"Get Smart"

Jeremiah:
I grew up watching Nick at Nite. That may sound weird, but hey, in my house “cable” meant The Disney Channel and Nickelodeon, a.k.a. Nick at Nite. So I grew up with “The Twilight Zone,” “Alfred Hitchcock Presents,” “The Monkees,” “The Dick Van Dyke Show,” “F-Troop” and, of course... “Get Smart.”

So, that being said, I went in hoping the movie wouldn't suck and for a few laughs along the way. Well, the movie didn't suck... and it had a few laughs. It was entertaining, and yet I was still kind of disappointed.

The direction and story were sort of,well... meh. The actors did their best -- no one was phoning it in, to be sure. Steve Carell was hilarious, but he wasn't really Maxwell Smart as much as merely the same Steve Carell we know and love. Dwayne Johnson was spot on as Agent 23 and Alan Arkin was, at times, even funnier than Carell. Hell, Anne Hathaway, while not as funny as her male counterparts, turned in a solid performance -- probably better than the movie deserved -- and provided a pleasant visual distraction when the movie dragged. Although I have to say, the great Terrence Stamp seemed to be in a different movie altogether. His lines were delivered with a sort of glum seriousness that made you feel like maybe someone told him this was a Bond film, as opposed to Bond spoof.

While the action sequences were done well, they lacked “oopmh.” I was never at the edge of my seat. Granted, one should not expect to be at edge of one's seat when watching a modern-day remake/tribute to a slapstick sitcom from the '60s, but there were times where you got the impression that the director, Peter Segal, was attempting to do just that. Uneven and, at times, just plain boring -- those times being when the funny and the Hathaway (who is rapidly becoming my crush of the month) were absent.

The laughs are there, though. There will be times where you may be holding your gut. They bring out all the gags from the show -- even the robotic Hymie (Patrick Warburton) makes an appearance -- and there some solid original jokes as well. All in all, though not as funny as I'd hoped it would be, I'm not going to punish a movie simply because it failed to be “Airplane” or something of that stripe. I will, however, punish it for being merely mediocre.

Or maybe punish is the wrong word.

I mean, what does it really matter what I think of the hard work that obviously went into this movie? So it wasn't “Anchor Man.” It had its moments and, overall, made me glad that I chose to see it, which is really all one can ask of comedy. We want for more, sometimes demand more and who knows? Maybe we're right.

Still, it made me laugh, and that's good too.

/ 5

Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,
Jeremiah



Richard:
"Get Smart" was a television staple to me as a child. I remember sneaking out to watch it on my parents spare TV in the middle of the night -- one of those boxy, wood-paneled TVs with bad color and horrid sound, but I wouldn't have traded it for anything.

It was my favorite show and I had seen every episode countless times before the age of 10. But all that remains now are the running gags mixed with a few brief, more specific memories... much like what I came out of the movie with.

Steve Carell is funny, that's a given, but he was never Maxwell Smart in the movie. Just Steve Carell doing silly things. Anne Hathaway wasn't 99 and Alan Arkin wasn't really The Chief. They were great, just not who I wanted them to be.

The movie is a complete revamp. You don't need to know any inside jokes or the characters, although it helps, and you don't have to be familiar with the show to have a few laughs. Sometimes a revamp is what you need (i.e. "The Incredible Hulk") other times you should just continue with the flow and assume the audience came to see it based on the source material (see also: "Superman Returns"). "Get Smart" falls into the latter category.

Sure the show is old -- really old -- but it's still a comedy legend. Even now, I still hear people quoting it. It lives in a category along with a few other select shows ("I Love Lucy," "Dragnet," etc.) that need no explanation. Maxwell Smart is established. Skip the pomp and circumstance and throw him into the world of spy parody.

If you want a few laughs see this, or wait for the DVD. But if you seriously want to relive the days of Don Adams, watch "The Naked Gun." You will be more entertained.

3 out of 5



Thaddeus:
Yeah... I didn't see this movie.

What? I have a life outside here, y'know. Besides, we got Richard back in the game:



What more do you want?

x out of 5

-Thad out.

Read More......

They Might Be Comics: Part 1

While Sherman is on the downhill slope toward the end of his animation marathon, I've decided to start a little mini-series of my own to get my movie reviewing gears grinding back up to speed. Don't let the title fool you: they definitely are comics, you just probably didn't know that when they came out.

Now, at this point you may be thinking that "Iron Man" or "The Incredible Hulk" had the best casting of any comic book movie to date, but what if such a film came out starring Tom Hanks and Paul Newman and Jude Law? Look no further than "Road to Perdition."

Based on the first volume of a graphic novel series by the same name, "Road to Perdition" is the story of Irish Mob enforcer Michael Sullivan, Sr. (Hanks) told from the perspective of his son, Michael, Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin). Michael, Sr. has worked -- or killed people -- for John Rooney (Paul Newman) for most of his life, having also been raised by the mobster since he was orphaned at a young age. And he's very good at his job.

Unfortunately, curiosity as to the nature of his father's work gets the better of Michael, Jr. and he ends up stowing away in his father's car and witnesses Rooney's psychotic son, Conner (Daniel Graig), shoot a guy in the head. Things spiral out of control as the ultra-paranoid Conner, fearing young Michael will talk, kills Micheal, Sr's wife and younger son, Peter, mistaking him for Michael, Jr.

And so, Michael, Sr. takes his surviving son on the ensuing mission of vengeance, hoping to force the mob to give up Conner, kill him and eventually reach safe harbor in a town called Perdition. On top of that, they must evade a bizarre contract killer with a habit of photographing his victims as they die (Jude Law).

The film has this amazing flow to it. Highly visual and strangely quiet, making you pay closer attention to the dialogue and violence when it shows up. And while there obviously are several killings in the movie, it's never anything over-the-top; death is shown as an ugly thing, even though the cinematography framing it is beautiful.

There's a lot of great stuff going on here -- even the child-acting is pulled off without a hitch. And Daniel Craig plays the crazy bastard like a pro, even amongst all these huge names. Director Sam Mendes is another man who's good at his job. His film previous to "Road to Perdition" was quite good, as well. Maybe you've heard of it? A little flick called "American Beauty"?

Though I hate to admit this, I haven't actually read the "Road to Perdition" graphic novel. What can I say? I'm poor. But it comes highly recommended, as does the series it was loosely based on, a Japanese manga called "Lone Wolf and Cub" (which was made into a series of films in Japan that I've also not seen).

In an event, it's a movie that I highly recommend. And if you get really hooked in, there's plenty of source material to add to your future reading/viewing list.

And just to underline the kind of dork I am, I'd like to mention how I love the wordplay of the title, "Perdition" being both the town they hope to find sanctuary in as well as a synonym for Hell, where all these Irish Catholic mobsters are certain they'll end up; Mmmmm... layered meanings. So add that to your vocabulary, if you have some free space.

-Thad out.

Read More......

The Resurrection of "The Incredible Hulk" -'Three' Geek Review

Jeremiah:

HULK SMASH!

ME FEEL FOR DR. BRUCE BANNER!

ME FEEL FOR HULK!

HULK HAVE SORROWFUL EYES!

THAT... ODD...

LIV TYLER IS HOT!

JOHN HURT WANT TO HURT HULK --

ME NO LIKE THAT!

TIM ROTH IS AN ABOMINATION!

TIM BLAKE NELSON WISHES TO HELP HULK!

ME THINK... HE HAVE ULTERIOR MOTIVES!

MUCH ACTION!

ED NORTON, GREAT ACTOR!

LOUIS LETERRIER GREAT ACTION DIRECTOR!!

MUCH ACTION!!!

LIV TYLER REALLY HOT!!

MELODRAMA WALKS A FINE TIGHT ROPE AND SUCCEEDS!

ME NOT UNDERSTAND PREVIOUS LINE...

(GROWL) LIV TYLER IS REALLLY HOT!!!

AND, OH YEAH--

HULK SMAAASSSSH!!

/ 5

YOURS 'TIL HELL FREEZE OVER,
The Incredible Sher-man



Thaddeus:

Erh, yeah... the movie may have exposed Sherman to leathal doses of geek radiation, mutating him into a creature beyond imagination...
We should probably do something about that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I'm somewhat protective of Ang Lee's "Hulk." Not that it's some kind of misunderstood classic or anything, I just don't believe it deserves all the flack it tends to catch.

Okay, so the story goes crazy in the last half hour or so -- I'm with you there. They made it way more about daddy issues than it needed to be -- fine. None of the classic villains -- definitely raises questions. But they had good actors delivering solid performances (with what they were given) and special effects that blew my mind out the back of my head. The fight scenes between the Hulk and the Army are the whole reason I own that DVD. It's gorgeous. The Hulk appears to be standing just right the fuck there.

That being said, "The Incredible Hulk" brushes the previous film aside like a batch of cobwebs and barrels ahead to one of the greatest super-powered slugfests ever to grace the silver screen. "Iron Man" was no fluke -- Marvel Studios has officially stopped kidding around.

The problem with Ang Lee's "Hulk" was that it was all origin story, with Banner only truly adopting his classic man-on-the-run setup at the very end. "The Incredible Hulk," on the other hand, goes the other way. An opening montage fleshes out the origin that we all already knew -- with definite visual influences from the live-action TV show for those of us that are power dorks -- and we're off.

Now, with Louis Leterrier being a professional, and demonstrably talented, action director, I was completely unsurprised that all of the action sequences -- from foot chases to army confrontations to the big monster fight -- were brilliantly executed. But beyond that, I was pleasantly surprised to find delicious Marvel Universe references lurking around every corner. Hints about Captain America, classic Hulk supporting characters and/or future villains lurking about, Lou Ferrigno... fantastic!

Edward Norton fits as Bruce Banner in that almost glaringly obvious way that Robery Downey Jr. captured Tony Stark, though I wonder if he'll get the recognition he deserves, as the Banner character isn't made to steal scenes like Stark. But, c'mon... you've seen "Fight Club," right? Dude's got repressed rage down like nobody's business.

Hell, the whole cast is stellar. William Hurt, Tim Roth, Liv Tyler... sure, the previous film had an Grade-A cast as well, but "The Incredible Hulk" brings the cast and the action and the nerdity to such a high degree that I defy you not to enjoy it.

Go ahead and try.

Plus, Lou Ferrigno lends his voice to the Hulk himself. It's a great day for gamma radiation.

****

-Thad out.


Richard:

[File Not Found]

Read More......

"The Orchid Thief" vs. "Adaptation" -Jeremiah

The journey from a book to the silver screen is a dicey one. Oft times it leaves fans of the book totally alienated, while other times it's a rousing success all-around. Yet, amongst the pantheon of books adapted to film, the case of Susan Orlean's “The Orchid Thief” is a curious one, as well as one of, if not the, most unique adaptation. Charlie Kauffman (whose task it was to effectively adapt the book for the multiplexes), with the help of a previous collaborator (director Spike Jonze), broke all the rules of adaptation and, in the end, made a masterpiece.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Susan Orlean's “The Orchid Thief” is a passionate, journalistic expedition through the lives of passionate people and their various passions. One could say that the theme of the book is, well... love. It's people focusing on their obsessions in order to scale down this vast and complex world into a more manageable and more personal place. In a lot of ways, Orlean's book bears a strong resemblence to Kerouac's work in the sense that there is no real story. But that doesn't mean they're not about anything or that we don't feel for the people who live on those pages.

“You know, now that I think about it, I guess we're a family of ailments and pain.” - John Laroche

It is safe to say John Laroche is the reason for Orlean's opus. His court case was what started her interest in orchids. The case alleged that “...Laroche and three Seminole assistants had illegally removed more than two hundred rare orchid and bromelaid plants from the Fakahatchee...” and, in turn, “...they were accused of criminal possession of endangered species and of illegally removing plant life from state property, both of which are punishable by jail time and fines.”

This case, while a huge deal for Laroche, is barely one fifth of the book. There are chapters about Laroche's past and his past loves of tropical fish, turtles and ice age fossils. There are many others that deal with Bob Fuchs, Martin Motts, the history of Orchid collecting and the cut-throat lives of those men brave enough, or simply carrying that crazy itch, to be orchid hunters. There are others still, about the ever-amazing, ceaseless Florida eco-system. Orlean's charm is that she introduces you to facts and trivia about things you never knew you wanted to know.

“Spooky places are usually full of death, but the Fakahatchee is crazy with living things.” - Susan Orlean

As I hinted in the previous paragraph, the other character -- and, in some ways, the more interesting character -- is the Florida eco-System. Specifically, the Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. This amazing piece of nature is a deadly, unforgiving, indomitable part of Mother Nature.

“The Fakahatchee looks utterly wild, but is in fact a corrupted wilderness. It has been meddled with and invaded. For a while, people cleared and plowed parcels of its wet prarie and tried to grow oranges, grapefruits, tangerines, tomatoes, mangoes, and winter vegetables. The swamp made for lousy farming. The farmers eventually left, but their produce lingered. Even now you can still see crop rows under the native grass and a few weather-beaten citrus trees amid palm and cypress. Melaleucas and Brazilian peppers and Australian pine trees, non-natives, have roamed into the strand and multiplied. So have walking catfish, who swam in through the sinkhole lakes and stayed.”

Amid all the facts about orchids and the people who hunt and collect them, all the interesting facts about Florida's preserve and Laroche's life, Orlean has crafted a book that is almost impossible to put down. It is the most engaging and informative book about things I never thought would be interesting but, to my delight, turned out to be absolutely absorbing.

With that being said, we now come to the movie adaptation, aptly titled “Adaptation,” penned by whiz-kid Charlie Kauffman ("Being John Malkovich," "Human Nature," "Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind," "Confessions of A Dangerous Mind"). It was directed by Spike Jonze, this being their second collaboration -- the first being "Being John Malkovich".

Firstly, let us look at the movie on it's own terms.

“Adaptation” is a movie about many, many things. Starring Nicholas Cage as Charlie Kauffman and also as his twin brother Donald Kauffman (non existent). As previously stated, Charlie is been hired to adapt Susan Orlean's book (Orlean herself is portrayed by Meryl Streep).

Just as Charlie gets the job, Donald decides that he will follow in his beloved brother's footsteps and be a screenwriter too. To show his dedication to his brother he tells him that he's taking a class on screenwriting, taught by the infamous Bob McKee (Brian Cox).

While that is going on, we see Orlean interview John Laroche (Chris Cooper) about his court case and his passion for orchids. Orlean is introduced to the amazing world of orchids and those passionate people who lust after them.

Back with the Kauffmans, Charlie is suffering writer's block while Donald is coming up with a wonderfully ridiculous plot for a serial killer thriller. Charlie can't seem to find a way to adapt Orlean storyless novel. “It's that sprawling New Yorker shit!” Meanwhile Orlean and Laroche develop a platonic relationship that hints at more.

Now we come upon the genius of “Adaptation.” Charlie Kauffman goes on numerous diatribes about suffering for his art and about art itself, constantly trashing his brother's attempt to craft something as formulaic as a serial killer flick. The movie spends so much time distracting us with criticisms on entertainment for the masses, the relationships of the brothers and of Orlean and Laroche and on the writing process that we almost fail to realize that the movie is slowly evolving into what it spent the first half railing against. In fact, the term ”adaptation” has a double meaning: the adapting of book into movie and our adaptation as human beings. It's about how we, as humans, spend our lives adapting and getting used to change, because life won't stop no matter how hard we wish it to.

To go even deeper, there is a scene that sums “Adaptation” perfectly. Donald is telling Charlie how he has come up with his thriller plot, how it was inspired by a tattoo his girlfriend has -- a snake eating its own tail. Ouroboros, as it called. This revelation comes about the time in the movie where Charlie has written himself into his screenplay adaption of the book, and is a perfect summary of what the movie becomes.

The multi-level genius of "Adaptation" is astounding when you consider that it addresses writer's block (which is what it was born of), frustration on how to adapt and stay truthful to the source material (another birthplace of the film) and that Kauffman split himself in half, one representing the childish-yet-shallow side, the other being the artistic and mature side, yet both sides complementing each other. It's really touching as you realize, towards the end, how much Donald idolizes his brother Charlie and as Charlie realizes how much he envies and loves his brother.

So does the movie stay faithful to the book? Of course not. How could it?

There's no arc of any kind to the book. Nobody really changes or learns any real life lessons and there's almost no drama. Yet the movie was true to the underlying theme of Orlean's masterpiece. There's a line in the movie when Charlie and Donald are hiding in the swamp and Charlie relates a time when they were both in high school. He tells Donald of an incident where he witnessed Donald flirt with a girl, a girl that Donald remembers to this day: “God I was in love with her,” he remembers wistfully. Charlie goes on to tell him that, after Donald left, the girl of his dreams made fun of him, and how that angered Charlie. Donald reveals that he heard her as well, but that it didn't matter. “You are what you love, not what loves you back.”

That right there is the core of Orlean's epic: people who are in love with a nearly indestructible, intelligent and unique specimen of botany. Donald loves his brother, although his brother does not often return that love until the end. There's the love of art and of movies, Laroche's love for orchids and for Susan... Everyone in the film loves something or someone that does not love them back. Even Charlie, who loves almost every girl that he meets, and fantasizes about them, though they all reject him.

“Adaptation” is the most original and bizarre adaption in the history of adaptations. Susan Orlean's book is as marvelously unique as the screen counterpart. Orlean can be proud that the movie was intrinsically faithful to her novel, while Kauffman has cemented himself as a genius with what is, quite simply, a contemporary masterpiece... one which will most assuredly adapt itself into a classic masterpiece.

Book and movie 5 Hayeks.



Yours Until Hell Freezes Over,

Jeremiah

Read More......

Go, "Speed Racer," Go! -Thaddeus

I've pretty much given up on anime.

It was once a fairly prolific interest of mine, and I still have my favorites, but the fan culture -- heavily populated by yapping loons who tout any ol' thing made on the islands of Japan a "must see" -- has pushed me out beyond the edge and into impossibly deep caverns of disinterest.

And even before that, I never cared much for "Speed Racer."

With all that understood, I'm going to tell you right now that, if you have any joy in your heart (or a combination of ADD and adrenaline addiction), it would be criminal to miss out on what turns out to be a fun-filled, and possible seizure-inducing, ride.

Somehow, the Wachowski Bros. -- the (in)famous minds behind "The Matrix" trilogy -- took what I mark as the seminal nonsensical anime and forged it into an engaging and vibrant visual entertainment explosion.

The world is unabashedly animated, brightly colored and smooth-edged. And, in keeping with the anime atmosphere, the character interactions are largely melodramatic -- especially when the blatantly cartoony villains are anywhere near the scene. Yet somehow, the Racer family dynamic manages to feel quite genuine, thanks in no small part to the casting of Susan Sarandon and John Goodman as Mom and Pops Racer.

This movie is packed with fun characters. There's definite chemistry between Emile Hirsch (as the eponymous hero, Speed Racer) and Christina Ricci (Speed's girlfriend, Trixie). Paulie Litt runs amok through much of the movie as Speed's younger brother, Spritle, with his pet chimp, Chim Chim, in tow. And finally there's Matthew Fox as Racer X, who has all the badassitude of a racecar-driving Batman.

"Speed Racer" is downright daring in its cinematography. Motion line backdrops with spinning or sliding closeups in the foreground and all sorts of flashy cuts and transitions pay homage to the anime roots in a surprisingly successful way. I found the whole enterprise much easier to swallow than the similarly referential comic book paneling of Ang Lee's "Hulk," which is the only thing I could come up with as a comparison.

The races themselves are unbelievable in the best possible way. Even from the earliest trailers, I was reminded of the crazy-fast, futuristic rallies of "F-Zero GX" for the Gamecube, with the twisting tracks over neon backdrops. The cars are constantly jumping and flipping over one another, yet I never found myself bored with the effect -- high-speed car jumps are, apparently, always cool.

There were also ninjas and gangsters.

And since I tend to balk at using simple numbers to represent something as complex as my interpretation of a piece of quality entertainment, I will now do whatever the hell I want until somebody manages to stop me.

So, yeah... I found myself making this face a lot:



Bottom Line: if you're looking for an lovingly-crafted, live-action cartoon adventure... look no further than "Speed Racer."

-Thad out.

Read More......