|
|
|
Photo
|
|
|
Entered on: June 26, 2005 12:00 AM by Ross
|
|
|
|
|
Ross's bachelor party gets into full swing with some ridiculously young girls. Alas, they were only randoms and stayed momentarily.
|
|
|
PHOTO 203 - 41 Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to thank everyone for showing up and making it such a great time. Special thanks for Fregly and Hirsch for coordinating the festivities!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's safe to say that everybody in attendance of Ross' Debauch Fest '05 had a terrific time. I second the kudos to Hirsch and Fregly.
On a much more shittay note, I got home Sunday night to discover our house had flooded. :( It appears our sewer drain (or something) is clogged, which resulted in about two inches of water flooding out of our storage room into the living room. I came home to find Stacy hauling all of our belongings out of the storage room to air out on the back deck. Our carpet is most likely utterly farked, but it appears that most everything else remains unscathed (the speakers and furniture are all right, and the TV appears to be good too - whew). As you can imagine, this is EXACTLY what I needed after getting about two hours of sleep, being mentally and physically drained from the previous evening's events (read: hung over), then driving back home from Chicago. This means I'll probably spend the next week on the phone with the insurance company, carpet people, plumbing professionals, etc. and tearing my hair out trying to make a claim. I'm fucking exhausted.
To use a Roche phrase, I feel like I've been F'd in the A. To which I'd like to add: ARRRGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swerb, that sucks! If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's some YOUNG ones, Ross. How did you attract them? Was it alcohol... or candy?!
Sorry I didn't make it. Glad everyone seemed to have fun. I hope Fatty's "gender euphoria" was kept in check?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fatty was pretty much in check as far as I could tell - most of us were - nothing really got out of control as far as I can remember.
The little chickadees were obviously underage, I believe they attend DePaul which is in the neighborhood, so they were just walking the hood looking for a party to get some booze. Which is why someone (female, no doubt) ushered them out before long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fregly is sweet to give up his house to the certain carnage that would ensue - and did. I saw the mess in daylight - a bum could retire off the returnables.
Hirsch's coordination of slutty stripping nuns made it the perfect bachelor party!
It was a great time and I loved spending it with my good friends, old and new. I want to get Fregly's and Nelson's number so I can call them up - I got some things to ask!
PS Fregly is a pussy hog.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, Bert, this is what you can do: Buy me a new house.
Actually, it's not that bad. We only had to drag all the furniture out of the living room and most of the kitchen furniture out to the garage so professional cleaners could come out and clean up the mess, which involved tearing up all the carpet in the living room and half the kitchen (the carpet was in the kitchen when we moved in; who puts carpet in their kitchen anyway (besides my parents)?), throwing away the soaked-ass padding underneath and running blowers and dehumidifiers for oh, roughly two days or so. I think the carpet is salvagable, and I would have just said fuck it and got new carpet, but my insurance coverage for "sewer and drain" back-ups is only $2500, and it's going to cost probably $1000-plus just for the clean-up. I have the sewer cleaner guy coming out tomorrow morning, and the insurance claims dude will come out Wednesday, and I'm preparing myself to play hardball with him... if we're lucky, the house should be back to normal sometime this weekend. So much for my relaxing July 4 weekend of being a layabout and watching movies. F me in the A, man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to hear about the house, Swerb. That does suck like a mo fo.
I did want to say that Ross's bachelor party was fun as hell. I had more fun than I've had in years, maybe ever, it was that sweet! I also want to thank Fregly and Hirsch for setting up the good times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it looks like Stacy and I are getting out of this flood thing with little out-of-pocket costs. The insurance guy gave us the full $2500, and the carpet guy is coming tomorrow to re-lay the padding and carpet, so hopefully by Saturday, everything will be back together. Man, this has been an ordeal.
Speaking of ordeals... I saw War of the Worlds tonight, and it sucked my hairy beanbag. Bert, remember our ongoing debate about Signs, and how you couldn't get over the plot holes? Well, WotW is 100 times shittier. I'm convinced that no person in the real world acts ANYTHING like any of the characters in the movie. Plus, Dakota Fanning irritates my buttocks. There are a few solid Spielberg-ian scenes of suspense, and he's still a good action director, but it was still one of the dumbest movies I've seen since Hide and Seek (coincidentally, another movie with Dakota Fanning in it). I give War of the Turds the thumbs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm having a hard time believing that assessment, man... but I know you have no reason to be biased against this one (except unless you get personal and chalk it up to hating Tom Cruise as we all should), so color me chagrined... I was really looking forward to this one. I'm still going to go see it in the theater though. I've read a couple reviews and none seemed to think it was dumb - of course the same might be true for Signs (it will be cool to see what the Bad Astronomer has to say about this one). Anyway, the thing that I thought was cool was that people said how Spielberg shoots everything from street-level so you see what the characters see. THIS is what I've been shouting from the mountaintops for years: that's how I always wanted to see Spider-Man, as well.
Roche: Welcome back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit with that comparison to Signs... but WotW is not a good movie. Some critics have given it generally positive reviews, but complain that the screenplay is like a sieve, and I just can't get over that fact. Spielberg, despite some of the cool street-level stuff, was WAY too sloppy here. I couldn't get absorbed in the movie because all those irritating inconsistencies kept begging me to pick it apart. I dunno, I'm curious to see what you think... maybe now that I've lowered your expectations, you'll think it's not too bad.
As for Tom Cruise, yes, I think he's a dumbass (which goes without saying, because he's a Scientologist), but I actually like several of his movies, including Minority Report, Magnolia, Rain Man, Eyes Wide Shut, and I even have an irrational soft spot for Jerry Maguire... although I think any heterosexual male probably has the urge to kick him in the teeth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swerb is being way too harsh. But who can blame him after a week of dealing with being flooded?
Angie and I saw WAR OF THE WORLDS last night and we both really liked it! Plot holes? Yes, I suppose. But this is a big, summer action movie and it delivers!
There are some impressive special effects here and I like that the whole movie is from Tom Cruise's character's perspective (we don't get scenes with the President or Pentagon, for instance). And I like that we don't see the White House or Empire State Building blown up (again). The silliest part of the movie is probably the conclusion, but that's more the fault of the original story, right?
There's even some sweet camera work. One scene involves Cruise and Co driving down the highway. The camera is outside the front windshield looking in (and we hear the dialogue in the car), but the camera moves side to side and then completely out of the car's way and you watch the car drive away. Very cool shot, and I'm not sure how they did it (it's one long, continuous shot).
We give it the thumbs!
And for those that enjoy the movie, be sure to check out DESTROY ALL HUMANS (the videogame) as it allows you to disinigrate people and buildings with your deathray... just like the movie!
DESTROY also gets the thumbs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, Spielberg's camera work is just as good as Jack says it is, especially in that scene you describe (that's what I mean when I say he's a terrific action director, especially compared to Christopher Nolan), and there are two similar shots through a hole in a glass window that are fucking sweet... but there were certainly liberties taken with the original story, and the screenplay generally sucked ass. From a technical standpoint, yeah, it's good, and I understand one has to suspend one's disbelief a lot in a movie about invaders from outer space, but it seems like Spielberg just didn't care about any of the details of the story, and the characters don't do anything but run and yell and run and yell, and run and yell some more. The point of the movie seems to be: aliens invaded the Earth in order to bring Tom Cruise closer to his two kids. I dunno, as a whole, it just chafed my buttocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't too big on seeing War of the Turds. I did see Cinderella Man the other night and Melissa and I really like it. Sounds like Swerb may need some lotion for his ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Much as I hate Cruise, I tend to like Spielberg - so I'm in favor of seeing this one. I'll see it tomorrow probably - stay tuned for my official verdict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cinderella Man is really good. Russell Crowe is sweet in every movie he does (mostly). Bert, I eagerly anticipate your take on WotW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I had been able to make it. Unfortunately, I've been floating around in a big steel shitbox. I'm in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia right now and it's pretty fucking sweet. We were here for about 4 days and we leave tommorow for the Persian Gulf. It will be about 35 days before we pull into the next port. Believe me it sarks cark. The job itself is awesome but the days are long ass hell. If time went by any slower I'd be going backwards in time. Feel free to email me at my Nimitz account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to post my WotW review. Beware of spoilers...
It definitely didn't live up to my expectations, and Swerb was right to lower them a couple notches. I agree with Jack about the camera work and the shot he mentioned was particularly sweet.
It was pretty scary and tense but it definitely lacked something, and I'm not sure what it was. It wasn't as gripping as it should have been somehow.
But of course, Swerb is right that there are some MAJOR problems. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the screenplay is like a sieve... but Signs was far worse in my opinion. I have a feeling that the trouble is that they stuck too close to the original idea and back then people didn't understand anything about biology, so the idea that aliens would get killed off by some small microorganism or virus made more sense. What modern day people should now realise is that of course if the aliens have spent millions (?) of years studying us and our planet, they sure as fuck shouldn't have been surprised by a disease - and it sure as fuck shouldn't have fucked them up so quickly - and they sure as fuck should have been able to come up with a solution, being that they have technology about a million times more advanced than ours. Not only that, the idea that an alien microorganism would even affect you is pretty damn unlikely in the first place.
While I'm ranting, I need to understand this: So the shields on these tripod MACHINES (they were clearly machines) were knocked out because of some organic malady? This is the impression I got, and they presumably contracted it because the tripods kept a stash of humans in their nutsacks to periodically snack upon. Okay, this wasn't made clear to me, but I'll bite. So what, were they harvesting us, like in Signs? But that doesn't make sense, cuz they were death-raying most of us. Which, incidentally, is not a very efficient mechanism for mass-extermination, even us humans can do better. So what exactly did they want? Morgan Feeman alludes to them coveting our planet, but what exactly were they coveting? I can't tell!
So this brings me to the invasion timeline... Tim Robbins seems to convincingly argue that the invaders have been planning this invasion for A Long Fucking Time. If I allow for the fact that we never had a hint of these machines buried in the ground (too deep? possible, I suppose), what would be the point? If they planted those before we were around, they couldn't have been banking on the offchance that we would evolve to suit their dietary needs, could they? What gives? If that's not the reason, why not take the planet while there's zero resistance?
Tell you the truth, the tripods would probably be scarier to me if I hadn't played Half-Life 2 first (the greatest video game of all time, in my opinion), where they were actually much scarier.
I did like the design of the aliens, though, and it was a nice touch that they design their big vechicles in their own image. Even so, walking machines on any planet are inferior to ones with wheels, or ones that don't have to maneuver on land at all. Kind of like how Lucas even admits that the AT-AT is a terrible design, but its design isn't for efficiency as it was for effect.
Anyway, I give the movie a "meh". If I had to go one way or the other, I'd still give it a very very mild thumbs up. The effects were very impressive as was the cinematography. Of course Swerb is right that the characters sucked and were unrealistic. But this was nowhere near as stanky as Signs in my opinion. It is truly a testament to the reputations of Spielberg and Cruise that the movie is as well-reviewed on the Tomato-meter as Batman Begins, which is definitely a superior movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beware of spoilers...
You know, I'm willing to accept that the aliens are just a bunch of malicious bastards who want to fuck shit up because it's in their nature (not unlike in Aliens), but any attempt to give them a legit back story just muddles everything. It's totally half-assed. And I'm willing to accept scientific inaccuracies as long as the story is good, but here, it's terrible! It makes little or no sense. I understand that, from the Cruise character's perspective, what he knows is limited, and he's just reacting without necessarily understanding what's happening and why, and it adds fear and tension, but then why bother trying to explain things with the voiceover?
And the script not a sieve? Answer these questions, then: Why, when the plane crashes and destroys everything in that neighborhood, does their van miraculously not have a scratch on it? Even more miraculous: There's a path for them to drive the van through the rubble! Amazing! When they're driving out of the city, and they have the only functioning automobile, they also amazingly have a path through the stalled cars, when it more likely would be a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam, and they'd be F'd in the A. And, while we're picking things apart, where do they get gas to fill the tank? The scene where the desperate people attack their van, and the guy points a gun at Cruise's head, etc., also rang false with me - I believe that people will act horribly in desperate situations, but it was a phony construct designed to threaten to tear apart Tom Cruise's family. If the movie is supposed to make a comment about human nature, why do it so half-assed? Also, after the aliens attack the ferry, and it capsizes, another miracle occurs: Tom Cruise's family manages to stay together and not get crushed by the boat, then, apparently, they swim to shore, which would be a rather trying task with a little girl on your back, doncha think?
And what's up with Tim Robbins' character? I assume Cruise killed him, but how? Robbins is considerably bigger (he's a tall man, way over six feet, while Cruise is a midget at, what, 5'4"?), with a shovel, and he's obviously got a screw loose, so he presumably wouldn't have much of a problem killing ol' Tom if he got out of line. But instead, we see that Annoying Little Girl singing and covering her ears, then out walks Tom Cruise, with a solemn look, and not a scratch on him, like he just put down a suffering horse or something. What the fuck? One word: LAME. And the scene with the alien eyeball thingy (which seems like an homage to The Abyss) probing around in the basement was supposed to be tense, but it went on WAY too long, and Tom's struggle with Robbins was eye-rollingly ridiculous. Those aliens must be really fucking stupid to not see or sense them at all.
There's more: I HATE IT when characters in movies pause to talk and have heartfelt moments while the world is crumbling around them. Don't these people have a sense of urgency to get the fuck out of there? This happened a few times during the movie. It also bugs me that, when they do pause to talk, all the noise in the background fades so we can hear them, and they don't have to yell. Also: Tom Cruise's son - that is NOT how normal human beings act. I didn't buy it for a second that he'd want to join the army and fight, or whatever he wanted to do (not exactly clear), and he also miraculously survived, and made it back to his mommy, so we could have a happy, sappy, crappy ending! How sweet! What a big, stinking load of tripe!
Maybe I'm being harsh, but it's all the little details like this that drive me fucking nuts. But I still think War of the Worlds is one big grandaddy of a piece of shit. I can't imagine Fantastic Four (which I see today) could be any worse - I'll let you know either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're being overly harsh, Snerd. The thing I've noticed about some of your nitpicks on movies that you hate is that you sometimes start to lose focus on the big picture issues versus the small picture ones. I think it's well summed up by this quote from you:
"I'm willing to accept scientific inaccuracies as long as the story is good..."
This is where you've lost me. The scientific inaccuracies are the BIG PICTURE items. They're the things that usually the picture is predicated on and if fucked up, immediately should make the viewer's suspension of disbelief come to a screeching halt. However, the LITTLE THINGS - things that are simply implausible, not IMPOSSIBLE (aka scientific inaccuracies), are what tend to annoy you, so I think you've got it backwards.
The small picture issues are things like the van having a clear path on the road or not being destroyed by the airplane crash. They are unlikely events (though especially in the case of the crash, things like that do happen all the time) but the point is, if the writer/director had to have everything happen in the most likely scenario, it would bog the story down. If we had to follow Cruise and family as they found the highway too crowded, while he busted out the map and found the backroads route, would that have made the story better? Obviously not. Same goes with him finding another van and replacing its solenoid. So you have to give him a little license and say "okay, I don't really buy that he could nagivate that easily to his destination, but I believe he COULD get there" and leave it at that.
Futhermore, I could imagine many parallel stories with Cruise and Fanning-like characters, where the boat DID kill one of them, or they DID get permanently separated. But I can buy that it didn't for them, because in retrospect, it's THEIR story that gets told because that shit didn't happen. It's lucky, yes, but that's the kind of thing an extraordinary story has built into it. If they happened to be unlucky, it's not really worth retelling.
Once again (we talked about this in Signs), I don't believe it's worth getting all worked up about plot holes unless they're major constructs on which the whole story is based. There ARE issues like that here - the aliens' motivations, the effectiveness of their attacks, etc. But "who would win in a fight between Cruise and Robbins" is not one of them, nor is the fact that their van survived a nearby plane crash. A more interesting question (though also not worth trashing the entire movie for) would be "why did the TV reporter have a fully functional complement of electronic equipment in her van?" These things may be somewhat implausible but in my mind no moreso than any dramatic story is allowed. I don't disagree with you pointing them out, of course, it just seems that you're overreacting to them. This is made even more clear by the fact that you didn't like Spielberg's handling of Cruise's confrontation with Robbins, because I think most people will agree that it was actually quite effective and creepy.
I do agree with you about his son, and his sloppy motivations for leaving. And I too hate heartfelt moments when the world is crashing down around them. Also, as some other critics have pointed out, the Abyss scene was like an inferior version of one from Jurassic Park where the kids are trying to evade the raptors in the kitchen. This one wasn't done very well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe Swerb's rant above is the Family Guy equivalent of setting oneself on fire and running through a window. Put the lighter down, Swerb and just look the other way.
I'm surprised no one mentioned this mistake in the beginning: The fully-functional video camera that falls to the ground when the aliens went all "Destroy All Humans." Everything else electrical is down, but not this? And for no apparent plot reason.
I guess I can overlook these silly mistakes, plot concoctions and such because I wasn't expecting anything more than a big summer action fest. So in comparison to Mummy Returns and what not, it was pretty sweet to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the underlying basis of my argument is, if I'm emotionally involved with the movie, I don't notice all that niggling little crap that drives me nuts. And I'd like to amend my previous statement, and say I'm willing to accept ANY inconsistencies or plot holes as long as the story is good, or the characters are well-developed, or there's some sort of emotional connection there. Obviously, I didn't feel drawn into the movie, and therefore noticed all the inconsistencies. This is an example of good ol' BAD WRITING. I admit there are serious plot holes in Signs, but at least that movie took the time to develop its characters into something more interesting than Stock Spielbergian Archetypes (TM) who do nothing more than run and yell and run and yell and pause for a heartfelt moment then run and yell some more.
And Bert, what we have here, my friend, is a difference in philosophy. You say my arguments about the details don't matter in comparison to the scientific inaccuracies, which are, without argument, bigger issues. But WHY would Spielberg apparently not give a flying fuck about the details of his story? If you're not sold on things at least at face value, on the level of "human interest" (for lack of a better word), then you don't even get any deeper. I don't think any kid in the real world would act like his son did, and therefore, my suspension of disbelief is broken. I agree, having Cruise dig out a map and go Backroads Willie wouldn't have added anything to the story, but what does the (admittedly sweet) scene of him dodging pedestrians and stalled cars have to do with the story, either - other than giving Spielberg a chance to show off his nifty camera angles? You could just have them hop in a car, and cut to them pulling into the driveway of the house. That would eliminate the debate altogether.
And really, Bert, how plausible is it that aliens would plant their ships inside the earth, then zap themselves into their vehicles via lightning bolt, then decide to start vaporizing and/or collecting humans? What are the chances of alien life visiting Earth in the first place? By your argument, that's highly implausible if not nearly impossible scientifically, so you're granting the movie a major concession just by stepping into the theater, aren't you?
And c'mon, the scene with the Cruise/Robbins deathmatch/whatever just plain sucked! It was lame as hell! Why? I think Spielberg was trying to create a tense moment by not showing us what was happening, but I think he failed miserably. I just walked away saying, What the fuck was that? Gee, let's turn the camera away, then have Tom walk back in the room, and voila, this difficult problem is solved. It's a total cop-out, if you ask me. "I think most people will agree that it was actually quite effective and creepy," you say - well, I fart on that argument, because I could just as easily say that most people want to see or know what happened. And, for that matter, why do the aliens even give a shit about three people in a basement, anyway? Are they really that thorough?
And why, when they vaporize people, do the clothes not get vaporized, too? I know why - because it looks cool when you see clothes floating down from the sky. As John Douglas said, these aliens can destroy everything except a pair of pants.
Now, let me undermine my entire argument and say that my dislike of the film isn't always the most rational. The movie just bugged the crap out of me, on nearly all fronts. Maybe I am overreacting, but my gut keeps telling me that I don't like this movie. I wasn't that scared or enraptured by it on a fundamental level (the same level on which, say, Pulp Fiction appealed to me - when you see something that's sweet, you know it's sweet, and when you see something that's shitty, you know it's shitty, and there isn't always a logical explanation for it, just like why a Pearl Jam song is sweet to us, but sounds like a turd to someone else), and therefore, it failed, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and, by the way, Fantastic Four isn't that bad. I was entertained. It didn't take itself too seriously... it's cheesy and hokey and kind of dumb and very comic book-y, but it surpassed my (admittedly very low) expectations. I'm not even saying you should go to the theater to see it, but it's worth watching once. Plus, they do justice to The Thing (the only character they spend a significant amount of time with), which was important, in my mind. And he doesn't look too bad, either - better than the still pictures and trailers suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's times like these I wish we had a quote-reply system. I could build one but I don't know how it should work - if anyone has any ideas, speak up and I'll give it a shot.
Couple things:
And really, Bert, how plausible is it that aliens would plant their ships inside the earth, then zap themselves into their vehicles via lightning bolt, then decide to start vaporizing and/or collecting humans? What are the chances of alien life visiting Earth in the first place? By your argument, that's highly implausible if not nearly impossible scientifically, so you're granting the movie a major concession just by stepping into the theater, aren't you?
Yes, in fact I am. The difference is, though, that the alien invasion is part of the framework of the film. It's something inherently ridiculous that, as you say, you have to buy on some level before you even step into the theater. This is quite a bit different though, from violating internal consistency or otherwise throwing out reason altogether. Same goes for any comic book movie: we have to buy the idea of superhumans. However, there are still rules - that doesn't mean that we just say "anything goes."
As for odds of alien life visitng earth in the first place, that's not a very good argument in my mind. We don't know what the odds of that are. We just don't. It's not even something we could call implausible (certainly it's not even close to impossible) simply because of our lack of knowledge on the subject.
And c'mon, the scene with the Cruise/Robbins deathmatch/whatever just plain sucked! It was lame as hell! Why? I think Spielberg was trying to create a tense moment by not showing us what was happening, but I think he failed miserably. I just walked away saying, What the fuck was that? Gee, let's turn the camera away, then have Tom walk back in the room, and voila, this difficult problem is solved. It's a total cop-out, if you ask me. "I think most people will agree that it was actually quite effective and creepy," you say - well, I fart on that argument, because I could just as easily say that most people want to see or know what happened.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I think it worked better that we didn't see it. Sometimes these things are best left to your imagination. You could make an argument that Spielberg could have inserted a killer knock-down-drag-out fight here but in my mind this is simply an artistic decision. The idea, I think, was that the outcome was a foregone conclusion: in a War of the Worlds D&D game, Protective Father beats Crazy Guy In Basement every tiime. It was more about the psychology of killing the guy to save his daughter than it was about the act of killing him. You're free to pooh-pooh it, of course, but I think if you look at it from that angle it makes more sense.
Oh, and Jack: good point. I didn't catch that. That truly was sloppy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In a War of the Worlds D&D game, Protective Father beats Crazy Guy In Basement every tiime."
Heeheehee... very funny. I understand your argument, and I agree that it's an artistic decision - the reason Jaws was so fucking scary was because Spielberg didn't show us the shark. In my mind, though, the Cruise/Robbins thing didn't work. It didn't amplify the tension, because I was more concerned with what was happening OUTSIDE the house. Then, when Cruise comes back, he doesn't seem particularly messed up or hardened. I mean, he just killed a guy (we assume)!
Did we mention that, as soon as the aliens become inflicted with the bacteria, their machines cease to function correctly, and their shields disappear? I mean, if a guy has a heart attack while driving a car, does the engine turn off?
OK, all right, I'll light myself on fire and smash through a window now. No more nitpicking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And here's my Fantastic Four review, if anybody wants to peruse it (gave it two-and-a-half stars).
BY JOHN SERBA
THE GRAND RAPIDS PRESS
What separates the Fantastic Four from most comic-book superheroes is their celebrity status. These aren?t closeted do-gooders with secret identities ? they?re public figures who have to deal with fame as well as their mutated, irradiated DNA.
That?s one fundamental way ?Fantastic Four? differs from the summer?s other big comic book movie, ?Batman Begins.? And while ?Batman? is dark and gritty and oozing with twisted psychological depth, ?FF? is bright and cheery and entertainingly forgettable. Keep your expectations low, and this foursome will provide a pleasant distraction ? just don?t expect high art.
What you can expect is a cheesy, over-the-top, endearingly hokey comic-book flick rife with colorful sets and broad comic strokes. Example: Although it?s ironic that Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) yells ?flame on!? during his transformation into The Human Torch, it increases his marketability with the opposite sex. And he can make Jiffy Pop without using the stove.
But I?m getting ahead of myself. Johnny, his sister Sue (Jessica Alba), uber-scientist Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) and Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis) embark on a dangerous space mission along with financier-cum-astronaut Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon), whose name is a self-fulfilling supervillian prophecy if I?ve ever heard one.
The trip results in the group?s being bombarded with cosmic rays. Johnny becomes the aforementioned flamer, Richards becomes the stretchy Mr. Fantastic, Sue becomes the self-explanatory Invisible Woman and Grimm transforms into the rocky-skinned behemoth The Thing.
Meanwhile, the already cold, calculating, corporate creep Von Doom slowly turns into a metal-skinned man with the ability to discharge lightning, or something ? his abilities are never really clear, and funnybook diehards will bristle at this departure from creator Jack Kirby?s source material. Regardless, he eventually dons the mask and cowl of Dr. Doom, who sees the Fantatstic Four as his mortal enemies.
The emotional core of the story belongs to The Thing, who?s the most drastically altered of the heroes. His outward appearance is horrific, and his fiancee, probably mortified at the thought of having a rock-man?s little rock-children, leaves him, breaking his heart. He?s hard on the outside, but squishy on the inside (and he deserves his own movie, although that may be my comic-book-geek baggage talking).
Where The Thing represents the existential, angst-ridden side of superheroism, the Torch is the exact opposite, basking in his newfound fame and notoriety. Comparatively bland, Sue and Reed offer the group pseudo-paternal stability ? they?re ex-lovers trying to overcome Reed?s geeky tendency to apply the principles of science to everything in his life, including his latent feelings for Sue.
Granted, I?m lending the character dynamics more depth and analysis than the film rightly deserves. The story is heavy on origin, offers goofy humor as the heroes discover the range of their powers, and gives Von Doom thin motivation to antagonize the FF. The direction of Tim Story (?Taxi,? ?Barbershop?), the acting, the production design, the script and the special effects are all adequate, if unmemorable. But the movie doesn?t take itself seriously, providing light, inoffensive laughs and action. Its goofiness is its charm.
That being said, ?Fantastic Four? is further evidence that the PG-13 rating is increasingly useless ? compared to the horrific and bleak PG-13 of ?Batman Begins,? ?FF? is safe and kid-friendly. Not to damn it with faint praise, but it?s entertaining enough to warrant our attention, and it?s not a terrible waste of our eight bucks at the theater, even if it never really lights us on fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good review, Swerb. I'm just as ambiguous about seeing it as I was before reading it, though. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not to rekindle any kind of heated discussion, but I was just watching a commercial for the FF movie, and I saw an example of what I was talking about above, where I say you have to have initial buy-in to a ridiculous concept (eg superhuman powers) but it's not a free-for-all from then on, where the laws of physics go completely out the window. But that's what I saw in the commercial.
The Thing is on a bridge with a semi baring down on him. He braces himself, and the entire front-end of the truck folds around him as though he were part of the bridge itself. Now, this is just plain stupid, and it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
I can buy the Thing being made of orange rock.
I can buy that he's incredibly strong.
I can buy that he's able to withstand being hit by a speeding semi.
But notice, all these things are considered characteristics of the Thing himself. It's known in comic book lore that he has these qualities. He does not, however, have the ability (like it seems as though Superman, Juggernaut, or The Blob do) to somehow root himself to the earth.
What SHOULD have happened, and would make for probably an even more interesting spectacle, is he sees the imminent impact and rushes the truck, slamming into it. He would still fly like a thrown pebble striking a scooter, but he would have caused tremendous damage to the truck if he punched it at least. The simple fact of the matter is, though, that the Thing cannot (quickly) stop a speeding semi trailer. He didn't even budge when it hit him! THAT, my friends, is a recipe for resumption of disbelief. He acted in a way inconsistent with his powers. He can act in a way inconsistent with the known laws of physics, however, and I won't complain as long as we establish up-front that "for some unknown reason" he's able to.
I think the scene in Spider-Man 2 showed this concept in a much more realistic an interesting way. Spidey isn't as strong or durable as the Thing but it doesn't matter - neither could stop that train easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting... I could make a pretty good argument agreeing with Pearl Jam as the best American rock band ever, but not a very good one disagreeing with it... although I'm sure I'd put The Ramones, Nirvana and Sonic Youth in there somewhere near the top (the Ramones would be the only one that might battle for first place). Fun read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and as for our continued heated discussion, Bert, I agree with your observations about the FF movie. I even scoffed at the scene you describe. But I also have to add that context is everything... if the "world" the filmmaker creates, even if it resembles society as we know it and experience it, is deemed by us to be a purely fictional one, scientific inconsistencies are easier to swallow. I could argue that FF is based in a purely fantastical comic book world, while Spielberg's goal with WotW was to put an alien invasion in a believable, realistic context in order to amplify the horror of the situation. Whether either film succeeds is another question - and neither is a particularly good example.
To add another layer to it, if the characters are realistic and extract an emotional response from us even in an utterly absurd context, it can be just as effective (an example that comes to mind is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). By that token, it always makes more sense for whatever "world" in which the movie exists to have its own rules, and to stick to it, i.e., zombies in Shaun of the Dead are slow, lumbering and dangerous, not fast on their feet like in the Dawn of the Dead remake. As long as a movie is consistent on its own terms, I tend to be OK with it.
Actually, I guess I'm just elaborating on your argument with all my pseudo-intellectual wankery. I guess we might actually agree on this point. Imagine that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just thought I'd share this excerpt from Ebert's FF review, which made me laugh:
The Human Torch, to repeat, can burn at supernova temperatures! He can become so hot, indeed, that he could threaten the very existence of the Earth itself! This is absolutely stupendously amazing, wouldn't you agree? If you could burn at supernova temperatures, would you be able to stop talking about it? I know people who won't shut up about winning 50 bucks in the lottery.
But after Johnny Storm finds out he has become the Human Torch, he takes it pretty much in stride, showing off a little by setting his thumb on fire. Later he saves the Earth, while Invisible Woman simultaneously contains his supernova so he doesn't destroy it. That means Invisible Woman could maybe create a force field to contain the sun, which would be a big deal, but she's too distracted to explore the possibilities; she gets uptight because she will have to be naked to be invisible, because otherwise people could see her empty clothes; it is no consolation to her that invisible nudity is more of a metaphysical concept than a condition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Boyz;) Looks like you had a good time at the Bachelor Party. One week from today.....H-bomb and Rossterbator are going to be united. Big love! See you there.
K
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heather is hot;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zilla's Fantastic Four Review: Sucks! I think Swerb's review was too kind. Actually, it's not bad for the younger set (but then it makes no sense to be PG-13). Though I've never seen Spy-Kids, I would guess this is pretty similar stuff.
Meanwhile, Bells liked it. In fact, there was a preview for some Disney Generic Superhero Crapfest called "Sky High" that Bells was even anxious to see.
Now... who's this Kathleen?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kathleen is Heather's friend, the maid of honor at our wedding. She was over last night and was apparently feeling the need to put some comments down. Not sure what was so important now, in retrospect.
Anyway, I'm still on the fence about FF - the reviews are piss-poor, though. I probably will have to make it a rental.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I did not want to see it, but went with everyone anyways. If you think it will be good, you will be dissapointed. I thought it would suck, and it was not as bad as I thought. It was 'Meh'. A bit long in the middle, but a light, easy movie made for teens.
Rental - sure. Go see it in the theater? Only if you have nothing else to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He liked it too. So clearly Swerb is off his rocker.
|
|
|
|
