DVD Review: Green Lantern: First Flight

Perhaps you've noticed a delay, as of late, in our reviewing of direct-to-DVD features.  The Middle Room, we fear, has grown spoiled, and has adopted the attitude that movies should not, as a rule, cost more than seven dollars.  As such, we have come to hesitate when first they are released, waiting for their price to fall to more reasonable levels.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause our readers.

Green Lantern: First Flight, originally released in the heart of summer, is a worthy follow-up to last winter's Wonder Woman.  Both movies transform their source material into accessible stories which shy away from the tone and trappings of superheroes.

This isn't to say they abandon these traditions altogether; merely that they focus more attention on other genres.  In the case of Wonder Woman, it was a romantic comedy first, an action/fantasy second, and a superhero film third.  Likewise, Green Lantern was more a science fiction story and a cop drama than it was a superhero picture.

This revelation raised some eyebrows in The Middle Room, and the question was raised, "Who is this aimed at?"  The answer, particularly in the case of Green Lantern, is far from clear.  Dozens - if not hundreds - of characters, settings, and ideas were imported from the comic, suggesting a tip of the hat to fans.  But many of the designs and concepts were altered into something more palpable to those familiar with standard science fiction, suggesting it was intended to pull in new viewers.

Consider the rings, themselves: while the comics pay the same lip service to a super-science explanation, they are fundamentally magical devices with nearly unlimited power.  But, in the movie, they are treated as weapons.  In fights, members of the Lantern corps are defeated - in some cases killed - as a result of laser fire.  The rings are still powerful and versatile, but they feel like technological marvels in a complex universe, rather than objects rising above it.

The makers of Green Lantern: First Flight walked a perilous path between these extremes: we have seen many movies and properties fail because they could not maintain balance.  But, in this case, the film was graceful, succeeding in using the history of Green Lantern to tell a strong, modern SF story.  While it felt more like Star Wars than the Green Lantern we're used to, the movie delivered an exciting, suspenseful experience.  And there was enough of the characterization and ideas we know and love to keep us from being disappointed.

In effect, this was Green Lantern adapted for film, the way it would be done if this were being made for a theatrical release.  While this may seem obvious, we would remind you that there was no need to have followed this model.  The assumption is that the majority of those purchasing these DVD's are fans of comics: there is no expectation that these need to be accessible to others.  Justice League: New Frontier, which remains the best of these released in recent years, did not take the same path at all.  While there were certainly changes from its source material, New Frontier was very much a comic book superhero story which seldom paused to bring its viewers up to speed.

But both First Flight and Wonder Woman felt like they were attempting something different from New Frontier.  We earlier posed the question asking about the target of these movies, and we would now offer a possible answer.  More than anything else, these felt like a demonstration of what high-budget, big screen adaptations of these properties would be like.  It seems that, in some ways, these may be aimed at higher ups in Warner Bros.

This is, of course, irrelevant to discussions about the movie's quality.  And there can be little doubt that this was a very good film, though there were a few missteps.  The character of Sinestro was a bit too sinister a bit too quickly, particularly in his constant side comments about the Guardians.  Likewise, the use of a sort of miniature "Death Star" towards the end of the picture was more absurd than it was scary.  If this animation company has one weak spot, it's their reliance on incorporating CG at inopportune moments.

But the directing, writing, designs, and voice acting made up for these minor flaws.  Like most every piece of animation relating to the DC Universe these days, this was a solid movie.  If Warner Bros. ever decides to make a live-action Green Lantern movie, the blueprint has been laid out for them.  If they are to remain timid about their properties, however, we might suggest another alternative that would put their superheroes on the big screens: stop releasing these directly to DVD.  Just increase the animation budget and give these the wide release they deserve.

With the exception of Gotham Knight, any of the DC animated movies could have sustained a big screen release with minor enhancements to the quality of the animation.  We can't help but wonder if Warner Bros. is missing an opportunity here.

And so, like Hal Jordon, we come to the stars.  While it's very different than Wonder Woman, we feel it's of a similar quality.  Therefore, we shall honor First Flight in the same manner: with The Incredibles held up as a five star picture, First Flight receives three and a half.

An Evening at the Theater

Recently, we had an opportunity to see Carrie Fisher perform her one-woman show, Wishful Drinking, in which she discusses how Star Wars helped destroy her life.

We feel we would be remiss if we didn't mention this.  We learned a great deal about the life of the woman who portrayed one of the most iconic characters in geek history, including information about her family, her relationships, her struggles with mental illness, and her experiences seeing herself merchandised.

We also learned that she's a brilliant writer.  The performance is absolutely hilarious.  Fisher is clever, insightful, and honest, as she deconstructs her life for the audience, all the while playfully mocking herself, the medium, and those watching.

If you have the opportunity, we strongly recommend seeing this.  We haven't laughed this hard in a long, long time.

Lord of the Rings: an Annual Viewing, part 3 of 3

Previously, we have looked at The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers to consider how they've held up over time. At last we come to it: The Return of the King, winner of eleven academy awards. We have always held that the Academy erred in waiting until the last movie to hand these over. All three of his films were deserving of best picture and director, and none of the trilogy's cast received the honor they were due.

But we are here to discuss other matters: we've come to look again at The Return of the King and consider it in hindsight.

On some level, when it was released, expectations for this movie were impossibly high. At the same time, there was already a sense of disappointment among fans, who were well aware that the Scouring of the Shire had been removed, and that there'd been issues and disagreements regarding Saruman's role. In the theatrical release, the fallen wizard never made an appearance, instead getting discussed briefly in a very awkward scene involving Gandalf and Treebeard.

The assumption was made that, when that scene appeared in the extended edition, all would be right with the world. Sadly, this wasn't the case. The final showdown, while at least offering some resolution, still felt forced and rushed. They tried to retain some of the death of Saruman from the book while moving it elsewhere, and the result came off as clumsy.

In some ways, this sums up the issue with the final extended edition: the majority of added scenes failed to add to the movie as a whole. Even those that did, such as Gandalf facing off with the Witch King and the scene between Eowyn and Faramir in the Houses of Healing, were less than we'd hoped. Meanwhile, Gimli was used once more for comic relief, getting drunk and alluding to bearded dwarven women. Frodo and Sam, mistaken for orcs and forced to march, was somewhat better, but even this was less than we'd hoped.

Of course, none of this detracts from the movie's many strong points. The best scene in the movie is certainly Pippin's song, sung to Denethor while the steward's son rides into battle. The scenes on Mount Doom were also excellent, and the movie's conclusion, while inviting no shortage of complaints from the public at large, earned accolades from geeks everywhere.

The battle of Pelennor Fields was an exceptionally complex and stunning scene. The siege of Gondor, the charge of the Rohirrim, and the slaying of the Witch King were handled beautifully. However, the immediate appearance of Aragorn and his army of undead made the issue somewhat moot: if he was able to save the city so easily, what was the point of the rest of it? Still, the battle hits more than enough high notes to continue to impress. Perhaps someday a film maker will make something to rival its scale, but we haven't seen anything since.

Another element is in need of addressing: Legolas's heroics. These occurred throughout the trilogy, in one form or another, culminating with him slaying an oliphant. While certainly cool, it's age has begun to show. The limitations of the CG have grown apparent at points, and the whole thing comes off as cartoonish. Similarly, scenes in Two Towers where he rides a shield and leaps onto a moving horse haven't aged particularly well.

It's important to note, however, that Jackson was never making these movies for posterity. Like Lucas with the original Star Wars, he was making these out of a love of the source material and the joy of film making. These were made for the audiences seeing them in the theater, as well as fans buying the DVD. There's little evidence that Jackson concerned himself with how the movies would be regarded a hundred years down the road.

Perhaps that's part of the reason they'll still likely be watched a century from now.

Lord of the Rings: an Annual Viewing, part 2 of 3

Last time, we considered the extended edition of The Fellowship of the Ring, a film which, through no fault of its own, has diminished over time. We watched too greedily, our hearts desiring knowledge, and we learned secrets about the filming that cannot be unlearned.

Which isn't to say we exercised caution with The Two Towers: we saw all the extras, listened to the commentaries, and looked through the production photographs, just as we did with Fellowship.

The difference is that this knowledge doesn't impact the film as directly. With Fellowship, there's a sense that every other scene contains a shot dealing with the scale of the hobbits compared to the larger characters. Learning the various ways these were accomplished makes it difficult to watch without spotting. When the Fellowship breaks apart, this becomes less significant.

The Two Towers is concerned with more personal stories and journeys. Much of the movie is dedicated to Aragorn, Theoden, and Eoywn. All are human, and their stories unfold in a believable manner.

The other major plot follows Frodo and Sam as they try to make their way towards Mordor. The technological achievement of the film, Gollum, never feels fake or out of place: the performance captured by Andy Serkis and Weta was Oscar worthy.

Much of the material added for the extended edition revolves around Treebeard, Merry, and Pippin. On first viewing, this seemed a bit anticlimactic, but the scenes have aged well. While Helm's Deep was, in many ways, overshadowed by Pelennor Fields in the last movie, it remains one of the best fantasy battle ever put on film. In some ways, it surpasses Pelennor Fields, which is forced to rely more heavily on computer imagery, while Helm's Deep is able to do more with practical effects.

Finally, the ride of the Rohirrim remains a stunning display of visual effects; quite possibly the most awe inspiring image of the trilogy - and, arguably, in film history.

While there are aspects of the movie that we'd have preferred handled differently - the Wargs hold the distinction of being the worst designed aspect of these films, and Gimli's occasional moment of comic relief relating to dwarf tossing or bearded women have always grated on our nerves - on this viewing, we were surprised to see Two Towers emerge as our favorite of the trilogy.

Come back next time, when we consider the final film, Return of the King.

Lord of the Rings: an Annual Viewing, part 1 of 3

In The Middle Room, it has become an annual event. Every year, at around this time, we watch The Lord of the Rings extended editions. It is unclear why we do so now, but such has become custom.

Of course, one does not merely watch The Lord of the Rings: one must reflect. When these aired, they set a new bar for epic film making.

Now then. How do they hold up?

It is, of course, a dangerous path to travel. Fans love these films with a religious devotion: we've heard it said some have built shrines in its honor. We would not want to invoke the anger of such a person.

Like all movies, The Lord of the Rings has aged in some ways. Oh, overall the movies are as fantastic today as when they opened, but there are a few aspects which seem different in hindsight; some for better and others for worse.

Let us start with Fellowship. For years, this was far and above our favorite of the trilogy. Largely, this was because the source material offered more diverse settings and characters than the later installments. In addition, we would argue that the material added in the extended edition of the Fellowship includes many of our favorite scenes and lines. From the added bits in the Shire to Gandalf's discussion on mithril to the gifts of Galadriel, the added material improved the film dramatically and unexpectedly.

However, over time it has grown difficult to watch this as we once did. The fault is not with the movie but the viewer: we've seen too much. We've seen all the extras, the featurettes, and commentaries; some more than once. We know how every shot was accomplished, where stilts were used, when forced perspective was employed, and where CG was utilized.

In essence, we feel like we've lost the ability to watch this movie as anything other than a technical marvel.

Fortunately, a technical marvel it remains. The beauty of the movie endures, particularly in its depiction of the Shire. Likewise, the horror of the Balrog has not lessened over time. What's more, the scene where Gandalf hands Bilbo his hat and staff remains, in our opinion, one of the most impressive illusions ever captured on film.

This remains one of our favorite movies of all time, but it is no longer our favorite of the trilogy. That, we will consider in part 2.

An Open Letter to Disney, Regarding your Recent Purchase

Hi, Disney.  Normally we would send this to you directly, but we're fairly certain you have a vast computer network beneath Disney World which scours the web for any reference to your company.  So we presume you'll get this, anyway.

Now then.  A little while ago, you bought Marvel.  You may recall this; you may not (we have it on good authority you may have been drinking beforehand).  At any rate, if you check your back pocket, you'll likely find the lease.

We wanted to discuss this with you.

You see, right after you purchased Marvel Comics for a cool four billion (that's US dollars, by the way: we're unsure what the current exchange rate is for Disney Dollars), many of us on the internet panicked and asked - no, pleaded - with you to retain the integrity of Marvel's operations, to leave its editorial and business staff untouched to continue the work they've been doing for years.

Well, we've given the matter some thought, and we think we might have made a grave mistake.

Recently, we had an opportunity to view the new Super Hero Squad Show, Marvel's attempt at kid friendly entertainment.  We were, in a word, disgusted.  It wasn't the fact that the characters were reduced to childish caricatures: that's been done successfully elsewhere.  It's that the Super Hero Squad Show is a disgusting, obnoxious blight on the Earth, one that cheapens characters we've loved for decades and toys we've collected for years.

And the fault, is seems, cannot merely be laid at the feet of the writers.  Consider the recent Newsarama interview with Cort Lane, Marvel's director of animation development, where Lane discusses editorial involvement with the program:

"We have a lot of fart jokes, too. You can thank Joe Quesada for the fart jokes. I think Joe’s really a 4-7 year old in his heart because he really pushed for Mole Man to be gassy. I wasn’t going to argue because I knew boys were going to love that."

Now, we hear rumors that Mini-Marvels, a far more clever and artistic work, may be canceled to prevent confusion with this new program.

This logic frustrates us, in part because we can't imagine the distinction between these two projects as being clearer.  Mini-Marvels = good.  Super Hero Squad Show = bad.  You see, no one could ever get these confused.

This got us thinking about the past few years; about the destruction of Spider-Man's marriage, the deterioration of the X-Men titles, the constant barrage of event books redefining the 'status quo' of the company for precisely one year, and editorial mandates - such as a total suspension of smoking - which have upset fans.

And we asked ourselves why we were so adamant about keeping things the way they are.  So, we've given the matter some thought, and we want to revise our earlier statement.  Please.  Go nuts.

Seriously, you put some real money into this buyout: go ahead and play with your new toys.  You've got some fantastic writers and artists at Marvel; let them keep doing their thing, but why not get some new suits in the head office?  As for the Super Hero Squad Show?  Well, if you want to appeal to kids, why not mix things up with something they're already familiar with?  At first, all those drawings of Micky Mouse dressed up as Spider-Man or Wolverine were created to mock the merger.  But, you know something?  They're kind of growing on us.

In the right hands, Disneyfied versions of Marvel heroes could make a good read or a great show.  And, hey, if you're looking for talent to make such a bizarre concept work, we hear this guy's free.

Sincerely,

The Middle Room

Super Hero Squad

Cartoon Network has begun airing the Super Hero Squad Show, an animated series based on a comic book series based on a line of action figures sold in an attempt to duplicate the success of larger action figures which were based on comic books.

At present, we've seen the first two-thirds of the first two episodes: we couldn't find the conclusion to either on Youtube, where we typically forage for such things.  Frankly, it doesn't seem to matter.

The Middle Room has long collected Super Hero Squad action figures, and will continue to do so, despite the lackluster program.

The Super Hero Squad did not impress us.  In feel, it reminds us of animated series that were made in eighties.  Not the ones you're thinking of, but rather the ones you've forgotten.  The characters are absurdly childish; the plots painfully simplistic.

There are some who will excuse this with the explanation that it was made for children.  Such apologists should be dismissed.  It has long been - and shall continue to be - the position of The Middle Room that children are capable of appreciating intelligent entertainment.  If you doubt this, we refer you to the success of Batman: Brave and the Bold.

From the early footage, it appeared the Super Hero Squad Show would feel like children playing with toys.  But that would imply a degree of inspiration and whimsy that's entirely absent.  Rather, the show is a collection of caricatures tied together with a disconnected string of fart jokes and halfhearted voice acting.

The writers, presumably in an effort to please the longtime Marvel fans watching, have peppered the series with dozens of characters, monsters, objects, and references to comic history.  But these feel cheap and empty.  Even when Stan Lee was even brought in to voice a character, the result felt more like a forceful nudge than a loving nod.

On top of everything else, the animation is abysmal.  Perhaps over time the show might improve, though we sincerely doubt it.  In truth, we'd prefer it were put out of its misery as soon as possible, before it sullies the toy line any further.

At present, Marvel has two exceptional animated series: Spectacular Spider-Man and Wolverine and the X-Men.  With Hulk Vs. and Next Avengers, they've finally built a direct-to-DVD studio which is releasing movies worth tracking down.  And their live action movies are absolutely fantastic.

We'd hoped that, somehow, this would surprise us the way Brave and the Bold did.  But no such luck.

Oh, well.  At least it's better than the episode of Iron Man: Armored Adventures we sat through.