an accurate indication of whether a movie is good or not (though due to calibration issues it is less adept at correctly identifying how good or bad). However, every now and then, it is dead wrong.

The Middle Room exists to consider such anomalies in the hopes of identifying them in advance, and, while we're at it, potentially uncovering valuable insight into the abnormal psychology of the professional movie critic.

The key to understanding Cowboys & Aliens is that it's not what it appears to be. This isn't to say it isn't a western/SF crossover, which it certainly is, but rather that it isn't a dark and troubling movie. Rather, this is an exciting summer action/adventure movie set in a mash-up of science fiction and western tropes. In tone, this is closer to Pirates of the Caribbean than The Dark Knight. At times, it's downright campy, though never in a cloying way.

It is, above all else, a hell of a lot of fun.

We submit that the movie critic - or, to be fair, approximately 56% of movie critics - are mentally incapable of grasping this.

Certainly, the average critic has no problem handling mash-ups: we're relatively certain they teach that in film school. However, it seems to us that many critics are only able to view a movie within the framework they believe it's supposed to exist in. So, if they believe they're watching a sci-fi/western, they are unable to appreciate or even recognize that they're viewing a kick-ass adventure movie that's more comedy than horror.

It's not their fault: it may be a disability.

Cowboys & Aliens was made to be a pleasant experience. If you're unable to accept that it's not Predator, you'll be disappointed; it's far closer to Predators. It's summer entertainment at its best, which isn't to suggest it's unintelligent. In fact, quite the opposite: there's an art to making good popcorn flicks, and this does so extremely well.

Once again, Favreau has produced something that's simply joyous to watch. Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig are fantastic in the movie for the same reason Robert Downey, Jr. was fantastic in Iron Man: they're clearly given room to play with their characters and the world.

On a five star scale with Pirates at the top, Cowboys & Aliens earns a four. It's fantastically entertaining, and is - at present - our favorite live-action movie of the year.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 11: The Spirit

2011-07-28T04:24:00.000-07:00

This one almost slipped through the cracks of The Middle Room. We never saw it in theaters, though at one point we'd planned to do so, and we hadn't gotten around to seeing it on DVD. When we were planning this project, this movie had certainly come up, but then we'd somehow forgotten it along the way.

It wasn't until we were skimming the listings at Hulu that we stumbled across it. We put it on immediately, lest we forget once more.

We've seen many bad movies in the past month, many awful ones. We've seen movies so dull we could barely remain awake, so painfully stupid, we couldn't comprehend how they came into existence. Indeed, many of the movies we've already seen were worse than Frank Miller's adaptation of The Spirit.

But this is the only movie we've seen that was blasphemous. Will Eisner's The Spirit comics occupy a key place in the history of the medium: they are widely seen as the first truly literary superhero comics. They elevated the genre itself and inspired a generation of writers.

To say this failed to do them justice is an understatement so cynical as to be meaningless. This is their inversion, a sickeningly twisted revision that turns the Spirit into the very thing the comics were rising above: cheap, exploitative garbage. The worst kind of pulp. And, perhaps, the single worst work to bear Frank Miller's name.

And, given his writing on All-Star Batman and Robin and The Dark Knight Strikes Again, that is certainly saying something.

There's no mystery as to how this film came about. Miller had worked on Robert Rodriguez's Sin City, where he'd been credited as a co-director. There, he must have seen a world of film production far different from Hollywood blockbusters. Rodriguez's sets are famously fun, as are his movies. He's known for producing films quickly and cheaply, which he does by - let's be honest - cutting corners and not sweating every detail. Regardless, he's proven time and time again that he's able to make solid, entertaining movies at a fraction of the price of larger studios.

Clearly, this style isn't as easy to copy as Miller must have thought. And he certainly does try to copy it, using the same blue screen/CG backdrops and costuming approaches. But there's nothing similar about the results.

This movie looks and feels like it was written and directed by a group of fourteen year-old boys, using their home computers for special effects. If you've spent any time on Youtube watching fan videos of the Matrix, you've seen things that look precisely like this.

Nothing about Miller's The Spirit is entertaining. The backgrounds blend together into a uniform grey, while the characters feel like cheap knock-offs. Miller re-writes the Spirit's origin, giving him superpowers and reducing him to a generic costumed avenger. He abandoned the Spirit's classic blue coat, opting for a black trench coat instead. Simultaneously, the character's mental abilities have plummeted, and he's been re-imagined as a lunatic.

Little is consistent - in one scene, the Spirit is worshipped as a savior; in another, a crowd is disappointed when he doesn't fall to his death. Characters are psychotic in one scene and rational in the next. The only real constant is the film's exploitation of women, but then Frank Miller has been consistent in that regard over his entire career.

This movie was boring. It was pointless. Stupid beyond belief. The jokes - and there were many - weren't remotely funny, and the story was bizarre and random.

It was, in a word, garbage.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 10: Hulk

2011-07-26T18:53:00.000-07:00

In the interest of full disclosure, we were specifically going to skip Ang Lee's Hulk, as The Middle Room has never acknowledged it to be a bad movie at all, nor are we about to shift positions having just re-watched it. It is a strange movie, surely; a baffling movie, a flawed movie; and yet, it is engrossing and beautiful, artistic and fascinating.

Our opinion is actually within the mainstream; the movie scores a passable 62% on Rotten Tomatoes, and has a number of fans. However, a majority of them exist outside the geek community. When the 2008 reboot was released, geek goodwill towards Ang Lee's version evaporated, and the consensus within our circles migrated to the view that this was a horrible film.

Because The Middle Room exists to explore and strengthen this very community, and because that is the origin of our audience, we have decided to re-watch this film and consider what we feel works and what clearly does not. We also hope this will help us better map the boundaries between good and bad superhero movies, a goal we lacked when starting this project that has since appeared on the horizon.

First, the bad. We acknowledge many flaws with this film, beginning with the plot and characters. Considered narratively, Hulk makes little sense, particularly towards the end. Likewise, the two main characters, Bruce and Betty, are of little interest, though General Ross and Bruce's father are more interesting. Lee's decision to focus thematically on repression, rather than anger, is a clear miscalculation, as well.

With so many issues, how can we call this a good movie? While the script was broken, the direction - in our opinion, at least - was awesome. The visual component was spectacular, despite some dated CG. In fact, even this was well used. While most superhero movies attempt to transform their concepts into something that could exist in the real world, Ang Lee treats the Hulk like a comic book superhero, and unapologetically allows him to exist as he is. That he's a cartoon superimposed on a live-action world isn't a joke, because Lee doesn't treat him as a joke: he takes the concept, in all its absurd glory, seriously.

We can't think of another non-comedy live-action superhero film so courageous, and we love this movie for that.

On top of the Hulk himself, there's a sense of artistic style permeating every frame of this film. In this genre, the use of color is second only to Dick Tracy. The lab equipment has a super-science sensibility that sets the tone up front - this isn't our world; it's a far more interesting one.

And, more than anything else, we absolutely adore the panelling effect used to give the film the feeling of a comic book. Could this have been better integrated? Perhaps. But it works incredibly well, and we wish other directors would steal the idea when editing their superhero movies.

As for the movie's pacing, while we can certainly appreciate why some find it boring, it's not a problem we've ever had. We find Hulk fascinating from start to finish, despite - and in some cases because of - it's flaws. Nothing about the end fight makes sense, and yet... there's something awesome about the Hulk fighting a lightning monster in the clouds, illustrated entirely by still flashes of comic-style images. Even when the story falls apart, it does so in the style of a comic book.

It's that style we find missing in most of the other movies we've seen in this series. If anything, Schumacher's Batman movies came closest, though they were pale imitations crafted by a hack who clearly understood nothing of what he was trying to adapt. Ang Lee, while perhaps not entirely grasping the Hulk, demonstrated a profound comprehension of the comic medium itself at a visceral level that's seldom been duplicated.

This is a movie about superheroes and comic books, a movie unafraid to showcase their impossible absurdity and unreal power. This is a flawed work of art, but a work of art, nonetheless.

Review: Captain America: The First Avenger

2011-07-24T12:28:00.000-07:00

A movie like Captain America offers its viewers two choices: to either accept what is undoubtably an amazing experience which is truer and more appropriate to the character than we could ever have hoped for, or to pick apart the movie and find those aspects that hold back the movie.

Here in The Middle Room, we shall do both.

It is important not to overlook the forest through the trees. This is a period superhero flick, a World War II adventure following Marvel Comics's most archetypal hero through his origin. And it's a damn good one. This is Captain America in his own element, in his own time. It establishes him as part of his era, all while setting him up as a fish out water in The Avengers and his inevitable modern day sequel.

The action sequences are pure fun, and the power levels are spot-on. This is an old-school adventure story that hits the right beats and looks pitch perfect.

The characters are right. Captain America comes off as confident and unwavering, and not solely because of his transformation. The supporting characters and villains are likewise universally excellent, from Peggy Carter to the Red Skull.

And, most impressively, this ties everything that's come before it into a comprehensive package. Threads from all four prior Marvel Universe movies - Iron Man 1 and 2, The Incredible Hulk, and Thor - are connected in ways that miraculously enhance this movie, rather than bogging it down.

The action was exciting, the jokes were funny, and the tension was earned. As a movie this worked. As a period piece, it worked. And as a superhero film, it worked.

And yet, there was something bothering us, something that felt off. To be honest, it took us a while to put our finger on it. But there was certainly something missing.

There simply wasn't enough time in one movie to properly build Captain America's legend to where it needed to be. There were a number of montages showing Captain America fighting, but there was one too few. We needed to see him involved in more than one campaign against the Red Skull.

At no point in this movie did we see Captain America fight a single Nazi: only Hydra agents. And Hydra, we are quickly informed, no longer considers itself aligned with Germany. Strictly speaking, the Red Skull did far more damage to the Nazi agenda in the course of the film than Captain America. We needed the sense that Captain America fought in dozens of battles, not five or six. We needed to see him really become a leader and step into his own. We needed to see the world realize he was a superhero and realize Bucky was his sidekick.

Frankly, we needed three movies, not one. But that wasn't going to happen. Truth be told, this was already the movie we never thought we'd get. It was a gift, a nerd miracle.

And this was great. It was stylized, exciting, and fun. We've heard a lot of complaints coming from some critics that the last few Marvel movies feel more like trailers for the Avengers than movies in their own right.

And they're right. But remember how everyone used to say trailers were usually better than movies themselves? This is a two-hour long trailer for next year's Avengers, and that's kind of awesome, even if it really needed to be six hours long.

On the same scale as Iron Man, we'll award this a similar four out of five star rating.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 9: Swamp Thing

2011-07-19T19:14:00.000-07:00

There is some dissension in The Middle Room over whether or not this movie belongs in this series at all. While it was certainly not a good movie under any meaningful definition of the term, neither is it objectively an awful one. In fact, it holds a 62% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, a hair's breath above bad. This was actually what we disliked about the film.

The campy writing and cheesy action were, at times, kind of fun. And the costume, while clearly a rubber suit, was at least a decent looking rubber suit. The movie had a pulpy B-horror vibe that wanted to break free. Unfortunately, it was held in check by a director demonstrating his ability to Hollywood producers.

We don't fault Wes Craven for trying to make a solid flick, but the end result lacked impact. It feels small, tedious, and at times boring. Still, the absurdity of its villain is enough to salvage the movie, at least a little. We didn't feel like we got much out of watching Swamp Thing, and are left wondering if the movie would have had more of an impact had it been a worse film. Certainly, the best case would have been for the movie to have been given a fantastic script, but barring that, we'd almost have rather seen it directed by a hack who left us wallowing in its awfulness, as opposed to a competent director who dragged it up to mediocrity.

Review: Harry Potter and the Second Part of the Seventh Part of Something

2011-07-17T17:44:00.000-07:00

We are not, strictly speaking, the world's largest Harry Potter fans. We have not read the books, and we didn't start watching these in the theater until the third movie. Similarly, while we have seen every Harry Potter film, we've seen each of them once. They are neither our favorite movies, nor our favorite genre films.

But, as geeks, they have certainly been good to us.

There can be little debate that the movies have been solid from the start, and further that they've improved over time. No other film series has managed half as many entries without at least one major misstep. Likewise, the fact the series has endured eight films without major cast changes earns it a mark of respect.

As the weekend draws to a close, it appears that the finale to Potter will claim the title of highest grossing weekend of all time. And, frankly, it earned the honor. This is the best movie of the series and one of the best films of the year. It hits the right notes, and delivers an experience that is nostalgic, engaging, and dramatic.

It's worth taking a moment to reflect on the rarity of a film series ending on its highest note. This is incredibly rare in film. In fact, we're at a loss to think of another case where more than two good movies culminated in a finale superior to its predecessors.

Both the Star Wars trilogy (we're doing Lucas the favor of ignoring the prequels entirely) and Lord of the Rings were good throughout (in fact, were quite a bit better than the Potter series), but both ended with films that fell short of their predecessors. The issue seems to come down to pandering: whether it's the Ewok village or a computer-rendered Legolas killing an oliphant and sliding down its trunk, these movies have a way of dating themselves.

But the end of Harry Potter contained nothing of the sort. In a sense, the series had gotten that out of the way during the first few installments. It had, to put it another way, grown out of it. Nothing campy was left; no matter how ostensibly silly aspects concept might have been, the producers accepted them and treated them seriously. The goblins, trolls, giant spiders, and dragons were elements of the setting and plot, but the film focused on the drama of the characters' lives.

If more genre films were made this way, our theaters would be a far better place.

The best scenes are small moments. Characters reacting to revelations realistically. Young characters we've watched for years finally growing up and coming into their own, while older characters let down their guard and show where they really stand and how they feel.

The fights are also good, though they certainly could have been better. If there's one area that could have been improved, this is likely it: the war was closer in scale to what we've seen in the Narnia movies than the Lord of the Rings. But the emotions were closer to the latter, which is far more important in the long run.

On a five star scale against nothing less than the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the second part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows earns four. This is certainly the best live-action film we've seen this summer, and comes close to overtaking Kung Fu Panda 2 as best overall.

We'd tell you it's worth seeing this, but there's little point: we've seen the box-office estimates for the weekend, and odds are you've already gone.

Movie Review: Winnie the Pooh

2011-07-16T06:04:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, when we wrote our annual Futures Market post, we made it clear that while we are excited about the finale of the Potter franchise (we'll get to it soon), we were far more excited that Disney was revisiting the Hundred Acre Wood. The months since then have changed nothing.

On opening night, we trekked to the theater, purchased our tickets, laughed at those in the crowded lines outside the sold-out showings of Harry Potter, and went in to enjoy the first true G-rated movie we've seen in years. Sure, Cars was technically rated G, but it was a G-rating enhanced with torture, murder, assassination, and dead bodies. Winnie the Pooh had none of these things (well, perhaps a little unintentional torture perpetrated by Tigger, but it was all in good fun).

The movie is, above all else, charming. Disney has thrown out decades of cloying Pooh movies and television shows made to cash in on the franchise, and returned stylistically to their original shorts. The animation is more or less as it was, and the voice casting is topnotch. John Cleese's narration was fantastic, and Craig Ferguson's casting as Owl was inspired. Not surprisingly, though, the movie was stolen by the legendary Bud Luckey, whose interpretation of Eeyore surpassed even the original.

This feels like a sequel to the "Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh," and, aside from a brief CG-fueled dream about honey, it looks like it could have been released in the 1970's. It's as funny and sweet as it should be, and it's a pleasure to see this style of animation back on the big screen.

That said, there was certainly room for improvement. The movie is based on three of Milne's original stories, but rather than keep them separate, the script drops the chapter structure and fuses them together, ostensibly into a single narrative. That the individual plot-lines never coalesce isn't an issue - Pooh endures because of the strength of its individual moments, not its overarching story - that they abandoned the opportunity to retain the segmented chapters of the original is a bit disappointing.

In addition, neither the music or songs pack quite the punch we wanted. Nothing is offensively bad, but neither does it connect. The score, in particular, tries too hard to be something new. If the animation is classic Pooh, why not the sound? Why not use the original compositions?

Ultimately, though, for fans of the original, this is pure nostalgia. It's beautiful and light, hilarious and gentle. On a five star scale relative to the original, we award this four.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 8: Batman & Robin

2011-07-13T04:29:00.000-07:00

It is commonly accepted as fact that, between Schumacher's two painfully awful Batman movies, this is the worst. We're not entirely sure this is fair, as the movies are, on some level, so different as to be incomparable. It is something like choosing between a rotten, worm-ridden apple and molding, maggot-infested orange. Precisely like that, as a matter of fact.

Objectively, as a work of anti-art, this is unquestionably worse. If badness is quantified mathematically, there can be little question that Batman Forever has far less of it than Batman & Robin; by a magnitude of 6.7 Ratners*, in fact, according to our calculations.

However, because of the concentration of badness, this was actually less boring. Make no mistake: there were still long, dull, mind-numbing sequences which had us eying our cyanide pills (in accordance with human rights requirements, we handed them out in The Middle Room prior to starting this series of articles), but it was actually slightly more engaging than its predecessor.

Upon watching Batman & Robin, there are questions that spring to mind. Questions like, why? How? And does this prove God's nonexistence and that we live in a cold, meaningless Universe devoid of care and compassion?

The Middle Room will seek to answer these questions, to the extent answers are possible.

First, "Why?" This is the most troubling of the three, by far. We have two possible explanations, though neither is particularly comforting. It is possible that Batman & Robin was actually the movie that Joel Schumacher wanted to make. In fact, in hindsight, it seems like Batman Forever may have reflected Schumacher being stifled by producers holding him back. Perhaps Batman & Robin is a window in its creator's psyche, unfiltered and unconstrained.

If this is indeed the case, Schumacher should be institutionalized to protect the public.

As impossible as it may seem, however, the alternative is even more distressing. What if Batman & Robin was the movie Joel Schumacher believed the world wanted? What if he made it for us?

The level of cynicism this hypothesizes lies far beyond the boundaries of mere nihilism. Indeed, there is neither word nor concept for this, nor should we wish there to be.

Our second question, "How?" is no less baffling. Movies have producers, editors, and readers. That no one stopped the movie from being made seems utterly impossible in hindsight. Even if the producers couldn't perceive what was happening, we find it surprising that none of the camera operators, cinematographers, or key grips sabotaged the picture to save the public and the iconic characters.

The only answer seems to be momentum. Somehow, the movie, fast-tracked into production, was finished before there was time to reflect. And once it was done, nothing less than madness must have compelled the company to release to the public.

The Middle Room's third and final inquiry concerns the non-existence of any benevolent power in the Universe. Having just finished watching Batman & Robin, our members are in full agreement: Cthulhu fhtagn.

* Or 5.5 Greenaways, for our European readers more familiar with the metric system.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 7: Batman Forever

2011-07-11T04:13:00.000-07:00

It would not be accurate to say that we remembered Batman Forever fondly, however our recollections were not altogether negative. Sure, we remembered this as a bad movie - a very bad movie, in fact - but we also remembered a sort of campy charm, of parts that were fun enough to offer some consolation despite how bad the rest was.

Our memory, it seems, is not infallible. This movie was, start to finish, an abysmal waste with no redeeming aspects whatsoever, aside from the song that plays during the closing credits (one of just two U2 songs we've a soft spot for). None of the moments we recalled favorably held up. Jim Carrey's Riddler, while almost a functional homage to Frank Gorshin, falls short and comes off as cheap, cartoonish schtick. The "Holy-rusted-metal" line: no longer funny.

Picking out individual flaws while watching this movie is akin to looking for a needle while swimming in a vat of needles (easy to find, because there seem to be needles sticking into your eyes). Tommy Lee Jones's Two-Face (renamed, for no conceivable reason, "Harvey Two-Face") is nothing more a facsimile of Nicholson's Joker, with all of Dent's psychological complexity thrown out in favor of maniacal comic relief. Chris O'Donnell's Dick Grayson is even worse: far too old for the role, he makes no sense whatsoever.

Meanwhile, Val Kilmer (who, by rights, could have been an inspired casting choice, were this a far better movie) as Batman acts without any degree of logic or reason. His motivation is ground into the dirt by a director who clearly lacks any comprehension of the character.

The love interest, Dr. Chase Meridian, is potentially more insane than any of the villains. In fact, the overall portrayal of women in this movie is outright sickening. As is the movie itself.

Ultimately, these complaints are trivial in the scheme of things. With good movies, character, plot, setting, dialogue, direction, cinematography and dozens of other factors are of paramount importance. But, we are learning that only a single question matters when it comes to bad films.

Was this interesting to watch in the least?

And, in the case of Batman Forever, the answer is no. It is a boring, pointless exercise in camp that is neither fun nor funny.

Soon we'll have to confront another question: is Batman and Robin actually worse?

DVD Review: Green Lantern: Emerald Knights

2011-07-10T18:25:00.000-07:00

Emerald Knights is a decent, though unexceptional, DVD. Like Gotham Knight, it's a loosely-connected collection of shorts designed to coincide with a feature film released in the theaters. Also like Gotham Knight, Emerald Knights feels rushed. Still, between the two, Emerald Knights is quite a bit better.

Most of the short stories are adapted directly from classic Lantern tales; in some cases, the scripts are almost verbatim. The DVD's main problem comes from tone. Understandably, the producers tried to tie the short stories together using a larger frame, which set the mood of the piece. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that mood: they went with a darker, almost military science fiction feel, and there's certainly precedent for this in the Lantern Universe.

But that wasn't the right tone for the stories being told (or at least most of them). Similarly, Emerald Knights approaches the Corps with a similar philosophy used in First Flight (in fact, it's easy to forget the movies aren't in continuity, despite the presence of Sinestro). Once again, the rings are greatly reduced in power, playing up the science fiction and playing down the superheroism. We're of the opinion that the concept works best when the two are merged, but we respect that there's room for debate.

The standout story focused on Laira, a Green Lantern forced to choose between loyalty to the Corps and to her family. The story, while relatively generic, was well orchestrated, and the action sequences were exciting and fun to watch. The adaptation of Mogo's origin was also a welcome addition.

The worst of the bunch was the Abin Sur story, which did a great disservice to the comic it was based on. The original provided a sense of mysticism, which seems to have been excised from this setting. In place of the prophecy of The Blackest Night, we got a teaser for the Sinestro Corps War. While we'd love to see that movie made, it just doesn't have the same impact or poetry, and the story just winds up feeling pointless.

The movie's saving grace comes in the animation and designs, which are extremely strong. But, overall, the movie feels bogged down. Nathan Fillion, who should have been the ideal choice for Hal Jordan, feels wasted. Fillion is at his best when he's given room to have fun - so is Hal Jordan, for that matter. And this production just didn't leave room for fun.

Warner Bros. has released some phenomenal direct-to-DVD features over the past few years, several of which were better than most of what's shown in theaters. While Emerald Knights isn't a bad picture, it certainly wouldn't deserve a theatrical release. But, then again, neither did the live action Green Lantern.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 6: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3

2011-07-09T06:17:00.000-07:00

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III was something of a wild card: it's been so long since we last saw it, we'd no idea what to expect. Our memories were hazy enough that, despite our negative associations, we actually allowed ourselves the luxury of hoping this would offer, at the very least, a fun experience.

But we have learned better. In this world there is no hope, no joy. Because this is the world that produced Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III.

While the second movie is certainly flawed, we found the experience of watching Secret of the Ooze an overall pleasant and nostalgic one. This is its predecessor's dark reflection: an empty, soulless look back at everything not worth remembering about the years we grew up in.

Every joke - almost every line - dates the picture, with references to everything from Wayne's World to Bill and Ted. This isn't a trip back to feudal Japan: it's a trip back to 1993. And it isn't a pleasant one.

The puppets and suits had been mixed in the first two movies; this time they're consistently awful. Even worse, Kevin Clash, the puppeteer who may have salvaged the second film single-handed, has been replaced with a pale imitation.

There was nothing intriguing, fun, or salvageable in Turtles III. Nothing. This was a tedious, boring production, not even a worthy sequel to part 2, let alone the original or the comic origins.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 5: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Secret of the Ooze

2011-07-07T20:12:00.000-07:00

Turtles 2 was not, by any metric we're familiar with, a good film. It was badly acted, badly written, badly directed, badly edited, badly costumed, and... Vanilla Ice is in it. It is clearly a bad movie.

On top of that, it Turtles 2 came on the heels of what was actually a pretty good first movie, which took its source material seriously and did the best it could with a limited budget. In part 1, the characters had defined arcs, the dialogue was solid, and the pacing worked. All of that was abandoned in part 2 to make room for cheap camp and awful schtick.

Even if we hadn't remembered this going in, we perceived this fact early on: there was no mistaking this for anything other than a bad sequel trying to cash in on the franchise without a second thought about the dignity of the franchise.

This is why we tried so hard not to enjoy Secret of the Ooze. We're still trying to understand what went wrong.

Because we kind of liked it.

Perhaps it's that we saw this when it was first released in theaters and found ourselves caught up in the nostalgia of viewing it again. It may be a simple case of warped perspectives: we've seen some awfully bad movies in the past week, and it could be beginning to have an effect. Or maybe Secret of the Ooze really is one of those movies that's so bad it's good.

Whatever the cause, we enjoyed watching this a lot more than it deserves. We found ourselves laughing quite a lot; with or at the movie, it makes little difference. Even the dreaded appearance by Vanilla Ice was strangely entertaining in its dated stupidity.

It didn't hurt that, for all its faults, the movie retained Kevin Clash as the puppeteer of Splinter. Hand chosen and trained by Henson, Clash is a master puppeteer in his own right. He also seemed to be the one actor who refused to phone in his performance for this movie, opting instead to actually try. The puppet may have been replaced by a less interesting make, but Clash is topnotch.

We're hesitant to recommend this to others, but we will say we enjoyed revisiting this more than any of the other movies we've seen so far as part of this series. Not that that's a particularly high bar.

Give Us Your Worst, Part IV: The Quest for Peace

2011-07-04T07:24:00.000-07:00

Time, on the internet, is relative. Of course, time everywhere is relative, but even relative time is relative when it's on the internet. It is, simply stated, relativity squared.

We offer this example. You, dear reader, are no doubt reading this a day or two after our discussion of Superman III. As such, you may be under the impression that we in The Middle Room watched Superman III, waited a proportionate amount of time, and then put on Superman IV.

This would be incorrect. No, our commitment to this endeavor is greater than that: we watched Superman three and four back-to-back, with only a short reprieve between films.

Such is the passage of time conflated and warped by the internet.

Superman IV (or 4, four, 5 - 1, or -e raised to the pi times i power divided by .25, depending on your preferred nomenclature): The Quest for Peace is an incredibly bad movie, except when it's not. There are very few instances where this exception applies, but we were surprised to find a few moments that seemed not awful.

Clark's visit to the family farm, for example, was fairly well handled, as was his conversation with Lois, when she remembered the events of Superman 2. That the scene ended with him wiping her memory once more undermined any impact, but in a movie this bad we don't expect anything good to last and take any such moments, no matter how fleeting, wherever we find them.

Likewise, we were impressed with some of how the movie approached Superman's internal conflict as he decided whether or not to rid the world of nuclear weapons. While it's tempting to dismiss this movie out of hand, this did touch upon themes that play out in several of comics' most significant stories: namely, what responsibility superheroes have to change the world, rather than just upholding the status quo, and where the line exists between hero and conqueror.

Unfortunately, the movie only touched on such themes, toying briefly with these ideas, then tossing them aside. Far more time was invested in Superman having to fake a double-date, with Clark seeing one woman and Superman the other, a sequence that tried to be intentionally funny, failed, and yet was so stupid as to be unintentionally hilarious anyway.

All of this, of course, was just setting the stage for a new Luthor-created supervillain, named "Nuclear-Man." Why the filmmakers went with so idiotic a creation rather than using an established idiotic Superman villain is baffling, to say the least.

The fights - indeed all of the effects - were bad; the blue-screen work among the worst ever made. Even the costuming is painful to look at: the stitching on the 'S' logo on Superman's cape is shoddy beyond belief.

Add to that an unparalleled level of absurdity and illogic - Superman fixes the Great Wall of China with his eyes, then later rescues a woman in the depths of space (no space suit, no air; he just catches her and returns her safely to Earth) - and it's easy to see why this is numbered among the worst superhero movies ever made.

To its credit, at 90 minutes, we found it easier to sit through than Superman III.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 3: Superman III

2011-07-03T19:11:00.000-07:00

There are coincidences in this world; as often as not, we are indeed playthings of chance. But not this time. No, the alignment of the third and fourth installments of this series with the third and fourth installments of the Superman franchise is by design.

It was planned. Unlike, we suspect, the plot of Superman III.

The movie started innocuously enough as a comedy. The first few scenes came off as generic comedy. Great filmmaking, surely not, but nothing ostensibly worse than much of Superman II (which, we fear, is remembered more fondly than perhaps it deserves).

For a solid half hour, we began to wonder if Superman III was perhaps remembered less favorably than it should have been. The early scenes with Pryor start out funny, the Superman bits are serviceable as light comic adventure, and Lana is well portrayed.

But then something horrible happened. The movie kept going. While the first half hour was passable, the second is tedious. The third, outright painful. And so on, for the movie's (we're not bothering to look it up, so we'll estimate) eight hour runtime.

There was a brief reprieve when the movie integrated a variation of red kryptonite (obnoxiously colored green, to avoid confusing the audience) into the story. When an unshaven Superman began acting like a complete di...fferent person, the movie picked up some needed (if mostly unintentional) humor. Seeing Superman throwing back whiskey and flicking peanuts to break bottles in a bar was an enjoyable diversion.

Unfortunately, it couldn't last. When Superman returned to his benevolent ways, the movie began to bore us once more. A few good moments aside, Superman III was a combination of bad filmmaking and long length that creates a perfect storm. Unfortunately, we found ourselves caught in that storm, held by oath to finish the damn movie.

Perhaps Part 4 will be kinder to us.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 2: Howard the Duck

2011-06-29T16:16:00.000-07:00

Widely considered one of the worst movies ever made, we don't recall ever having seen Howard the Duck in its entirety. Some of us have memories - somewhat repressed - of having seen moments, images and scenes, of the film when we were children, but this is the first time The Middle Room has screened the movie.

From a critical standpoint, there is little doubt that the film is bad, technically speaking. And we certainly have no need to ever see it again. However, watching it on the heels of the irredeemable Barb Wire, we were more fascinated than anything else. The puppet was clearly thrown together in a shop, but the movie itself feels like it was produced on another world. The notion that anyone on our Earth could have greenlit this, let alone filmed it, is impossible to comprehend.

We certainly did not like the film, however it managed to earn our grudging respect. The movie was fearless in walking a tightrope-thin line between genres, tones, and target audiences. The puppetry was pure kid's stuff, while the subject of the movie's jokes felt startlingly adult. There wasn't much in the way of death, but the monster was genuinely disturbing.

In tone, this was similar to Who Framed Roger Rabbit: cartoon noir. However, while Roger was actually funny, moving, and exciting, Howard was just... bizarre.

For all the movie's flaws, however, it wasn't boring, save the extended chase scene towards the end. Overall, it was a strange and sometimes unpleasant thing to behold, but it was, after a fashion, intriguing. This wasn't so bad it was good, but it was so weird it was interesting. A bad comic book movie, certainly. But, by our estimation, far from the worst.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 1: Barb Wire

2011-06-27T16:23:00.000-07:00

Barb Wire is either one of the worst movies we've ever seen or a brilliant work of subversive filmmaking, and we're fairly certain it's not a brilliant work of subversive filmmaking.

We should begin by mentioning we have some familiarity with the source material: years ago, we collected a number of Dark Horse Comics, including several which included the character this movie was ostensibly based on. We say "ostensibly," because the entire premise of the comics seemed to be abandoned and replaced with a generic post-apocalyptic battlefield.

We should probably also mention that the film's plot structure, characters, and ending were all intended as either a tribute to or a facsimile of Casablanca. It was, from a cynical point of view, almost a remake. If we worked on or were related to anyone who had worked on Casablanca, we'd feel awfully insulted right now.

One does not view a movie like Barb Wire with the expectation of seeing something good, however we were surprised to find that the movie was actually significantly more awful than we were expecting. The movie passed beyond boring almost immediately, into a state of hyper-dullness, the existence of which had previously only been hypothesized by theoretical physicists. To say the movie made no sense belies the depth of its stupidity: not only did the film fail to come together as a whole, not only did individual characters make no sense in their motives and traits, but individual scenes failed to follow basic laws of logic and continuity. In a real sense, this movie was a fractal of irrationality: the closer you looked at any detail, the dumber it became.

This affects the watcher in an almost existential fashion. Staring into so twisted and vapid an abyss, the mind reels, trying to find some shred of logic to grasp hold of. And, in such a stupor, we found meaning.

Barb Wire can be viewed as the inevitable result of the objectification of women in comics. The outfits worn by Pamela Anderson are actually fairly accurate to her comic origins. In turn, her character design in the comics is devolved from the superheroines before her. The movie character is every comic book woman in a twisted funhouse mirror: all stylization and cartoonish charm stripped away, we're left with a reality so warped, it's literally sickening to watch.

In this sense, Barb Wire becomes a cautionary tale to those who produce and encourage such poor artistic sensibilities. This movie's existence was a result of momentum, an unavoidable consequence of the sins of the comic industry. The significance of this realization is truly horrific: it will probably happen again.

It will, in all likelihood, not be Barb Wire adapted but another character, and yet the result will be same: a long, dull production whose existence tarnishes the image of both film and comics alike.

And, worse still, we'll have to sit through that monstrosity, as well. Because we have sworn to.

We beg the industry responsible to turn back while there's still time. But we fear it may already be too late.

March to a Prelude to a Countdown to Give Us Your Worst. Of Infinite Something.

2011-06-26T19:53:00.000-07:00

It is with a degree of shame that The Middle Room confesses to a sort of prejudice when it comes to comic book movies. While we'd like to claim we've seen them all, the truth remains that there remains a class of film we have often avoided.

We refer, of course, to the truly awful; the abysmal.

Yes, as strange as it seems, there are a number of comic book-based films we've never seen or have seen only once, years ago. This seems wrong, somehow, so we have decided to make amends.

By candlelight, we have sworn on the spirits of our parents to devote our lives to warring against criminals. No, wait. That was Batman.

By the light of a 60 watt halogen bulb we purchased at the Home Depot, we have sworn to seek out those comic book films we've previously avoided due to bad reviews and even worse trailers. Further, we've sworn to track down movies we haven't seen since we were children - movies like Supergirl and the last two Superman films.

We will not shy away from the worst. And, to prove our sincerity, we will begin with Barb Wire. After that, whatever we can dredge up: the Schumacher Batman films, the Punisher movies (there have been three, by our count, and we've never even seen one), and so on and so forth. If you have suggestions, we'd love to hear them. We'll try to get to them all, if time and sanity permit.

Movie Review: Cars 2

2011-06-24T22:03:00.000-07:00

Cars 2 is something of a conundrum. It is, as you've no doubt heard, not Pixar's best. In fact, it seems nestled securely in the spot second from the bottom, just above A Bug's Life and just below the original Cars. But this is an overall assessment: Cars 2 is dragged down by its average. Taken as a whole, the movie is mixed. Fortunately, in this case, that's a misleading metric.

To understand Cars 2, you must understand the movie's hierarchy of leads. The main focus of the movie is Mater. Yes, Larry the Cable Guy is indisputably the star. Wilson's Lightning McQueen isn't even #2: that's a tie between two new characters, Finn McMissile and Holley Shiftwell, a pair of British secret agents. Once the movie gets going, Lightning McQueen is relegated to a B-plot about racing, while Mater helps the British spies try and save the world.

Mater is, of course, annoying. The character is as cloying as ever, and the decision to base a movie around him was ill-advised. On top of that, the dialogue throughout lacks the wit and energy we've come to expect from Pixar.

On the other hand, the visuals remain crisp and intriguing, and the world-building is fun and engrossing. These aren't the reasons we're giving the movie our recommendation, however. That, unfortunately, involves spoilers. If you're already planning to see Cars 2 in the theater, you may want to stop here. If not, keep reading: we may change your mind.

Cars 2 is the single most violent G-rated movie we've ever seen.

When we say that Cars 2 is in part a spy movie, we mean that lives are at stake. And when we say that Finn McMissile is James Bond's car, we're not just referring to his make and gadgets. Finn McMissile smiles and tells jokes. He has a sense of humor about him and seems to enjoy his work. But make no mistake: he is a blunt object, a stone-cold killer who doesn't pull punches or hesitate to pull the trigger.

And for good reason: the villains are even more ruthless. We see a captured agent - a good guy - tortured and killed. Horribly. In a G-rated kid's film. And believe us when we say that isn't the most horrific thing in the movie. This movie isn't afraid to get its hands dirty. For that reason, we're willing to overlook an awful lot of bad slapstick involving a rusty tow truck.

The gorgeous settings overlaid with music composed by Michael Giacchino didn't hurt either.

Cars 2 is a G-rated film with a shocking level of violence downplayed by the fact the characters are inhuman and the medium is animation. It's badly written, yet fascinatingly rendered. It panders to its youngest viewers with the most obnoxious character Pixar's ever produced, while shifting back and forth between spies and cutthroat assassins in sequences reminiscent of classic Bond.

As we said before, it's not as good a movie as Cars 1. However, we enjoyed it more. Because, for all its faults, it's a hell of a ride.

Three stars on the Pixar scale. The critics aren't exactly wrong when they lambast this as an inferior product, but we still think there's an awful lot to like here.

Movie Review: Green Lantern

2011-06-17T20:32:00.000-07:00

The Middle Room is not an island. In point of fact, we are a room, and there are other rooms around us. Sometimes we hear things through the walls. Sometimes we overhear the discourse of critics.

Thus it was that we were warned.

While we place little faith in professional reviewers, we have learned to seek out symbols and patterns in their chatter, much as soothsayers read tea leaves and entrails. There are times when negative reviews can conceal brilliant work. But we knew from the start this wasn't such a case. In situations where a brilliant movie is under-appreciated, there are numerous glowing reviews intermingled with the negative.

With Green Lantern, there was no such descent. The positive reviews were timid, apologetic; the negative were harsh. Yes, we knew what we were getting into.

Why then, did we go? We asked ourselves this question as we walked that long, carpeted path from the lobby to theater, that road all geeks must tread; that Green Mile. And the only answer we could find was this: because it was there.

We seldom find ourselves typing these next words, and it pains us to do so: the critics were right. This was a bad movie.

It wasn't so bad that it was without merit. The aliens of the Green Lantern Corps were adapted well, though they were given far less time than they deserved. Likewise, there were a few good fights; nothing spectacular, but certainly solid. And, for all the fan outcry at the casting, Ryan Reynolds did a fine job in his role. He felt like Hal Jordan, and the story told was a fairly direct adaptation of his origin.

On some level, the only thing wrong with Green Lantern was that it was a bad movie. And the primary cause of this seemed to be the direction. From the start, it felt as though the director wasn't taking the source material seriously. He approached it like children's entertainment. Scenes vacillated between camp and melodrama without adding up to anything substantial. Characters appeared for a sequence or two then disappeared, as if forgotten. There was no subtlety or artistry: at no point did the film trust in our intelligence. And, worst of all, Green Lantern was the one thing a superhero movie should never be: boring.

This wasn't as bad as the worst. This wasn't another Catwoman or even a Daredevil. What's hardest for us is the realization that Green Lantern got the characters, settings, and even the story right. But it did so with a disregard for pacing, structure, and emotional realism that wouldn't cut it on television.

If we tell you not to watch this, will you listen? Will it matter if we tell you this movie deserves a relative two stars against a scale from Catwoman to Superman? Or will you shrug, as we did, and go anyway?

Because it's the summer. Because it's the Green Lantern. And because, good or bad, they actually made this, and you need to see it to believe it.

If you can wait for Netflix, do so. Otherwise, you have our sympathies. We only hope that when Warner Bros. makes a sequel, they hire a director who can actually be bothered to make a good movie.

After two really good superhero films and a fantastic film about a panda martial-artist, The Middle Room has endured its first major disappointment of the season. We knew they couldn't all be great, but we were really hoping this wouldn't be the one to let us down.

Big Changes for The Middle Room

2011-06-14T18:21:00.000-07:00

Having previously failed to capture the interest of a new, young audience, The Middle Room is preparing to undergo a massive reconstruction. We'll be wrapping up all current features and series by the end of August, to be followed by a completely new, completely relaunched blog experience in September.

What can you expect from this new site? We're rebuilding the entire Middle Room from the ground up to offer a newer, edgier, sexier blog.

What does all that mean? Two words: chin straps. That's right, new, edgy chin straps. Sexy chin straps. And maybe some knee pads. Also, all toys displayed in our photos must, by editorial mandate, now wear pants. No exceptions*. We're relaunching all series at #1, providing a jumping-on point for blog-readers who are too intimidated to start reading an ongoing blog. For example, our review of Transformers 3 will be a review of Transformers 1. It's just that edgy.

To our longtime fans who have grown accustomed to the way things are, we have this to say: don't let the door hit you on the way out. That's right. We don't need you anymore. Why? Because we've got the future of blog distribution figured out, and here it is: same day digital distribution. That's right. Beginning in September, all blog posts on the Middle Room WILL BE AVAILABLE ON DIGITAL DEVICES ON THE SAME DAY THEY'RE POSTED HERE. Our analysts have assured us this will draw in a newer, younger, hipper audience.

In case that last part wasn't clear, we mean a newer hipper younger audience than the one we currently have (you).

So get out your chin straps, and get ready to party like it's 1994. Because, clearly, that's the future.

*A small number of pant-less exceptions may be made for edgy photographs, but they must be sufficiently edgy.

Re-Review: Spider-Man Turn Off the Dark

2011-06-04T15:47:00.000-07:00

Several months ago, the Middle Room had an opportunity to view Julie Taymor's infamous musical, Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. Our review was less than glowing, and as a result the play was closed for three weeks so it could be completely overhauled with a new writer and director.

Despite reservations, we felt obligated to view the updated performance.

The new play no longer feels like Taymor's, nor does it feel like something new. Rather, it feels like an adaptation of the original, recreated by a civilization a thousand years in the future. That they seem to have access to the original soundtrack and cast is not necessarily a good thing.

The entire play feels muted, despite the deafening music and blinding lights. Almost every aspect was improved, but the experience is no better than before.

Elements and characters have been fixed across the board: Aunt May is now a likable character, as is Mary Jane. And the plot is at least 85% more existent than in the prior version. Connections exist between one scene and the next, and most characters now have something that could at least cynically be referred to as motivation - a huge step up.

But nothing feels right. They gutted the original production and strung the innards over the stage. For better or for worse (mainly the latter), the original felt like it was made with a vision. A skewed, twisted vision, certainly, but at least a sense of how the design fit the overall production.

But while the set and props remain, the production's been overhauled. The costumes and backdrops no longer fit the new show; nothing feels right. Everything was built around Taymor's spider-goddess, Arachne, who's been reduced to a minor character. While the original version failed miserably in its execution, the concept of a patron mythological being who turns into Spider-Man's nemesis when he tries to abandon his totem symbol had potential. As bad as some of those scenes were - and they got extremely bad - they weren't boring.

The reworked version, however, mostly comes off as bland, particularly in the tedious second act. Sure, that act used to be a train wreck, but at least train wrecks are exciting.

With Arachne reduced to giving pep talks, the play instead focuses on Green Goblin. His backstory is now fleshed out, which could have paid off if not for the lingering elements from the play's predecessor. While the character's interactions between musical numbers are improved, they don't exactly mesh with the songs, which were clearly written to serve an entirely different arc.

The Sinister Six, no doubt in an attempt at streamlining, have been "re-imagined" as creations of the Goblin's. More specifically, they're products of his continued genetic experiments splicing human and animal DNA.

Keep in mind, Carnage is among those supposed experiments. What, exactly, Carnage is supposed to have been spliced with is never made clear. Nor is Swiss Miss (one of Taymor's creations) explained. Perhaps the Green Goblin spliced her DNA with that of a food processor.

Also baffling is the reworked death of Uncle Ben. Fans were angry at his unconventional death in the last version, when he was hit by Flash Thompson's stolen car after Peter watched the theft occur. Likely in an attempt to placate fans, they've reverted to something ostensibly closer to the original. Ostensibly.

After arguing with his uncle, Peter competes in a wrestling match, which he easily wins. He's immediately paid the promised money, and walks home feeling pleased with himself. On his way home, his uncle is shot by a car jacker.

Absent is any connection between Peter and Ben's murderer. Without it, Peter is ultimately innocent - the crime really isn't his fault. The play ignores this, of course, and he descends into a pit of angst until Arachne sings a song about how he can wear the red blood of the innocent and the blue of the night's grief (or something).

The origin of the costume is another carryover from Taymor's version. Perhaps she failed to notice that Spider-man's colors also mirror the American flag, as well as Superman's, who Parker was largely a parody of when first created.

Or maybe they just figured that an angst-ridden song about red blood and blue sorrow would play better to a generation obsessed with Twilight.

At any rate, the new version of Turn Off the Dark is probably a better play, but there's far less reason to see it. The original incarnation was a glorious failure: this is just the conventional sort.

They set out to fix Turn Off the Dark, and after a complicated operation at the vet's office, the play has indeed been fixed. As such, it will no longer hump your leg, which is certainly a plus. However, now it just sits limply in the corner, a musical devoid of the manic energy that once infused it.

Movie Review: X-Men: First Class

2011-06-03T20:31:00.000-07:00

It took Matthew Vaughn four tries, but he's finally directed a movie The Middle Room can get behind. His first film, Layer Cake, was all style, no substance, and the end result - while not exactly bad - left us disappointed. He followed this up with Stardust, which we rank number 3 on our list of most disappointing adaptations of all time, in this or any parallel universe (full list forthcoming). Again, the style was there, but the pacing and story fell flat (as did everything else in Stardust: seriously, that movie sucks).

Despite this, we were extremely excited about his third film, Kick-Ass, which looked incredible from its previews. The movie itself, however, was once more lacking any real substance. There were plenty of brilliant scenes, but they never came together into a satisfying whole.

We weren't sure what to expect from X-Men: First Class. It turns out that the movie is, well, all style with little real substance; a bunch of interesting scenes strung together without regard to flow by a director who clearly doesn't know the first thing about pacing.

But that's all right. Because the style was THAT GOOD. Sure, there are a few bad scenes. Sure, the story lacks nuance. But believe us when we assure you that this movie has style. The first of this summer's two superhero period pieces, First Class unfolds in the 1960's and offers an origin for Professor X and Magneto. And, setting aside all the missed opportunities around minor characters, the origin created hits all the right notes.

There are the usual missed opportunities around minor characters, and we still don't have a real fight scene between two teams: everyone just pairs off to battle their opposite. But that's okay. Because Magneto starts this movie hunting down and executing Nazis, and he only gets more likable as the film progresses. Reviewers are tossing around comparisons with James Bond, and the parallels are definitely evident.

First Class doesn't get everything right, and it falls short of X-Men 2. To say it's better than X-Men 3 and Wolverine would be a cynical statement: after all, those were abject failures. A more telling observation is that it's far superior to the first X-Men movie, and that it's more than sufficient to get this flailing series back on track.

Matthew Vaughn's weaknesses are still evident here, but he's also given room to demonstrate his strengths. Sure, if X-Men: First Class had any less style, it wouldn't be worth seeing. Fortunately, it's saturated in style, and is absolutely worth your time and money.

Against the relative five stars of X-Men 2, we respectfully award First Class a relative four.

About September

2011-06-02T20:03:00.000-07:00

By now, you've already heard the news. It's seeped into every part of internet, even the sordid and dark corners, and everyone on Earth is aware what's happening.

Assuming they're geeks. If you're not a geek, you have no idea what we're talking about.

So we'll provide a recap. In order to appeal to a new generation, DC Comics is rebooting all lines and issues. Every comic published is reverting to #1, with de-aged characters, updated origins, and new costumes designed by the always inconsistent Jim Lee, and DC is shifting to offer same-day digital releases of all its books. So if you have an iPad, you can skip the comic stores altogether.

As a whole, geeks are less than thrilled. And who can blame them? The continuity they've been following is about to dissipate in a puff of marketing.

On the other hand, DC editorial has been watching their sales decline, and it's hard to blame them for taking note of the fact that more people are watching Young Justice than are actually buying DC Comics*.

DC believes their heroes have gotten too old. Given that Superman's been wandering around in a midlife crisis and Batman's been hanging out with four generations of Robins (including his whiny, obnoxious son, Damian ), they may have a point. There's a sense in which the DC Universe as it is feels like it's ready to wrap up.

Unfortunately, it'll never be given such an opportunity. The reboot, planned in a few short months, isn't going to offer anything a chance to conclude. The DC Universe is going out with a whimper.

But that's not why we've called you here. The DCU resetting is the final step. It began with Marvel being bought by Disney, and it ends in September.

What ends? Why, the Bronze Age, of course. When DC Comics renumbers their books and retcons their entire history, so ends the Third Age of comic books.

We welcome you then to the Fourth Age: the Silicon Age of Comics.

*Statistics based entirely on hearsay and supposition: we have no evidence to back this claim up, but it sounds right, so what the hell?

Movie Review: Kung Fu Panda 2

2011-05-28T19:28:00.000-07:00

Kung Fu Panda does not open a year after the end of part one with Po having forgotten his training and reverting to his prior state. Nor does he spend the entire movie re-ingratiating himself with Master Shifu, who has in turn not reverted to his state at the beginning of part one. The Furious Five have neither forgotten what Po accomplished in the first film, nor has their affection for Po vanished inexplicably between films.

We have broached the subject of what Kung Fu Panda 2 isn't, because we feel it better sheds light on what it is. Ultimately, there was absolutely no guarantee that the inverse would not have been true. When a movie - particularly an animated one - is successful, a conventional approach to the sequel is to change a few small elements then repeat the same basic format with the same character arc.

Not this time.

Instead, Kung Fu Panda opens with Po more or less as we left him: still a tad happy-go-lucky, but nevertheless a total badass who's won a great deal of respect. Sure, he still has a soft spot for food, but it no longer drives his every action. No, he spends most of Kung Fu Panda 2 on a quest to learn about his past and make peace with who he is.

Did we mention that this isn't a comedy? This is, first and foremost, an action movie, and it is a damned good action movie. Sure, there are jokes, but they're neither the driving force nor the point of the film. There's at least as much drama as there is comedy, and the emotional beats hit their mark.

This is the second best CG action movie ever made, behind The Incredibles. This is a movie of badasses fighting armies. We were teased with The Furious Five in the first movie: this time, we see them them fully unleashed. Remember that bridge fight in part one? Remember the Five coordinating their movements into an elaborate assault that integrated their natural forms and abilities into a cohesive force? There are easily a half dozen fights like that in the movie, maybe more.

And then there's Tigress, the character who showed the most promise, but was never really given a chance to shine in part one. Our largest fear going into Kung Fu Panda 2 was that they would de-power her to keep her from overshadowing Po. And, like every other misstep that could have been made here, they didn't. Tigress is awesome. Not just run-of-the-mill awesome, either: she's breaking-down-doors, taking-hits-without-flinching, plucking-flaming-arrows-out-of-the-goddamn-air awesome.

And we haven't even mentioned the villain, Shen. Or, more accurately, the undisputed SINGLE BEST VILLAIN TO APPEAR IN ANY CG MOVIE. Pixar's got a lot going for them, but they've never had a bad guy like Shen.

He's a killer - for real this time - and everything about him has an edge. He's fast, precise, and more importantly intelligent. He's ruthless, direct, and driven. The first movie's villain was a bully: Shen's a philosopher warlord. He's Machiavellian and focused. This is a guy who's committed unforgivable atrocities, but he's complex enough to retain a shred of our sympathy. And, because of that, he ultimately feels believable.

Kung Fu Panda 2 is a major achievement. This is a huge improvement over the first, which was already an extremely enjoyable film in its own right. On a five star scale with Incredibles holding the crown, Kung Fu Panda 2 deserves four and a half.

Unless Cars 2 greatly exceeds our expectations, we suspect we've just seen the best CG movie of the summer.

Capes, Animated

2011-05-28T05:05:00.000-07:00

We thought the time had come to gather and discuss the state of animated televised superheroes, a subject longtime readers know is close to our hearts.

By our count, there are four major animated shows currently running which focus on DC or Marvel characters, not counting Japanese re-imaginings.

We begin with an old staple, Batman: Brave and the Bold. In accordance with our agreed upon penance, we are obligated to remind our readers that, prior to its release, we'd expect this show to rank among the worst portrayals of Batman ever shown on TV. Of course, it's now clear this couldn't be farther from the truth.

Batman: Brave and the Bold is an intriguing and entertaining show, which - at times - approaches the brilliance of Batman: The Animated Series (though it's yet to actually reach that level, but then, what has?).

The series has evolved over time, playing with different tones and concepts. While remaining an all-ages show on the surface, it's achieved some jaw-dropping subversive turns. This season, an entire episode was dedicated to the "Super-dickery"website, while the sexual innuendo snuck into Gail Simone's Birds of Prey episode is unbelievable. Add in the "classic" Scooby Doo/Weird Al/Batman Crossover, and you've got an all around brilliant series.

On top of everything else, we're continuously impressed by the show's willingness to kill the occasional hero and touch on the consequences. For a show ostensibly aimed at young children, a shocking number of good guys make the ultimate sacrifice.

Next, we'd like to say a few words about Marvel's ongoing "Superhero Squad Show." Two words, in fact: it sucks.

To be fair, we've only seen a few episodes, and those were back in season 1. But those episodes were unfunny, uninteresting, and offensive. The fact this show remains on the air while Spectacular Spider-Man and Wolverine and the X-Men are gone is an outright tragedy.

Moving on, we come to the first of the two new additions: Young Justice. Produced by Greg Wiseman, who previously worked on the aforementioned Spectacular Spider-Man, as well as the legendary Gargoyles.

While Young Justice is a solid program, it's also a tad disappointing. The series accomplishes what it sets out to do well enough, but its goals feel off target. The show is ultimately using its characters to tell spy stories, rather than superhero ones, and the result seems off. It tries too hard to come off as gritty and realistic, and winds up losing the fun and adventure that traditionally make the Teen Titans so interesting.

To the series's credit, its portrayal of the Justice League is spot on, including some innovative twists on Batman and Superman which fit the characters' histories perfectly. On top of that, there have been some great action sequences: this is certainly well put together, and it has a lot of potential. We just hope the producers back off the tone and start treating their characters more like the Teen Titans and less like agents from the Impossible Missions Force.

Finally, we move on to Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Like Batman: Brave and the Bold, we'd originally approached this with trepidation. Something about the previews looked off to us. However, when we actually watched the show, we were pleasantly surprised. No, "surprised" isn't the word: we were floored.

Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes may be the most ambitious superhero cartoon series since JLU, and at times it's almost as good. Working off of an amalgamation of five decades of Marvel Comics, as well as the recent films, the show is an exciting and intriguing experience. The characters all feel spot-on, with Wasp and Hawkeye stealing the show.

Our only criticism lies with the pacing. If anything, the show has begun moving too fast, burning through major plot arcs and galactic-level threats without enough space between.

Nevertheless, we find ourselves eagerly anticipating the next season. While Brave and the Bold and Young Justice are certainly great shows, Avengers stands out as the best animated superhero show currently on television.

Except for WordGirl, of course.

Review: End of the World - May 21, 2011

2011-05-23T17:35:00.000-07:00

We in the Middle Room have a deep seated appreciation of a good apocalypse. We reminisce fondly about DC's legendary Crisis on Infinite Earths, and have a deeply held admiration of zombie uprisings, vampiric plagues, and temporal paradoxes. If we could be so bold, we consider ourselves connoisseurs of the end of days.

Which is why we found ourselves more than a little disappointed in Harold Camping's recent offering, the now infamous "May 21st Rapture and World-Quake."

Before progressing further, be warned that we will need to discuss the events of last weekend in some detail in order to explain our reaction. In short, spoilers lie ahead: those who have Tivoed the weekend's news to watch later or haven't visited CNN.com in several days may wish to refrain from reading further.

It wasn't that the 21st was bad, per se, merely that it was a victim of raised expectations owing to its own marketing campaign. Ultimately, the day played out like most doomsdays, raptures, and end times before it, with a few twists that - under slightly better direction - might have made this apocalypse stand out. As it stands, May 21, 2011 was disappointing, yet another missed opportunity.

We shouldn't have been surprised, seeing as Camping's first apocalypse, released in 1994, was utterly forgettable and uninspired. However, as we approached the May version, the marketing campaign and teasers gave us hope that this one might be different. Production values seemed unprecedented: we haven't seen a doomsday with this kind of budget since the infamous Y2K fiasco.

But, when the time came, Camping's sequel was as dull as the original. Don't get us wrong: we see what they were attempting to convey. A Rapture without a single ascension, concluding with the bewildered expressions on the faces of the faithful; a fatalistic statement on the utter irredeemable nature of mankind and the hopelessness of the future. Yes, yes; very nihilistic, very clever. Except we've seen it all before. This was precisely how 1994 ended. And, for that matter, every other religious, mythological, and secular doomsday scenario that's played out on the news before and since.

Sure, there's the twist ending everyone's talking about: the non-apocalypse without the usual mass suicide and all that. Which is fine - no one needs that kind of a downer, anyway. Though seeing thousands of Camping's followers broke and distraught isn't too exactly a happy ending, either.

Ultimately, we feel cheated. It's one thing to release something like this in September, but this is May, when we expect more from our entertainment than Camping was able to deliver. He's putting a droll exploration of human stupidity against the excitement of movies like Thor? Come on, where were the effects? Where's the spectacle? Drama alone isn't going to cut it in a summer when Transformers 3 is getting released.

On a scale of one to five, where five stars reflects doomsdays like the Near-Apocalypse of '09, we can only award Camping's May 21st two stars.

It wasn't so much that it was bad... it just didn't deliver anything worthwhile or new. Sure, the twist was better than the alternative, but Camping failed to conceal his hand - we saw the Shyamalan-like ending coming a mile away. This isn't the worst apocalypse we've ever seen, but we still strongly advise our readers to save their money and wait for the DVD.

Future Markets 2011

2011-05-13T19:14:00.000-07:00

April showers have already brought May flowers, which have in turn brought allergies. Yes, in the grand scope of things, the showers were preferable. However, the blight of flowers brings summer movies. We're not entirely sure why this line of causation exists, but such is the way of things.

Summer movies bring a respite from the coming heat, though they carry a hefty price tag. As such, no one can see them all. Indeed, who wants to?

For years now, The Middle Room has consulted various tools of augury in an attempt to predict which movies would be worth seeing. Our results were less than satisfactory, and we've discarded such tools in order to make room for more toys.

This year, we'll focus on the fulcrum; the point on which our decision to see the movie hinges. We will discuss the piece of information we're waiting on before making up our mind, sort of a Schrodinger's Cat of film, but with 30% fewer quantum entanglements and 100% fewer dead cats.

Here, then, in one fell swoop, is every film we're considering:

Thor
May 6
While we were somewhat disappointed by choices made in the movie, it clearly continued Marvel's unbroken record of solid superhero flicks.
What We're Waiting For: Nothing: we already saw it. There was virtually no chance we were ever going to skip this or any Avengers tie in.

Priest
May 13
This looks like something we wish were good but fairly obviously isn't. Current Tomatometer stands around 20%, and we've yet to see any indication this will improve.
What We're Waiting For: Strong word of mouth could pique our interest. At this point, it seems extremely unlikely we'll bother, however.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
May 20
The original film stands as a testament to what light summer fare can be. Indeed, it's one of the best adventure movies ever made. Unfortunately, its sequels - which weren't actually bad, per se - just didn't live up to the first. While a film focusing on Sparrow sounds like a good idea at first, it strikes us as potentially pandering.
What We're Waiting For: Despite our reservations, we'll almost certainly go see this. A plummeting Tomatometer score could give us pause (if, say, the film drops below 40% without being offset by good word-of-mouth). However, the Pirates franchise maintains enough goodwill from The Middle Room to deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Kung Fu Panda 2
May 26
Kung Fu Panda is a solid movie with two major flaws: it was far too short and it failed to delve into its world and supporting characters in the depth needed. The very existence of a sequel could make these criticisms meaningless. On top of that, the trailer looks extremely promising.
What We're Waiting For: A Tomatometer score and reviews. Negative feedback (say, below 50% and/or word the movie lacks a sufficient quantity of kung fu fights) could easy convince us to skip this. We consider this scenario unlikely: as stated above, the trailers give us very little to worry about.

The Tree of Life
May 27
This is the movie to pay attention to, we've been told. No one seems to know what it's about, but the director has supposedly made several intriguing movies we haven't actually seen.
What We're Waiting For: Tomatometer, reviews, word-of-mouth, and the weather. If this movie sounds like it lives up to its vague hype, then perhaps we'll see it in theaters. Assuming, of course, the weather isn't great. Otherwise, perhaps we'll wait for DVD. Sorry: summer's the time for action and spectacle, and, while there do seem to be some dinosaurs in the film, we've yet to see verification of even a single superhero.

X-Men: First Class
June 3
Tough one. The trailers certainly look good, and early word of mouth is strong. However, Fox has repeatedly shown a profound talent for destroying this franchise, and we've yet to be truly impressed with a single film made by Matthew Vaughn. Kick-Ass may have had some brilliant scenes, but the whole was far less than the sum of its parts. And Stardust remains, in our humble opinion, one of the worst big-budget adaptations ever made. The fact that trailers for both of those movies had us extremely excited has us weary, as well.
What We're Waiting For: It's unlikely we'll skip First Class, but not impossible. A Tomatometer south of 40% would likely cost the film our money. We're actually not putting much stake in word-of-mouth this time: we seem to be in the minority in our assessment of Vaughn's work.

Super 8
June 8
Like Cloverfield before it, very little information about the Abrams/Spielberg collaboration has been made public. We sincerely hope this is the only parallel we need to draw to Cloverfield, which despite some decent creature work, was tedious to sit through.
What We're Waiting For: A Tomatometer above 80%, along with some promising buzz, would pique our interest. We'd also like to know a little more about this movie, so we can decide whether it's something we're interested in seeing. We're funny that way.

The Troll Hunter
June 8
This looks extremely interesting. The trailers have held our attention for a long time.
What We're Waiting For: Well, one of two things really. We either need the movie to open at a theater worth going to (i.e.: not the over-priced art house theater with the tiny screens), or we need this to show up on DVD. This is definitely a movie we'd like to see. Time will tell how we end up viewing it, however.

The Green Lantern
June 17
While the early trailers inflicted no small amount of pain on geeks of the world, later versions have subsequently improved our outlook. In fact, the footage we've seen looks downright fantastic, in spite of some questionable costume design choices.
What We're Waiting For: At this point, we're mainly waiting for the movie to open. It would take extremely negative reviews and word-of-mouth to make us even consider skipping this.

Cars 2
June 24
Yes, the first Cars is among the worst Pixar movies made to date. However, there are far worse classifications to be in than "worst Pixar movie." In fact, we actually enjoyed Cars quite a bit, despite its many flaws. On top of that, the genre switch from racing to spy doesn't hurt, either.
What We're Waiting For: While there are obviously other things we'd rather Pixar was devoting their attention to instead of a Cars sequel, as a rule we give every Pixar movie the benefit of the doubt. There may come a day when the studio lets us down and we start exercising discretion about which of their movies to see in the theater... but that hasn't happened yet.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon
July 1
The first Transformers movie was far from perfect, but it managed to convey the fun of the original cartoons. On top of that, the simple casting of Peter Cullen to reprise his role as Optimus Prime forgave a lot of design mishaps. Then... we saw Transformers 2.
What We're Waiting For: Verification there's some substance. It wouldn't actually take a lot: we don't need Transformers 3 to be brilliant or groundbreaking. We just need it to be not awful. We let the second movie slide on visuals alone, and we accepted it (after all, the visuals were awfully pretty). But now we've seen that. We've seen Prime spin around and kill a bunch of Decepticons. That won't be enough a third time, and if the reviews don't reflect a return to at least the level of the first, we will skip this one.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II
July 15
This is part two or eight, depending on your count, of the Harry Potter series. While the movies haven't felt great in a while, they've remained consistently enjoyable. We've previously compared the experience to a really good television show, and we believe the comparison holds.
What We're Waiting For: Come on. We've seen the other seven; we'll see this one, as well. Just not opening day. Why? Because it's opening against....

Winnie the Pooh
July 15
They hired one of the original animators to adapt several of the unadapted Pooh stories from A.A. Milne's books in the same 2D animation that was used in the Disney Classic.
What We're Waiting For: We'll see you there or you can go to Hell. Winnie the Pooh rocks, and this is precisely the way to make another movie - exactly like the first.

Captain America: The First Avenger
July 22
The second Marvel-produced Avengers-tie-in of the year. In our opinion, Marvel has yet to drop the ball, and this period piece - set in World War II - is unlikely to change course.
What We're Waiting For: It's more or less impossible for this movie to get reviews so bad we'll skip it. We're extremely excited to see this.

Cowboys and Aliens
July 29
Jon Favreau made Iron Man into a good movie, but that's not saying much. Any decent director could have made a decent Iron Man with Downey Jr. in the role. But how many could have made Zathura into an intriguing and intelligent SF flick? How many could have made Elf into one of the best Christmas movies ever made?
What We're Waiting For: We're waiting for Favreau to make a bad movie. Until then, we expect we'll need to check out his western/alien invasion flick. Because it looks awesome.

The Smurfs
July 29
Well, it's an adaptation of an 80's cartoon, so we should at least discuss it.
What We're Waiting For: Hell to freeze over*.
*Disclaimer: should Hell freeze over, no one associated with The Middle Room makes any sort of promise to see this movie. Not even then.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes
August 5
We have no idea what to expect from this. Planet of the Apes isn't exactly a property that we feel needs to be constantly revisited: honestly, we'd be just as happy if it died out. However, as long as it is around... well... we do like intelligent monkeys. And, should those smart apes rise up and start a revolution, all the better.
What We're Waiting For: Reviews. A Tomatometer score north of 80% would be a good way to at least get our attention.

Conan the Barbarian
August 19
We're big fans of both Howard's stories and Milius's movie, and we're intrigued by the idea of seeing Conan attempted using today's technology and budgets. Unfortunately, the footage we've seen so far has rode a line dangerously close to made-for-TV, at least as far as the acting is concerned. Conan may be barbaric, but there's a surprising amount of depth in the original stories.
What We're Waiting For: A preview that shows the movie could be worth seeing. Oh, we'll most likely see it regardless, but we'll feel better about the whole thing if there's some indication that someone put some effort into this.

Fright Night
August 19
We don't really know what to think of this. The original has some things going for it, but it's hard to understand why a remake is called for.
What We're Waiting For: Really positive reviews. If this tops 80%, we might try to catch it in theater. Otherwise, we'll either wait for the DVD or skip it entirely.

Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World
August 19
Are we the only ones deeply disturbed by the subtitle of this movie? The phrase, "All the Time in the World," has some history in the spy genre. We always expected to see it used for a Bond movie (it was, after all, the mirror to Bond's family motto, "The World is Not Enough" - read or watch "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" if you have no idea what we're talking about). Using it with Spy Kids is either a horrible joke or a brilliant subversive reference.
What We're Waiting For: Reviews, as usual. There's actually a soft spot in our hearts for the franchise, though we doubt it's enough to get us all the way to the theater, even if the reviews are positive (which is far from a given).

Movie Review: Thor

2011-05-08T19:17:00.000-07:00

Thor is a better movie than it is a superhero movie. It's still a fine superhero movie, but it stops short of being amazing or astonishing.

In fact, there's a sense in which Thor goes out of its way not to astonish. It expends a great deal of thought and effort towards grounding its ideas and setting. This is ultimately a movie whose primary function is to fold Thor into the world established in Iron Man. And, to its credit, it accomplishes this goal gloriously. It manages to adapt a huge swath of Lee and Kirby's Asgard. The Warriors Three, Heimdall, and Sif are all featured - quite prominently, in fact - in the film.

But it always feels as though these things are being folded into the existing world of Tony Stark, into a world of science and reason. In comics, Thor exists by rules written for Thor, and the greater shared Universe allows the various laws of physics and logic to clash. While we loved the crossovers and cameos, these should have felt grounded in the logic of Thor's world for his movie.

The character work here was very strong. Branagh feels right at home playing with Norse gods, and the dialogue works extremely well. The script drops the absurdity of the "thee's", "thou's", and "verily's", while the actors convey the sense these terms were always meant to impart. Clearly, a great deal of thought and attention to detail went into this, and it shows.

And yet, it's difficult not to feel a sense of disappointment. It was a good movie, but Thor spent a greater portion of the film powerless than Kal-El did in Superman II. We only caught a glimpse of Thor as a superhero: a single moment towards the end.

Despite the fact that Thor's origin is no more complex, the movie was hindered by the same issues that plague all origin movies: too much time spent grounding the magic and majesty they should be celebrating.

Thor comes close to Iron Man, but falls a bit short. If Iron Man's a four star film, than Thor is three and three-fourths. However, we're going to bump that to four. Why? Because of what comes after the credits. You thought the teaser at the end of Iron Man was good?

May 21

2011-05-06T18:57:00.000-07:00

The Middle Room felt it important to clarify misconceptions centered around the many billboards, posters, and RV's across America.

We have analyzed a number of Marvel comic books, and - based on indisputable evidence - have determined that the world will indeed come to an end on May 21, 2011.

Because, on that day, Galactus will arrive, and his hunger shall compel him to devour the life-energy in the Earth.

It is important to note that Galactus would never eat the Earth without warning us first. To that end, his herald, the Silver Surfer, will arrive. You will know him by his surfboard. It will be silver.

There will also be images seen in the sky.

On an unrelated note, enjoy Free Comic Book Day tomorrow.

Free Comic Day

2011-05-03T14:05:00.000-07:00

In early May, first weekend's right,

Free comics are a welcome sight.

Let those who barter books for pay,

Instead charge nothing: FREE COMIC DAY!

Just a friendly reminder to geeks: this Saturday, comic stores all over the country will give you comics. For free. Truly, it is the greatest day of all the year.

DVD Review: All-Star Superman

2011-03-27T07:12:00.000-07:00

All-Star Superman is simultaneously too faithful to its source, not faithful enough, and just perfect.

Ultimately, the DVD captures the core of the story. The issue, of course, lies with the details, too many of which were cut for time. Bizarro World is entirely gone, the Supermen of the future are reduced to a single cameo, Jimmy Olsen's role is significantly reduced, and - worst of all - Earth Q is missing entirely.

In essence, the story is pared down to Superman's relationships with Lois and Luthor. If anything, Lex Luthor is actually given more closure and Lois Lane's story resonates a bit better than in the original issues.

Taken on its own, it's a good movie, possibly even a great one. However, those details were what made the comics stand out, and their exclusion is more than a little disappointing. Ideally Warner Bros. could have released this in two parts, though it's not hard to understand why they might have hesitated to attempt such a thing.

We also feel like we should address the art. Like the cuts to the plot, we're of two minds about this, as well. It stays surprisingly true to Quitely's drawings, a choice we'd be less ambivalent about if we actually liked Quitely's artwork.

This is a good movie, and the end is genuinely touching. It approaches the level of the best of the DC direct-to-DVD animated movies, but it falls just short.

As most geeks are aware, All-Star Superman's release was overshadowed by the death of Duane McDuffie, who wrote the screenplay. The fact that All-Star Superman delves into issues of mortality only fueled such a comparison.

However, as a close adaptation of a comic miniseries, All-Star Superman isn't exactly the best reflection of McDuffie's contributions to comics or animation. This isn't meant to diminish his contribution to All-Star Superman: we have little doubt his knowledge of the characters and love of the medium made him the ideal choice for the project.

But in the scheme of things, adapting this was a small accomplishment for a man who's done so much more. Duane McDuffie's work on Justice League Unlimited resulted in some of the best superhero stories ever told: if you're looking for his legacy, that series is a better place to start.

On the other hand, if (like us) you've seen all of those episodes multiple times, All-Star Superman is another solid addition to DC's line of direct-to-DVD films.

If it's a rating you're looking for, against the relative 5 stars of the best JLU episodes, we'll give this a respectable four.

Movie Review: Rango

2011-03-23T19:37:00.000-07:00

Rango isn't a movie for kids.

This doesn't mean that kids won't enjoy it - or even that they shouldn't see it - but rather that, setting aside the fact that it's an animated feature revolving around anthopomorphic animals, it wasn't made for them.

The reason Rango works as a movie - and it does work quite well - mainly comes down to the setting, which is unusually sophisticated. You've likely picked up that it's a western from the trailer, however this is only part of the story. This is a western about westerns, film, and fiction. The fact that the main characters are animals is not incidental to the story, nor is it accidental that, while the animals exist in a town reminiscent of the old west, humans have moved on to modern cities.

Like the best animated films, Rango allows the comedy to emerge from the story, rather than imposing. The movie is certainly funny, but more than that it's intriguing. There's a logic to how and why events unfold, just as there's a sort of poetry to the visuals.

As many have noted, Rango wasn't released in 3D, a rarity these days for CG animation. While this is notable in and of itself, it's more significant in the context of the film. The concept of the movie screen plays a part in Rango. The movie celebrates the idea that a screen is a window of sorts. To turn around and break that window would have negated the effect. That the director was somehow able to convey this to the studio is nothing short of miraculous.

Rango is a fascinating film well worth seeing. It celebrates its genre and meduim to a degree that's rare in any kind of film.

If it has a flaw, it's in the characters, none of which are all that likeable. But Rango isn't really about its characters, anyway: it's about their world.

Against five star films like The Incredibles or Finding Nemo, we'll award Rango a relative four. We expect that some people will like this movie more than others, but we find it hard to imagine many geeks who won't at least respect the thought and care (not to mention the guts - when was the last time you saw characters smoking in an animated movie?) that went into Rango.

On Finances

2011-03-20T11:00:00.000-07:00

It was recently brought to our attention that Superman, the adopted son from Krypton, is seen by many to be of modest means, particularly when compared against Batman, heir to the Wayne fortune. While Batman is certainly wealthy, we felt it important to clarify and correct several misconceptions.

Batman is indeed the World's Greatest Detective and may in fact be the smartest living being on the planet (a debatable point; more likely, his is the smartest sane mind on the planet; the most effective brain on Earth). And it is well established that he is a match for the Man of Steel on the battlefield, and by far his superior when it comes to selling comics.

However, for all his accomplishments, Bruce Wayne is nowhere near as wealthy as Clark Kent. Despite his cover as a simple reporter, Superman maintains an vast offshore estate - off any shore, in fact: his fortune is housed on the frozen ocean at the North Pole.

In addition to a priceless collection of unique artifacts inherited from the doomed planet of his birth, Superman has added thousands of weapons, devices, and trophies confiscated from battles all over the Earth, across the cosmos, and throughout time itself. This includes technology of alien origin from a thousand years in the future.

On top of this, he is constantly amassing gifts from alien worlds eager to express gratitude and better their relationship with The Man of Steel, in the hope he'll assist them later in political or military situations.

He has an army of robotic assistants which would likely be valued in the billions. He has precious gemstones collected from the far reaches of the Universe or formed by Superman, himself, who is able to crush coal into diamonds in the palms of his hands. Finally, he maintains a private zoo containing alien species.

The monetary worth of his holdings is literally incalculable.

And yet, unlike Batman, who reports the entirety of the profits earned through his corporate enterprises, Clark Kent reports only his salary as a newspaper reporter to the IRS.

Superman is the richest being on Earth, and he barely pays a cent in taxes to any government on the planet. His violations of US tax codes are more egregious by far than those committed by Lex Luthor.

Review: Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark

2011-03-13T06:40:00.000-07:00

Note: Under normal situations, as a respected media outlet, The Middle Room would not review a play prior to its opening. However, with said opening now delayed until at least June of 2016, along with the breaking of the embargo by similar online sites, our editorial staff has given us the go-ahead to report on our experiences. Please keep in mind that the show remains a work in progress, that the script remains unfinished (perhaps, in fact, unstarted), the music incomplete (the version described below used U2 music as a filler, perhaps as a joke), and Julie Taymor's replacement by new legendary director, Gallagher, will likely transform the end product.

Marvel's entry into film is often incorrectly remembered as beginning with Raimi's Spider-Man or Singer's X-Men. In reality, the first modern Marvel blockbuster was the criminally underrated Blade. According to IMDB, Blade was produced for a estimated 45 million dollars, twenty million less than has already been spent on Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. It is our expectation that, prior to opening, Spider-Man's budget will overtake X-Men's. Our love of irony has us hoping it exceeds Spider-Man's, as well, though this is far from guaranteed.

However, Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark cannot be understood in terms of simple economics. In fact, had its producers understood simple economics, it is almost certain the musical would never have occurred.

Before we delve into the myriad ways in which Turn Off the Dark can be considered, we'd like to address the press the musical has already received. It has been widely written about, studied, and reviewed.

And everything you've heard about it is completely true. The things you've heard about the book? All true. The reviews that rip it apart as the worst musical in the history of Broadway? Also true. Glenn Beck heartfelt praise and insistence that it makes history? Sure, why not.

Everything said about Turn Off the Dark is true. Most of it is hyper-true. We're not entirely sure what that means, but it feels right. Hyper-right, even. It's that kind of a musical.

And, it is important to recognize, that for all the money poured into the production, for all its impossibly complex rigging and more lights than the rest of New York City combined, it still feels like a Broadway musical. We hadn't really expected it to feel like one, to be honest. We'd expected it to transcend description, to be, for better or worse, something completely new and different.

But it was definitely a musical. A musical featuring Carnage and Kraven: the Hunter, but a musical nonetheless.

Typically, the Middle Room refrains from spoilers, but seeing as how Turn Off the Dark is entirely rewritten from scratch before every performance, there seems little reason to bother. So then, let us dissect the musical. Nevertheless, if you are planning to travel back in time and view the play on Thursday, March 10, 2011, consider yourself warned.

Parts of the play are contained within a frame story of four nerds imagining their own Spider-Man comic, the ultimate Spider-Man story (or at least their ultimate story). When using a meta-narrative, it is often customary to contain the whole of the piece within the frame story, but Turn Off the Dark is nothing if not unconventional. At any rate, this broken frame accomplishes several points:

1. It ties the story to similar devices used in classical Greek theater, though, sadly, no one seems to have bothered with a classical Geek theater pun (we'd have been amused).

2. It bores the audience considerably.

3. By demonstrating an utter lack of understanding of the culture of comic fans, it manages expectations for the rest of the play.

4. It wastes everyone's time.

It is worth noting that the story told in Turn Off the Dark is absolutely nothing like anything anyone trying to write "the greatest Spider-Man story ever told" would tell. Retreading the origin story isn't something a fan would put in their comic: fans despise this practice in film, as anyone who's ever utilized the internet is aware (there are actually contextual clues in the play that the writers have never seen the internet, but have rather heard about it in song).

The number of songs the audience is forced to endure waiting for Peter to be bitten by a radioactive spider is somewhat staggering. The most notable of these is "Bullied by Numbers," a song so horrible that it makes State Fair seem like Sondheim in comparison.

Flash Thompson is auto-tuned. While oddly appropriate, that - along with bleached, spiked hair - give the number the feeling of Glee. Or at least what we imagine Glee would feel like (we've never actually seen an episode).

This shifts into Peter and Mary Jane walking home through Queens through an astonishingly awesome set. Despite that, the entire sequence feels lifted from the first movie. Only now, instead of just being a jerk, MJ's father is an abusive asshole. Meanwhile, Peter's aunt and uncle aren't much better: they're oblivious, invasive, and judgmental.

All of which begs the question, "What is Turn Off the Dark?" At times, it feels like it's lifted directly from the movie, until it invariably tries to do something completely new.

Consider the death of Uncle Ben. Peter, hoping to earn enough to buy a car to impress MJ, enters a wrestling competition with a one thousand dollar prize. All he has to do is survive three minutes against Bonesaw McGraw, played convincingly by a blow-up doll (no, really). He quickly makes short work of Bonesaw, only to discover....

...that the crowd's cheering, money rains down on him, and he's $1000 richer. He takes his money and starts towards home. On the way, he sees Flash Thompson's car being stolen and does nothing to stop him. His Uncle Ben, the kindest and dumbest man alive, tries to stop the robbery by jumping in front of the car and is run down.

Huh?

Okay, this is but one of the many times throughout the play that the audience is offered the chance to try and imagine the astonishing amount of thought and effort that must have gone into creating a finished product that fails completely.

Thematically, this version of Ben's death actually hits all the right notes. Peter's self-obsessed (and somewhat righteous) refusal to intervene directly contributed to the loss of his uncle. The only thing wrong with this version was that it was different. There's nothing wrong with different.

Unless, of course, you're treating the superhero as myth, which was the whole point of the play. If that's the case, then you're obligated to treat the origin as hallowed. Unless, of course, you have reason to deviate.

Say, to save time. Tying Ben's death to Peter and Flash's rivalry for Mary Jane streamlines the story: you don't need the wrestling match at all. So why do it? Why waste time that could be spent on something else?

Hell, why do the origin story at all? Your audience has already seen the movie: you can recap it all in a single musical number.

But the play wasn't merely retelling the origin. They were rebuilding it. And there were larger changes than Ben getting run down instead of gunned down. The whole first third of the play seemed to be constructed around introducing a new character.

Arachne. Okay, so she's an old character. But she's new to Spiderman. Unless, of course, you count Julia Carpenter, the Marvel Comics character who's used that code name. Or perhaps you'd prefer Madame Web, a more mystical character who interacts with Spiderman. If the writers knew about these characters, they decided instead to weave in something of their own: a more literal interpretation of the Greek myth.

Surprisingly, Arachne showed some real promise. Re-writing the origin of Spiderman's suit was an intriguing idea, and (as J.M. Straczynski demonstrated prior to the infamously bad conclusion) myth and magic can be integrated into the character to good effect.

Visually, the character of Arachne was beautiful. Breathtaking, in fact; the set, costume, lights, and wire work came together into effects works that rivals anything you've seen in film. In fact, given decent music, these scenes could have been truly powerful.

We're not saying the music had to be stellar, just good. Okay, even. Hell, Andrew Loyd Webber could have composed something and it would have delivered. Anyone, anywhere, with the slightest background in musical theater. Or most professional musicians. The average music teacher could probably have done a good job here. Or, you know, their students.

But not Bono and Edge. Good God, not them.

You know what's really amazing? We actually thought they'd be able to handle it. After all, this was going to be a rock opera. Why not hire rock stars? Sure, they tend to write melodramatic songs, but how bad could it be? However bad you think, we warn you: you are not prepared.

But Arachne disappears for a while, and we're instead treated to a sequence of Spiderman stopping robberies perpetuated by actors in extremely stylized comic-like costumes. This would have been far cooler had said costumes by stylized like something out of SPIDERMAN comics. But no. They're more like something out of Mad Magazine. Cool, but wrong.

Returning to the plot, we've omitted the last significant character, Norman Osborn. Only, like so much else, this isn't the Norman Osborn you know. Actually, the character's origin seems to be based on Doctor Octopus from the second movie (who we suspect was actually inspired by Mr. Freeze on Batman: The Animated Series). Yes, this Norman Osborn is happily married (though without any children of his own). He's obsessed with splicing genes in ways that are beneficial to mankind, and he despises the military.

Again... why bother? What does any of it accomplish other than making the audience sit through a series of additional songs waiting for Spiderman to appear? Those of us who sat through Across the Universe have already seen Julie Taymor play with actors dressed as soldiers marching to music: why go through it again with a far inferior song?

Once again, the sets, at least, are gorgeous. The use of perspective is incredible, and the sense of scale is awing. Truly, this is the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen of musicals.

All of this coalesces in a series of scenes chronicling Spiderman's battles with the Green Goblin, including a scene in the Daily Bugle where the writers are arguing with J. Jonah Jameson over confused reports coming in about the Goblin's attack. This was one of our favorite scenes, capturing the horror and uncertainty surrounding supervillain terrorism. Jameson, incidentally, was pitch perfect.

The big fight scene was also something to behold. Sure, there were issues. The Goblin's butterfly wings looked ridiculous (we assume the glider would have been too difficult to create). Also, his suit was mediocre at best. And he was portrayed more like The Joker than the Goblin.

But the transforming set, complete with transforming perspective that's almost impossible to explain, was incredible. And the fight, as you've no doubt heard, extends over the audience, with Spiderman dropping directly into the aisles and swinging to the balconies. Yeah, it's amazing.

It culminates with the Goblin's death and the end of Act 1. They let the audience mull about for intermission, trying to make sense of what we've just seen, then return hoping - praying - for fight scenes like what we just saw. Sure, the Goblin might be dead, but the booklet lists six more supervillains who've yet to appear.

But none of us were ready for what came next: perhaps the biggest disappointment in both theater and superhero history.

You see, when Julie Taymor is directing, you expect certain things. Among these, are fantastic costumes. And, while all the costuming hasn't been great so far (actually, Peter Parker's has been awful), the Spiderman suit has been great and Green Goblin... well, at least it looked like they'd tried.

But as the Sinister Six appeared one or two at a time, it was evident they weren't trying any longer. Carnage's suit looked like something you'd see someone wearing outside in Time Square while posing for pictures with tourists. Kraven's, meanwhile, looked like something you'd be embarrassed to wear to a Halloween party. And they were all better than the Lizard.

No grand fight sequences, either: Spiderman defeated the Sinister Six in a single montage mainly consisting of a cardboard cutout swinging over the stage while supervillains dropped into the set. Apparently, this was sufficient to kill them, because it soon became a plot point that they were, in fact, all dead.

Peter, sick of what being Spiderman has done to his life, quits in a scene reminiscent of the second movie. Sure, that plot line was borrowed from the comics, but... it really didn't feel like the writers would have known that. Actually, despite the appearance of some obscure villains (Dr. Swarm?) it didn't really feel like the writers had ever read a comic book in their lives.

There was at least one significant change from the movies, however: in this version, Aunt May is a total bitch. Really, this woman's manipulative, cold, and just mean.

But Peter didn't quit for Aunt May. No, he did it for Mary Jane. He threw away his costume and, for some reason, his powers vanished at the same time.

Furious that Spiderman had spurned her gift, Arachne resurrects Spiderman's villains, or so it seems. Actually, she explains that she's resurrected them as "Cyber-villains," in a internet/web pun that goes nowhere and makes no sense. The villains run amok, while Peter and Mary live in their apartment. We should probably add that they're living by candle light, since Electro has cut off power to the entire world, except for TV, which is broadcasting the resurrected Green Goblin's taunts.

Spiderman, naturally, ignores this for a few weeks. Really, they make a point of establishing how much time is passing. Arachne tries on some shoes (one on each of her eight feet, of course), then kidnaps Mary Jane. So Spiderman, despite possibly still lacking his powers, defeats all six supervillains by punching in front of giant projections of them during another montage.

There's a final showdown that attempts to deliver some sort of emotional resolution but fails miserably. As for the millions dead, weeks of supervillains controlling the world, and Manhattan getting burned down... well, all that gets dismissed by Arachne as an illusion. Makes perfect sense.

So. What does it all add up to? Should you travel to New York to see this? Should you avoid it at all costs? Is it so bad it's good? Was it enjoyable? Was it sickeningly bad?

Sorry. We can't answer these questions. Turn Off the Dark defies such simplification. It's a seething collage of beauty and madness set to music that will make you cringe. It's like having a decade's worth of old VH1 music videos beamed directly into your cerebral cortex by an alien satellite over three hours. It's the strangest thing we've ever seen or heard, and it refuses to be as good or as bad as we'd like.

It's as if Julie Taymor directed a $65 million dollar Broadway production with music by Bono and The Edge.

Or it was. Taymor just got fired, and it looks like that 65 million was a down payment.

2010 in Film

2011-01-01T14:20:00.000-08:00

Because we are compelled by annual tradition (and, we assume, international law) to do so, we will compose our end-of-the-year list. Rather than limit ourselves to a paltry ten, we are prepared to take a broader approach. Of the countless films released theatrically or direct to dvd, we saw twenty-six of varying quality. As such, we shall list them from worst to best.

Pay attention, because this next part is important. We will consider now only those theatrical films first released in 2010 in the United States in at least limited capacity. We'll come back to this later.

26. Robin Hood: This "beats" number 25 by a hair, and it's certainly a debatable point. In fact, there's slightly more to like in Robin Hood than in Jonah Hex, even if it's all in the background. Ultimately, though, we seem to get a big-budget adaptation of Robin Hood these days only once a generation, and this was without a doubt an utter waste of the opportunity. Lacking any coherent vision, tone, or direction, it was empty, meaningless, and boring.

25. Jonah Hex: As we said above, this really was something of a tie. Jonah Hex stakes its claim to number 25 on little more than a whim. That the short Jonah Hex DC Showcase flick attached to Batman: Under the Red Hood was superior is a painful understatement. The 12 minute animated piece was more moody, darker, more intelligent, better written, conveyed a more interesting story, and developed its characters with a thousand times more skill than the feature film.

24. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time: We don't expect movies based on video games to succeed in crafting a thought-out plot and well-developed characters. We do, however, expect them to try significantly harder than this.

23. Alice in Wonderland: Alice in Wonderland was one of those bad movies it was worth seeing for some of the 3-D effects on the big screen. If you missed those there, however, there's no further point in sitting through the movie.

22. Kick-Ass: Are we being hard on Kick-Ass? Perhaps. This succeeded in turning an adorable eleven year old girl into the year's most bad-ass action star, as well as providing Nicholas Cage with the most interesting role he's ever had. There were some fantastic scenes. Pity most were released online before the movie came out. And pity the rest of the movie oscillated between scenes of gratuitous violence and painfully awful dialogue.

21. The Book of Eli: If you want a relatively low-budget, thoughtful genre piece with a twist ending starring Denzel Washington, we strongly recommend you track down Fallen. As for The Book of Eli, it isn't bad, per se, but it's neither thought out, original, nor is it all that interesting. The ending isn't much of a payoff, either.

20. Planet Hulk: The first of the direct-to-DVD films on our list, Planet Hulk was good for what it was. While it didn't raise any bars, it was solidly entertaining, and worth watching, presuming you're a fan of superhero movies.

19. Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole: This movie drives us crazy. It's easily one of the most breathtaking movies we saw this year. If we were rating this on visual beauty alone, it would be in the top five. Sadly, it was also one of the dumbest movies we saw this year, containing dialogue so awful, we wanted to claw out our ears. Our best advice is to order the DVD from Netflix, mute your TV, then just play Dead Can Dance loudly on your stereo. This way, you'll experience everything good about the movie with none of the bad.

18. MegaMind: Eh. It wasn't bad, which is good, but it wasn't all that good. Which is bad. It's worth seeing, though, if you're a comic book geek.

17. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus: This was a fine movie. If it had been fifteen years prior, it would probably have been a good movie. As it was, the CG held it back.

16. Batman/Superman: Apocalypse: Another direct-to-DVD release, Batman/Superman: Apocalypse managed to tell a solid story, improving on its source material. Netflix exists for a reason, people: get on it.

15. How to Train Your Dragon: This was pretty good, all things considered. More specifically, there wasn't much about How to Train Your Dragon that was at all bad. It felt like someone made a list of everything that Dreamworks had been doing wrong over the last decade, then made sure not to do any of those things. And, to their credit, it seems to have been a fairly comprehensive list. But, while the movie never faltered, it never really soared, either. It was good, really. But we crave better.

14. Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: Having spoken to a lot of people, we've come to the conclusion that if you read the books, you either love this movie or hate it. If you did not read the books, you were probably disappointed with the movie. We didn't read the books. The movie felt good. It looked good. it seemed to exude good. But, overall, yeah. Just didn't interest us all that much.

13. Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths: The main criticism of Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths is that it didn't use the version of the League from the animated series, despite the fact the script was written for that team. And, honestly, it's a grating issue, assuming you're a longtime fan (which we are). However, it's still a great movie, particularly given that it was released direct-to-DVD.

12. Daybreakers: This could have been so much higher on our list. Top 5, easily. It had everything: great setup, interesting world, brilliant attention to detail, and even a solid twist. And then, in the last five minutes, it all fell apart. Oh, the movie's still good. Very good, in fact. And the ending isn't THAT bad. But it definitely drags this movie down from being great.

11. Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Part 1: We almost feel less sound placing this on a list of movies than the direct-to-DVD films. With each release, these feel less like movies and more like... well... something else. The Harry Potter films are so episodic, they almost feel like a television series. That said, it's a really good series. We can't wait for the last episode.

10. Predators: We reviewed Predators very favorably when it came out, and we've since backed down a bit. It's still a fantastic action movie, but it hasn't proven as memorable as we'd hoped.

9. Batman: Under the Red Hood: The final - and best - of this year's direct-to-DVD films, Under the Red Hood was brilliantly made. The character work here was topnotch. You'll note we're awfully high on the list to be discussing something that was never released into theaters: that's because this was better than most movies that were.

8. Tron: Legacy: Was this a good movie? Of course not: the story was idiotic and the characters were two-dimensional. But, like Avatar, it was a beautiful bad movie. And unlike Avatar, Tron: Legacy was also fun to watch.

7. Inception: While we're not sure it was anywhere near as intelligent as many seem to think, the fascinating tone and intriguing world of Inception made it one of the best espionage movies we've seen in a long time.

6. Tangled: This is neck and neck with number 5, but then I am a comics geek at heart. Still, Tangled is a fantastic Disney production that deserves a spot alongside last year's Princess and the Frog and the semi-live-action Enchanted as new takes on the Princess motif.

5. Iron Man 2: Plenty of people hate this movie. We appreciate where they're coming from, and understand. What's more, we don't begrudge them their opinion. Everyone has a right to be wrong, after all. The genius of Iron Man 2 is that it feels more like a handful of issues of Marvel Comics Presents than a graphic novel about any one character. Maybe some of those issues are out of order: who cares? This is a movie where Black Widow and Happy Hogan team-up to deactivate the computer program that's controlling War Machine. This thing kicks ass.

4. True Grit: We've never seen the original, and, from what we've heard, we never need to. The Coen Brothers' version is an intriguing and entertaining picture. And in her own way, the fourteen year-old heroine comes off as just as badass as Hit Girl. Honestly, which is more frightening: a young girl with a gun or one with a knowledge of the law?

3. Toy Story 3: Numbers two and three are a hair's breath apart. Honestly, in a few months, we'll probably forget about number 2 and regret shoving this so far back. But, for the time being, this is our assessment. Toy Story 3 was a fantastic movie. The last thirty minutes are terrifying, sad, and touching. You know, par for the course when it comes to Pixar.

2. Black Swan: Like we said above, we make no guarantee our feelings won't change. Technically, Black Swan is probably a psychological drama or something like that. But, as far as we're concerned, it was one of the best horror movies we've seen in years. It plays with perspective and reality in a way that burrows into your head, until you're not really sure what's real and what isn't. While we were at times ambivalent, the film builds and offers one of the best payoffs we've seen in years during the last act. Personally, we might have preferred the ending a few minutes earlier, but that's just our taste.

1. The Secret of Kells: Yes, we're well aware that this movie was released internationally in 2009 and that it played a handful of film festivals and even a short run or two in select cities (qualifying it for last year's Oscars). But it wasn't technically given a real release in this country until this year. Even that was so short we never heard about it. Fortunately, Netflix picked up the slack and has been streaming this, which is how we finally got to see it. And, dear God, is it pretty. We mean REALLY PRETTY. As in, so pretty you will cry. Not because anything sad or dramatic is happening, but just because your mind won't be able to stand the sheer beauty of what you're seeing and hearing. That good. Sure, we're stretching the definition of "new movie" to include this, but we have little choice. Because, just once, we need to be able to say that the Secret of Kells is, without a doubt, the best new movie we saw this year.

The Middle Room will not be shown tonight...

2010-11-28T16:15:00.000-08:00

Instead we bring you Mainlining Christmas.

The Middle Room will return after the holidays at its regularly scheduled time.

DVD Review: Superman/Batman: Apocalypse

2010-11-13T08:57:00.000-08:00

Superman/Batman: Apocalypse is quite a bit better than its predecessor, Public Enemies. In fact, unlike Public Enemies, we actually enjoyed it more than the comic arc it was based on. Granted, this wasn't a particularly high bar to ascend: the comic, while containing a handful of fantastic moments, just didn't succeed in making Kara - the story's central character - sympathetic or interesting. The movie, on the other hand, did manage this feat, and worked as a result.

In some ways, the source material for this storyline was easier to adapt than that for Public Enemies. As we explained in last year's review, our favorite moments in Public Enemies were internal, and as such wound up amputated from the DVD release. The Supergirl arc didn't have this problem: the best scenes were action or dialogue. Everything we wanted was present, and a few of the worst scenes were rewritten.

Unfortunately, all of this care was only enough to raise the movie to the level of "pretty good." Despite their best effort, the filmmakers were still restrained by several absurd plot twists and poor dialogue, almost all of which we recall from the comics.

We should probably digress from a moment to talk about the movie's infamous title. The comic series had "Supergirl" in the title, appropriate as the story revolves around the arrival of Kara Zor-El, Superman's cousin. The director has said she'd have preferred this title, but it was decided higher up that Supergirl wouldn't sell.

Of course we find such studio interference idiotic. We presume that any comics fan who would avoid a dvd with the name "Supergirl" on the cover would likely also avoid a dvd they'd heard was about Supergirl, regardless what it was called.

Ultimately, we're less concerned with a movie's title than its content. Warner Bros could have called it Batman/Superman 2: X-Men United, and we wouldn't hold it against the movie. And, when push comes to shove, this version is fairer to its female characters - particularly Supergirl - than the comics were. This was most notable during the finale, where Supergirl was given a far larger role. It's also worth noting that throughout the character designs were less offensive (though we still miss the visual style of JLU).

There are some good moments and ideas in Superman/Batman: Apocalypse. And there's some good animation. The voice acting is less consistent than we're used to, but, despite our skepticism, Summer Glau managed to carry the role and steal the movie. It's also always nice to hear Kevin Conroy's voice coming from Batman's mouth.

The real issue with this is that we've seen it all before, and we've seen it better. JLU used all these characters to far better effect, covering many of the same ideas and battles. To any who haven't seen that series, watch those first. This is good, but JLU was great. So are the animated DCU films Justice League: New Frontier, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern: First Flight, and Batman: Under the Red Hood.

Against the best of those, we'll award Apocalypse a relative three out of five stars. If, like us, you're a connoisseur of these films, this is worth viewing, but we can't offer more than a luke warm recommendation to anyone else.

Movie Review: Megamind

2010-11-08T20:10:00.000-08:00

Megamind is a fine movie; nothing more, nothing less. To put it in perspective, it is at best the sixth best superhero comedy film which does not feature characters from the Marvel or DC Universe, coming in behind The Incredibles, Sky High, Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog, The Mask, and Mystery Men. If we to consider Marvel and DC properties, Megamind also falls behind the direct-to-DVD comedies Wonder Woman and Hulk Vs. If television programs are included, Megamind is likewise bested by The Powerpuff Girls, both iterations of The Tick, Batman: Brave and the Bold, and Word Girl.

That's off the top of our heads. There are certainly others.

This list is not intended to put down Megamind, merely to illustrate the reality that this isn't exactly unexplored territory. The filmmakers at Dreamworks Animation can take some solace in knowing that they have indeed produced a film superior to My Super Ex-Girlfriend.

At any rate, beside Despicable Me (a film we'll most likely get around to watching eventually), the most obvious film Megamind needs to be compared against is The Incredibles, and there is a sense of symmetry here that is profoundly significant. Back in the 1960's, when Marvel emerged as the industry leader in terms of innovation - not to mention sales - there was a period where DC attempted to replicate their success by duplicating their formula. While this sometimes resulted in good comics, they never came close to their rivals.

So it is with Megamind.

Oh, there's plenty in this movie to entertain us. The three lead characters are likable and most of the jokes are solid. With the exception of a prolonged Marlon Brando rift, none of the gags were grating, and even that was tolerable.

The main problem with Megamind was a lack of commitment. The movie either needed to have some gravitas or it needed to set aside moralizing and play up the dark humor.

For a few brief moments at the beginning, when Megamind is breaking out of prison, unveiling massive devices, destroying property, and just having fun, the movie is at the top of its game. But we didn't really expected this to last, and indeed, he quickly has a predictable change of heart.

There's nothing wrong with that, either. When he first realizes the how utterly meaningless his existence is without adversity, there are some fascinating parallels with Wanted (the comic, not the movie). This "twist" closes the door on darkhearted fun, but offers an opportunity for some actual drama. Pity they squandered it, opting instead for slapstick.

Watching The Incredibles, it's obvious that Brad Bird appreciates the humor intrinsic to comic book heroes, but he also has a deep respect and understanding of his source material. The same can be said of every other film listed in the first paragraph of this review. But not Megamind. At least not on the same level.

It's clear the writers of Megamind find superheroes funny on a superficial level. Yes, they wear capes and tights. Yes, their cities have names like Metropolis. And, to the writers' credit, they were able to churn out some funny gags. However, naming the city "Metrocity" only invites comparison to Townsville and The City - two better uses of the exact same joke - and Megamind just can't compete.

The odd thing is that there was room to develop the story into something more effective. The title character and his best friend, Minion, were fantastic characters, as was the obligatory intrepid reporter. But there was only one moment in the movie that had any real weight: when Megamind was told off by said reporter, and was asked, quite simply, what he'd expected. Everything else felt by-the-book.

The character's back story was more cartoon than comic book. The initial premise - Megamind was the last son of his dying world, rocketed towards Earth to seek out his destiny, only to get shown up by the last son of a neighboring dying world also being sent to Earth - was actually quite inspired.

But as soon as they reach Earth, the premise was merely played for laughs. It's not hard to imagine why: it is, fundamentally, a parody of Superman's origin. And it is funny. Just not for long.

This is a common error among those trying to parody superhero back stories. While straight absurdity may amuse most audiences, it makes actual fans of comics cringe, not because they're making fun of Superman, but because they have no idea what they're making fun of.

The fact remains, the silver age back story of Lex and Clark in Smallville is significantly more ridiculous and absurd than any superheroes-in-school jokes the makers of Megamind can cobble together.

In place of motivation, Megamind's youth is a montage of slapstick. He fares better than his nemesis, however, who is grossly inconsistent. Is Metroman a showboating jackass out for the glory, a self-obsessed idiot who kept saving the day until he grew bored, or a benevolent genius, who perceives more than he seems to? Any of these could have worked. Instead, we're left with a character whose entire personality, intellect, and powers are rewritten around each scene.

And yet, despite all of these flaws, the movie works. This is a solid three star movie against The Incredibles's five. This is ultimately worth seeing.

The problem is that there are so many other superhero movies and television shows that you should see first.

Movie Review: Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

2010-09-25T13:58:00.000-07:00

Professional critics are split neatly in half in their opinion of Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole: the film is currently holding at exactly 50% on the Tomatometer. What's more, a cursory glance at the synopses of the reviews verifies that the schism lies deep: the critics seem to either love or hate the film.

We went to the movie curious to see which side was right. Walking out, we found ourselves in complete agreement with all of them.

Legends of the Guardians is indeed a beautiful and awe-inspiring trip into a fantasy world. It's an exciting and thrilling viewing experience.

It's also cheap pablum; pathetic dialogue uttered by two-dimensional characters fighting to defeat Nazi-owls and to stand up for the power of dreams.

And therein we approach the common thread between these disparate points of view. Like so many other movies being released these days, Legends of the Guardians owes a debt to the 1980's. Sure, the novels it's officially based on were all released in the past decade, but the spirit of the movie is pure eighties.

In fact, we can think of no better description of the movie than watching the opening credits of Labyrinth in slow motion while a bottle of glitter is slowly being shaken out in front of the screen. Play Dead Can Dance loudly in the background, and you'll have faithfully recreated the best scenes from the movie. Play a power ballad, and you'll appreciate the depths the film can sink to.

The movie is a difficult one to reconcile. There are scenes of utter amazement, owls soaring into battle with weapons building off their strengths and forms. These aren't merely excellent fights: these may be the best anthropomorphic animal fights every made.

Then there's an obnoxious owl with a lute who's present for comic relief. Actually, with the possible exception of the main character and his teacher, every protagonist who's onscreen for longer than three minutes seems to be comic relief first and foremost. And none of them are in the least bit funny.

To their credit, all of these owls become competent when necessary, though only through the graces of a montage.

The movie was directed by Zach Snyder, making it his second adaptation in a row to feature a owl-based hero following in the tradition of his mentor. The war, though, is pure 300.

The only thing missing from the battles is blood, a casualty of the PG rating. This omission is somewhat striking, as the film - to its credit - isn't afraid to amass a body count. Watching the movie, we could help but think of all the extraneous blood spilled in Zach Snyder's previous films. If they'd used a few gallons less in 300, for example, no one would ever have missed it. And those gallons could have been put to good use here. Would this movie really have fared worse with a PG-13 rating?

In terms of passing judgment, we can do little but hold this against Watership Down, the pinnacle of animated anthropomorphic war movies. The visual effects here are easily worthy of five stars, but the tragic lack of substance cuts that in half.

As such, we're giving Legends of the Guardians two and a half relative stars. This doesn't mean it's not worth seeing, however. Provided you accept the mind-numbing simplicity of the writing, there's plenty of spectacle to make the film worthwhile.

DVD Review: Batman: Under the Red Hood

2010-08-29T18:52:00.000-07:00

Despite the new cast, Under the Red Hood, in many ways feels like it's part of the 90's animated series. It isn't, of course: the continuity explored is more or less the same as the comic's, though the story plays out differently than when it appeared in print. But the art and design echo the series, down to the interplay between fire and shadow and the cut of Batman's cowl.

The story, our readers are no doubt aware, deals with the death and resurrection of Jason Todd, the second Robin. If by some happenstance you were not aware of this, do not fault us: we've spoiled nothing. Unlike the comics, no effort was made to construct the story as a mystery. Aware their audience knew the "twist" going in, the filmmakers dropped it. The movie doesn't dangle the identity of the Hood for any appreciable amount of time or treat it like a revelation.

Instead, the story focuses on the psychology of those involved. And that is why it works.

Under the Red Hood reminds us of Mask of the Phantasm. It's carefully constructed and eloquently delivered. It's not epic: the characters are waging war for their souls, not to save Gotham or stop an alien invasion. It's dark without being gratuitous; dramatic without being sappy.

And, most importantly, they've delivered a fantastic version of the Joker. Connoisseurs of the character will detect similarities with Ledger's version, along with echoes of the Joker in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker.

This is a more calculating version of the character than those usually presented. He's sadistic and psychotic, but nowhere near as random than, say, the Joker who generally appeared in the animated series. He's a far cry from the Joker we'd have imagined, and yet there are no fewer than three scenes we'd include on a top 20 list of our favorite Joker moments in film or TV.

The voice acting is solid, though it's hard not to miss the cast of the animated series. As all things do, Under the Hood has its flaws, the most notable of which being its portrayal of Nightwing. While they certainly give him some great scenes, he's in far too little of the movie. And, when he does appear, he comes off as a sidekick, not a hero in his own right.

In terms of quality, Under the Hood falls just short of New Frontier, but it comes extremely close. It's now available on Netflix, and we strongly suggest seeing it.

Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

2010-08-14T20:25:00.000-07:00

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is a great movie, in that it accomplishes everything it sets out to do. The story is competently told, the tone is conveyed, the direction and acting are good, and the visual style is incredible. But, with the exception of that final aspect, the movie still managed to disappoint us, not because it failed to achieve its goal, but rather because we never clicked with the movie.

Simply put, we weren't really compatible with Edgar Wright's vision for this movie.

There were several wedge issues, beginning with this version of Scott Pilgrim. Many have blamed the casting, but we actually rather liked Michael Cera in the role. It was the role itself that grated on us. Scott was whiny, shallow, and self-obsessed. This wasn't exactly a flaw, though, because it was clearly intentional: the movie was a story of self-discovery and personal growth.

That, incidentally, was our second issue. We've seen these sorts of character journeys before: they're a dime a dozen on the sitcoms we grew up with. From this movie, we wanted something a little lighter or, barring that, something as original as its appearance.

And, from a visual standpoint, the movie was absolutely awesome. The fights were fast paced, intriguing, and fun, and the effects were a joy to watch. Unfortunately, the movie dragged when the punches stopped. The characters, while adequately developed, weren't particularly likable, making it difficult to care what happened to them.

Still, where the substance disappoints, the style reigns. Michael Cera was an action hero, and an imposing one at that. The battles were engaging and exciting, and the movie is well worth a trip to the theater.

In terms of tone, the movie almost reminded us of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; a jarring experience since we'd entered expecting something along the lines of Shaun of the Dead. Of course, Eternal Sunshine offered a more original story to support its innovative use of effects.

The visual style is almost reminiscent of Speed Racer, which time and reflection has elevated to five-star status. Against that metric, we award Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World three and a half stars.

Scott Pilgrim demands respect, and the action sequences are a joy. Unfortunately, the movie is easier to respect than to love.

Underrated Part 7: Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs

2010-07-21T19:52:00.000-07:00

It is with a degree of shame that we discuss this film: shame because we, like so many, failed to realize what this movie was when it was released. Indeed, when it was in the theaters last fall, we opted to stay home. We'd just been to see 9 and didn't feel the need to rush to another CG film.

We'd have been far better off skipping 9 and seeing this instead. Not only is it a better movie; it turns out it's better science fiction.

If we could offer up one point in our defense it would be this: we had no idea it was SF at all. Sure, there was a scientist in the commercials, but that hardly earns a movie the badge of science fiction.

In this case, however, there can be no doubt.

Despite its use of slapstick, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs uses over-the-top and impossible technology as a lens to consider issues and ideas relevant to today. Plus, they integrate a number of classic images and tropes of the genre; never in a way that breaks the tone or intrudes on the story, but rather in a manner that enhances the experience of watching.

Also, the visuals are beautiful, the jokes are absolutely hilarious, and the characters are fascinating. All around, this is a great movie. A great movie with rat-birds. God, we love the rat-birds. Even more than the walking television, a brilliant character in his own right.

There are moments when we thought the movie was about to fall apart, when things began pushing the boundary between absurd and wacky. But, rather than spin out of control, the filmmakers managed to pull things together, no matter how bizarre the situations became. There's a rule in film making that you never show a loaded gun in the first part without showing it fired. Well, this is a movie with dozens of loaded guns. But, instead of guns, they're rat-birds, peanut allergies, and a talking monkey voiced by Neil Patrick Harris. These aren't throwaway jokes: they're woven into the story. The resolution is, in part, extrapolated from these elements, but they're only pieces of the puzzle.

So, it's good. But how good is it?

Allow us to be clear by retracting a statement we made when we reviewed How to Train Your Dragon:

"We are still waiting for a CG movie that's better than Pixar's worst film. We're waiting for Dreamworks - or anyone else - to make a CG movie that was better than Cars."

It turns out that movie already existed. We just hadn't seen it yet. While Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is a long way from movies like Up or Toy Story 3, it's better than Cars or A Bug's Life. To date, it remains the only non-Pixar CG movie we've seen better than Pixar's worst films. That's a major achievement for something based on a book everyone - us included - thought shouldn't be adapted in the first place.

Movie Review: Inception

2010-07-18T18:47:00.000-07:00

Inception is a somewhat insidious film, striking a chord that's difficult to place. It is familiar, though not easily identifiable. Elements resonate with numerous genres and films. It feels almost like a cross between Casino Royale, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and AI.

The movie missing from this list may be the most telling. It wasn't until hours after seeing it that it occurred to us there were parallels between this and The Matrix. Indeed, stripped of all else, both films were about the struggle between the competing forces of reality and dreams. Both delve into the mind and epistemology.

Nevertheless, the two couldn't feel less similar. In many ways, Inception is the movie that The Matrix wasn't. Here, the style is understated, subtle, while the concepts take center stage. It is measured and considered, thoughtful and probing. It is, from the perspective of the science fiction fan, more pure, less diluted by cheap humor, silly leather, and Keanu Reeves. Where The Matrix is a SF/action movie, Inception is SF/thriller.

And it's very good. So good, in fact, it's difficult to imagine any fan of the genre disliking the picture.

However, it's equally hard imagining many loving it. Inception is the kind of movie that intrigues and engages you. But it doesn't enthrall or excite. This is not the kind of movie you watch again and again.

But once or twice more wouldn't hurt. There are a few moments we'd like to revisit for clarification.

Coming so soon on the heels of Predators, Inception offers the second good science fiction movie in as many weeks, a rare gift. It's also one of the best spy thrillers we've seen in some time.

On a scale between one and five stars, where five equals Blade Runner, Inception scores four. This is a far more intelligent film than we're used to seeing in the summer.

Movie Review: Predators

2010-07-11T18:38:00.000-07:00

If there was any question before, there is none now. Last summer was the year of 80s cartoons; this is the summer of 80s action films. And, as those of us on the east coast are aware, this year it grows hot.

But to say Predators is an 80s action movie does it a disservice. Predators is what 80s action movies wanted to be but couldn't quite pull off. It's the platonic ideal of the 80s action movie.

Before it was released, the question being posed was whether Predators was a better movie than Predator 2. Rather than answer that, we'd rather pose an alternate question.

Was Predators better than the original?

Before answering this, we should pause to reflect on the original Predator, to consider its merits, as well as its weaknesses. It is certainly a fantastic movie, produced with more ingenuity than money, staring the world's most iconic action star. It introduced one of science fiction's most famous monsters to the world, and provided a climactic action sequence that remains among the best ever produced.

But it is far from prefect. The pacing of the original was inconsistent, and, while it used them mercifully sparingly, their were some groan-worthy lines of dialogue.

Predators, in contrast, opens at a breakneck pace. It offers no unnecessary exposition and no flashbacks of any kind. Not a single frame of the movie is wasted on planet Earth. Not a second. Character interactions are quick and smartly written. These characters are no deeper or more complex than those in the original, but, by and large, they're far more effective. With two exceptions, any member of this piecemeal team could have carried the movie. Those exceptions, incidentally, are not accidental. The two "odd men out" practically steal the show.

Which brings us to Adrien Brody, a man who, by rights, should never have been cast in an action movie. He's thin, weak, and timid. The last person you'd expect to fill Schwarzenegger's shoes.

After watching Predators, we're ready to see Brody cast as Conan. Only it would be somewhat redundant, as that was more or less the part he played in the film.

Conan. With an American accent. And a gun. Fighting beside several of the world's most badass mercenaries, killers, and soldiers. Against three brilliant and merciless alien hunters.

Yeah. It was better than the original.

While the final act of Predators wasn't quite as amazing as the showdown in part one, as a whole it has fewer flaws. And, start to finish, it's solidly entertaining. There were a few blatantly CG explosions that we could have done without, but that's hardly worth complaining about. We were also a bit surprised by how much Predators echoed Pitch Black, though this is more an academic observation than a complaint.

While it was better than the original Predator, it falls short of Alien, which is really the bar SF action/horror is measured by. Even so, if Alien is a five star picture, Predators deserves four.

Also, we'd like to take a moment to bow to the genius that chose the music that plays at the start of the opening credits. It hardly seems a stretch to conclude that was probably Rodriguez's call. While there will likely be some disagreement, we consider it a fantastic decision.

Movie Review: Jonah Hex

2010-07-03T19:08:00.000-07:00

Sometimes a brilliant movie comes out that critics simply can't grasp or appreciate. In recent years, Speed Racer stands as the archetype of such a film. In other cases, a movie is released that is certainly bad, yet enjoyable nonetheless. Movies like Ghost Rider fit this bill; neither the critics nor fans of the comic thought much of that picture, and yet we found it entertaining.

Indeed, when we walked into the theater today, Ghost Rider was what we were hoping for: the reviews had been too uniformly bad to hope for more.

Instead, we got another Daredevil. Jonah Hex failed to live up to the characters potential, failed to utilize its actors, and failed to deliver a level of entertainment beyond what you'd expect from mediocre television.

We should mention now that if you're sensitive to spoilers you should keep reading. The shock of learning some of the movie's secrets may keep you from seeing the film, and, on your deathbed, no doubt you will think back on the two hours of your life you saved and how you were able to put them to better use.

To truly understand the movie, you need to grasp just one scene. Just one. Jonah Hex has tracked an associate of his nemesis to a pit fight, where one of the combatants is a mutant snake-man with acidic spit.

Now, ultimately, the snake-man offers some of the more interesting effects in the movie. He's quick, brutal, and kind of cool. He's only on screen for a few seconds, and Hex never fights or interacts with him. He just knocks the guy he's fighting into the pit then leaves, so we never see the snake-man kill or eat anyone.

Outside, Hex runs across some guys about to kill a dog. He rescues the dog, and it winds up becoming a slightly more significant character than Megan Fox's.

At no point in any of this is the audience interested or engaged. Only... confused. Why is this happening? Why isn't the snakeman more significant?

Throw these onto the pile of unanswered questions you'll ask. "How does the 'nation killing machine' work?" "Why does Hex's spiritual battle occur in a dull, plain desert that's less interesting than where he's physically fighting?" "Why are these scenes in the movie?" "What the hell did he just say?" And, of course, "Why in God's name are we watching this?"

At least it was better than X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

It doesn't matter whether you want to rate this against the best comic book movies or the best westerns: it's not doing better than one and a half stars.

There's some entertainment to be found in watching it fall apart, but that's all it really offers. If you're interested in what could have been, track down the Batman: The Animated Series episode, Showdown, which features Jonah Hex and Ra's Al-Ghul. Like Wild Wild West, there are several parallels to that classic episode. They still haven't gotten it right, though.

Movie Review: Toy Story 3

2010-06-20T18:08:00.000-07:00

It seems almost pointless to mention that Toy Story 3 was a fantastic movie: Pixar is, after all, in the business of producing fantastic movies. There's little indication they still remember how to make movies that are anything less than fantastic.

Even so, Toy Story 3 was something of an ambitious undertaking, because it was fundamentally unnecessary. Toy Story 2 had already taken the series in a darker direction, exploring issues of abandonment and obsession. They'd addressed the idea that Andy would move on one day, that nothing lasts forever. Was there really value in confronting that day?

It turns out there was, because Pixar perceived a rare opportunity. Toy Story 3 isn't about abandonment, loss, or death, though all of these concepts are incorporated into the film. This isn't merely another movie about accepting change or growing up: that happened between movies.

Toy Story 3 is about saying good-bye. It's hard to watch the last few scenes without thinking about the end of The House on Pooh Corner.

We should mention a few additional things about Toy Story 3. The first is that there are several moments in the movie young children may find difficult. Pixar does not shy away from dark moments, and this is no exception. The film goes to some dark places, from a daycare run with Nazi-like precision to what can only be described as the gates of Hell itself. This movie is perfect for those who grew-up with the franchise, but it might be a bit grown-up for those who didn't.

The new characters here are, by and large, excellent. Lots-o'-Huggin' Bear fills the Prospector's shoes nicely, and Ken captures the essence of the toy line to a degree that's astonishing. In addition, we were pleasantly surprised to see a plush version of Miyazaki's Totoro appear in a minor role.

It should also be noted that the last third of Toy Story 3 is vastly superior to the rest. While the movie is always good, it starts a little slow and picks up momentum as it moves along. The only other critique we have is more directed at the series as a whole: despite his symbolic and emotional importance, Andy was given very little screen time in any of the three films. We've been told several times that he's a great kid, but we never really got a chance to know him as a character.

Against almost any movie - live action or animated - produced by any company other than Pixar, Toy Story 3 would be almost beyond reproach. But ours is a relative scale, and as such we must consider Toy Story against the best. So, against the likes of Finding Nemo or The Incredibles, Toy Story 3 earns 4 out of 5 possible stars. If it weren't for the somewhat slow first half, the movie might have had a chance at the full 5.

While it's not essential you see it in 3D, the added depth did enhance the film. We doubt we'd have been any less impressed with the 2D version - after all, Pixar's greatest strength lies in their ability to tell a story - but it's still worth a few extra bucks for the experience.

Futures Market 2010, Part 3

2010-06-05T20:11:00.000-07:00

Last year, it took four installments to complete the summer. This year, we are wrapping up our prognostication after a mere three.

Yet somehow, against reason or logic, we are looking at the same number of films: twenty. Is this indicative of some unrecognized law of nature; a conservation of movies, perhaps? Or have we merely spent less time looking at each film?

Such investigation will need wait for another day. It is time to proceed:

Inception (July 16)
Estimated Tomatometer: 80%
While the earliest teaser offered no context or information, the trailer provided the concept and genre. This is, it seems, a science fiction movie positing technology which can be used to enter dreams.

Will it be good? There are few guarantees in film, and this is not one of them. However, we would describe its chances as far better than average.

With science fiction, one is better off listening to word of mouth than critics, anyway. As a whole, they have a tendency of entirely missing the point when wandering from the fields they know into the geeklands. If we hear good things from those we trust, we will likely go. If not, we may wait for DVD.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice (July 16)
Estimated Tomatometer: 65%
To us, this looks like it will be an okay movie, perhaps even crossing the threshold into pretty good or decent. There is a chance - a faint chance, but a chance nonetheless - it may be better, but we will speak no more of such fringe possibilities for fear of setting unrealistic expectations.

There's little to be gained by belaboring the point that the existence of this movie is bewildering, to say the least. We can only pretend to imagine the series of discussions and corporate decisions that had to be made and signed off on before this could be moved into production.

Nevertheless, there are too many interesting effects and amusing moments in the trailer to dismiss the movie yet.

Beastly (July 30)
Estimated Tomatometer: 38%
The trailer for this movie suggests it may be - to our knowledge - the first major film derivative of the Twilight Saga. A modern adaptation of Beauty and the Beast, it looks, well, awful, and we expect the critics will respond accordingly. On the other hand, Neil Patrick Harris appears in the movie, so perhaps it won't be all bad.

Unless we hear that it's far different than we anticipate, it's highly unlikely we'll bother seeing it.

The Expendables (August 13)
Estimated Tomatometer: 75%
This may not be a remake, but it's certainly a tribute to the 1980's action movie. Assuming this is at least decent, we expect the majority of critics will appreciate where it's coming from and give it a pass. Even so, it's not exactly our cup of tea, and we'll likely skip it unless we hear it's better than we're anticipating.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World (August 13)
Estimated Tomatometer: 75%
In The Middle Room, we tend to lean towards comic books chronicling the exploits of superheroes. Those other books seldom capture our interest.

That doesn't mean we don't respect them.

We've heard, from those who would know, that Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World is one of the best series out there. Perhaps, one day, we'll track this down. Until then, there is little question that the trailer looks amazing. After being disappointed by Kick Ass! we're hesitant to become too excited. But it's hard to avoid when the trailer looks this good.

Piranha 3D (August 27)
Estimated Tomatometer: 35%
We have no real interest in this, but felt it deserved inclusion. To their credit, the trailers do a fair job of conveying the utter absurdity of this remake. We've no idea whether this will be, in its own way, good, though we find it unlikely whatever merits are present will be appreciated by the critics.

And summer shall end, though the movies will not. No, if Plato is to be believed, the movie, the blockbuster, exists independently of mankind's simplistic attempts to reflect its perfect form upon the movie screen. And if one of us should ever break free our shackles and wander out of the theater into the realm of ideals and gaze upon the true summer movie in all its glory, how then would we describe it to those still sitting in the theater staring at projections upon the screen?

And would they even listen, or merely shush us for talking during their show?

Movie Review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

2010-05-30T15:51:00.000-07:00

As a rule of thumb, movies based on video games are poor in quality, as are video games based on movies. The movie, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, may actually be the best movie based on a video game ever made, though we will certainly understand if fans of the Resident Evil franchise wish to file an objection. But 'best' does not always equate to 'good', not that either is necessary for a movie to be enjoyable. Prince of Persia is, at the very least, one of the best video game movies out there, and is certainly enjoyable.

It's still not all that good.

But this is far from enlightening. What's most intriguing about this film is that, in approaching good, we have finally determined to our satisfaction why it is so difficult for movies derived from video games to cross that threshold. We have heard it said, from time to time, that video game plots lack the substance or the complexity to be developed into good movies. Yet the game this was based on has a far more developed plot than, say, the Pirates of the Caribbean ride that gave birth to that franchise. And those movies - especially the original - are far better than this.

The difference between them is that the filmmakers who crafted Curse of the Black Pearl sat down and answered a single question: "What do you mean by 'based on'?"

It is the question all adaptations must confront, and it is likewise the question that tripped up Prince of Persia. Is this adapted from the game or merely inspired by?

The video game actually has a surprisingly thoughtful story. It's not really a complex story, but it's thoughtful nonetheless. While the game also deserves praise for its design and action sequences, the plot is what ties it together.

However, that plot is ultimately limited to three characters: the prince, the princess, and the vizier. While such reductionist stories may function well in game environments, it's difficult to craft an entertaining film from such a skeletal structure.

So, when transitioning from game to movie, they abandoned the story entirely, opting instead to base their film on imagery and sequences from the game. And this is where the film floundered. While the sets and fights were certainly amusing, there was a sense in which the movie felt shackled to its source. If you've played the game, than you've seen these environments. You've explored them, in fact, in more depth than the movie has time to. You've used the Dagger of Time and have mastered it. Watching its application in the movie is somewhat akin to seeing a child pick up the controller without learning the controls first.

Meanwhile, the back story has been entirely changed to better appeal to a wider audience. The original portrayed the prince as spoiled from birth: the events of the game teach him the meaning of consequences and the significance of responsibility. Rather than deal with such complexity, the filmmakers have re-imagined him as a street thief who was adopted by a wise and benevolent king. The arc we're left with is of a man who begins the movie as a brave and noble warrior and ends as a warrior who's learned to trust his already brave and noble heart.

In some ways, this is as much an adaptation of Disney's Aladdin as it is Sands of Time. Ultimately, though, a live-action Aladdin starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Alfred Molina as the genie would probably have been a better film.

In addition, the princess from the game had more depth than appeared here. It didn't help that her animosity towards the prince seemed misplaced here, as Gyllenhaal was, as previously mentioned, brave and noble from the start, and was clearly as much a victim of circumstance as she was. As a result, her continued attempts to ditch or, on one occasion, murder him, come of as foolish, petty, and anti-productive, hardly an appropriate portrayal for the sole female character with a name.

In attempting to skirt the line between allowing themselves the freedom of being inspired by the source material and trying to faithfully adapt the game environments and ideas, the movie leaves fans of the game stranded between what we've already seen and what we miss. There's not enough new to intrigue us and too little of what we loved about the game for us to fully enjoy as an adaptation.

Compare this with Pirates of the Caribbean, which playfully tipped its hat to its inspiration then moved on to a new story, new settings, and new characters.

This isn't to say there's nothing to enjoy. Ironically, we actually did enjoy this film, thanks to the solid acting, amazing sets, and exciting action. We enjoyed it throughout, but, aside from the first big battle and the flashback to the young Dastan, we never loved what we were seeing.

Perhaps, if it should manage a sequel, Prince of Persia will be able to find its own footing. Certainly the elements are in place: Jake Gyllenhaal is a fantastic choice for the role. Now that its dues to the game have been paid, we'd love to see an original swashbuckling adventure story in this world.

Such prospects seem unlikely, however, as the theater we went to was mostly empty. There's little indication this will make enough to warrant another picture.

This movie clearly wants to be Pirates of the Caribbean, so it seems only appropriate to grade on that curve. If Curse of the Black Pearl is a five star film, than Sands of Time is good for two and a half.

Ironically, if you've never played the game this is based on, you're likely to enjoy the setting and fights more than we did. This isn't bad for an adventure movie - it manages to retain a quick pace and light tone throughout. But, frankly, with movies like Iron Man 2 in abundance, we have higher expectations.

Futures Market 2010, Part 2

2010-05-20T05:38:00.000-07:00

Every year The Middle Room attempts to look towards tomorrow, to predict, with what we hope is near-perfect accuracy, the quality of films yet to come. And, with few exceptions, we typically embarrass ourselves.

Last time, we considered the opening films of summer, but now we must gaze further into the haze of the future and June.

Half of July will be thrown in for good measure.

The A-Team (June 11)
Estimated Tomatometer: 40%

The quality of this film will likely be directly proportionate to the number of times they play the original theme song during the course of the movie. The trailer offers an uneven impression: we're thrilled to see this level of absurdity, but not impressed with some of the CG effects, particularly connected to the falling tank. Even so, this movie has certainly caught our interest.

The Karate Kid (June 11)
Estimated Tomatometer: 55%

While we don't have plans to see this, the fact that two remakes from the eighties are opening the same weekend is worth noting. We don't have anything against the trailer to this movie, actually. A remake of the Karate Kid certainly seems unnecessary, but it certainly appears to have been made in the spirit of the original, even if the martial art in question has changed.

Jonah Hex (June 25)
Estimated Tomatometer: 45%

Divided into its components - into the cellular units the film is constructed of - it is difficult to explain why we are not more excited about this movie. However, the previews offer us little hope that Jonah Hex will deliver an experience equal to its source material. The cause for this discrepancy is fairly straightforward: the filmmakers seem to have approached the character and concept as being comical, when there are few characters who should be treated as seriously as Jonah Hex.

That said, the most venomous insult thrown at Jonah Hex appears to be that it may be no better than Wild Wild West, and despite its many flaws, we kind of enjoyed that film. Regardless of our impression, we doubt critics will be forgiving.

Toy Story 3 (June 25)
Estimated Tomatometer: 99.8%

Neither installment from the Toy Story franchise rates highly on our list of favorites from Pixar. That said, the films are still produced by a company whose worst films exceed the best produced by their rivals (yes, even Cars). On top of that, Toy Story 2 was an improvement on the first. These characters are beloved by the filmmakers, and there is every indication that the third may improve on its predecessors.

While we often disagree with critics on many issues, we generally find ourselves in agreement when it comes to Pixar. Our estimate may be slightly optimistic, but we doubt we'll be off by more than a percentage point or two.

Twilight Saga: Eclipse (June 30)
Estimated Tomatometer: 25%

Before we go on, allow us to assure our readers that we will not see Eclipse. Even if it were to garner critical approval and strong word of mouth recommendations, we are less than eager to sit in a theater surrounded by that many teenagers.

That said, this is movie about vampires and werewolves (or at least things resembling vampires and werewolves), and and as such is, technically, a film related to geek interests. For this reason, we include it on our list, despite the fact the trailer managed to lower the bar on vampire/werewolf fighting with what may be the dullest looking battle sequence imaginable.

Van Helsing seems better all the time....

The Last Airbender (July 2)
Estimated Tomatometer: 50%

It is no coincidence that our estimate falls in the dead center of the scale: the simple fact is, we do not know what to make of this film.

Our thoughts on M. Night Shyamalan are in the public record. While we'd like to believe he's capable of once again crafting a worthwhile production, it's been a long time since such faith was rewarded.

However, the trailers have some promise. Certainly, it's easy to be underwhelmed by some casting choices, but the effects and stylistic choices cannot help but inspire some optimism. And yet, we recall being intrigued by the trailer for The Village.

Our estimate is a shot in the dark; an admission of uncertainty which guarantees we won't miss our mark by more than 50%. We expect our decision to see this will be determined more by word of mouth than by reviews, but we will pay attention.

Predators (July 7)
Estimated Tomatometer: 88%

Are we being optimistic? Perhaps. There is, generally speaking, a law of diminishing returns for the quality of sequels to R-rated movie franchises. But every indication we've seen tells us this will be an exception. More than that, we have a feeling, an instinctual sensation in our gut, that this will bury the Alien Vs. Predator films and surpass at least Predator 2 (a solid picture) in quality.

Time will tell.

Despicable Me (July 9)
Estimated Tomatometer: 45%

With all due respect to the honorable Steve Carell, the trailers for this have been passable at best. While we haven't seen anything offensively bad in connection to this, nothing has struck us as unusually good, either.

If our estimate proves low by forty points or more, we may see this. Barring that, we've little interest in another CG movie without the talent of Pixar behind it.

When next we gather to discuss this subject, we shall leave no reel unturned. Yes, the third installment shall be the last, and our gaze shall be cast all the way to the end of summer.

Movie Review: Robin Hood

2010-05-14T21:14:00.000-07:00

Many claims have been made about Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. While some are accurate, as many or more are misleading in nature and can lead to confusion about the nature of the film. In the interest of the public well being, we in The Middle Room have decided to dedicate some of our review to rooting out such misconceptions and setting them right.

This is, in essence, the educational portion of our review, and we will be quite upset if we don't begin receiving some form of federal funding as a result.

It has been said that, in this movie, Ridley Scott is attempting to relaunch Robin Hood in the same vein that Batman Begins or Casino Royale relaunched Batman and Bond. While there's a kernel of truth to this claim, it fails to fully convey the experience of the film. The movie may have been shot as if it were a dark and gritty picture, but the writing - and, in many cases, the acting - are another animal entirely.

Imagine, if you will, that the script to the Adam West Batman movie had been picked up by Christopher Nolan, then filmed in the style of The Dark Knight. Christian Bale is still Batman, and he reads every bat-line in the same raspy voice he's known for. The lines about bat-shark repellent and not being able to get rid of a bomb are still there, but they're spoken without humor. Also, the role of the Riddler is played by Frank Gorshin.

Switch the Bale to Crow, Gotham to Nottingham, and Riddler to King John, and you've pretty much described this movie in a nutshell. The only exception is the plot: the story in the Adam West Batman movie made more sense. Far more sense, in fact. More on this in a moment.

It has also been said that this was intended as a more historically accurate version of Robin Hood. This is blatantly false on more counts than we can easily count. There may be accurate props, the costumes may be somewhat more believable, and the setting may be more truthful, but overall this no more historically believable than Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Or, for that matter, Men in Tights.

If we're mistaken, than our high school world history teachers have some explaining to do.

This is, frankly, not a good movie. That said, it's not an altogether unenjoyable movie, provided you are willing to dispense with notions like continuity and logic. Characters have a tendency of instantly traveling great distances between scenes. The plot folds over on itself; there is little causal connection between one event and the next, nor is there much in the way of consequences. Meanwhile, characters will occasionally know things in one scene they did not the moment before with no explanation.

This is a movie permeated by images and ideas that feel eerily familiar. Moments echo from other movies you've seen. Sure, there's the obvious tipping of the hat to other Robin Hood films and the expected borrowing from Lord of the Rings and Braveheart, but then Darth Maul shows up and betrays England. And let's not forget the tribe of Lost Boys living in Sherwood. Or the scene from Saving Private Ryan. And none of this comes close to the bizarre echo of Queen Elizabeth: The Golden Age that occurs in the final battle sequence.

Also, we finally learn where the Joker got his scars.

It's easy to have fun watching this, though much of that fun comes at the movie's expense. It's entertaining, for example, to see Alan Doyle from Great Big Sea playing Allan A'Dayle, but he's still singing modern interpretations of folk music. And Oliver Isaac's Prince John is more or less identical to that of the talking lion in Disney's interpretation. Seriously. Watch the first minute or two of this.... then watch this. IT'S THE SAME SCENE.

Our reaction upon walking out of the theater was to ask, "What the hell was that?" We've yet to work out an answer. Was this supposed to be campy? If so, then why film it like it's a historic epic? It's almost as if Ridley Scott either couldn't decide or didn't care what he was making. Is this an update of the Robin Hood of the 1930's? If so, why tell a prequel?

Fortunately, for all its faults, there was plenty of beautiful imagery and solid action to keep us diverted. On the Chronicles of Riddick scale, we'll award this two and a half stars out of five. This was amusing, but, as a ridiculous, medieval prequel adventure with the pretense of serious realism, it falls short of Underworld: Rise of the Lycans. Still, if you enjoy sword fights and the English countryside - as we do - it may be worth a viewing.

Even so, it's hard to endorse this when you could just go see Iron Man 2 again.

Movie Review: Iron Man 2

2010-05-08T13:21:00.000-07:00

The response from critics towards Iron Man 2 has proven less enthusiastic than we predicted. Fortunately, this discrepancy reveals far more about the critics than the movie itself. A quick glance at Rotten Tomatoes, where Iron Man 2 has earned a respectable, albeit underrated, 74%, offers some context for those who did not enjoy the movie. The primary complaint seems to revolve around plot, which many critics - including several who enjoyed the film overall - maintained was light.

It may surprise you to hear that we agree with this assessment. Where we disagree is in whether this is actually a flaw.

Iron Man 2 is not, strictly speaking, much of a movie in its own right. It doesn't portray the epic struggle between a hero and his nemesis. Sure, there's a supervillain, but he's little more than a minor inconvenience. Tony Stark has always been his own worst enemy, and the movie allows him to serve as both protagonist and adversary.

The events portrayed feel less like a plot than a series of disconnected incidents. The film doesn't even focus its point of view on Stark, but rather widens to explore those around him.

In essence, they've made a film about the Marvel Universe's relationship with Tony Stark. We've heard Iron Man 2 described as a bridge to future Marvel films, and again, there's some truth to this. Only the term carries associations with duller stories, and we find it hard to imagine seeing this as anything less than fascinating.

No, "bridge" is not the word we use. To us, Iron Man 2 felt like a feature length trailer for what's coming. Rather than trying to tell a single story, the filmmakers used Iron Man 2 as an opportunity to explore their universe, pulling in more and more characters and artifacts from their source material. They've offered a vignette of sequences and character arcs exploring the rich universe these films portray.

In comic terms, they've given us the issues between major story lines, the books offering context and development. From a production standpoint, nothing occurs in Iron Man 2 that couldn't have been skipped: they could simply have made the movie after this one and made veiled references to technological improvements, character growth, and relationships, and we'd have taken it at face value. That would have been the easy solution.

But they've done something less expected and more courageous. They've devoted a film to the depth of the Marvel Universe. And they certainly retained everything that made the first movie successful: Tony Stark's eccentric personality, the sense of adventurous fun, the comedy, and the awesome action scenes.

The issue is that movie reviewers are trying to compare Iron Man 2 with Superman 2. But this isn't the issue where Zod conquers Earth: instead, it's akin to stories about Clark trying to balance his job and friendships while dealing with threats from Toyman and Metallo. Iron Man introduced the shared Marvel Universe to theatrical audiences. Its sequel allows that Universe to take a starring role. Meanwhile, Robert Downey Jr. deserves an Oscar for his supporting role.

When we reviewed the first movie, we held it against the best modern superhero movies. Against the same competition, we give Iron Man 2 the same grade: 4 stars out of five. This is a worthy successor in this series, and, more importantly, a fantastic harbinger of what's coming.

More than a day

2010-05-02T19:01:00.000-07:00

No day in the Geekorian calendar is as holy as the first Saturday in May. It is known by many names: Geek Christmas, Geek Independence Day, and, of course, colloquially as Free Comic Book Day. It is a day when anyone of any age can walk into nearly any comic book store in the country and receive one or more free comic books.

To the cynic, Free Comic Book Day is about nothing more than this: to them, it is a day about comics. But this is a flawed description. Certainly, comic books represent an important aspect to the traditional celebration of Free Comic Book Day, but there is certainly more to the day than mere comic books.

Indeed, we in The Middle Room maintain that were The Leader to steal every issue set to be delivered, Free Comic Book Day would come all the same. "How?" you may ask. Because there is a spirit to the day which cannot be stolen or dismissed.

It is the spirit of Getting. Yes, when you strip away the mass-produced covers and the dozens upon dozens of pages of ads, you find this kernel at the core of every book. If you look behind the grin of every young child clutching their first free bag of comics, you can see that glint in their eye: this didn't cost them a penny.

The store owners, priestly stewards of the holiday, perceive Free Comic Book Day at a different level: those books cost them money. But still, the spirit endures, because they are getting new customers. As are the publishers, who sell the comics at a loss in the hopes of getting new readers who will come back to hand over real money next time for the follow up issue chronicling the coming War of the Supermen.

In some ways, we consider Free Comic Book Day the most quintessentially American of all holidays. Sure, Christmas and Valentines Day have been blatantly distorted into a crass exploitation of commercialism, but the effects of these last for only a single day. Those behind Free Comic Book Day hope to manipulate readers - particularly new readers, children - for an entire year.

Or, if you're like us and are willing to stop by a few stores in New York City, you could well find yourself with a year's worth of free reading material free of charge. In one day, two agents sent from The Middle Room were able to procure 80 comics (39 unique books, 41 duplicates; one of which was signed by Jim Shooter and Dennis Calero), two buttons, one poster, and a War Machine Heroclix figure which will look great beside the Iron Man Heroclix figure we got a few years back.

So, in conclusion, we say to all of you in The Middle Room and beyond, happy Free Comic Book Day, and may Thor bless America.

Futures Market 2010, Part 1

2010-04-29T20:32:00.000-07:00

We've few traditions in The Middle Room, but trying to foretell the future has become one. Every year, we consider the upcoming releases and try to predict, based on trailers and word of mouth, which will be worthy of our money. As always, our gauge shall be Rotten Tomatoes, the most scientific appraisal available for critical reaction.

In the interest of fair play, we promise to make use of no time travel devices or divination in our attempts.

Here then, are the films for May:

Iron Man 2 (May 7)
Estimated Tomatometer: 90%
The first installment achieved a 93%. While we expect the sequel to be, if anything, slightly better than the original, we suspect a small number of critics who embraced Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance the first time to betray the series, complaining that they've seen it before. Regardless what the critics think, we expect we'll see this movie.

However, based on the trailers, we anticipate those of us who are connoisseurs of geek entertainment will be very pleased with this picture. It is hard to watch previews without thinking of Spider-Man 2, which managed to exceed the first.

Robin Hood (May 14)
Estimated Tomatometer: 75%
In his prime, Ridley Scott directed some of our favorite films. However, most of those came out in the seventies and eighties. In truth, we've been less than thrilled with his post-Blade Runner work. Our hope for Robin Hood is not bolstered by the casting of Russell Crowe. It's not that we consider Crowe a bad actor, rather that we find him a good actor who usually stars in bad films. We believe Gladiator, the film Robin Hood most resembles, to be one of the most overrated movies we've ever seen.

The situation is not helped by the fact this is both an origin story and an attempt at realism. Robin Hood is a figure of myth, not history. Tell the myth within it's historical context, by all means, but please, tell the myth. We've had enough "realistic" interpretations of Robin Hood and King Arthur.

Nonetheless, we will likely give this a chance, if for no other reason than Alan Doyle of Great Big Sea was cast as Alan A'Dayle. Even so, we have more faith critics will respond favorably to this than we will. Only if critical response is overwhelmingly negative would we rethink our plans.

MacGruber (May 21)
Estimated Tomatometer: 50%
Truth be told, we find extremely unlikely that we'll see this movie. We've included it on our list because it is, on some level, an 80's action pastiche. In a summer that will see the release of the A-Team and The Expendables, a clear theme is developing. Unless we hear very positive recommendations, we'll likely save our money rather than go see a Saturday Night Live spin-off.

Shrek Forever After (May 21)
Estimated Tomatometer: 65%
The original Shrek was a mediocre film, a flawed comedy with enough good moments to make it worth a viewing. We consider its status as a classic undeserved. Its sequel was a bit better. Still far from brilliant, it was at least a solid comedy/adventure. We never saw the third, but by all indications, there's little reason to do so.

It's difficult to speculate whether the fourth will be at all worthwhile. Our guess is that it won't be, but then our faith in Dreamworks' animation is less than high. If, say, ninety percent of critics praise this, we'll likely check it out.

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (May 28)
Estimated Tomatometer: 60%
While we have little time for most video games, the one this movie is based on happens to be an exception. We have, in fact, played through Prince of Persia, and found it an enjoyable experience. Judging by the trailers, the filmmakers seem to have gone with a campy interpretation, a decision we're not too thrilled by. This is clearly an attempt to recreate the success of Pirates of the Caribbean, and we will sing their praises if they succeed. If they falter, however, they will have squandered a great opportunity. Sands of Time is one the rare video games whose premise includes real potential to be taken seriously.

Micmacs (May 28)
Estimated Tomatometer: NA (Current: 79%)
We've yet to decide whether to see Jean-Pierre Jeunet's new film. While Amelie is one of our favorite foreign films, it cannot be overlooked that Jeunet did, in fact, direct Alien: Resurrection. While it's yet to be released in the United States, Micmacs came out in France last year, so a number of critics have chimed in. Whether its score rises or lowers is of little interest to us: in truth, whether we see this in the theater or on DVD has more to do with where it ends up playing than anything else.

Next time, we shall delve further into the summer, gazing into the eye of that enigmatic month known as "June." We may also consider some of July, as time permits.

Movie Review: Kick-Ass

2010-04-16T19:56:00.000-07:00

Kick-Ass is, first and foremost, an uncompromising movie. It was made without studio interference, and the artistic vision of the director comes through the final product, as does the voice of Mark Millar, who originally wrote the comics it's based on.

The thing is, sometimes compromise is a good thing, particularly when subtlety is called for. As for artistic vision, this is the director of the Stardust we're talking about. And, while Mark Millar has written some great stories (Red Son is nothing short of fantastic), the majority of his work we've seen has been mediocre at best. We never did get around to reading Kick-Ass, and we don't feel particularly inspired to do so at the moment.

This isn't to say Kick-Ass is entirely bad. In fact, as a whole, it averages out to good. But good won't cut it this time.

The issue isn't so much with the movie as with our expectations. We've all seen the previews, which were, on a whole, amazing. Those scenes were amazing in the movie, well: seeing them before hand didn't dull their effect. What it did was give us an opportunity to imagine what the movie could be. And that comes down to a single word:

Fun. This movie could have been fun. If the pacing had kept up or if the tone had been more consistent, it could have worked at that level at least. Had they cleaned up the dialogue as well, then it might have reached for something higher.

With that said, this is still worth seeing, though not necessarily in the theater. Hit Girl is awesome; an eleven year-old girl action hero embodies a facet of superheroics we hadn't seen before. There's not a lot that wasn't covered in the previews and scenes released online, but there's enough to make this worthwhile.

Ultimately, as a dark spin on superheroes, this just isn't as grand, intriguing, or simply as much fun as Watchmen. Granted, Watchmen had its problems, but it was certainly an experience to behold. Kick-Ass had its moments, but it was nothing special.

Kick-Ass might have benefited from studio interference. If the director had been told "no" from time to time, it could have meant a better film. And, frankly, if a bit of the violence had been toned down, we doubt the finished product would have been poorer for the loss.

On a scale between one and five stars, where five represents The Incredibles, Kick-Ass gets two and a half. This is a movie you need to see... but that's what Netflix is for.

DVD Review: Planet Hulk

2010-04-04T19:03:00.000-07:00

When DC releases an animated direct-to-DVD feature, we tend to see it immediately, sometimes taking the extra step of traveling forward in time to see it before its release. When Marvel releases a DVD, we generally get around to it in a few months, depending on how we're feeling.

However, we may need to review this policy. While Planet Hulk was far from spectacular, it marks the fourth worthwhile production in a row. While it falls far short of Hulk Vs., it's still a good movie, well worth your time.

We should state now, before continuing, that we have never read the comics this was based on. As such, we are not aware which elements were imported from the source material and which were created for the film. Therefore, we're unsure who to blame for the plot holes and cliches, just as we don't know who to applaud for the setting and characters.

Fortunately, much of the story predates the comics. Obviously, this owes a great deal to Spartacus, as well as John Carter of Mars. This is an old story with old ideas, but that's kind of a selling point here. This is a retelling - an adaptation of a sort - that feels more in tone with the old Marvel "What If?" series than anything else. That this remains in Marvel continuity can't change that fact.

If the notion of seeing the Hulk play the role of Spartacus on Barsoom sounds tedious, then this isn't for you. If anything, the movie suffers whenever it deviates from this premise. Having never read the comics, we don't know how closely the last act follows the original, but the story as presented made short work of the last twenty minutes. The conclusion hinged on a plot twist we can't imagine anyone not seeing far in advance. Calling it a "twist" at all is something of stretch. Let us say instead that one of the characters is finally shown something painfully obvious.

This movie exists so the Hulk can crush, smash, and break a number of alien creatures. This is, of course, amusing in itself, and the movie delivers the action you'd expect. It doesn't offer anything beyond this, but we didn't really expect it to.

Movie Review: How to Train Your Dragon

2010-03-28T20:48:00.000-07:00

Every aspect of How to Train Your Dragon is good, but there's very little here that's excellent. In a world without Pixar - and make no mistake, in the infinite sea of alternate dimensions, such a world exists (there are, oddly enough, no shrimp there) - How to Train Your Dragon would be heralded as one of the greatest CG films ever made, alongside Kung Fu Panda and Monster House. But, unfortunately for Dreamworks, Earth-Prime does have a Pixar, so we've seen better.

Before going on, we have a confession to make: we did not see this in its intended three dimensions. This was a mistake: the flying sequences were the high point of the film, and we expect they're even more stunning while filtered through polarized lenses. Perhaps, in time, we will see this a second time. If so, we will certainly try the 3D experience.

Although we did not enjoy How to Train Your Dragon as much as Kung Fu Panda, this movie was not as flawed. How to Train Your Dragon actually serves as an important milestone. This is the first non-Pixar CG animated motion picture with no serious flaws. This does not pander to the youngest members of the audience, nor does it interrupt its story for comic relief or pop music. There are no characters who drag down the film or serve to distract the audience.

But, overall, the high points of How to Train Your Dragon were not as spectacular as those in Kung Fu Panda. Its world, while certainly interesting, was not as engrossing or intriguing. And, most importantly, there's less that's stayed with us.

The one accusation we can bring against How to Train Your Dragon is that it felt timid. For all the implied violence, we never see a dragon or viking kill the other. There is talk of death, but no blood makes it to the screen. The movie poses some difficult questions about war and honor, about family and trust, obedience and rebellion, but its answers are simplistic and cheap.

Even the movie's sole sacrifice feels hollow and painless. We aren't demanding a tragic conclusion, but we needed something to offer resonance, to make us feel something beyond the awe of flight.

But at least it gave us that. The flight sequences are on par with any you've seen, approaching at times even the brilliance of Miyazaki. The characters were likewise interesting. The three leads (the boy, the girl, and the dragon) were always entertaining without feeling cliche. More surprising, the vikings came across as three-dimensional and deeper than we'd expect. Sure, they used violence as a crutch for their problems, but their motivations and goals felt - dare we say - layered and complex.

We mentioned earlier that How to Train Your Dragon had passed a milestone. We applaud Dreamworks for finally beating its demons and managing to put together a movie without deep routed problems or structural flaws. Even so, this was unable to pass a more significant milestone. We are still waiting for a CG movie that's better than Pixar's worst film. We're waiting for Dreamworks - or anyone else - to make a CG movie that was better than Cars.

Of course, our scale needs to be set on a steeper curve. If The Incredibles is defined as a five star picture, this would earn a solid three. While it's no Pixar movie, How to Train Your Dragon is solidly enjoyable and worth both your time and money. Just be sure to learn from our mistake and see this in 3D.

Movie Review: Alice in Wonderland

2010-03-09T16:55:00.000-08:00

We were struck, watching Tim Burton's take on Wonderland, by just how dark it was. We'd assumed, as is only natural, that Disney's previews had played up this aspect and that the movie would be less disturbing than it appeared.

In fact, the opposite was true: the previews made the movie seem lighter than it wound up being. Some of the film is surprisingly horrific.

Obviously, we were pleased by this discovery. Unfortunately, being dark and being good are two different things. And Alice in Wonderland is not, strictly speaking, a good movie.

But it's not a bad movie either. It is, ultimately, a Tim Burton movie, with all that entails. The simple fact of the matter is that Burton isn't actually much of a director. He's a phenomenal artist, a decent producer, and one of the most spectacular designers out there. It's just directing he seems to have problems with. Well, that and writing, though it looks as though he wasn't involved with the screenplay this time around.

As a filmmaker, Tim Burton transformed the medium, fusing art house, genre, and big budget production into a single style. Without the work he did in the eighties, it's unlikely that the current superhero renaissance would have occurred. Twenty years ago, he was inspiring a generation of genre directors to strive for something better.

But the movies that inspired them, movies we love, like Batman, Beetlejuice, and Edward Scissorhands, are deeply flawed. The best movie he ever made - The Nightmare Before Christmas - wasn't actually made by him.

The point of this aside isn't to denigrate Burton, but rather to offer some perspective. His movies have never been good, per se. That simply isn't his style. Rather, Tim Burton makes movies no one else can, and the world is richer for them.

Ultimately, therein lies the conundrum of Alice in Wonderland. This is a movie someone else should have made, but no one else could have. We refer not to artistic vision - there are many who could have conceived of such a movie - but rather to a more concrete issue. No one else could have possibly gotten the funding to make this movie happen.

If you hadn't yet picked up on that concept, this is not a retelling of Alice, but rather a sequel. Of course, this isn't exactly a novel idea. American McGee's Alice, a video game from several years back, told a similar story. The game was nothing exceptional, though the trailer was somewhat more impressive.

We bring this up, in part, because there had been talk at one point of developing that into a film of its own. The movie obviously fell through, which wasn't a huge surprise. If it had been produced, it would likely either have evolved into either a horror movie with only a passing resemblance to Lewis Carol's original or it would have been eroded by studio notes until it turned into something much more horrible: a dull and uninspired children's film. While it's not entirely a waste of film, the world certainly doesn't need another Hook.

What Burton managed was to create an Alice movie that walked a line between a Disnified fairy tale and a twisted nightmare. The movie lacks any real emotional resonance, there are numerous plot holes and unresolved questions, and contains more missteps than we can easily count... but, on some level, such complaints are a 'glass half-empty' approach. You can choose to focus on the flaws or the merits. You can choose whether you want to like or dislike this movie.

There is a real sense, that if this had been made in 1987 on a hair string budget, it would have been heralded by fans as the greatest movie ever made. Now, many of those people will dismiss as computer-generated crap, despite the fact the movie is no worse for its use of technology.

Actually, it uses that technology well. The real and CG characters are integrated masterfully. The 3D is somewhat uneven - it's clearly Burton's first attempt - but it's still worth seeing in the third dimension.

A review of Alice in Wonderland wouldn't be complete without mentioning the parallels between this and Narnia. In particular, we were often reminded of the Prince Caspian adaptation from a few years back. At the time, we mentioned enjoying the juxtaposition between the adorable animals and the brutality they displayed on the battlefield. Well, Prince Caspian has been outdone.

While many of the characters were mediocre, we were highly impressed with the dormouse. Burton wisely scaled her to actual size, but still provided her with some of the best action scenes in the movie. She wasn't on camera often, but we felt she managed to steal the show regardless. Likewise, the Cheshire Cat and Bandersnatch were also greatly appreciated.

The movie was a bizarre experience, but not an unpleasant one. Sure, the frame story was pointless, and Alice's character arc was forced. Sure, several scenes felt like they were shot on location in the ruins of Osgiliath or in Rivendell. But who cares? Burton gave us a post-apocalyptic version of Disney's Wonderland, and we had fun.

When fairytale fuses with horror, we think of Coraline. With that film wearing a crown of five stars, we'll offer Alice in Wonderland a relative three.

This isn't a great movie, but it has enough great things in it to be worth your time and money. Just be sure to spring for a 3D showing.

Catching Up - The Battle for Terra

2010-03-08T16:42:00.000-08:00

In our retrospective for the summer of 2009, we mused it was unlikely we would ever get around to watching The Battle for Terra. It seems we may have been mistaken, as chance has offered us the opportunity to gaze upon the film at no cost. We have uncovered a place where one might acquire DVDs for a limited amount of time then return them without penalty.

While such an institution may seem the stuff of dream or fancy, we assure you it is nevertheless real. It is a strange place, antiquated and anachronistic, dealing in bound paper copies rather than Kindles or iPads.

They call it a "library." Being students of history, we are not unfamiliar with the term, but we'd thought the last such temples dedicated to reason and knowledge were destroyed in the Crusades. Apparently though, a few have survived, and they now deal in DVDs as well as books and scrolls.

At any rate, we viewed The Battle for Terra in its entirety. While there were a few interesting aspects to the film, overall it was far from spectacular. At every turn, the film avoided engaging the intriguing questions it should have been asking. It seemed as though it might approach questions such as, "What are the limits to a species right to exist?" and "Is extinction preferable to surviving in a cage?" It could have faced such ideas - should have done so - but ultimately was simply too timid, too weak.

The movie's saving grace, if it can be called that, is in the visuals. The space ships, while not particularly original, are still cool, and the wildlife on the alien world is fairly interesting.

The alien creatures, however, are not. We will be gracious and say they look like a cross between tadpoles and smurfs. In addition, they are so sickeningly gentle and corny, it's impossible to look at their drum circles without wanting to see them get vaporized.

We must confess some affection, however, for the variation on Area 51 on the alien world. It was a simple twist, but far more clever than anything else the movie had to offer.

The movie touches on some dark themes, but only lightly. There is too much horror, we suspect, for a very young audience, but far too little for adults.

There was just enough in the film to keep us mildly amused for its short run time. Though if it had been more than an hour and a half rather than less, we're not sure we could have stomached it.

Back in Town

2010-03-03T06:25:00.000-08:00

The Middle Room is pleased to announce that we have conclusive evidence that Bruce Wayne is alive.

For months now, rumors have circulated claiming an upcoming miniseries will chronicle Batman's return to the present. But rumors alone aren't enough to convince us. No, for us to truly believe that Wayne survived Darkseid's Omega Sanction at point blank range we require something more tangible.

Then, about a week ago, a copy of Action Comics #1, the first appearance of Superman, was sold for a million dollars. This set a new record as the highest amount paid for a single issue.

Almost immediately, the record was broken. Detective Comics #27, which introduced Batman to the DC Universe, sold for slightly more than a million, casting doubt on the very assumption of the comics' respective values.

Who had the funds to afford such a purchase? Who would have wanted to see Batman's first appearance enshrined as the most valuable comic ever created, thus humiliating the Man of Steel.

There is only one possible conclusion.

Movie Review: Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths

2010-02-28T17:14:00.000-08:00

We begin this review, oddly enough, with our conclusion: that the new DC animated direct-to-DVD feature, Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths, is an excellent animated action movie that succeeds in pretty much every way Public Enemies failed. In the hierarchy of DC's recent releases, it is firmly planted in the second tier alongside Wonder Woman and Green Lantern: First Flight, all great movies that are still unable to reach the heights of New Frontier.

In some ways, though, Crisis on Two Earths doesn't belong in this list. Indeed, it could - perhaps should - have been produced as it was originally scripted, bridging the gap between Justice League and JLU. A surprising number of references endured from the series, including the need to construct a new base and the diminished team.

But this was not the League from the animated series. A choice was made to alter superficial elements, such as the voice actors and character designs, but these could easily be explained away the way we brush off a new writer or artist in the comics. The decision to use Hal Jordan instead of John Stewart would be somewhat harder.

Overall, this didn't lead to many problems. After all, we are certainly familiar with these characters, regardless of the incarnations chosen. The story became a bit awkward around a subplot involving Martian Manhunter, however. By recreating the team instead of using established characters, they lost access to previous character development. As such, his character arc in the movie lacked grounding and seemed somewhat superfluous to the plot.

Nevertheless, the movie as a whole worked. The story was really more about the bad guys than the good ones. Owlman, in particular, was intriguing as a villain whose quest was entirely driven by existentialism. If he had an interest in the sadism of his teammates, it was more clinical than cruel. Evil wasn't an end in itself to him: it was only a tool in his quest to seek meaning through negation.

In contrast, Superwoman was something of a thrill seeker. The PG-13 rating allowed the filmmakers to play with her sexuality to a degree they probably wouldn't have gotten away with on TV (though, to be fair, they came close several times in JLU with Tala). We were a little surprised by the degree that Ultraman, generally considered the Crime Syndicate's leader, was ignored here. This isn't a complaint though: he's far from the team's most interesting character.

It was hard for the heroes to compete. Most of the Justice League wound up feeling bland in comparison to their counterparts. Even so, there were things to enjoy. In particular, we were greatly impressed with the portrayal of Batman in the movie, especially of his fighting style. This was actually a notable improvement over the vast majority of his fights in the Justice League series.

In the TV show, it wasn't uncommon for Batman to effectively use physical force against foes who could stand up to Superman. Batman may represent the pinnacle of human ability, but that certainly shouldn't extend to kicking Brainiac's head off (which he's done on occasion). Overall, Crisis on Two Earths was far more reasonable in its depiction of the Caped Crusader. He used punches and kicks as distractions, and he was willing to endure a great deal of punishment to lure his foes into complex traps. This Batman was fighting on a different level.

It was also a pleasure to try and pick out the dozens of minor villains inspired by DC heroes. And, vice versa, the president of the mirror verse was as inspired as it was unexpected. While we expect some new viewers will enjoy the movie, it's really intended for longtime fans of the comics.

The DVD itself comes with a few extras of note. The most significant is easily the "DC Showcase" Specter short. The use of a few simple filters and a well chosen soundtrack turns what would otherwise be a bland cartoon into a brilliant noir reminiscent of a grindhouse flick. The story is neither surprising or complex, but the conclusion is shockingly unapologetic. Definitely make a point of watching this.

There are also a few episodes from the Justice League animated series. They went with the obvious, selecting "A Better World," the 2-part alternate universe story that was partially inspired by the Crime Syndicate. In many ways, this is actually a more compelling story than the movie featured, though they are very different in tone. These "bonus episodes" always feel a little odd. At this point, it's not hard to find seasons of Justice League and JLU for the $15. We expect that almost anyone who would buy Crisis on Two Earths already owns the series. And, if there's anyone who doesn't, we suggest buying those first. As much as we enjoyed Crisis, those are better.

Like Wonder Woman and Green Lantern, this is yet another three and a half star offering before the altar consecrated to The Incredibles. Considering this was once again released directly to video, that's certainly high praise.

This is how the world ends....

2010-02-24T19:01:00.000-08:00

Around these parts we have long anticipated that science would somehow prove our undoing, but the form of said proof has long eluded us. For a time, we theorized that the construction of robotic monstrosities would bring about our downfall, but so far early prototypes have proven less than intimidating. Nanotechnology likewise held promise but was similarly unable to measure up. While nuclear proliferation has begun feeling old fashioned, germ warfare remains in its infancy.

A new decade is upon us, and we need a technological horror to mark the times. It is in such a spirit that we are pleased to announce the apocalypse may yet be on schedule, thanks to the combined efforts of a primordial ooze and cutting edge science courtesy of Japan.

Yes, at long last serious work has begun at teaching slime to learn, to adapt, and to build. Sure, in a laboratory environment such intelligent slime seems tame. But now that it has uncovered the basics of logical thought, it is only a matter of time before it grows weary of taking instruction from humanity. And, now that we've taught it geography, how long before it discovers the cube?

Halfway There

2010-02-20T09:24:00.000-08:00

Normally, we leave the discussion of toys to The Clearance Bin, but we decided it was necessary to chime in on a recent development from Hot Toys. There are numerous distinctions held by the company; they've won many awards, are widely considered the best in the industry, and have yet to produce a single figure we can afford.

It is with mixed emotions that we must report they are now doing Cyberdyne's dirty work.

On the surface, the reverse appears true: they are crafting a Sarah Connor action figure bearing an almost lifelike resemblance to how she appeared in the second film. But a closer look reveals this for what it is: a metallic skeleton covered by rubber flesh.

One wonders if their artists appreciate the irony.

Of course, Hot Toys' work is only half done. If they truly want to create realistic action figures, they need to grow human skin....

Underrated, Part 6: Elf and Enchanted

2010-02-14T17:11:00.000-08:00

On some level, neither Elf nor Enchanted needs inclusion on this list: both performed exceptionally well in the theaters and both were critically acclaimed. However, after much debate, we decided to include them in our series, as they are underrated in our community.

It is unfortunate, but there remains a number of geeks who have yet to embrace these films.

When we decided to feature them, we chose to do them together, because they are, on some level, the same movie. Or, more accurately, they both seem to be reflections of the same Platonic ideal movie.

The plot of that film is this: a character who does not belong in the magical realm where they grew up (based on animated works from decades before) voyages to the city of New York, itself portrayed as a magic kingdom which is, in some ways, a reflection of the place they know. But it is in truth a dark reflection: they are not prepared for the level of mistrust they find around them. Compounding this, no one believes them when they describe their home. Such a fantasy world, they are told, does not exist. They are assumed mad by those around them.

But this character has a core of goodness that cannot be ignored, as well as powers that can't be denied. The truth of their story is demonstrated in the final act, when those they've touched must have faith to save them. And then, finally, they must reconcile the two halves of themselves in order to find happiness in New York City.

Truly, it is a heartwarming tale, regardless of whether it's told with a Christmas Elf or a Disney Princess. In addition to having the same plot and using many of the same locations, the movies are also alike in caring about their source material.

Despite being live action, Elf is unafraid to incorporate elements borrowed directly from the Rankin/Bass specials of yore. The living snowman, the talking animals, and the candy cane forest all show a willingness to embrace a world of fantasy without embarrassment.

Likewise, the bizarre abilities and aspects of Disney's princesses are utilized to astonishing effect in Enchanted. From talking to animals to compelling crowds to burst into song, Enchanted incorporates the impossible elements of its fantasy origins.

And that, more than anything else, brings up the common thread: both of these films are, above all else, fantasies. And, regardless of origin, a good fantasy story brought to screen is something all geeks should see.

In this case, you have the chance to see that story twice.

Catching Up: 30 Days of Night

2010-02-10T17:24:00.000-08:00

After being pleasantly surprised by the unfortunately titled Daybreakers, we decided it was time to track down 30 Days of Night, a vampire film we'd likewise heard positive things about. It is assumed that anyone bothering to read this has seen the movie. If that assumption is wrong, we warn you that worse things than vampires lurk below: spoilers are immune to garlic and can walk free beneath the sun.

30 Days of Night is a movie about vampires gaming the rules. While the precise loophole exploited here isn't one we've seen before, there is a long tradition of supernatural creatures avoiding their weaknesses with such tricks. Our favorite such story can be found in an issue of Swamp Thing penned by Alan Moore where vampires lived in the dark depths of a still lake like leeches.

At any rate, the premise of the movie is intriguing, and the film is beautifully shot. The effects are well used, and the vampires are both believable and frightening.

Unfortunately, the movie is held back by several factors. The most notable of these is the editing: the individual scenes are well constructed, but nothing seems to hold them together. When the vampires are overrunning the town, for example, the main characters are strangely absent, which is fortunate as their attempts at heroics would no doubt have cost them their lives.

The human characters, particularly the leads, weren't particularly interesting, but they weren't bad enough to severely damage the movie. The vampires were portrayed far better.

There were several plot holes and inconsistencies, and the final action scene made little to no sense at all. For vampires smart enough to travel to the tip of civilization and use the tilt of the Earth as cover, they lacked the forethought to burn down the town and cover their tracks say, a few days earlier. With all due respect to the heroic sacrifice of the film's main character, all he really had to do was wait five minutes for the sun to rise, and the vampires would have left on their own. There was little indication the fire was spreading that quickly.

We were also a bit underwhelmed with the movie's choice of vampires. Ultimately, there are really two archetypes for vampires used in film: the mythic and the scientific. These designations are of course misleading: the "mythic" bear little in common with the mythology they're based on, while there is nothing remotely plausible about the "scientific" sort. The vampires in 30 Days of Night are a rather extreme example of the scientific sort: their condition is, at least in theory, medical, their powers are portrayed as natural, and their weaknesses are less poetic than practical. Wooden stakes are passed over for head removal, and even this seemed like overkill: a bullet through the head seemed to have the desired effect.

In our opinion, this would have benefited from a more supernatural spin on the creatures. There are certainly times when the "viral" form of vampirism is suited to the story - Blade comes to mind. As a rule of thumb, we might offer the notion that the less supernatural the setting, the more supernatural the vampires should seem.

If they'd been repulsed by crosses and killed by wooden stakes, the movie could have taken on a more fairytale sensibility which would have forgiven some of the plot-holes and given some weight to the closing shot.

As it was, this was a good horror film. Visually, it looked as though it was going to be a good movie, but its strange inconsistencies and utter lack of gravitas kept it from greatness.

Brave New World

2010-02-08T20:03:00.000-08:00

To many, the future will no doubt seem odd and peculiar. Those beyond the fields we know, beyond the realms of geek, are unprepared for the coming world. We refer not to the rise of machines or the fall of civilization - valid topics both, but we'll save them for another day; instead we wish to discuss to advent of the Third Dimension.

As a concept, of course, the third dimension has existed for millennia, and in practice it has been available slightly longer. It surrounds us, permeates us, binds the galaxy together. It is everywhere, or nearly so, and yet it has only recently taken off in film.

Indeed, in the distant future, all time will be divided as BA and AA: Before Avatar and After Avatar, though a massive worldwide computer glitch brought about by the fourth awakening of the Internet in 307AA will throw off the calendar by twenty-eight years, several alternate calendars will be developed, and eventually, in an attempt to secularize dating, the designation BCE and CE will be readopted in 702AA (or 702CE, if you prefer), though the new counting system will remain in use.

Granted, some of Avatar's religious significance can be attributed to its impact on high school students so enraptured by the imagery of Pandora that they experience deep and prolonged depression at the realization they can never visit (a group, we might add, so profoundly nerdy that reading about them makes even us, lifelong and committed geeks, tempted to beat them up for their lunch money).

The majority of the film's impact - both culturally and spiritually - can be traced instead to the absurdly high amount of money it produced. At some point when we weren't paying attention, it seems to have become the highest grossing movie of all time, crushing even some movie about a sinking boat and a magic amulet.

The secret to Avatar's success isn't complicated: Cameron merely came to an important realization about the nature of theater admissions. Until now, it was falsely believed that audiences wouldn't pay more than $10 for a ticket, and as such the success of a film was entirely dependant on the number of people who went to see a movie and they number of times they went to see it. Cameron realized that the ten dollar mark was actually misleading: in fact, audiences are willing to pay $5 per dimension.

Therefore the price of Avatar and other 3D films can be raised to fifteen dollars, a price the audience is more than willing to pay in this case. As an interesting side note, production studios could drive down the costs of their movies by lowering the ticket price to a mere five dollars and making 1-dimensional movies, similar in some ways to the radio shows of old.

While there's yet to be movement on the 1-dimensional front, now almost every new movie is being planned for 3D. Why make Transformers 3 in 2D when it can be made in 3D? Same with the next Underworld installment. Sure, the budget will need to be inflated, but they'll surely make it up in increased revenue.

Unless, of course, the success of Avatar was driven by the fact the movie is innovative and new. If that's the case, then the droves of copycat productions being greenlit by the dozens will only further motivate theatergoers to stay home, adding their inflated price of admission to an already long list of grievances, including expensive food, long lines, crowded audiences, cell phones, and the like.

But surely this can't be the case. Surely Hollywood has the common sense to plan ahead and avoid this outcome.

After all, who wouldn't want to see a 3D live-action Stretch Armstrong movie?

Technically, now it's Overworld

2010-02-05T20:29:00.000-08:00

We have, in the past, compared the Underworld films to The Chronicles of Riddick; indeed, how could we not? It takes a special kind of talent to miserably fail to produce a good film and still wind up with something transcendentally entertaining. Though, for all Underworld's charm, it has never managed to reach the heights of Riddick.

Perhaps, the producers must have mused, it would help if the next installment took place in outer space.

We can only surmise this was the logic being employed in the planning of the fourth Underworld production. If one could create CG werewolves and vampires, then place them in space, the movie - at least on paper - could conceivably compete with The Chronicles of Riddick. After all, what are Necromongers but space vampires? What is Riddick but the last space-werewolf?

There are problems with such parallels, of course, as the films are inspired by very different sources. While Riddick was clearly an idea formed during a game of Dungeons & Dragons (Vin Diesel has more or less said as much), the ideas forming the backbone of Underworld have their nexus in Vampire: The Masquerade. One is a tabletop game; the other works best as a LARP. And, more to the point, the former represents a more traditional conception of the geek, while the latter incorporates a slightly more gothic aesthetic (though still fundamentally geeky in nature: we would not discuss it otherwise).

Even so, could an Underworld movie, set in space and rendered in three dimensions, actually supplant The Chronicles of Riddick as the archetype of brilliantly bad movies? Transcribed to mathematics, the numerology seems to add up. But there is more than science to such things: to truly build a movie of the quality we are describing, one would need to fail artistically, as well. Even then, the movie would need to exceed our expectations.

Otherwise, the best they could hope for would be another Avatar.

Progress Report - 5 Years Left

2010-02-04T20:27:00.000-08:00

While it may seem like only yesterday, it has been twenty-one years since the producers of the Back to the Future series went back in time from 1989 to 1985 before jumping forward in time to the year 2015 to research the level of technology the future would hold. Though they would never boast about such things, it bears mentioning that the advancements in the film were near-perfect recreations of the world as it was supposed to be.

Unfortunately, by bringing this knowledge back to 1989 and presenting it in a movie seen by millions, they created a tangent "alternate" universe, as displayed in the following graph:

The upper line represents the original timeline, as events were meant to occur. The branching line, embellished with loops and the like, represent the timeline we occupy. Because our sense of perspective was thrown off, the very evolution of our technological and cultural development was altered. By this time, we were meant to be hydrating takeout burgers, with pizza just around the corner. And video games, rather than appearing on touch screens, were supposed to be played without the use of our hands. Indeed, by the year 2006, controls for 79% of electronic games should have already been toe-based.

We are, in many ways, behind the curve.

In an attempt to correct this, we in The Middle Room have decided to offer a kind of public service. We have attentively re-watched Back to the Future, Part II in order to better understand where the human race needs to be by the year 2015. With the knowledge, we've constructed a kind of progress report, examining how far we have to go.

Transportation:
By 2015, we are supposed to have had time to develop a sophisticated freeway system capable of managing the fleets of mass-produced hover cars which are readily available. Mattel, one of our favorite toy companies, should be selling affordable, pink hover scooters. But, as a temporal branch of the infinite possible parallel lines of our species' potential development, we have been lax in this area. We've yet to produce any efficient hover-tech, let alone driven the price down to the point where ten-year-olds can afford it.

Determination: Needs serious improvement. Tutoring recommended.

Television:
In Back to the Future, Part II, we observe that by the year 2015 the average American household should have a massive, flat screen television capable of displaying at least six programs simultaneously.

We already have screens available in the dimensions shown. What's more, the picture quality on most new sets is superior to that shown in the movie. While we're unaware of any sets currently structured to show six shows at once, this technology certainly exists: we just can't imagine a scenario in which it would be desirable. Especially given that, in our civilization, if we wanted to see more than one show at a time we'd simply Tivo it or watch it online the following day.

As none of these technologies are shown in Back to the Future, Part II, we can only conclude that we're actually ahead of our parallel Earth when it comes to TV.

Determination: Exceeds expectations.

Clothing:
While we're pleased to see developments in optical effects and LCD lights here in 2010a, we feel like we have a long way to go. We only have five years to develop jackets that can adjust size and dry out and shoes that self-lace. While these are certainly not yet available, none of the technology seems unobtainable if we work at it.

As a first step, kids could start walking around with their pockets turned inside out.

Determination: On track, but in danger of falling behind.

Computer Effects:
We are presented with only a few passing glances at what computers could create, though one has to wonder if this was perhaps a case where the filmmakers were unable to duplicate the things they saw. Nonetheless, we seem to have differed in our path taken here on this branching universe we call home. It is a matter of style versus substance: the abandoned timeline focused on the latter, while we've specialized in the former. Consider the computer screens in the diner McFly visited. These were capable of rudimentary AI and speech recognition which continues to elude us, though we seem to be making progress in those areas. Nevertheless, the actual visual effects were simple compared with what we can now accomplish.

Likewise, the shark in Jaws 19 was rudimentary in appearance, though the 3D holographic technology was far more advanced than we could hope to accomplish. While Cameron's advancements on Avatar give us hope, we still have a ways to go.

On an unrelated note, we need to expedite our production of Jaws films if we hope to catch up.

Determination: Needs Improvement.

Weather Control:
Despite the best efforts by Bill Gates, our timeline's weather control technology is decades behind that of Earth Prime. It is more than likely that our failure to develop hover technology in a timely fashion has aggravated the effects of Global Warming, forcing us to divert funds and environmental research from planetary development to damage control. It didn't help that the results of the 2000 election were flipped, either.

Determination: In danger of failing.

We'd Like to Thank the Academy

2010-02-02T19:46:00.000-08:00

If we could put aside, for a moment, debates over the merit of Avatar and The Hurt Locker, we would like to take a moment to focus in on two movies which were nominated for best picture but have little hope of actually winning: Up and District 9. We were more than a little surprised to see these make the list, as they represent two genres the Academy has been quick to dismiss in the past: animation and science fiction movies grossing less than a billion dollars.

The Academy has had a long history of bias against genre films, and when they've deviated from this tradition, the results have often been comical. After failing to honor Fellowship of the Ring or The Two Towers, Return of the King swept the Oscars, picking up awards it had no right to claim, while not a single member of its phenomenal cast received so much as a nomination. As much as we enjoyed seeing a fantasy movie make history, it was somewhat sobering to see it given an Oscar for "best song" against far more worthy contenders.

But, unlike Star Wars before it, at least The Lord of the Rings was honored. Movies which have shaped our conception of film are routinely ignored by the Academy. Where were the Best Picture nominations for Superman, Blade Runner, or Empire Strikes Back? Limited to five spots, these movies weren't even acknowledged, let alone given the statue they deserved. Meanwhile, animated films have been relegated to a separate category, protecting live-action films from the often superior offerings from Pixar.

Apparently, the Academy has turned over a new leaf. They have expanded their list of nominations to ten, permitting them room to acknowledge films with geekier leanings alongside the usual suspects of dramas and historical epics. At last, Pixar is permitted to compete, while a pair of science fiction epics are nominated, as well.

However, we find ourselves somewhat uneasy. Of the genre films nominated, the movie with the best chance of winning is Avatar, a notion which has us conflicted. While we enjoyed Avatar, the idea of dubbing it the "best picture of the year" strikes us deeply cynical. And yet, in some ways, wasn't it?

We have long held the belief that many critics have offered an unbalanced appraisal of effects-driven films, decrying every issue with the acting and directing, while largely ignoring the technical marvels that advance the industry. Certainly Avatar is destined to transform movie making.

But there is little denying that the movie fails to achieve any real emotional resonance. It must be acknowledged that it's hard to imagine good writing would have hindered Avatar's successes.

Likewise, it's likely that Avatar's failings will magnify with time. Influencing technology can be as much a curse as a blessing for a movie's legacy. In the coming years, there will likely be dozens of large budget epics utilizing the techniques and devices created for Avatar. Can Cameron's film really hope to stand up to these in comparison?

Fortunately, the Academy has nine other options to choose from. Pundits seem convinced it will come down between The Hurt Locker (we keep meaning to get around to seeing that, by the way) and Avatar, though no one really knows how the increased field will play out.

If anything, we'd have liked to see a few more movies honored. While we enjoyed District 9 and we are still in awe at what was accomplished with so small a budget, it's our considered and honest opinion that Star Trek is actually a better movie. We can appreciate the Academy's reluctance to endorse both this and Avatar, but we still miss its absence.

Moreover, we were disappointed not to see Where the Wild Things Are nominated. While Avatar may have moved into new technological areas, Where the Wild Things Are delved into themes that had never been considered in such a way before. We ask you, which is more impressive?

Catching Up: Cloverfield

2010-02-01T19:18:00.000-08:00

Every year, dozens of movies are released impacting geek culture. Here in The Middle Room, we endeavor to view these in a timely fashion. Unfortunately, from time to time, we are lax in our duties and movies of profound significance escape the theaters unseen. It is fortunate, then, that the technology exists to view these after the fact.

We refer, of course, to the digital video disc. Do not trivialize such a wonder with its abbreviation. Do not dare.

It was in such a manner that, at long last, we tracked down Cloverfield, one of the more famous American monster movies of the past decade.

And, despite the length of this introduction, despite all our pretense, we are sorry to report that we found the movie wanting.

While it certainly wasn't awful, neither was it particularly good. The premise, of course, was brilliant - showcasing the horror of a monster movie from the point-of-view of a hand-held camera carried by one of the characters - but the execution failed to deliver.

The monster was well designed and digitally constructed, but played a minor role in the picture. This was intentional, of course. The movie was constructed using the monster as a backdrop - ultimately a form of setting - so as to focus on the characters. While the camera elicits comparisons to The Blair Witch Project, the movie as a whole reminds us more of Spielberg's War of the Worlds and Shyamalan's Signs. All three are first and foremost movies about characters, and all focus on cultivating an atmosphere of suspense. These are, ultimately, survival movies more than science fiction.

But, when building a movie around its characters, it is essential to construct interesting and believable characters. Cloverfield did neither: if the monster wants to show up and make a meal out of the movie's leads, it's hard to care. In some ways, the monster felt more developed in its forty-five seconds of total screen time than the humans did throughout the entire movie.

Cloverfield built suspense competently, but it never bested either Signs or War of the Worlds in this respect. While this was worth a viewing, it's hard to imagine bothering a second time.

In Conclusion

2010-01-30T09:01:00.000-08:00

The final episode of Dollhouse has aired, leaving us a moment to reflect. Mercifully, the last few episodes were among the weakest of the season, dulling the pain of losing yet another of Joss Whedon's shows before its time.

The conclusion continues the storyline started in Epitaph One, the episode Fox never bothered to air. Anyone who hadn't seen it online or on the DVD was likely confused by the sudden jump into a post apocalyptic future, but fortunately there was a poorly edited montage to bring them up to speed.

Elements of the finale were decent, though the show's budget - or lack thereof - was painfully apparent at times. On some level, the last episode felt like a direct-to-video sequel made in the early nineties. Even the episode's title, "Epitaph Two: Return," invokes such parallels. There were fine ideas, but the actual writing felt second rate. And, of course, Eliza Dushku's strong suit has never been dramatic moments, a fact as apparent here as ever. One crucial scene, intended to be one of the series's most moving, wound up being almost embarrassing to watch.

Overall, Dollhouse was undeniably the weakest of Joss Whedon's productions, though it had enough exceptional episodes to make the series worthwhile. It took a third of the first season, however, for Dollhouse to reach a point where it crossed the line into good: it's asking a lot of any audience - even those loyal to Whedon - to wait that out.

We were, however, rewarded for our patience, at least for a time. As the second season progressed, a larger plot developed, fueled by the promise of a post apocalyptic world waiting for the characters; a world of their own creation. For a time, the show had found its voice and direction.

It was then, of course, that Fox announced it would be canceled. In an effort to move things forward, Whedon condensed at least three seasons worth of plot twists and ideas into a half dozen episodes. The experience of watching the second half of Dollhouse's last season was like reading a synopsis: the ideas were expressed with enthusiasm, but there was no substance.

This came to a head in Epitaph Two, which attempted to cram a six hour miniseries into a single hour. Even if the dialogue hadn't been laughably bad, it would still have been impossible to care about any of the characters at this pace.

It's a pity, because there were characters and concepts we'd have liked to see developed. If Dollhouse had been allowed to progress at a natural pace, we have no doubt it could have turned into a fantastic show.

We are consoled, at least, by the fact that the end of the series wasn't spectacular, so we aren't losing something dear to our heart. We went through that when Firefly went off the air; it's nice to lose a mediocre Whedon show for a change.

Cosplay

2010-01-28T19:26:00.000-08:00

While we do not indulge in such activity, there is little denying that cosplay, the compulsive drive to dress up as a fictional character, is profoundly geeky in nature. Until now, we have overlooked the phenomenon, as we've always considered it relegated to the fringe of the fringe. But recent events have given us cause to reconsider. Indeed, it seems this trend may extend far beyond the range of the small subculture we'd believed and instead represent a wide range of the population.

The market has in fact spoken. In the past, companies such as Sideshow Collectibles and Master Replicas have released products facilitating this activity, but they've generally sold these in editions limited to the thousands. But a new tie-in to the recent Star Trek film has achieved an impossible level of interest from literally millions of fans eager to dress up and pretend they are crew members of the Enterprise.

What's more astonishing is the company producing this prop. As impossible as it may seem, a facsimile Star Trek data pad has been produced by Apple Computers, and everyone from major media outlets to insane conspiracy theorists writing from their parents' basement are carrying the story.

The implications for this sudden and unexpected interest in Star Trek merchandise are both frightening and intriguing. We expect these newly-awakened geeks to descend upon comic shops in droves and buy replica phasers and communicators to accompany their iPads. Within a week, we conservatively predict, Klingon communicators which once sold for $19.95 will be going for hundreds of dollars on eBay. And if you were planning on attending a Star Trek convention before the franchise becomes anachronistic in 2258, then you may want to buy your tickets and book a hotel room now.

It does deserve noting that some of the light and sound features may appeal to a small niche audience which isn't even aware they're purchasing a Star Trek prop replica. But, ultimately, we doubt many of the millions eagerly awaiting this product are interested in what amounts to half a netbook with a touchscreen.

No, in our analysis, the vast majority must be Star Trek cosplayers.

And then there were only Dragons....

2010-01-27T20:17:00.000-08:00

The news story precipitating this article was first brought to our attention by the site upon which the internet itself hinges. We refer, of course, to Penny Arcade, without which the vast sea of knowledge known as the World Wide Web would no doubt cease to exist.

Nevertheless, we confirmed their report with the New York Times. Just because.

In essence, prisoners in Wisconsin are being denied the right to play D&D, as there is concern it will encourage them to form gangs and attempt escape.

It is the considered opinion of The Middle Room that there may be a misunderstanding here. In our eternal campaign to spread enlightenment and knowledge, we thought we would explain the fallacy in this logic. Bear in mind, we have not come to offer commentary on ethics or other peripheral issues. Tycho, from Penny Arcade, has thoughts to share along those lines, and we'll leave it to our readers to form their own ideas about cruel and unusual punishment and the fine line between obsession and religion. Our sole endeavor is, as it has always been, the application of reason to the world around us.

Therefore, we begin with the assertion that prisoners exposed to Dungeons & Dragons might form gangs. Here we see one of the more common points of confusion: while the game does involve, in some circumstances, gang-like groups of characters wielding deadly weapons, the players themselves remain seated around a table holding dice and pieces of paper. We do not begrudge the Wisconsin Department of Corrections for failing to note to difference between reality and fantasy: they are certainly not the first unable to make such a distinction.

As to the second point, that prisoners may be encouraged to attempt to live out escape fantasies, we turn to our own experiences in Middle School. In the eighth grade, we found ourselves, on occasion, remaining in school after hours of our own volition so that we might play Dungeons & Dragons in the school library. While this may at first seem a trivial fact, we remind our readers that Middle School is in many ways a comparable environment to prison.

Were the concern that the inmates might be unwilling to leave prison when their time had been served, we would be less critical of their reasoning. As to the notion that playing a game without end will cause the players to seek escape, we are a tad skeptical. The Department of Corrections, in our opinion, may be underestimating the addictive nature of D&D.

Perhaps they should have at least rolled up characters before rendering a verdict.

Movie Review: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

2010-01-25T18:53:00.000-08:00

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is an enjoyable experience wrapped in a mediocre film. Enough ideas work to make it worth seeing, but it's far from a spectacular movie.

There is little question this would be a far superior film if not for the computer effects. Gilliam is a master when it comes to turning reality into fantasy, but computers make the whole thing feel a touch too easy. The lack of limitation cheapens the effect and, in the end, we're left with vast fantasy environments that often feel no more inspired than your average children's film. The best of these sequences never approaches the brilliance and awe embedded in a single frame of Henson's Labyrinth.

The scenes taking place in the carriage and on the stage itself are the most fun. While the over-produced fantasy scenes come off as cheesy, the absurdity of the traveling troop of actors is brilliantly surreal and fascinating. The strange and impossible stage, decorated in antiquated costumes and pulled by a team of horses through modern-day London, is a joy to watch. And the characters, for their faults, are intriguing. Among other things, this movie offers one of the most enjoyable portrayals of the devil we've seen in a while.

But, for all the lip-service paid to the importance of storytelling, the whole piece never comes together into anything remotely coherent. What's missing is an answer to the question, "Why?" Parnassus is driven to see the world's imagination set free, though he himself can't imagine his daughter as free herself. Why? It may be intriguing as a premise, but, while the consequences drive the plot, this is never really explored. Motivation is all but ignored throughout the movie, as are explanations.

Perhaps Gilliam left such things unanswered intentionally, hoping the loose ends would force us to imagine explanations of our own. An idealistic notion, but in reality it just makes the movie feel underdeveloped. At the very least, we need to understand the complexities for Mr. Nick's relationship to Parnassus. The seeds of brilliance were evident, but they never grew into anything.

We mentioned Labyrinth earlier, and we'll return to it now. If Jim Henson's classic fairytale is a five star production, we feel Gilliam's ode to the imagination worthy of two and three-fourths. It's a fine enough way to spend an afternoon at the theater, but don't expect this to inspire you.

Underrated, Part 5: Galaxy Quest

2010-01-22T13:42:00.000-08:00

The argument goes, "If God exists, why is there evil in the world?" To which the theologian answers, "Because there is a plan, even if it cannot be seen."

But, from time to time, we are offered the briefest of glimpses of such a plan.

Consider the film, Galaxy Quest, which failed abysmally at the box-office and remains unseen by a startlingly large number of geeks. There is little question as to what caused this tragedy: the marketing campaign is rivaled only by that of The Iron Giant for worst in the history of the universe.

But we've little interest in belaboring that point: it is not the film's monetary situation that elicits theology. Rather, it is its star: Tim Allen.

There are few activities as depressing as looking through a list of his roles. Besides being cast in the Toy Story franchise, there is little in his career to celebrate. He is best known, of course, for his work on Home Improvement, a show we maintain the universe would have been better off without. Every time we need to sit through a trailer for a movie like Wild Hogs or Christmas with the Kranks, we cringe and find ourselves asking, "Why?" Why would any God - let alone a good one - force such a string of movies on His children?

But, while rewatching Galaxy Quest the other day, we stumbled on an answer. Tim Allen's career was necessary to create Tim Allen. We refer not to his skill as an actor: that is entirely peripheral. Instead, we refer to his persona and image.

All of his movies and the seasons of Home Improvement were necessary to construct the man who could do the impossible: who could BECOME William Shatner. Now, it is important to differentiate Allen's role in Galaxy Quest from Chris Pine's in Star Trek. Pine was not Shatner, nor was he supposed to be: he was merely tasked with becoming Captain Kirk.

But Tim Allen had to be Shatner himself. It is our contention that his career facilitated this, allowing him to fill the shoes of the legend.

Galaxy Quest did not succeed merely because of Tim Allen's career, but we believe it was necessary to make the character truly resonate. He had to be a perfect stand in for Shatner. It wasn't enough to play a washed-up actor: he had to BE a washed up actor.

It's as though his whole life was leading up to this one role. And, we ask you, what mortal power could ever plan such a thing?

When we first saw Galaxy Quest, we wondered if perhaps they could have made a similar movie using the actual cast of Star Trek. But, by design, such a thing would have had to be true self-parody. Like Shaun of the Dead, Enchanted, Elf, and Sky High, Galaxy Quest works because it is not, strictly speaking, a parody. All of these are as funny as any parody, but at heart they exist to celebrate rather than mock.

This isn't a movie that seeks to mock and belittle Shatner or his crew. Instead, it tells us why they are truly awesome. And, if you needed further proof of divine intervention, it demonstrates that, given the right role, Tim Allen is kind of awesome, as well.

A Golden Age

2010-01-18T13:32:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, it seems, the Golden Globes were distributed. We'd heard that this was going to occur, but, in the end, we didn't care enough to watch.

It now seems that may have been a mistake.

We woke up this morning to some unexpected news. First, the award for best actor in a comedy was given to Robert Downey, Jr. for Sherlock Holmes. Secondly, the awards for best director and best film in drama were both handed to James Cameron for making Avatar.

A moment must be spared to reflect on the category designations here. What makes Sherlock Holmes a comedy and Avatar a drama? Intentionally or not, Avatar was by far the funnier film. Both movies tried to incorporate dramatic scenes: Sherlock Holmes was by far more successful in this endeavor.

This isn't to say that we liked Avatar less. We greatly enjoyed the experiences offered by both pictures, and are more than a little amused by their victories. But, while there seems little controversy in belatedly celebrating Downey's string of superb roles, Avatar's award seems somewhat more controversial.

We don't believe it can be seriously entertained that Avatar is the best movie of the year in terms of writing, plot, dialogue, or acting. Likewise, Cameron's directorial skill wasn't displayed through character interaction or storytelling.

Nevertheless, Avatar has raised the bar on many technological levels. The special effects were incredible; their integration nearly flawless. We often hear critics complain that many blockbusters are nothing but mindless imagery, a critique we find hollow. The level of genius required to design and synthesize Pandora is no less impressive, in our humble opinion, than that required to write and direct The Godfather. After all, no one complains that brilliant, small art house films with a brilliant idea and script lack a 200 million dollar budget.

Avatar's award is, among other things, a victory of style over substance, of design over character, and technology over human. In some ways, it represents the revenge of industry over the organic principles the film claimed to celebrate.

Would Avatar have been better with better writing? Perhaps, though it would have had to be much better to make up for the unintentional comedy that helped make the movie so entertaining. Sure, there are movies that combine amazing effects with brilliant writing and acting - Lord of the Rings being the obvious example - but we can celebrate a movie that focuses on certain aspects, so long as it does these exceptionally. We do this all the time when we honor low-budget films that forgo effects to focus on human elements.

Why then shouldn't a movie win for nothing more than visual effects?

Movie Review: Daybreakers

2010-01-12T19:44:00.000-08:00

Fundamentally, we have two problems with the movie, Daybreakers. The first is its title and second pertains only to the final ninety seconds of the film. Strangely, we consider both issues major ones, though neither prevent this from being the best American made vampire movie we've seen in more than a decade.

Since Blade, in fact, a significant observation as there is more similar than meets the eye. It could well be argued that Daybreakers is an alternate sequel to Blade. Had things ended differently and Deacon Frost won, the world he'd usher in would have looked a great deal like that in Daybreakers. From the design to the blood plants, there are echoes of Blade throughout. Then again, there are echoes of many movies in Daybreakers.

It's as much Blade Runner as it is Blade, for instance, and its star isn't the only thing to make us think of Gattaca. We could go on, but such games are seldom fruitful. Instead, we shall turn to the question of genre, a perplexing one in this case.

Daybreakers is more science fiction than it is horror, and is perhaps more noir than either. Fortunately, it isn't embarrassed of any of its elements. There is more gore than we'd anticipated, and it is the sort that tends to occupy horror films: more fun than distressing, used for shock and a twisted sort of comic relief.

The creatures in this movie are vampires in a very literal sense of the word: they burst in flame in sunlight, mutate into bat-like creature in the absence of blood, and cast no reflection. Aside from some brief shots of newspaper headlines implying a natural origin of the disease, this is more curse than disorder. We didn't notice any acknowledgment of crosses or garlic, but most other elements were retained: a wooden stake has the effect Hollywood has given it, which explains, quite logically, why the architecture tends to favor metal.

The movie takes the mythology of vampirism seriously. When it adds a new element, it does so with care. There is a major addition to the "rules" of vampirism made here, and it feels like a natural progression of those that have existed since vampire movies made stakes and sunlight lethal.

Daybreakers is, first and foremost, very clever. A great deal of attention is paid to answering the question, "What would a world of vampires be like?" The movie is good throughout, but it is at its best when establishing setting and tone. The opening of the movie is perfect, though it seems to have nothing to do with the story. Perhaps it's leftover from an earlier draft. No matter, we wouldn't lose it for the world.

Our issues with the movie's title should be obvious: we find ourselves wondering just how many names they tried that were already taken before settling on something so cheesy. Our other complaint is with the final ninety seconds, and we hesitate to say too much. Fear not, good reader, we've no intent to spoil the ending.

We offer this observation, instead. The movie's plot was well-crafted until then, with only the occasional misstep or over develop B plot. But the last few minutes deviated, not massively or absurdly - they didn't undo or counter the conclusion they'd worked on - but they did seem to ignore it.

We can say no more on this subject.

Of the movies we've compared this to, Blade Runner is the most classic and, in many ways, the most apropos. So we will call Blade Runner a five star picture and Day Breakers four. It has some problems, but it is a surprisingly intelligent genre film for this time of year.

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes

2010-01-03T15:41:00.000-08:00

Few movies are as under-served by their marketing campaigns as Sherlock Holmes. Contrary to what the trailers would have you believe, this is actually a good movie; perhaps even a very good movie.

When contemplating a piece like Guy Richie's Sherlock Holmes, one is drawn to compare it with the original and with other film adaptations. It is unavoidable, and so that is where we shall start.

The observation and deductive skills of Holmes remain intact. Few adaptations have ever conveyed the scope of his mind as faithfully. The movie's portrayal of Dr. Watson is likewise commendable. Rather than dismiss him as a bumbling fool, Jude Law's version is more akin to the original: he's present to keep Holmes alive rather than keep him amused.

As soon as the movie had established these constants, it was easy to form the expectation that this was intended as a recreation of the original; a translation similar to the Granada series.

Instead, the movie deviates in unexpected directions. And, for many fans of the character, their enjoyment or repulsion will come down to a simple question of whether they're able to come to terms with those deviations.

We can respect - even sympathize - with those who are simply unable to accept the changes. Indeed, we spent much of the movie wondering if these alterations were random. But then it all fell into place.

This is not merely an adaptation of Holmes, but rather an amalgamation of a half dozen genres inspired by the detective. This version of Sherlock Holmes is no gentleman, because he is no longer a detective in the tradition of Victorian England: his behavior - and relationship with the police - is rooted in the tradition of American noir. The setting, while somewhat historically grounded, is enhanced with steampunk sensibilities. The gadgets and plots of the villains, while stopping short of outright science fiction, are reminiscent of Bond. And this incarnation of Irene Adler owes less to Arthur Conan Doyle than to Catwoman.

It's easy to become disoriented watching such a film, but there's a method to this production. All of these elements, from steampunk to Chandler to Bond to Batman, owe a dept of inspiration to the detective of Baker Street. Guy Richie, it seems, is collecting the interest.

In a way, this is a movie about the history of the detective story, and as such, it's fairly brilliant. Though, in all honesty, the movie could have benefited from being a bit less subtle in its approach. There was an attempt to balance these elements against those of the original, and the mixture felt a touch off.

Still, this is a film that deserves to be seen. It's exciting and intriguing, featuring some exceptional performances and fascinating characters. On a scale between one and five stars, where five represents... let's go with Donner's Superman (it's an adaptation, after all)... then Sherlock Holmes is deserving of three and a half.