Return of the Jedi 30 Years Later: Remembering Opening Day
A long time ago, in a movie theater somewhat far away . . .
The wait had seemed interminable. Three years to find out the fate of Han Solo, to learn if Darth Vader had been telling the truth about Luke’s father. Three years is forever to a child who had only been nine years old when The Empire Strikes Back ended with a major cliffhanger. But the day finally arrived: May 25th, 1983, opening day for Return of the Jedi.
I was heading to the theater in Deptford, NJ with my two best friends, Bruce and Kim. Kim’s dad drove us up to the theater early in the day so we could buy tickets ahead of time and walk around the mall until the movie started. This proved to be a brilliant move because by the time we returned to the theater the line outside was longer than anything I had ever seen in my life. We got in line and it continued to grow behind us, stretching back farther than we could see.
2001: A Personal Odyssey
This week marks the 45th anniversary of the theatrical release of Stanley Kubrick’s science fiction masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is not so much a review as an anecdote of my experience with the film and how I grew to appreciate it as the greatest science fiction film ever made. Click on the image or the link below to read more.
Quick Thoughts on the Hobbit in 48 fps 3D
Originally I had planned to see The Hobbit in IMAX 3D so I could catch the 9-minute preview of the new Star Trek film, but at the last minute I changed my mind, figuring I should try at least once to see it how Peter Jackson intended. I’m glad I did it for the experience, but I probably won’t see a live-action film in that format again given the choice. Some of the exteriors were breathtaking, but overall it had more of a videotape feel to it. Unfortunately, we’ve been conditioned over the years to associate the video tape look with cheapness and I don’t think that’s going to change, at least not for our generation.
No doubt that everything is much more detailed with the 48 fps format, but maybe too much so. It certainly makes you feel as if you could step right out in that world, and this worked great for the wide-shot exteriors, but not so well for the interiors. I was never able to get past the feeling of watching a made-for-TV version of Lord of the Rings. I wouldn’t say it looked fake so much as unreal, especially since the look of Middle Earth had already been established in the original LOTR trilogy. And the closeups of characters in exterior shots often made the distant backgrounds look flat, which probably wasn’t helped by the 3D acting in conjunction with the frame rate.
Taken apart from the frame rate, however, the 3D was perfectly fine, so if you want to watch it in 3D, see it in IMAX in the normal 24 fps frame rate. That experience will be more like what you’re accustomed to seeing, and at least that way you’ll also get to see the Star Trek preview. I, however, am thinking about going back to 2D for the next two installments of the trilogy so that their look will feel more synchronous with the Middle Earth established in the LOTR trilogy.
As for the movie itself, it was well done, with nonstop action once they finally left the Shire. It doesn’t have the same stakes as Lord of the Rings and I can see why some people think the material felt stretched to accommodate the split into three films, but there is a lot to like, particularly the Gollum scene, and it’s always nice to revisit Middle Earth. Personally, I think I could do with another viewing where I can watch the film for just the story rather than spending most of it preoccupied with the 3D and the overly-detailed picture.
Films have essentially looked the same since the early days of Hollywood. This new technology isn’t like upgrading from black and white to color, or even to 3D. It’s a fundamental change in the way films look. I understand why Peter Jackson wanted to introduce it, but I don’t think we’re quite ready for it.
Final verdict: definitely worth seeing, but I’d avoid the 48 fps version.
The Avengers Assemble $200 Mil
Holy shawarma! I expected big results, but the $200 million bucks for opening weekend exceeded my estimate by about $75 million. After the resounding success of the extremely good The Hunger Games, it looks like the blockuster summer is well underway.
Copyrighted image. All rights and terms of usage belong to the copyright holder – probably Marvel Comics and/or Disney. I just thought it would spruce things up a bit. No infringement is intended, and no claims are being made. If I need to remove the image, I will do so immediately.
I really enjoyed The Avengers (and my sons did, too) – I think it may be my favorite of the super-hero movies. And I really liked Captain America, Dark Knight, Spider-Man, Iron Man 2 (Iron Man was good, too), X-Men, Rocketeer, The Crow and Spider-Man 2. All of the characters were handled well, and I thought the plot, such as it was, held up pretty well, considering the character roll call.
Really, the plot was about what it should have been, considering that it’s an action movie. Honestly, it can’t be overly complex, as it requires a huge, galactic level conflict to keep all these powerful people occupied. After all, what’s an action movie without something to cause the heroes to struggle?
The first thing to notice was that the CGI was amazing, and truly made me believe that these characters were doing the incredible things they were. And I really liked the comic book-y touches (yes, my geek is showing – but I was a geek before it was cool!) they had in it. Such as:
- Tony Stark’s offhand reference to Life Model Decoys when trying to blow off Agent Coulson
- The fact that the Helicarrier had the number 64 on it. I am guessing that this was not an accident, as The Avengers first issue was published in 1964. It’s definitely possible that it was an accident, but I’d like to think that Joss Whedon and Co. did it deliberately.
- Duh author update: it was not deliberate. I checked and the Avengers comic was introduced in 1963. Bummer. Oh well, it would have been a nice touch. Well, Maybe I can get a no-prize here: Captain America was introduced to the Avengers in 1964, forming the basis of the modern Avengers…
- The Hulk/Loki confrontation and Hulk’s parting line to Loki: “Puny God”
- A reference to Project Pegasus at the S.H.I.E.L.D. installation that was destroyed in the beginning of the movie
- The scene of the Hulk leaping out of nowhere to catch an unconscious (and quickly plummeting) Iron Man after he’d sent the nuclear missle into the heart of the Chitauri world
- Folks applauded when the movie was over – I can’t remember the last time I heard that. I felt like applauding.
- I was surprised by the number of people who left before the two extra scenes rolled. I thought that after all these Marvel movies, that people (especially in the first week) would know that the extra scene thing is pretty much a given at this point.
I did have a few things that I questioned, but they are small and barely worth mentioning. But I’ll mention them:
- Captain America’s survival when Thor struck CA’s shield with his hammer. Cap’s shield would certainly have been able to withstand the impact. But I’m not so sure about Captain America.
- Professor Erik Selvig’s survival when Iron Man blasted the energy shield and sent him reeling. If that impact of that blast sent Iron Man reeling, and Selvig was closer to the impact point (and not in a suit of iron)…
- Tony Stark’s survival when Loki pitched him through that window
- Bruce Banner’s shirts rip to shreds when he transforms to the Hulk, but his pants always seem to stay intact. I’m not in any way advocating for shredded trousers, but it’s an interesting phenomenon. Maybe he wears Pajama Jeans?
Okay, these are pretty small nits to pick, as balanced against all of the great things this movie offers. As with any action movie, we suspend our belief and immerse ourselves in the overall coolness of the movie.
As a longtime comic book reader, I appreciate movies like this. Bringing something I loved as a kid and feel great nostalgia about as an adult to life. And taking it seriously, and not giving in to the campy side. Nice to know that there are comic book fans who are capable of making movies like this.
They definitely did their homework, nailed the characters personalities and dreamed up some really cool images and homages to go along with all that comic book magic. It was action packed, a little intense and very funny when it needed to be! Even the casual comic book fans were in on the jokes.
And who watching the movie was not affected by the fate of Phil Coulson (a teriffic character created just for the movies)? At least he got in one good shot on Loki and delivered a great line.
Final verdict? Give it an A+. A thumb’s up. Nine out of 10 tomatoes??? Whatver the ranking system, it was a truly excellent movie and I look forward to Avengers 2. Kudos to Whedon and the actors for making a movie that comic book lifers and newbies could both enjoy.
Now I think I’ll go get me a shawarma.
Related articles:
Stallone and Ahnold: Together Again For the First Time
Sometimes, just when you need it, something comes into your life and totally blows your mind. It cleans you out and changes you from within. Once you are caught in the net of this awesomeness, you are never the same person again.
I am talking, of course, about “Expendables 2”! Imagine the awesomeness potential here! The Governator and John Rambo! I mean, Sylvester Stallone totally took that lame ass F. Scott Fitzgerald First Blood short story and made it totally kick butt. And it was a far far better butt kicking than had ever been butt kicked before (I believe this is paraphrasing a Frasier Crane dramatic reading on Cheers, but Google isn’t helping confirm this)! Then, Stallone deconstructed the modern day action hero, and gave us the brilliant “velcro muscles” concept.
Quite frankly, prior to “velcro muscles” I’d felt a bit adrift, wondering if all meaning had gone from my action movie craving life. Praise the fictional gods Frank Leone and John Matrix for an end to this struggle.
"Go ahead. I don't shop here." After seeing this movie, neither will I.
I’ve already blathered about this topic once, so I won’t belabor the point again here. Suffice it to say that after all that meaningless political and…relationship claptrap that Arnie got himself involved in, it’s great to have him back in a role we can believe in!
"Remember Sully when I promised to kill you last?" You have to watch the movie first
And talk about serendipity. Just as I start adding posts by another group of bloggers, they start writing about the fall of the action hero. They took a slightly different angle than the amazingly insightful Rocky took, but their point is pretty strong.
The 80s and “The Expendables 2” had guys like Bruce Willis, Dolph Lundgren, Jean-Claude van Damme, Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger – action heroes that realized that plot and making sense need not be at the forefront of a movie. Just give us sweat, guns, aging steroid-fueled macho caricatures, memorable quotes, utterly hateable meanie badguys and lots of explosions, and sit back and count the buckage as it rolls in. Simple.
Seriously, look at the action hero genre of today. Tom Cruise? Mission Impossible? If there is one actor that can get me to not watch a movie, it’s captain couch jumper. After The Firm, I tuned out. As concerns dudes on the older and leathery side, I’d say that use by date on Harrison Ford, Liam Neeson, Denzel Washington and George Clooney expired about ten years ago. These guys are about as convincing to me as action heroes as Stallone would be convincing in a movie about a truck driving single dad who arm wrestles on the side… 🙂
Younger actors in the “I ain’t buying it” category would include Alex Pettyfer (I Am Number Four), Amanda Seyfried (Gone), Taylor Lautner (Abduction – but I did like the Roberto Clemente jersey) and Robert Pattinson – if you consider the Twilight movies action movies at all. I don’t buy Justin Timberlake as an action hero, either. Musician, romantic lead, jingle writer (I’m Lovin’ It) – yes. Action hero, no. And after Green Lantern, I have to wonder why Ryan Reynolds would continue to be cast in these types of roles.
Interestingly, the newest and most convincing action hero is Haywire star and retired mixed martial arts fighter Gina Carano, who looks like she could kick both Shia LeBeouf, Harrison Ford and Channing Tatum’s asses simultaneously.
Today’s movies are just getting to complicated. I mean, don’t you wish they had made Road House 2? I sure do! This movie was surely Patrick Swayze’s finest film. How about Cobra 2? Over the Top 2? Come on, these would have been can’t miss movies!
All-time number 1 guilty pleasure movie.
There’s a formula that has been established (see above ranting), and makers of action movies deviate from this formula at their peril. Don’t mess with what works! I can’t wait for The Expendables 5. Maybe by that time, I’ll have actually watched one of the other four.
Penny of Big Bang Theory: We Like Her Despite…
Ah, the alluring, lastnameless Penny. The Big Bang Theory’s yin to Leonard’s yang. We were perfectly willing to suspend our disbelief enough to go along with the inevitability that she would date Leonard. The producers pretty much hit us over the head with this idea from the first conversation Leonard had with Penny.
And why not? He’s a nice guy, makes a good living, is very kind and always willing to put himself out there and pretty much do anything for Penny. He’s exactly the kind of guy the viewers would root for to get the girl.
As for Penny, let’s face it, she’s:
- Kind of a tramp: According to Sheldon and Amy Farah Fowler’s calculations, she’s slept with at least 31 different men since she moved in.
- Kind of a drunk: She’s frequently drinking by herself, and has been shown on multiple occasions relying on drinking when things are tough.
- She takes advantage of her allure: Lets Leonard do things for her. And this is something that Raj and Howard have talked openly about. In her defense, this is probably something that should be explored as much from the perspective of Leonard allowing it to happen as much as Penny taking advantage.
- She’s always broke: And yet is always partaking in the frequent takeout dinners with the guys and is rarely, if ever, shown contributing the the cost. Yes, it is true that the guys are also not seen paying for these meals, but I get the impression that, in a chivilrous manner, they are covering the cost for Penny.
And yet, she’s a pretty likeable character, right? She’s funny, sassy, fun, pretty and has helped to smooth out the rough edges that Leonard had. And she’s not dumb – she holds her own with the guys. However, she’s also been kind of mean to Leonard and broke his heart. But that happens in relationships – there’s no guarantee that they will last forever.
She’s like that girl in college that I had a crush on but could never figure out how to actually get from acquaintance to girlfriend. (The reasons for this are probably better suited for a psychological journal rather than a blog post, so I will skip over that). I suspect that the same idea could be put forth for women, substituting a stereotypical good looking guy in place of the Penny stereotype character. At least, in a TV show. Reality is a bit different.
But I’m not here to blather on about reality. I’m here to talk about a TV character that represents Hollywood’s ideal girl-next-door. The girl, like Laura Prepon in “That 70’s Show,” who would never have actually dated the Topher Grace character. But in the confines of a television show, that’s exactly what happened.
In reality, that stereotypical character is often not as interesting or appealing once you get through the surface chit chat and really get to know them. More often than not, people are forced to realize that they were chasing an ideal, and the reality of the situation is not as wonderful as what Hollywood has led them to believe it is.
So, what should we say about this? Nothing, really. It’s just an observation. If we really need a moral, then I’ll say that Hollywood should continue to churn out shows and movies with these types of characters. Even though we’ve been trained to believe (more often than not) that the women in the relationship are superior to the men, and that the man is lucky to have her. Hollywood has even gone further with this idea, and would have us believe that should the relationship end, the man would be devastated, and the woman will easily bounce into another relationship fairly quickly.
This might sound like women bashing, but it really isn’t. It’s more formulaic TV/movie writing bashing. Try to think of TV shows or movies (of this genre) where the above scenario isn’t true. Or, better yet, try to think of TV shows or movies that have a boy-next-door thing going on. Not many of those. The girl-next-door scenario is a comfortable, proven vehicle for movies and TV shows. In most cases, the woman is ‘out of his league’ but he manages to win her over despite all of his obvious physical faults and his immaturity. This probably has a lot to do with Hollywood being a male-dominated industry during its formative years. Apparently, vulnerability in men was something that was deemed crucial to silver screen relationships.
Sometimes, we get the happy ending where they live happily ever after. More often than not, though, we get the breakup. This provides some emotional connection to the characters and keeps us coming back to see what happens next. It was true of Moonlighting, That 70s Show, Knocked Up and it is true of Penny & Leonard.
The main thing to take away from this is that Penny, like all the women Hollywood has planted in the girl-next-door role, is likeable. Often, as in this case, that likeability is something that can’t be explained. By any reasonable evaluation, we should not like Penny at all. However, she is very likeable. Despite whatever flaws or failings are attributed to her character.
In the end, she’s nice to Leonard, and she makes him happy. Sometimes she makes him miserable, but more often than not, they make a great couple. And how can you not root for that? Isn’t that something that we all want? Go, Leonard!
Watchmen Through Gritted Teeth
I thought I’d try something a little different. DC Comics announced ‘Before the Watchmen’ – prequels of the immensely popular, landmark and FINITE Watchmen maxi series (that’s 12 issues long for the uninitiated).
As soon as I heard the idea, I shifted into the “that sounds like a really stupid idea” mode. Then I remembered that within recent memory, DC had brought back the Red Hood and the previously deceased Jason Todd. I thought I’d hate that too.
Marvel had a similar situation. Lately, when I hear about something that Marvel is doing and I think I’ll hate it, I usually despise it entirely. However, in Captain America, they brought back the previously deceased Bucky Barnes. I assumed that I’d hate it, and then I read it, and I really liked it.
Of course, this is really a credit to the writers (Judd Winick and Ed Brubaker) who knew that these ideas would be met with initial fan disapproval and negativity. What can I say? Ardent fans are like that. But if the stories were good, and told right, the fans might buy in. And that’s exactly what happened. I liked both storylines. A lot. Despite my initial reluctance.
So, with that in mind, I am going to try approaching these Watchmen prequels with an open mind. Even though I am reasonably certain I’ll hate them.
Let’s start with the creative teams, which are being used as a grand selling point. “How can they go wrong with talent like this?” fan after fan will say. Just remember that thought when the dust settles.
- Rorschach – Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo
- Ozymandius – Len Wein and Jae Lee
- Nite Owl – J. Michael Straczynski, Andy Kubert, Joe Kubert
- Minutemen – Darwyn Cooke
- Dr. Manhattan – J. Michael Straczynski and Adam Hughes
- Comedian – Brian Azzarello and J.G. Jones
- Silk Spectre – Darwyn Cooke and Amanda Conner
- Crimson Corsair – Len Wein and John Higgins
Where do I start? Okay, two titles by each writer. An interesting, talented, if not overwhelming, lineup of artists.
Brian Azzarello has done some interesting comics in the past (Batman: Broken City, Batman/Deathblow), but he’s not a writer whose work I’ve really been wowed by overall. Maybe I just missed the boat on him, he seems to be quite popular. I have to point out that I have a lack of faith in Azzarello after he spent four pages in the ‘Joker’ graphic novel (art by Bermejo) having the Joker refer to the Penguin as Abner. His name is Oswald. I’m sure that folks would be happy to point out that the Joker is insane and it was in character for him to make that mistake. I don’t subscribe to that, though. The Joker and the Penguin have been established to have at least a working knowledge of one another. And the Joker is often portrayed as quite lucid when the situation warrants. I think he’d remember the Penguin’s real name.
Len Wein is most notable to me as the 70s writer of Amazing Spider-Man and the 80s writer of Batman. There were some pretty good issues in those runs, but there wasn’t anything revolutionary going on. He’s been a solid writer, but not the kind of name that would make me want to run to the comic shop and pick up his latest work. This hasn’t changed even with this Watchmen money grab.
I’ve detailed in the past my general disinterest (bordering on active dislike) of Straczynski’s work. I’m sure he’s a very talented writer – just not my cup of Diet Coke. For me, if Adam Hughes was writing and drawing Dr. Manhattan (as he did with the Gen13: Ordinary Heroes miniseries), I’d be much more interested.
Darwyn Cooke is a really interesting creator, and to me – the one who most makes it tempting to acquire any of these issues. He did some great work on the Ed Brubaker-written “Catwoman” series, and his “DC: The New Frontier” was also very good. I can’t help but feel that I’d rather see him utilizing his skills elsewhere.
No really brilliant or interesting thoughts on any of the artists. They’re all pretty good (Adam Hughes and Joe Kubert are great), and all of them have produced comics that I’ve really enjoyed. If there is any true selling point (to me) here, it’s the artists. And that’s saying something, because the artists are almost never the selling point for me.
Missing from all of this are the truly big names I’d hoped I’d see. Of course, I knew that Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons would be absent entirely. I’m sure that Moore has already started using his Dan DiDio voodoo doll (I wonder if the others that are probably already in use would cancel out the effects?).
No Grant Morrison. Or Paul Jenkins. Or Judd Winick. No Greg Rucka, Geoff Johns, Kurt Busiek or Mark Waid. Or James Robinson. No Keith Giffen. It sure sounds like the upper tier writers were either busy doing other things, or that they politely declined to participate in this project. Perhaps some of them declined because they felt like they’d be stabbing a fellow writer in the back. Who knows?
I wanted to be open minded, and I’m still wrestling with that. Watchmen was a finite series. It had a beginning, a middle and an end. I don’t feel compelled to see any future stories about these characters nor do I feel a need to see any before stories. Sometimes, a work is good enough all on it’s own. I truly feel that Watchmen is just such a work. In my mind, nothing underscores this more solidly than the “Dark Knight” sequel.
That said, I’ll probably read a few of these issues (and try to be objective), but I still don’t think that I’ll change my initial thinking about them. I think it’s a shame that DC is doing this. I really believe that they are doing this solely to generate fan interest in the characters and to provide a foundation for a follow up to the Watchmen movie. Which was a decent movie, but again, not something that I think really requires any follow up movies (or TV shows).
Others have said that DC doing this will not diminish the original work. Perhaps that’s true – but it will be hard to forget about these new stories when a conversation about Watchmen comes up. I truly hope they surprise me and produce some great works.
Two and a Half Egos
So – wow. I mean, wow. Who is the only person who could make Lady Gaga and Lindsay Lohan seem reserved? Who is it that makes a 55-hour marriage and an odd hair shaving incident seem like just another day at the office?
Welcome, one and all to Charlie & the WTFlate Factory!
This guy is like a runny nose – just when you think you’ve got things under control — there it goes again! In what seems to be a stream of consciousness assault on anything that makes any sense whatsoever, Sheen has been tweeting, texting and conducting fascinating and bizarre interviews to get his points across.
What those points are, I couldn’t begin to say – but it’s been kinda fun to watch this unfold. Just when you think the craziest thing has been uttered, he outcrazies himself. If he was as smart as he says he is, he’d announce that he is no longer speaking/tweeting/texting publicly unless someone pays him to do so.
Charlie’s reaction to the cancellation of the remainder of this season’s Two and a Half Men (and presumably the inevitable permanent cancellation of the show): Double his salary in order for him to come back to the show when everyone with clout involved with the show has made it fairly clear that they want nothing to do with him.
The question that keeps coming through to me is “Why?” Why do media outlets keep giving him a voice? That’s obvious, I guess – it’s not often we get to watch a celebrity crack up before our eyes. I would have thought that they’d stop allowing him an outlet, because, quite frankly, he’s an embarrassment to the entertainment industry as a whole. But he is good TV.
And of course, NBC wasted little time giving Sheen airtime to continue his trucidation of reality. He’s tired of pretending he’s not special. And he seems to believe that the producers of the show are responsible for its stoppage.
And such a sense of entitlement. And why not? CBS built the show around him, and is probably regretting that they cancelled the show before they could incorporate these latest Charlie antics into the episodes. I mean, really. The character on the show is a druken womanizer who has few redeeming qualities. I don’t think that CBS should be so surprised by this. Sheen’s been doing this kind of stuff for years. Just ask Denise Richards. It’s complicated. But then, maybe it’s not. It’s a top rated show that brings in boffo bucks. It’s not hard to understand why CBS tolerated this behavior as long as it did. So they have nobody to blame but CBS.
As for CBS – they would probably be best served to just cancel the show and move on. Or better yet, find out who Charlie hates most as an actor (Emilio Estevez?) and cast that person to replace Charlie on the show. It’s not a stretch to say that the show’s ratings would either stay the same or rise as people tuned in to see what would happen. And the best part is, since Charlie is so egomaniacal, any person selected to replace him would get under his skin. If I was Chuck Lorre, I could think of no greater pleasure than knowing that every episode that aired was driving Charlie Sheen batty.
As is often the case in stories like this, we’ll never know the truth or the whole story. All we’ll know is what is said and what is written about. It’s kind of a shame that this turned out like this. The show wasn’t my cup of tea, but I didn’t have any problem with it going on. So far though, in the court of public opinion, it would seem that Charlie is signing his Hollywood death warrant. But Hollywood probably hasn’t seen the last of Charlie Sheen.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I can’t wait for Charlie’s next proclamations. Maybe a Charlie Sheen/Mel Gibson variety show? I’d watch. As has often been said – nobody in Hollywood could have written a script this good. Except maybe for Charlie Sheen.
Oscars the Grouch
Yes, now that the Super Bowl has come and gone, it’s time for the second major event of the year. Something that a female acquaintance of mine (Michelle) referred to as “my Super Bowl.”
Yes, I am talking about The Academy Awards. One of my least favorite events. I dislike everything about it – best not to get into specifics. Suffice it to say:
Oh, please don’t ask why, no one quite knows the reason.
It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
It could be his head wasn’t screwed on just right.
But I think that the most likely reason of yore
May have been that Forest Gump won Best Picture in 1994.
Apologies to Dr. Seuss.
I’ve bored and/or annoyed the crap out of multiple people who were unfortunate enough to have mentioned Gump to me. I saw it after the hype machine went into overdrive and obliterated every objective impulse I had. I did not – and do not now – see what all the fuss was about. It was, to me, an average movie at best. I didn’t hate it, didn’t love it…But it was not anywhere close to being the best movie of 1994.
In fact, the best movie of 1994 is actually a tie – between Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption, I can’t figure out which of these two I feel deserves the nod more. I’d have given out two Best Picture awards and thanked Tom Hanks for such a great performance in Philadelphia.
Since 1994, I have pretty much paid little or no attention to the Oscars, as it was clear that there was nothing there that represented me and my tastes. Or to paraphrase Morrissey: Because the movies that they constantly play – they say nothing to me about my life.
So that was that. Or so I thought. After having another rousing, Gump dissing discussion about the 1994 Oscars with Michelle, who said she agreed with me (I am not oblivious to the fact that she could have been humoring me to get me to shut up) – that Gump was NOT all that, I felt inspired to write about the Oscars. And this meant looking at the nominees for Best Picture since 1994.
I had assumed that the list would be full of movies that I didn’t see and didn’t want to see, as that was how it seemed to go many of the years that I actually did pay attention. But something odd happened when I started to dig. I found that there were movies listed that I had seen – and even ones I had liked!
This was shocking to me, to say the least. It doesn’t change my mind about disliking the Oscars, but it did get me to thinking about some of the movies on the lists.
For example:
1995 – Apollo 13 – Now this is a great Tom Hanks movie! I have heard many great things about Braveheart, so I guess I can’t say that the wrong movie got Best Picture. But I was surprised to see Apollo 13 even on the list.
1996 – The English Patient? I think I will have to go with Elaine Benes on this one. What was it up against? Oh, nothing special – Fargo and, shockingly, Secrets and Lies. I can’t believe that such a fine film was actually in the running! If you haven’t seen Secrets and Lies, I recommend you do so. Now. Also, Jerry Maguire was nominated in 1996. I’m not a big Tom Cruise fan, but I could make a case for this flick as well. Perhaps I should actually see The English Patient before closing the book on this. But I can’t see myself liking it. Yes – I am insular. Never said I wasn’t.
1997 – Titanic won. Saw it – it was good. Just a biiit overrated. It was up against some known quantities including two I didn’t see: As Good As It Gets, Good Will Hunting; and two I did: The Full Monty and LA Confidential. Out of the three that I saw – it’s LA Confidential by a landslide.
1998 – A curious year. Shakespeare In Love won, and I’m a bit surprised that given the Tom Hanks factor, that Saving Private Ryan did not. I did not see the other three films, so I will refrain from further comment on this.
1999 – There’s that Tom Hanks again (The Green Mile). Some big names here – Kevin Spacey (American Beauty), Tobey Maguire (Spider-Man…uh, I mean The Cider House Rules), Al Pacino (The Insider) and Bruce Willis (The Sixth Sense). A couple of asides here. One: I’ve seen maybe three Pacino movies that I liked, and probably a dozen or more that I did not. I just don’t get what folks love about him or his performances. Two: This is the second appearance of Russell Crowe in the Best Picture list (The Insider). Clearly, something was brewing. Of course, on my list, he’d already won once (see 1997). The winner? One I’d actually seen – and liked: American Beauty.
2000 – So here’s the first of Best Picture wins for Russell Crowe movies – Gladiator. Some interesting films in the running, but only one other that I’d seen – Erin Brockovich, which is that rare movie in that it features Julia Roberts and I liked it. And it also featured Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). But between the two, I’d agree with Gladiator. Special shout out to I Love You, Man and Jason Segel: Chocolate was also nominated.
2001 – Aaand, it’s Crowe again, for A Beautiful Mind. This is one of those infrequent nominated films that I did not see that I would like to see. I saw Moulin Rouge, but did not think it was worthy of Best Picture. I also note that The Fellowship of the Rings was nominated. Nice to see Hollywood open up a bit and include a film like that. I’d have liked it if this type of thinking was in place in 1980 for The Empire Strikes Back – how could this not have even been nominated? I can’t believe Star Wars was nominated. And don’t get me started on the fact that it should have won in 1977.
2002 – I did not see any of the five films nominated. Yes, really. I might have an interest in seeing The Hours, but that’s about it.
2003 – So Lord of The Rings won. Amazing. I didn’t think that a SciFi movie could win. And there were some strong contenders – Master And Commander, Seabiscuit, Mystic River and Lost In Translation. I think I’d have given it to Lost In Translation. This seems to me to be an underrated film. Of course, I’d bet that Mystic River is excellent, given the fact that Clint Eastwood was a producer. I have more faith in him than I do in what is a noteworthy cast. And since I have liked Russell Crowe movies, I’d probably like Master and Commander too.
2004 & 2005 – I’d really like to see Million Dollar Baby. I’m amazed that I have not seen any of the films nominated for either of these two years. I think I might like Capote and Munich.
And am I seeing this right that no Harry Potter movie was ever nominated? Not only did they make oodles of money – they were all good!! Goblet of Fire was out in 2005 – I would have celebrated this selection as the Best Picture winner.
2006 – Kind of a blah year for me. I saw The Queen and Little Miss Sunshine, and liked both – but not enough that I’d have thought they’d be nominated for Best Picture. I’m sure I’ll have no end of people telling me how great The Departed was. I’m sure it was – and maybe I’ll see it and like it someday. I’ve been surprised before.
2007 – Lots of interesting movies here – No Country For Old Men, Juno, There Will Be Blood – but, alas, I have not seen any of the nominated films. But I’d very much like to see No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood. Atonement sounds interesting too.
2008 – Amazingly, never saw any of the nominated films. Can’t even say that I have a strong interest in seeing any of these movies, other than the year’s winner Slumdog Millionaire. Maybe Milk, but for whatever reason, Sean Penn doesn’t do much for me since Fast Times at Ridgemont High – which I am guessing he’d rather people would forget about. And no sign of the brilliant Dark Knight? I pity the fools!!
Also in 2008: Iron Man. Gran Torino. The Wrestler. Twilight (not my cup of tea, but this has legions of supporters). Hancock. It would seem that the nominations are not based on what movies people actually went to see.
2009 – Wow! They’ve expanded the list of nominated films to 10. More films for me not to have seen! The Hurt Locker wins, and this joins the list of nominated films I’d like to see. I did see Inglorious Basterds and loved it. I expected it to be good, and it was even better than I expected.
2010 – Haven’t seen any of these films. Where is Iron Man 2 and Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows, Part 1?
OK, so that was a fun trip down memory lane. What, if anything, did it accomplish? Nothing – that wasn’t the point. The casual reader might look at it and think that I need to get out more and see some damn movies. I look at it and am surprised at how many movies that were nominated that I have seen. And just as surprised that there are others that I would like to see.
My initial thought when I sat down to write about The Oscars would be that it would be a preening celebfest that showers attention on an egotistical, narcissistic lot. And this is what I don’t like. But I found that there are more than a few movies that I do like. I think that if the Oscars would show lenghty snippets of the movies they’re celebrating – instead of celebrities entering the building – that I might be compelled to watch The Academy Awards.
All that fuss about what the actors and actresses are wearing. Honestly, they’re rich and famous! What else do people expect other than for them to be in designer clothes? It would be refreshing to see them show up in casual clothes.
If I had my way, the Oscars would be about the movies, and not the performers. But that’s not going to happen. But it sure does provide a lot to talk about, doesn’t it?
I wonder what the spread is for this Super Bowl?
Andy Blank
Mike Frangione
Depends on What the Meaning of the Word 'Blog' is 
Aaargh-o! Affleck as Batman
I admit it. I was a little surprised (I’d stop short of saying upset or angry, but only just barely) to have heard who was going to be the next Batman. It is a kind of out-of-left-field choice. But I decided to take a step back and look at this whole thing from a distance. See if I could make any sense of it. That hasn’t really happened, but I’ve had about a month to read what other people thought and to see all the clever memes pertaining to this. It seems that a lot of folks are not sold on Ben Affleck as Batman.
Okay, so Mr. Affleck as the Dark Knight wasn’t what most folks had in mind. It could be worse – it could be George Clooney, Val Kilmer, Nicholas Cage or Hayden Christensen. And is this really the worst aspect of this whole thing? Not to me.
If you’re going to reboot a franchise (and I’m assuming that is the plan once the Batman/Superman … thing … comes and goes) so quickly after the initial set of movies was produced, then you might as well get some big names in the mix. It might be a good thing to be able to say “Academy Award winner” Ben Affleck in the promos.
After all, the Superman/Batman movie is being masterminded by Zack Snyder, who brought us the interesting but tepid Man of Steel and the interestinger but tepider Watchmen. In both movies, there were some elements that worked and were pretty cool, but as an overall production, I thought both fell short. Of course, both were attempting to do lofty things – translating what it was that made Watchmen and Superman such big time entities in the first place was going to be a daunting challenge no matter who was doing it.
I am sure that I am in the minority in being underwhelmed (OK, maybe I was whelmed) by Man of Steel. But I can’t get it out of my head that this Snyder guy – not Joss Whedon (Buffy, Avengers), not Jon Favreau (Iron Man and Iron Man 2), not Christopher Nolan (Dark Knight trilogy), not Matthew Vaughn (Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class) – is handing such a crucial piece of the DC Universe.
Batman/Superman is one of the keystone movies that will be setting the stage for the long awaited Justice League movie. And after The Avengers, there’s a huge bar set for the whole team concept. Add to this the fact (well, it’s a fact to me) that Marvel’s lead-in movies (Iron Man, Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America) were all excellent movies in their own right.
I don’t see this being the case with DC. They had a miss with Green Lantern, and The Dark Knight movies will be a distant memory by the time they get to greenlight Justice League (2017). Mix in the stupid inability to get a Wonder Woman movie concept generated or approved, and things are not looking so good. She’s a pretty major player in the team’s history and she can’t even get screen time (not since the 70’s, anyway). Even the Flash had a TV show in recent memory (1990’s) and even has a show coming soon (2016), based on the strength of Arrow.
Of course, the strength of Arrow is that it truly is a very good TV show, and lays a solid groundwork for one of the other main players in Justice League lore. If I had any complaints, it’s that I’d like to see more costumed adversaries – or at least more characters from the Green Arrow universe. But this is a small complaint – if you’re not watching the show, you should be.
I’m trying to be open minded here – I’d like to see a good Batman/Superman movie. And a good Justice League movie. I just don’t think I will. Now – Ben Affleck as Batman. Yes, this does rile up the Batman fanbase, doesn’t it? I’m not jazzed up about the choice myself. There have been many many many names floated as alternates to the casting, but none of them are going to happen, so I will not even bother to comment on that. For my money, I thought John Goodman would have been a good fit for the role…
Yes, it’s true that Affleck was Daredevil. And it’s true that many folks felt that DD was a terrible movie, myself included. But then, this just proves that DC is not the only publisher of comic books that is capable of making less than spectacular super hero movies. And that film’s writer/director, Mark Steven Johnson, is nowhere to be found.
If Batman can survive Joel Schumacher, Ahnold and Christian Bale’s somewhat incomprehensible growl, he can survive Ben Affleck. How bad could it be? It can’t be worse than Batman Forever or Batman & Robin, right?