Picking a fractal for today's post was a real challenge. I'd already used Weird Web for more than one post and didn't think using it again so the obvious choice was out. In the end I went with Ripples because, like so many things, one thought led to another and another--none of which were particularly related. So--on with the post!-I am a fan of the eccentric: if it's odd, I'm pretty likely to be into it. I was a huge fan of oddball shows like Pushing Daisies and Eli Stone (and I was one of the few people who actually WATCHED Arrested Development). I discovered Enya before Orinoco Flow broke the Top 40. I like quirky music and literature. Still, my taste for "originality" only goes so far: Phillip Glass is vastly overrated, Waiting For Godot is just frankly TEDIOUS and My Own Private Idaho seemed odd for the sake of oddity. Maybe I'm not that avaunt gard after all... Still, whether or not I'm avaunt gard is a subject for another post--and a lot of psychological counseling but it does bring up the interesting question (to me at least)--when does something stop being interesting/original and cross over into the realm of just plain weird and when does weird become creepy?.-You might be wondering what cause this question to come bubbling up in my mind: I know I certainly was. It happened like this...-Last Friday (May 29) I had finished my work early and was home on a cold gray afternoon so I decided to indulge myself in a little "musical cheese". I like musical cheese of all kinds and YouTube provides some good stuff if you are willing to hunt. I wasn't feeling too adventurous or energetic so I decided to check out the video for I Touch Myself by the Divynals. (I like it Right at the top of my search I found this: (follow the link at your own risk) http://www.youtube.com/watch?.v=uZ5VNXIiv1c . -The group is Scala, lead by the Kolacny brothers and, yes, it's a bunch of middle-school girls singing about masturbating when they think about their boyfriends. Maybe I'm secretly a prude (or at the very least a lot less open-minded than I thought) but to me this seems every shade of inappropriate. The group is from Belgium so you can possibly forgive them for not knowing what they were singing about. (I've sung enough songs in foreign languages that didn't have a translation.) Still, you'd think SOMEONE would have clued the directors in before this hit the stage for the first time. At least they left out the "ooh, ahh, ooh ahh" chorus--so I guess that's something. Watching this video made me start thinking about the question--when does "original" become "weird" and when does it become just plain creepy?-I've decided this is a sliding scale that's different for everyone--and what where a thing lies may change (over time or with your fancy.) Here's the scale...-ORIGINAL: this gives you a fresh perspective on the concept, a new way of looking at something that is somehow revelatory and makes you think. It can be good or bad but usually 'original' is a good thing.-ECCENTRIC: odd but harmless. Eccentricity causes raised eyebrows and smiles behind hands but doesn't prevent you from being shunned socially. The more money one has the more "eccentric" one can be--and still be tolerated by others.-WEIRD: you know you've hit this stage because people tell you (as in "Dude--you're weird!") Weird becomes harder to tolerate and society has less patience with you.-BIZARRE: so outrageous you are shunned by the general populace.-CREEPY: falls somewhere between 'weird' and 'bizarre". This is something that is disturbing (and not in a good way) that tends to make an outsider want to be elsewhere.-After thinking about it, I think this version of the song is both weird AND creepy.-'nuff said.
The reason I chose Spiral Storm as today's fractal should be pretty obvious from the title of today's post. Much as some folks would like this issue to just go away it's not going to happen: we'll be fighting and debating this for years to come. So, on with the post...-On May 26 the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 (defining marriage as being between "one man and one woman". Those against same-sex marriage were happy, those in favor were, needless to say, not pleased. Both sides are already gearing up to fight this battle again--maybe as early as 2010.-Those in favor of same-sex marriage say voter demographics are on their side. They site the fact that when the issues has gone before the ballot (I think twice before) it has lost by smaller and smaller margins. They feel that "eventually" the voter demographic will swing their way and same-sex marriage will be legal in California. Those opposed don't want to see that happen so they'll do whatever they can to make sure it is defeated (and if it passes they'll be fighting to get it overturned. And the Merry Go Round goes round...-If you regularly read this blog you know where I stand on the issue. (If not, what are you doing on my blog?) That being said, I make a real effort to see both sides of an issue (and often I do). This isn't one of them. I hear the words "we want to protect marriage"--but protect it from what? Are they afraid their spouse is going to leave them now that same-sex marriage is legal? If they want to "protect" marriage why aren't they speaking up against adultery? There's a lot more straight folks "gettin' busy" outside the bonds of marriage: in my opinion adultery is a much bigger threat to marriage than same-sex couples joining in wedlock. I'm curious why those so adamantly against same-sex marriage aren't being more vocal about things like AshleyMadison.com--a site dedicated to arranging extramarital affairs. Is there a bit of a double standard there?-Something else I find amusing: those opposed to same-sex marriage often argue that "we've resolved the issue--why keep bringing it up again?" Frankly, I find this beyond hypocritical. There are "pro life" groups (funded by the same types of people and organizations that are against same-sex marriage) who keep putting propositions on the ballot to restrict abortion rights. The propositions keep losing yet a year or two later the issue is back on the ballot in a slightly different form. Does re-examining an issue only become acceptable when your side losing? Seems these good people think so...-Meanwhile same-sex marriages are legal in Vermont (and have been for nearly a decade--if not more) and the structure of society hasn't come apart. The same is true for Connecticut, Massachusetts and even Iowa. The instutution of marriage as we know it hasn't come crumbling down, (Maybe the fabric of society won't be torn assumder in small states--hmm?) Who knows? After half a century or so the world may see that the world won't be substantially changed by gays and lesbians being allowed to marry.-In the end, as I've no doubt said before, the debate on same-sex marriage boils down to one simple question: is "marriage" a sacred covenant or a legal contract? If the answer is "sacred covenant" then the government has no business interfering in whatever churches decide on the issue. If the answer is "legal contract" then there simply isn't a reason NOT to allow same-sex couples to wed. "Separate but equal" never is--we learned that way back when during segregated education. It's time to move ahead.-'nuff said.
This week I went to see two movies and I'm going to review both of them in one post. That's why I chose Double Star 2 as today's fractal. Star Trek has "star" in the title and Night At The Museum Two is loaded with stars so the image seems like a particularly good fit.-Holiday weekends are a good time to see movies so Robyn and I took in two over the Memorial Day break. Sunday afternoon we saw the Star Trek reboot for the second time and Monday we checked out Night At The Museum 2--Battle of the Smithsonian.-Star Trek is a movie that really needs to be seen more than once (and, as I said before, on a big screen). The plot holes I noticed on first viewing become even more obvious to my critic's eye (but all stories involving time travel have the same hole). Still, those are easy to overlook and the movie holds up as well on a second viewing. The special effects are so big and spectacular it takes at least two viewings to fully drink them all in and there's plenty of story and characterization to keep interest up. I loved the bits tossed in for long-time fans and I find the new directions familiar characters took to be a lot of fun. It may be early in the summer blockbuster season to crown my "Perfect Summer Movie" but Star Trek may well be it for 2009.-Night At The Museum was roundly dismissed by the critics and Night At The Museum 2: Battle Of The Smithsonian fared no better. Still, audiences disagreed and the original did huge Box Office. The same happened with the sequel: "Museum 2" beat out Terminator Salvation by over 20 million dollars in its opening weekend. (A lot of the money made was for children's ticket so the number of people who actually saw the movie was huge. The sequel does justice to the original and provides a good movie for families.-Former museum night guard Larry Daly (Ben Stiller) has moved on to bigger (if not better) things but he still goes back to the Museum Of Natural History to visit the exhibits (who come to life from sunset to sunrise) only to find that all his friends are about to be packed up and sent to storage at the Smithsonian. The magical Egyptian tablet that brings the exhibits to life ends up going as well--which brings everything in the 19 museums to life (and Abraham Lincoln as well). All our old familiar characters from Night At The Museum are here as well as a ton of new characters both friend and foe. Mayhem and hijinks ensue but everything turns out well in the end.-Owen Wilson (miniature cowboy Jedediah Smith) is back as is Robin Willians playing Teddy Roosevelt (although this time he gets screen credit) as many other stars of the original film. This film adds perky Amy Adams playing Amelia Earhart (who ends up being Larry's unlikely love interest) and Bill Hader as General George Armstrong Cutster who is well and thoroughly blond (in other words, none too bright). Hank Azaria plays Kah Mun Rah with verve but never fails to take his performance completely over the top. (I found his vaguely-gay, English-accented Boris Karloff delivery vaguely disturbing but I think I was in the minority here.) Azaria also gives voice to Rodin's "Thinker" and the animated statue of Abraham Lincoln. Still, I think my favorite bit in the movie was the cameo by the Jonas Brothers who gave voice to three cupids who provide the soundtrack for Larry and Amelia's "love affair". There is clearly a lot of improvisation going on here but it usually works. (In fact, it's the scripted dialog scenes where the movie falls down.) -Sadly, Night At The Museum 2 has one major flaw: almost all the best bits are already in the trailer so there aren't many surprises left for movie: I find that a bit sad. I really enjoyed all the little bits of actual Smithsonian artifacts featured in the movie--especially the odd pairing of Darth Vader and Oscar The Grouch. Thhis is a worthwhile movie: kids will enjoy the action and parents will have enough jokes aimed at them. The movie is harmless fun for the whole family that can be viewed without fear.-FINAL GRADESSTAR TREK: A+ still (even with the plot holesNIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2: B
I chose Almost Perfect as the fractal for today's post because I'd like to think my predictions came out almost perfectly. Since I know y'all simply LIVE for self-referential comments I suppose I should get on with the post!-Yesterday the CW announced its Fall Schedule, the last of the networks to reveal their new shows. Yesterday was also pretty much the last day of the "regular" season so I guess today is a good time to take a look back at the predictions I made to see how well I did...-90210: I wasn't sure how well this show would work since bringing back a 20 year old show could be problematic for a new generation. RESULT: this was the biggest hit for the CW (nee the WB) since Dawson's Creek. 90210 did so well the network will be adding a new version of Melrose Place (with only one returning cast member) next fall.-CRUSOE: I predicted the show would be off the schedule before Robinson Crusoe got off his island. RESULT: it was. Crusoe got booted off Friday night fairly early but limped along through January until dying an ignominious death in the wasteland that is Saturday night network television.-DO NOT DISTURB: I predicted the show wouldn't disturb viewers for a second season. RESULT: the show barely disturbed audiences for a second episode.-EASY MONEY: I predicted the show would go away--eventually. RESULT: Easy Money went away by December.-ELEVENTH HOUR: I predicted the should wouldn't last eleven episodes. RESULT: it lasted 13 episodes (I think) but was gone by March.-FRINGE: I had high hopes for this show but wasn't sure about its future due to complex story lines and long delays while Fox aired sports and other higher-rated shows. RESULT: the show lived up to it's potential--and pitfalls. Still, in a rare show of programming intelligence Fox decided to renew the show for a second season. (I'm guessing that was largely due to the show's creator J. J. Ambrams who for now at least, seems to be able to do no wrong on the big or small screen.)-HOLE IN THE WALL: I predicted this would soon leave a "hole in the schedule." RESULT: it did.-LIFE ON MARS: I said I didn't know whether this show would be a big hit or an even bigger disappointment. Like Big Shots before it, soon got booted out of its prime slot before finally getting the boot in March. RESULT: big disappointment.-MY OWN WORST ENEMY: I predicted this show would "shoot itself in the head" before season's end. RESULT: even though the show was heavily promoted it just couldn't survive the dumb-ass premise and non-cuddliness of lead Actor Christian Slater. It was gone by the end of November.-OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS: I predicted this "game show that comes to you" wouldn't last long. RESULT: I think it made three episodes before being pulled in early October to be replaced by reruns of Dancing With The Stars (which did way better in the time slot and cost less too).-THE EX-LIST: I predicted the show wouldn't last the season. RESULT: "X-ited" before Halloween.-THE MENTALIST: I predicted the show would be "swept off the schedule." RESULT: no "precog" is perfect. This show turned out to be the only real "hit" of 2008-9 TV season.-VALENTINE: I said I knew where this show was going. RESULT: this show went into the toilet before Thanksgiving. (In fact, the Sunday night schedule was so bad for the CW the network has quit programming on that night.-WORST WEEK: TV Guide anointed this show as the "Best Comedy" of the fall but I wasn't sure how well the show would go down with viewers. RESULT: turned out to be a pretty good TV Sitcom but the show was often painful to watch. Worst Week slipped off the schedule in February without a goodbye.-The season also saw the end of long-running ER, the flagship of the "CSI" franchise and most of the CW schedule. Dirty Sexy Money, Eli Stone and Pushing Daisies, all worth shows, never managed to recover from the writers' strike. I'm gonna miss a lot of these shows but at least I have a new season of Wipedout to comfort me.-'nuff said.
Red White And Blue 2 is the perfect choice for the fractal of today's post. The reason should be self-evident from the title.-This has been a landmark season on American Idol. For (possibly) the first time in series history almost all this season's contestants were truly talented and had real career potential. There weren't any talentless beauties like Antonella Barbarella or inexplicable phenoms like Sanjaya that made for "good" TV in years past--even as they shot the relatively talentless to stardom. True, we had the televised train wreck that was Tatiana Del Toro but she didn't even make the top twelve. Yes there was Scott McIntyre (I actually liked him BTW) who was probably included more for "pathos" than his talents and Lil Rounds who was the biggest disappointment in a long time. Also there was my favorite Matt "Mole Man" Giraud--who could sing (sometimes). Sadly, I just couldn't get past that growth on his head: I kept expecting it to grow eyes and a mouth and start ordering the audience to kill Ryan Seacrest. Still, this is the first season where the top four (Alison Ireheta, Danny Gokey, Kris Allen and Adam Laqmbert) who will have (at least mid-level) careers. But like any competition "Idol" can only have one winner and it has come down to the final showdown.-Kris Allen and Adam Lambert are like "Granny Smiths'" and "i-Macs". (They're both "apples" but the similarities ends there.) Yes, I could have used the "apples and oranges" analogy but they are even more different than that.) Kris is a down-home Southern boy with a small voice and a jazzy sensibility. He's not without a certain charm and there's no denying the boy is truly talented. I could see him being a new version of Jason Mraz or someone of that ilk.-Adam Lambert is somewhat harder to quantify: calling this boy "theatrical" is one of the week's great understatements. He's not afraid to take risks and seems to revel in being "out there". He proudly wears nail polish and "guyliner" and doesn't shy away from sexual ambiguity. (Is he gay? Definitely maybe. Should it matter? Definitely not!) He has a big voice and can fill a stage (unlike Kris who has an altogether smaller stage presence.) Still, you can't easily quantify his niche. (Some people have compared Adam to a latter-day Freddy Mercury or Marilyn Manson but he's possibly the only "Idol" contestant in the whole series who is a true original.) '-Who's going to win? Honestly I don't know. Personally I think Adam Lambert has more talent and stage presence (betcha didn't see that coming--NOT!) even if I haven't liked some of his performances. Kris Allen is the clean-cut boy-next-door who is sure to appeal to older folks and country fans. Fans of Danny Gokey are more likely (IMHO) to vote for him--which might well be enough to give him the championship. Adam out sang Kris in last night's finale (although they both struggled with that atrocious new "winner's first single" No Boundaries.)-The New York Times said it would come down to a "red" state versus a "blue" state contest. (Some Reporter and/or Editor over there has too much time on their hands!) Lambert certainly has qualities that most people tend to identify with "blue" states while Allen embodies all the "red" state values in one cute little package. "Blue" staters are more likely to text but "red" staters are notoriously loyal so their fans (and will vote accordingly) so I think it will be a wash. In the end I hope it comes down to who is the most talented. Still, I'm sure of one thing: doesn't matter WHO wins tonight. Both of these guys are going to have fine careers once the championship is decided.-'nuff said.-UPDATEKris Allen took the title from Adam Lambert in an upset that surprised many. This is a huge launching pad for Allen but will he have a huge career or will this be another Reuben Studdard/Clay Aiken situation? (Studdard took the title but Aiken has the bigger career.) Honestly I don't know--only time will tell. I think Lambert will have the bigger career but I have been wrong before...
I couldn't find a fractal with both "angels" and "demons" represented (or anything remotely demonic) so I ended up choosing Angel Wings as today's image. Why I chose it should be pretty obvious. That being said, on with the review!-Tom Hanks teamed with Director Ron Howard for the hugely successful The Da Vinci Code. The movie was a flop with the critics but a huge commercial success so it was obvious they'd get together to the sequel Angels and Demons to the big screen. This offering has all the trappings and Catholic lore that featured so prominently in the first movie although the bulk of this movie takes place in a four-hour period. There's a lot of action (implausible as much of it may be) and a lot of detail that almost requires the viewer to be familiar with the novels by Dan Brown.-Symbologist Robert Langdon (as played by Tom Hanks) has more adventures than Indiana Jones and more lives than a cat. Like many action heroes he seems to have some sort of invisible shield that protects him from gunfire and everything else. I've always enjoyed Hanks on screen (be it big or small) but I find him curiously unengaging in this role. Is it the fault of Hanks as an Actor, the script writers who don't quite manage to bring the character from the novel to the screen or the audience who wants to be spoon-fed everything? Honestly, I don't know: maybe it's a bit of all three. Most of the movie Hanks' character is being led by the hand through a series of set pieces until the inevitable ending where we are confronted with twist after twist after twist until we feed a bit like a shirt being wrung out after hand washing.-Angels and Demons is likely to be confusing to those who don't know Church History and legend. (I know some but I found it a bit confusing.) I never found myself really involved or emotionally invested in the characters or what happens to them. (Worse, the "antimatter" element just seemed to be a weird "Science Fiction" element that didn't work for me.) Too much exposition and too many convenient coincidences and not enough genuine suspense. The character I found most interesting didn't get much play (and I never even figured out what his name was). I didn't hear a lot of excited chatter as I left the theater so I guess the rest of the audiences felt at least a little like I did.-In the end, Angels and Demons isn't a "bad" movie--it's just not very good. I think there will be a big drop off in next week's box office or a lot of repeat business. Dunno why this wasn't a better movie--but it wasn't. I didn't hate it--but I didn't love it either and I could have done without seeing this movie and wasting my fifteen bucks.-FINAL GRADE C-
Wow, what a rarity for me--two posts in on day! I picked Snow On Silver as the image for this rant for several reasons. 1) (and most importantly) someone is getting seriously snowed here. 2) the image, like the story, has a lot of twists and turns and the story ends up being nothing but shades of gray. 3) the image, like the story is black-and-white and yet somehow everything comes out awfully murky. 4) the spiral, like the story, seems to be a slippery slope directly into the toilet. So--on with the rant!-I thought Carrie Prejean would be a one-time "visitor" to my blog but I was wrong. Her story just won't go away--no matter how much we wish it would... To the surprise of absolutely nobody more (even racier) pictures of her turned up on the net. (Anyone who IS surprised--please resign your position in the Human Race now and find a more-appropriate species.) Didn't she just assure us there was "only one" picture like that? Not only that, Ms. Prejean has been blowing off scheduled engagements required of Miss California. In any (dare I say lesser?) contestant this would be enough to get her canned by the organization. Such is not the case for her however as Donald Trump himself (owner of Miss California USA Pageant) stepped in to save her position.-In spite of the fact that this girl LIED on her application in which she failed to disclose that she'd taken semi-nude photos not once but several times and in spite of the fact she's been ignoring her personal responsibilities Trump himself has declared the photos were "fine" and that the "miscommunication" had been "cleared up" so Miss California gets to keep her crown. (See why I said someone was getting snowed?) For Donald Trump and Carrie Prejean this is a win-win situation: Trump, the ultimate publicity whore, seemss to think any mention in the news is a good press: this non-news item keeps generating waves weeks after it should have gone away. Miss Prejean now has a platform to do whatever she wants for the next year and there's nothing the Miss California organization (or anyone else) can do about it. Too bad for Christians everywhere and the public, the rest of us lose big time.-Lets take what she said off the table: as I said in my last post about Miss Prejean she has the right to say and think whatever she likes. What's important to me is the fact that she lied about something serious and gotten away with it. That hardly seems like a Christian value to me. Taking "revealing" pictures once is a mistake: we all make mistakes now and then and can only hope we're forgiven. Doing it multiple times over a period of years is something different altogether: that's hardly a "Christian" thing to do--or is there a branch of Christianity out there that I don't know about that encourages exploiting your body? At best it shows extremely poor judgement on her part. Maybe it's me but I think it's a bit disingenuous to be touting Christian values one minute then playing sexual peek-a-boo the next. True, as it as been said so very, very often "Christians aren't perfect--just forgiven"--but to me true forgiveness requires true contrition--and I don't see that with Carrie Prejean.-I also have to wonder what kind of message this sends to young girls out there. I wonder if they might take away that this sort of behavior is "fine" (and thus should be emulated). Most of have to face consequences for our bad behavior but it seems like Carrie Prejean gets away scot free because she generates publicity. What does that say to young girls growing up? Frankly it sends a bad message that we don' want to impress on our female children. In the short term this is good for Donald Trump and Carrie Prejean--but in the long run I think this decision is going to come back and bite a lot of people in the butt..-- (more than) 'nuff said.
Nearly Perfect Star seems like a fine choice for my review of the latest Star Trek movie. The title of this post alone should make it pretty obvious why I chose it as today's image. So--on with the review!
-
I rarely start a review like this but an exceptional movie demands an exceptional opening. So--here goes... Dudes--and by extension Dudesses and Dudettes--this movie is freakin' AWESOME! Stop what you're doing and go see it! NOW!!!-You're still here? Didn't I just tell you to stop what you're doing and go see this movie? Why are you still reading? Ah well--may as well get on with the review since you chose to ignore my advice...-Lost creator J.J. Abrams has created another monster hit with his reboot of the moribund Star Trek franchise. He could have simply chosen to re-create the series but instead, in true Star Trek fashion, he came up with a viable reason for taking the series in a new direction--recreating not only the world but the characters--that is sure to please everyone but the most die-hard traditionalist fans of the old series. I won't tip you to the plot of you haven't seen the movie but you can probably guess it involves creating an alternate time line.-Chris Pine, son of Actor Robert Pine (Sgt. Getrere on C.Hi.P.s) plays James T. Kirk as a brash young man not living up to his potentia until he is found by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) who encourages Kirk to sign up for Star Fleet Academy and actually DO something with his potential. In one of those "only in the movies" situation Jim Kirk rises to the challenge and surpasses Pike's expectations. Pine looks a bit like William Shatner and has an easy job playing his role but he makes the part believable.-So to does Zachary Quinto (Gabrial Syler on Heroes) as Spock. He has the right look and manages to be convincing in the few scenes where he's allowed to cut loose. Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard McCoy tends to be stuck playing comic relief but his Southern accent is dead on Zoe Saldana is stunning and embodies Communications Officer Uhura with some depth never allowed Nichelle Nicholes in the original series. (I found her relationship with Spock a bit off-putting but maybe they'll explore and explain that in future sequels.) British Comedian Simon Pegg gets the role of Engineer Montgomery Scott: he gets saddled with a comedic and somewhat manic role but I enjoyed his performance. John Cho has one good scene as Hikaru Sulu. Anton Yelchin (a real Russian) has chosen to copy the cartoonish accent used by Walter Koenig when he played Pavel Checkov. I am pleased to say that all the secondary characters get more development than they did in the entire run of the original series. Leonard Nimoy pops up in the movie (as an older Spock) to provide a link between the original series and this new incarnation. Eric Bana is Nero,a cardboard Romulan villain that isn't given a lot to work with. Neither are Ben Cross and Winona Ryder as Spock's parent's Sarek and Amanda Grayson.-The sets and costumes of this new incarnation of Star Trek has a look that is nothing short of spectacular. The battle scenes and planet-scapes are beautiful and the whole movie really should be seen on the big screen (the bigger the better in fact!) The designers went back to the original look for the Enterprise and the crew but they updated everything in a way that works well and honors the source material without looking dated. I found the movie a bit "loud" in places but that's what the young kids expect these days so I dealt with it. Yes, there are a few plot holes big enough to drive a starship through (but it wouldn't be Star Trek without those--would it?) There are also a couple of "boo-boos" that change continuity from the original but I'm willing to forgive that. (All but the most hidebound traditionalists will forgive the changes--there's an awful lot of continuity!)-Star Trek may be this year's "perfect" Summer movie (surprising since it's so early in the season). Most long-time fans will enjoy the update and be glad to see an old favorite back up on the screen looking so shiny and new. Those who aren't familiar with the series won't be burdened with a lot of continuity and will get all they need to enjoy the movie. There's plenty of action with a dash of humor and even romance that makes the movie fly by. All in all this is a worthy effort that is sure to keep the theaters full for a good long time.-FINAL GRADE: A+
A review of X-Men Origins: Wolverine needs a fractal with an "X" in it. X-Factor has the requisite "X" (although it's way to pretty to represent a movie like this. Sadly, this movie lacks the "X-Factor" that makes a great super hero movie. So--on with the review!-Readers of Wizard (THE magazine for all things geeky recently voted Wolverine as the "best Comic Book Character of all time." (Considering the many great Comic Book Characters out there it makes me wonder about the readers of Wizard--but maybe I'm just a curmudgeon.) The character who began life as a one-shot villain in The Incredible Hulk comic has since risen to epic proportions. Now we finally have the long-awaited "secret origin" of Wolverine. Too bad it wasn't any better...-This post won't contain a plot summary of the movie. (If you want to know that badly buy a ticket and see it for yourself.) Generally I try to judge a movie on its own merits without considering the source material. It's hard to do that with the "X-Men" movie franchise. The film makers chose to create their own history without regard to established continuity: the result is a muddy mess that ignores decades of comic book history and increasingly defies logic (even in a milieu that uses "comic book" reasoning. The result in the latest movie is a mess that leaves anyone with half a brain scratching their heads going "huh?"-Hugh Jackman had a certain charm and style in the first three "X-Men" movies and he was the stand out star. Now that he's the star of his own movie he still has the look but the script gives him little to work with. There isn't much more than grunts and growls that gets very tiresome very quickly. At least he's given a lot of truly amazing fight sequences to relieve the tedium. (Without the combat this movie would be completely unwatchable.)-Liev Schreiber has the thankless task of playing Victor Creed/Sabertooth. He looks the part but I found myself wondering about the character motivation. (Why is he a homicidal maniac? Why is he working with the bad guys? Why is he so obsessed with Logan?) Ryan Reynolds is given even less to work with as Wade Wilson/Deadpool. I suspect both characters will be back in the next movie so maybe we'll learn a bit more about them. (Is it going to be X-Men Origins 2: When Wolvie Met Xavier--seems likely since Patrick Stewart makes a cameo in this flick...) Danny Huston is a cardboard villain as Col. William Stryker. Dominic Monaghan and Will-i-Am have brief screen time as mutants created for the movie. Taylor Kitch looks great as Remy LaBeau/Gambit (although his inclusion here makes no sense at all: I guess they felt they needed to add in some additional characters from the "X-Men" continuity.)-My expectations for the "X" franchise lowered drastically with X-Men 3: the Last Stand and they weren't even met with this flick. LOVED the FX scenes but almost every other aspect of the film was a huge disappointment. (Of course I might be in the minority here: we saw the movie in a packed theater and most of the audience really seemed to enjoy the movie: guess we'll have to see how well the movie does against Star Trek next week.)-FINAL GRADE: C- (and that's being very generous)
Picking a fractal for today's post was a real challenge. I'd already used Weird Web for more than one post and didn't think using it again so the obvious choice was out. In the end I went with Ripples because, like so many things, one thought led to another and another--none of which were particularly related. So--on with the post!
