Fanboys

Potential spoilers ahead. Fair warning.

The late 1990s were a special time to be a Star Wars fan. The original trilogy was re-released in theaters. Sure, the additions Lucas made varied in quality. But more than that, there were rumblings of the absolutely unheard of. For the first time in fifteen years, it sounded like there might actually be a new movie -- no, a new trilogy -- on the way. Back then, we didn't know what to expect. There was no inkling in anyone's mind that the eventual trilogy would feature Hayden Christensen complaining about sand or Liam Neeson ruining the magic of The Force. Hindsight is 20/20, but back then you could've cut the anticipation with a vibro-axe.


That's what Kyle Newman's long in the works Fanboys is all about. It's 1998, and Star Wars fans are holding their collective breath for Episode One: The Phantom Menace. Four friends hatch a plan to break into Lucasfilm headquarters and steal a workprint of the film, and each of them has their own reason for making the journey. Eric (Sam Huntington) wants to make peace with his best friend, Linus, who's dying of cancer. Linus (Chris Marquette) wants to go because he won't live to see the May 19, 1999 release date. Windows (Jay Baruchel) wants to go for the chance to finally meet his online girlfriend. Hutch (Dan Fogler) wants to go because it's his van they're driving. And Zoe (Kristen Bell) tags along because the movie would be a total sausagefest otherwise.

What follows is pretty much your standard road trip comedy, albeit with a severe Star Wars bent. The film hits every road movie cliche, and wastes no time in geeking out at every opportunity. Along the way, the guys have run-ins with gay bikers, a gaggle of Trekkies led by Seth Rogen, geek guru Harry Knowles (badly caricatured by Ethan Suplee), and more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at.


A movie like Fanboys really lives and dies by it's Star Wars jokes. Honestly, it's about 50/50. For every good joke or visual gag, there are an equal number Star Wars lines quoted out of context that are clearly meant to be funny, but simply aren't. Referring to your friends by saying "These aren't the droids you're looking for"? Really? Come on. Granted, there is one line involving a doctor that's pretty great, but other than that I could really do without these. Also, from a Star Wars fanboy's perspective, the movie sometimes seems too generic. Whenever a character asks another character a piece of Star Wars trivia, it's embarrassingly easy. It makes one wonder if the writers are really Star Wars fans at all. You guys couldn't do a little more research?

And overall, that's my biggest complaint with Fanboys. It ultimately feels too light; like they could've delved a tad deeper into the fandom. I'm not asking that they make a bunch of weird, obscure references to the expanded universe or anything, but a little true fanboyism might gone a long way. Of course, there is a fine line to walk. Go too geeky and you risk alienating casual viewers who don't know an ewok from a cooking wok. To their credit, each of the main cast acquit themselves well, especially Dan Fogler, who looks and acts like the fat little brother Han Solo never had.


Much has been made of the "Linus has cancer" subplot, which Harvey Weinstein tried to cut out entirely a year ago. Star Wars fans went ballistic, boycotted Superhero Movie (how well did that really go over??), and got the subplot re-added. After all that mess, I'd say it was worth it. While it's remarkably light for such a depressing plot point, it works. It keeps the film firmly grounded as Eric and Linus' journey, rather than just about four dudes on a road trip. There is a decent payoff in the end, but it's almost entirely undercut when we learn what their initial feud was over in the first place.

Ultimately, Fanboys is sort of a "Star Wars fans only" affair, and while it doesn't have the R-rated teeth of a Sex Drive or even a Road Trip, it's definitely a fun little ode to the pursuits of one's youth. For fans, the movie is a nice reminder of the collective mindset of a decade ago. Even if you hated The Phantom Menace, you know you couldn't wait to see it. And if the movie has one ultimate success, it's in reminding us that Tom Petty was right. Waiting WAS the hardest part.

3.5 stars (***1/2) out of five.

Top Ten of 2008

It's February, and that means my one month grace period on culling together my list is officially over. So now, I've seen most of the Oscar bait, I've mulled it over, and I've come to my final decision on what I think are the best movies of 2008. You'll find that my list is genre-intensive, and that's primarily because I felt 2008 was the best year for genre cinema since 2005, perhaps even since 1989. Comic book films finally went legit, Dreamworks created a film every bit as dynamic and visually crisp as the best of PIXAR, and certain films did a wonderful job of highlighting the marginalia of populer culture.

As I've done in the past, I'll give you my 20-11 list, then count down from ten to one, explaining myself along the way.

20. In Bruges

19. Mongol

18. Frost/Nixon

17. Son of Rambow

16. Tropic Thunder

15. Man on Wire

14. Valkyrie

13. Burn After Reading

12. Quantum of Solace

11. Gran Torino

10. Kung Fu Panda - As great as WALL-E is, I find Kung Fu Panda the more purely entertaining film. It's got a gorgeous animation style; it's funny, never resorting to fart jokes or pop culture references; Hans Zimmer's score is one of the most dynamic and engaging scores of the year; Jack Black and Dustin Hoffman sell their characters remarkably well; and the action sequences are simply tremendous. Kung Fu Panda makes my #10 spot because it thoroughly surprised me. I was expecting to love WALL-E; I wasn't expecting anything from Kung Fu Panda.

9. Speed Racer - Perhaps the most misunderstood movie of 2008, I think Speed Racer is destined to reach Blade Runner-like heights of cult cinema. As cartoony as a lot of the movie is, the visual effects are a monster leap forward from anything I've ever seen, and more than sell the world that the Wachowskis set up. It's probably the geekiest movie of the year, really only playing to one particular audience. The people that seem to get the movie absolutely love it, and I proudly count myself among them.

8. Let the Right One In - I've made it pretty clear how little respect I have for the vampire genre. More often than not, vampire stories shirk the rules when it's convenient to the plot, and that never ceases to bug me. Either follow the rules, or don't bother. So when a movie like Let the Right One In comes along, I have to take notice. Even the title follows the rules of the genre. But beyond simply being a successful vampire flick, this is a movie about a surprisingly intense friendship with some potentially dangerous consequences. It's far, far more successful than that other vampire movie from last year. Of course, that was no contest.

7. Milk - Regardless of your personal politics, it's hard to deny Milk as a powerful biography and political success story. Gus Van Sant subdues his more artistic sensibilities to allow Sean Penn all the room he needs for one outstanding performance. Even then, Van Sant does some really unique things with archival footage, and it helps tell Harvey Milk's story remarkably well. Of course, the reason to see the film is for Sean Penn's performance, but Emile Hirsch, James Franco, and Josh Brolin give equally successful turns.

6. Hellboy II: The Golden Army - 2008 was perhaps the best year for comic book films ever, and in the year of Iron Man and The Dark Knight, it's easy to overlook a film like Hellboy II. Everything Guillermo del Toro learned from Pan's Labyrinth is on display here, which includes an extraordinary amount of visual effects (practical and CG), makeup effects, and sheer imagination. Hellboy II really lives and dies by Ron Perlman's performance, and he performs admirably. Along with Speed Racer, this is certainly one of the most creative films in quite some time.

5. Iron Man - Now, The Dark Knight might technically be the better film, but (like Kung Fu Panda) I find Iron Man more purely entertaining. Robert Downey, Jr's turn as Tony Stark is simply one of a number of wonderful performances in 2008, and he goes a long way in making the film watchable. Of course, Jon Favreau's steady direction and knowhow for marrying practical effects with CG also help make Iron Man the popcorn action flick to beat in 2008. Only time will tell if Marvel Studios can parlay Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk into an equally successful franchise, but until then, Iron Man is a better film than we probably deserve.

4. The Dark Knight - And then there was Batman. To me, the success of The Dark Knight always seemed like a foregone conclusion (sorta like my reaction to WALL-E). My expectations were very high, and they were met. That's not to slight the film's achievement. Christopher Nolan deserves a lot of credit for springboarding from the already admirable Batman Begins into a film that's considerably more complex. Heath Ledger's take on The Joker is, indeed, fantastic and disturbing, but it's Aaron Eckhart's turn as Harvey Dent that really breathes life into the film. As a superhero film, I doubt The Dark Knight will ever be topped.

3. The Wrestler - As harshly brutal, gruesome, and starkly realistic as Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler is, you'll be hard pressed to find a more likable film, and the reason for that is Mickey Rourke's performance as Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a has-been pro wrestler faced with his own mortality. It's easily the best performance of 2008, and the film is one that you're not likely to forget any time soon. It's bound to be Rourke's signature performance, and it's almost certainly Aronofsky's best film. If you don't shed a tear for Randy at any point during this film, you just might be a robot.

2. WALL-E - As I've pointed out before, my love for WALL-E seemed predestined. I'd been looking forward to it ever since I saw the teaser attached to Ratatouille. A PIXAR sci-fi movie? I'm there. But what I found was not just a great sci-fi story, but a remarkably moving love story as well. The things that Andrew Stanton and his team do with visual storytelling is awe-inspiring, and it's one of the most deft and agile animated films ever made. And as much as I've kinda dumped on it so far in this post, let me make it clear: I absolutely adore WALL-E. It's one of the more life-affirming films of the year, almost as life-affirming as...

1. Slumdog Millionaire - WALL-E may be the most deft and agile animated film ever made, but Danny Boyle's tale of a lovestruck youth competing on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire to win the attention of the girl of his dreams is every bit as deft and agile in its storytelling. The way Boyle and his team deal in flashbacks and time jumps is not only astounding, but remarkable in how fluid much of the film ends up being. It's a film that's not always easy to watch, but the ultimate reward in watching Jamal succeed in his journey is like nothing else I saw in 2008.

The Wrestler (2008)

Everyone knows professional wrestling is fake. The matches aren't so much actual brawls as they are choreographed flips, turns, and slaps. What's real, however, is the physical and emotional stress that some of the combatants endure in and out of the ring. It's this aspect of the sport that director Darren Aronofsky's film The Wrestler chooses to illuminate, and to shocking success.

It's been 20 years since Randy "The Ram" Robinson (Mickey Rourke) was in his heyday. Today, he works weekdays at a supermarket and in the local New Jersey wrestling circuits on the weekends. Randy suffers a heart attack after a particularly brutal 'hardcore' match, and as a result, begins to re-evaluate his life. He attempts to court his favorite stripper, Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), who, like Randy, is also a performer whose work is suffering due to her age. At the same time, Randy tries desperately to reconnect with his estranged daughter (Evan Rachel Wood), and set up a reunion match with his former rival, The Ayatollah (Ernest "The Cat" Miller").


The Wrestler succeeds in not falling into any of the trappings usually associated with professional wrestling. All the wrestlers play their parts as heros and villains, heels and faces, but backstage everyone is just happy to be hanging out. There's no evil promoter trying to exploit his performers, nor any concern over ratings or ego. The Wrestler treats its culture of choice much in the same way that last year's Role Models treated LARPing: merely as the accepted way of things. And that's good. It means we can concentrate on the characters as real people rather than as cartoons.

After having tried his hand at science fiction in The Fountain (some find it incoherent, I think it's a beautiful film), Aronofsky gets 'back to basics' with The Wrestler. The film is shot very minimally. Shot on 16mm, lots of handheld shots, lots of static shots, zero CG. Stylistically, it bears more in common with his first film, Pi, than his other two films, and I think that was for the best. The story is a relatively small one about an equally small world, and the film reflects that nicely. Aronofsky restrains his style enough to allow the characters to develop naturally.


Which, again, was for the best, because once the movie ends, you'll be talking about Mickey Rourke's performance more than anything else. It's nothing short of magic watching Rourke throw himself 100% into The Ram. He's no doubt tapping into his own years as a 'has been' in order to show us just what Randy's going through. He plays the character honestly, realistically. Just when it seems that Randy's going to make it, he finds a way to screw up and put himself back to zero. We've all been there (in one way or another), and that's what makes the character work.

Rourke's been working consistently since 1979, but he's been on the comeback trail ever since he surprised everyone by being the best thing about Sin City. I'm sure he'll get his due come Oscar night, and he absolutely deserves it. Not only is The Ram one of the best characters of the year, but his movie is one that'll have you laughing and crying, cheering and cringing. The harsh reality Aronofsky puts on display here is every bit as entertaining as anything you're likely to see this year, and perhaps for a long time. Your mileage may vary depending on your tolerance for stripteases and a little bit of gore, but if you can stomache it, The Wrestler more than delivers.


Five stars (*****) out of five.

Five Movies that Deserved Better in 2008

There were a lot of movies in 2008. And, as with any year, many of those movies go unwatched, unappreciated, and unloved, either because they were mismarketed or simply released at the wrong time. Here are five movies that, while not top ten material, absolutely deserve a second look from some, and a first look from others.

Son of Rambow - The movie that Be Kind, Rewind wished it could have been, and one of the best family films of the year. It'll inspire any one, young or old, to pick up a camera and start making their own movie. Maybe I'm just a sucker for this kind of movie, but it's got a great heart, a great cast of youngsters, and it's proof enough that Garth Jennings is a director worth wactching.

In Bruges - This one is kind of a hard sell right out of the gate. A comedy about hitmen laying low in Belgium and examining their life while ruminating on the works of Hieronymus Bosch. Yeah, it's pretty ambitious for a first-time director. But while it's not quite as strong as it wants to be, it's definitely funny, and both Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson earned their Golden Globe nominations.

Blindness - Not necessarily mismarketed so much as just met with general apathy. The story of an epidemic of blindness and the chaos that the situatio wreaks on the world is sort of Children of Men-lite, but still fairly successful. It's a bleak, bleak movie, but one that I'm sure will become a cult classic once it hits DVD.


The Spirit - Yeah, it's still in theaters, but it's already being ignored as the worst comic book movie of the year (I guess everyone forgot about Punisher: War Zone). Put Frank Miller behind the camera and let him write the script, and I guarantee he'll deliver something akin to The Spirit every time. And if this movie is your kind of thing, then you'll love what he has to offer. It's certainly a lot of fun, but by no means great cinema.

RockNRolla - Guy Ritchie wants to make a trilogy with the characters from this movie, but it looks like that'll never happen, because RockNRolla tanked hard at the US box office. And while it's not nearly as good as Snatch, it's still a fun ride. Gerard Butler and Thandie Newton totally sell this movie, and the way they play off each other more or less makes the movie.

Others worth remembering: Appaloosa; City of Ember; The Day the Earth Stood Still; Diary of the Dead; Ghost Town; Hamlet 2; Midnight Meat Train; Rambo; Role Models; Zack and Miri Make a Porno

The Worst of 2008

It's that time of year. 2008 is over and it's time to take stock. What kind of movie year was 2008? For my money, I'd say it was a particularly great year for genre film. We haven't had a year this good for geek cinema since 2005. Sure, that's not too long, but name me two better years for sci-fi/comic films. Yeah, I thought so...

But I'm not here to ruminate on all the nuances of the year. I'm here to club the worst movies of the year. Now, this list is a bit skewed. I don't get paid to see every movie that comes out, so I still have to be picky about what I see, and I'm usually pretty good about knowing what I will and won't enjoy. So you won't be seeing movies like Disaster Movie, The Hottie and the Nottie, any number of awful horror remakes. Those are forgone conclusions. To that end, these are the five movies that I enjoyed the least. Some of these are truly terrible movies. Others are simply big disappointments. Let's get started...

Dishonorable Mention - Star Wars: The Clone Wars - A movie that I can't rightly even call a movie. Look at it for what it is: A 90 minute pilot for the Cartoon Network series, which I'm told is getting progessively better. Good, because this pilot is a terrible, terrible movie. Everything from the lazily painted backdrops to Ahsoka Tano to Jabba the Hutt's gay, New Orleanian uncle just reeks of Lucas and co. wringing the last drops of life from a once mighty franchise...


5. The Happening - Earth to Shyamalan: Plants. Are. Not. Scary. The only way to truly enjoy The Happening is to watch it as some kind of morbid comedy. Some of the death scenes are well staged, but in the context of the movie, they're laughable. However, watching Marky Mark try to negotiate with a houseplant (a plastic one at that) is pretty funny.




4. Hancock - For what the first act of this movie promised, the left turn it inevitably takes is so sharp that it could cut diamonds. The second half of the movie completely ruins any good will that the first half had built. It's a film that wants to be longer, darker, more satirical, and edgier than it is, and for some reason, it just isn't. If not for The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Hellboy II, Hancock might have single-handedly set superhero movies back ten years..




3. You Don't Mess with the Zohan - The first movie on this list featuring SNL alums, Zohan tries desperately hard to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to be an action comedy of epic proportions, but it also wants to do what Sandler and Co. have always done (dick jokes and silly voices). The result is something that isn't at all as funny as it seems to think it is, and ends up being just embarassing for all involved.



2. 10,000 BC - Roland Emmerich's career of late is yielding one logical conclusion: He needs to get producer Dean Devlin back into the fold ASAP, because it's clear that he was the brains of the operation. 10,000 BC is a movie that's dumb as a brick, and hopes its audience doesn't notice. In two hours, we go from frozen tundra to rainforests to deserts and ultimately to pyramids. There's just a horrible lack of logic to this whole movie, and I'm STILL confused by what it was supposed to be doing. I have no idea.


1. Step Brothers - Even worse than You Don't Mess with the Zohan, I laughed maybe four times during Step Brothers. Moreso than any of the other movies on my list, Step Brothers was just embarassing to watch. Seeing two forty year old men act like a pair of eight year olds is just pathetic. Like I said in my original review, had the two men been in their 20s, it might have been acceptable. But Step Brothers as it is now is just terrible. Unfunny nonsense, and the worst comedy I've seen in years.

There you have it. Come back soon for two more lists. My top ten of 2008, and a list of ten that deserve more attention.

The Spirit (2008)

Almost immediately, the vast majority of viewers have been dismissing The Spirit as worthless garbage without a second thought. That's just not fair. It's not a bad movie. Different? Sure. Bizarre and resembling little of Will Eisner's original comic? You betcha. The Spirit isn't so much Sin City-lite as it is Frank Miller applying his comic sensibilities to a medium that's still new to him. And in that respect, The Spirit simply suffers from a novice filmmaker's first turn behind the camera.

Denny Colt patrols the streets of Central City as The Spirit (Gabriel Macht), a sort of unkillable vigilante (think Batman in a suit and fedora, sans gadgets). His archnemesis, The Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson) is after a vase containing the blood of Hercules. In his way is Sand Seraf (Eva Mendes), a globe-trotting jewel thief who is after her own mysterious, mythical object. She's got her own history with The Spirit, and the movie spends plenty of time explaining it in a strange, mid-movie flashback.


Stylistically, the movie heavily resembles Sin City more than anything in Will Eisner's comics. Miller's playing with more or less the same style as Rodriguez' film. The only difference here is that it moves more like a comic. As The Spirit runs along power lines and hurls manhole covers at countless thugs that all look like Louis Lombardi, it all moves like a cartoon.

And really, that's all this movie is aspiring to. It's absolutely a cartoon, and Frank Miller is indulging (most of) his comic and cinematic desires. It's clear taht he's not taking this material seriously. Otherwise, Eva Mendes wouldn't have photocopied her ass, Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johannson wouldn't have donned Nazi uniforms, and the blood of Hercules would never have figured in as a plot device.


There's no logical way to take this movie seriously, and it's for that reason that I'm pretty sure this movie is a comedy. Not a jokey comedy, mind you. But a Frank Miller comedy. See, Frank Miller loves film noir; enough, in fact, to be goofy and weird with it. Every time someone gives a ridiculous line delvery (or rather, says something totally ridiculous without a knowing wink), it's funny. It's supposed to be. I think it's a symptom of this movie being horribly mismarketed. People are going into this thinking it'll be a repeat of Sin City (which itself was really, really silly).

The Spirit is a comedy in the same way that I'm pretty sure Spider-Man 3 is a comedy. It's more of a parody of the genre than an honest stab at it. But, as with Spider-Man 3, the problem is in the direction. Miller's not at all an experienced director, and he doesn't have the deftness of Sam Raimi or Robert Rodriguez. There are many shots and cuts that don't really work, and occasionally it's really hard to tell who is punching out who and where the body is flying. Some of the action just doesn't work. As for the script, the film plays out much in the same way that a comic book does. Whole passages of the film veer off into odd tangents, almost like that middle issue of a series that has little to do with the story. Of course, just because it's there doesn't mean it really works. It kinda doesn't.


But for all it's comic sensibilities, goofy sense of humor, and overall weirdness, The Spirit is not the cinematic abortion that many people might lead you to believe. On the contrary, it's one of the strangest films you're likely to see all year, and it's worth seeing simply for the sake of being different. It's odd and goofy enough to entertain, but definitely not the second coming of Sin City (though that film is apparently still in the works). It's fun. I enjoyed it, and I hope more people find something to like about it.

3.5 stars (***1/2) out of five.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
so dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

If ever the meaning of Robert Frost's poem was lost on you, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will be all the explanation you'll ever need. It's a film all about the impermanence of life, from the fleeting years of childhood to the brief hours of a love affair to the waning days of a life fully lived. As a reworking of F. Scott Fitzgerald's original short story, David Fincher's film is a marvel to behold, but upon closer inspection the story itself isn't the thrilling, life-affirming yarn we're led to believe it is.

As he narrates early on in the film, Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) was born under 'unusual circumstances'. He was born as a baby with all the physical attributes of an elderly man on the verge of death. Every day, he gets a day younger while everyone around him gets a day older. This conceit alone is enough to drive the story forward, as we watch Benjamin have to cope at seemingly every turn with the fact that his condition is one that literally nobody else understands.


It can't be said that the idea isn't an interesting one to toy with. Early on, during Benjamin's 'younger' years, he is taken to a brothel by an eccentric tugboat captain (Jared Harris) who's under the impression that Benjamin is a 60 year old virgin. It's incidents like this that give the film any flavor at all, and as the story settles into it's primary groove, we are afforded fewer and fewer interesting facets of Benjamin's condition. Once it becomes clear that the story is going to follow the romance between Benjamin and his longtime friend Daisy (Cate Blanchett), it becomes much like any other romance.

And this turns out to be the film's downfall. In relying almost solely on the aging concept to drive the story, the film ends up playing the same note over and over again until it no longer has any need to. Two hours into the film, it becomes clear the direction the story is going to take, and the story struggles to keep the audience's attention, relying almost solely on Cate Blanchett's performance to carry the third act. This would've been acceptable had the third act not been a foregone conclusion alluded to constantly for the previous two hours. As it is, we know where the story is going, and there's simply not much joy to be found in watching Benjamin's life wind down just as so many before him have done.


Of course, none of this rests on David Fincher's direction. This is perhaps the best directed film of his career, from the opening studio credit to the final fade out, there's never a dull moment to be had (visually speaking). Fincher utilizes all sorts of camera tricks and filming techniques to show us a story seemingly without time. If not for the superb computer-generated de-aging effects on Brad Pitt, you'd swear this were a film out of another era. Plot and script issues aside, this film is breathtaking to watch.

I know it seems like I'm placing a lot of judgement on the script, but that's because it's really my only problem with Benjamin Button. Fincher's direction is spot-on, most (if not all) of the cast pull their weight admirably (especially the minor players), and it is a fascinating character study. But the main crux of the film just ultimately collapses under its own weight. If you're willing to accept that the film is a pretty big downer and that the script runs out of steam considerably short of the finish line, you'll find that Benjamin Button has a lot else to offer.

3.5 stars (***1/2) out of five.

Is There a Santa Claus?

The following is reprinted from today's Greensboro News & Record, and likely many other papers nationwide.

In 1897, Virginia O'Hanlon wrote to the editor of The New York Sun asking if there were a Santa Claus.  What she had heard from her friends on this matter perplexed her.  She initially asked her father, and instead of answering her question himself, he suggested she write to the newspaper.  This is her letter -- and the response by Frank Church -- published in The Sun on Sept. 21, 1897.

Dear Editor:

I am 8 years old.  Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.  Papa says, "If you see it in The Sun, it's so."  Please tell me the truth, is there a Santa Claus?

Virginia

Virginia, your little friends are wrong.  They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age.  They do not believe except what they see.  They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds.

All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little.  In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.  He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to our life its highest beauty and joy.

Alas!  How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus!  It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias.  There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence.  We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight.  The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus?  You might as well not believe in fairies!  You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove?

Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus.  The most real things in the world are those neither children nor men can see.

Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn?  Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there.  Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders that are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, or even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart.  Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view adn picture the supernatural beauty and glory beyond.

Is it all real?  Ah, Virginia, in all this world there is nothing else as real and abiding.

No Santa Claus?  Thank God he lives, and he lives forever.  A thousand years from now, maybe 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the hearts of children.

Season's Greetings

I had some words to say about Christmas for today, but Orson Scott Card said them all in today's Rhinoceros Times.  So if you read that newspaper, I'll refer you there for my thoughts on Christmas.  The basic gist of it is this:  I wish everyone reading this a Merry Christmas; not out of religious reverence, but because Christmas is a national holiday.  If anything, I should probably be saying Merry American Christmas.

So whatever your holiday tradition, I hope you're enjoying yourself and the season.  And like they say: there's no tradition like a new tradition...

Okay, so it's a seventeen year old tradition. Whatever.

Happy Hanukkah, Happy Festivus, and Merry Christmas.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

I feel like I'm being thrown onto the defensive for a film that I really didn't think was that great, which is an odd position in which one might find themselves. The Day the Earth Stood Still isn't great cinema by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel like many critics are too quick to slam the movie simply for being a remake of the 1951 classic. Yes, this is a remake. Yes, the original was (and still is) a classic. But does that automatically make the remake a bad film? No. If that were the case, The Thing, The Fly, The Blob, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and Dawn of the Dead would all be bad movies, and the truth is that all of these are at least solid films; some of them great.

However, the critics who hate The Day the Earth Stood Still seem to truly hate it. It's not that bad. The basics of the film are largely intact. Scientists detect a large object on a collision course with Earth. Instead of colliding, as originally predicted, it lands in the middle of Central Park. Of the myriad scientists and military personnel sent to intercept and study the object, the first to make contact with it's inhabitant is Dr. Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly). Once in military custody, the alien, who identifies himself as Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) and has taken on a human body, informs them of his intention. He represents an interplanetary council, and was sent to Earth to assess the human race's case for survival. It is for him to decide whether the human race is fit to continue. Klaatu is accompanied to Earth by a gargantuan robot that the US military names GORT (Genetically Organized Robotic Technology, or something equally ridiculous). While Dr. Benson and her adopted son Jacob (Jaden Smith) flee with Klaatu, the military tries its best to destroy GORT to no avail.


Yeah, a few things have changed, but the basic song remains the same, as it were. What the film ultimately gets dead-on right is the tone and visual aesthetic. There is a constant sense of foreboding looming over any given scene, and it adds a significant amount of weight to a script that doesn't seem to bother with subtelties. The designs of the orb spacecraft are intriguing, and are decidedly different from the alien designs that have come before. We've come a long way from flying saucers. Then there's GORT. The design team did a pretty good job of updating him without ruining his imposing nature. Rarely do fully CG creations come off successfully. GORT works wonderfully.

And say what you want about Keanu Reeves, but the man does alright for himself as Klaatu. He looks uncomfortable here, just like an alien who isn't used to a human body. His monotonous speech pattern is equally stilted and uneasy. Of course, I'm not sure how much of this is Keanu simply refusing to emote or what, but (at least for me), his performance worked. The same cannot be said of Jennifer Connelly. She's gorgeous, as always, but she looks equally lost in this film. The supporting players that come off best here are, undoubtedly, John Cleese and Kyle Chandler, who do well with their limited screentime.


What doesn't work so well? The script. For as much foreboding tone as the visual crew add to the film, it seems like they had to compensate for the script, which holds next to no dramatic tension. The emotional arc that Klaatu must travel through the course of the film is layed out through dialogue in such a way that we're basically given a roadmap to the film every 10-15 minutes. One scene in particular, one that takes place inside a McDonald's, might as well be counted as a spoiler, that's how on-the-nose the dialogue is. And for a film this rooted in classic science fiction, there are far too many tiny plot holes. Why would you leave an alien being, whose abilities are not known, alone in a room with a defenseless examiner?

I have an idea for what they perhaps should have done with this film. Instead of a straight remake of the original that merely updates the theme of nuclear annihilation to environmental destruction, why not make the film a sequel? The film could have been about the return of Klaatu, fifty-seven years after his first trip to Earth, to issue us his final ultimatum. In 1951, he gave us a choice: change our destructive ways or die. In 2008, we've replaced one global threat with another, and now that Klaatu is back, it's time to pay the piper. He sets the destruction of Earth into motion, and must be convinced otherwise at the zero hour. Would this not have worked? I think so. And it wouldn't have been at the risk of damaging the original. It would be sort of the extra-terrestrial equivalent of George A. Romero's zombie cycle. I think that could have worked...


Ultimately, however, The Day the Earth Stood Still is not the piece of cinematic garbage that many critics seem to think it is. Sure, it's not a classic by any means, but neither is it a contender for Worst Film of the Year. Had this script gone through maybe one more revision, the result might have been a tight, thematically sharp sci-fi parable. As it is, however, The Day the Earth Stood Still is a mildly engaging sci-fi yarn for those willing to lend an ear, two hours, and seven dollars.

3.5 stars (***1/2) out of five.