Fletch's Film Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Since I've covered this ground multiple times, let me get this out of the way quickly:

Yes, this movie is waaaaay....tooooo....loooong. With a running time of 2 hours and 47 minutes, a full 45-60 minutes could/should have been trimmed from the film. I could write a separate post detailing which minutes those should be (if I had fancy editing software, I'd be tempted to make my own "director's cut" and sell it - I could make millions, to be sure), but I'll spare you. You get the picture - it's bloated.

Now, going into the theater with that already firmly ingrained into my mind probably helped the rating it will earn. Whereas the second Pirates (at a comparatively brisk 2 and a half hours) surprised us with it's length, this one was expected. And within it all is a much better film than the second.

It's a shame, then, that the second film is a prerequisite for understanding what the heck is going on At World's End. Much like The Matrix: Reloaded, many plot points are picked up here, in what is mostly a continuation of the story line from Dead Man's Chest. Aside from the trio of main characters from the first film, other major characters such as Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbossa and Bill Nighy's Davy Jones return as well (as does Naomie Harris' grating Oracle, er, Tia Dalma).

But the story is almost immaterial. What you really want to know about are the effects, and by that I mean, how does Keith Richards look? Let me tell you - he's real, and he's spectacular.

Not really. He might as well have not been in the picture at all, as his cameo smacks of wink-wink-nod-nod "ain't it cool" desperation, and serves as a distraction to the already busy plot. Though he does seem rather lucid, which was a surprise, and his one or two lines were delivered effectively.

Though the film leaves you with the thinking that their will be a fourth Pirates in the near future, you can't help but hope that there's not, and that Depp isn't involved. Much like the Spider-Man franchise, I don't think many outside of hardcore fans are really clamoring for another in the series, and what little legacy there is to be found would be shattered by a fourth (just look at the Batman or Lethal Weapon series, or possibly the upcoming Die Hard sequel, for evidence of this; the fourth film in the series is almost always an abomination).

Then again, if Depp is on board without Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, then maybe they're on to something after all...

Fletch's Film Rating:

"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."

And then...

Still thinking...?

I'm not breaking any news by saying that Hollywood has run out of ideas. It's become a cliché, and I think most of us just shrug it off when we hear it.

What does shock me, however, is just how stunningly true it's become. A look at this list of the top films highest grossing films since the year 2000 from boxofficereport.com may stun you, as it did me. Of the top 20 films listed, a whole two are original (Shrek and Finding Nemo). TWO! All of the rest are works that are either sequels, remakes, book or graphic novel adaptations, or some combination of those.

Compare that to the 90s, and the number balloons to 12. The 80s? 13. I count 16 for the 70s, though my knowledge of the origins for all of the films may not be totally accurate.

This can be looked at one of two ways. The first way is the Chicken Little approach: CHAOS! MAYHEM! CATASTROPHE! The sky is falling!

The second way is a bit more logical, and looks more pragmatically at why this is the case. It looks at who is going to the movies these days and why, and which films end up as the top grossers.

It's no secret that Hollywood makes its money in summer and caters to Oscar in the fall and winter. Accordingly, those late year films are geared towards an older crowd, whereas the summer films are aimed at the prized younger demographic. As market research and analytics grow exponentially (the Internet doesn't hurt), so does Hollywood's understanding of exactly what to make, when to put it out, and where to release it. If the younger folks continue watching just about anything fed to them (I'm guilty of this as well - see this week's review of Pirates of the Caribbean for evidence of this), what incentive is there for Hollywood to come up with new ideas when blockbuster season comes around? After all, it's much easier to take an established brand (i.e., G.I. Joe) and craft a script and some special effects around it than it is to come up with something entirely original. Thrown in the added time and effort, not to mention the diminished risk with the brand, and it's a no-brainer.

In the end, we the consumers are the guiltiest parties. By continuing to line up in droves for "meh" material such as Spider-Man 3 and POTC: At World's End, we are reinforcing Hollywood's negative behavior. So join me in looking into the object at right when thinking about how unoriginal Hollywood has become.


(It should be noted that in no way am I saying that all adaptations are bad and all original material is good. After all, some of the best movies of the past few years [Children of Men, V for Vendetta, and 300 to name a handful] were adapted from a book or graphic novel. So there's certainly not a hard-and-fast rule. However, there is more than likely a strong correlation between remakes and badness, especially when TV is involved.)

And then...

Premeditated Musings

Sure, this is out of character, and the idea of a ramblings or random collection of ideas has been run into the ground, but it's my damn site (apologies, Googlebots) and I'll do what I want.

Anyway, I had some random sporting thoughts I felt compelled to share. Indulge me:

* Do you suppose that professional athletes fight each other to be the first to enter (or last to leave) the clubhouse/locker room/gym/whatever? I picture guys stalking others' houses to see what time their alarm is set for in order to make sure that they are there first and/or letting the air out of others' tires.

I get this feeling because it seems as though every profile or article written about any athlete talks about what a hard worker said profilee is. How they are the first to enter the building and the last to leave. How they shoot an infinite number of free throws every day or take batting practice for 32 hours a day or play catch with their QB on nights, weekends and holidays in order to get more chemistry.

I call shenanigans.

* Pardon me if I sit out on the UFC vs. boxing "battle" currently going on. Does it matter? One fringe sport may topple another. Whoop-di-do. Sue me, but I'm bored by both of them. If I really wanted to watch men pummel each other (and I don't), I'd just watch WWE and at least get some entertainment value out of it (the women "wrestlers" wouldn't hurt to see, either).

* While we're on the topic of insignificant "sports," can we all stop pretending that we care about horse racing, even though it only pops up in the mainstream media 3 times a year? How would your life change if a horse won the fabled Triple Crown? How would anyone's, outside of the owner or trainer's? The only reason horse racing (or dog racing) exists in general is for its gambling purposes. I can't believe that there is anyone that would willingly watch the ponies on a regular basis just for the hell of it. Let's just stop the charade.

And then...

In the battle between testosterone and estrogen, we all lose

I'd like to take you back in time to a simpler era. A time when the thought of the impending new millennium caused mass hysteria and forced many a cubicle worker to re-code bank software from 2-character years to 4-character years. A time when America had a President that could pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly. A time when Ben Affleck was considered a matinee idol - an A-lister, if you will.

The time was 1998 - specifically summer of that year. The first strike was made by estrogen. On May 8th, Deep Impact was released into theaters. The plot? A comet is headed for earth and will be here in a matter of weeks. How will the people of earth prepare? Will Tea Leoni rise to the position of network anchor? Will a senior citizen be able to cope in space? Will anyone care? These questions and many more were answered.

What was not answered - at least, not at its time of release, was whether or not Deep Impact would be a bigger, better film than the suspiciously similar-plotted Armageddon, directed by Bad Boys helmer Michael Bay, and exec produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, the master of subtlety.

Armageddon (stay with me) follows a group of kickass drillers who must rocket themselves into space to break up an asteroid (not a comet, mind you) that is headed straight for earth.

So which was the bigger film? Though not a landslide, the victory belonged to Bay and company, with Armageddon grossing just over $200 million, while Impact managed just $140 million.

But the battle for the title of "the better film" could not be decided by box office alone. Nor has IMDb solved the debate, as each film rates a stellar 5.8/10. Let's look at some other categories:

Cast

Though Armageddon features really only one woman in its cast (the unbearably annoying Liv Tyler), it's really not a close race. Impact's big names are Robert Duvall and Morgan Freeman, but there's a significant drop off after that, with Jon Favreau, Elijah Wood and Tea Leoni being the next biggest names (and don't forget Helen Hunt, Jr. - er, Leelee Sobieski). Armageddon, meanwhile, features Bruce Willis, Owen Wilson, Billy Bob Thornton, Steve Buscemi, Benaflek, William Fichtner and Peter Stormare. On second thought, it's closer than I imagined, but Willis and Co. are certainly the more entertaining bunch.

Cheese Factor

Deep Impact brings us heavy-handed sentimentality and a news anchor plot we could care less about. It also features a character named Biederman, which I find funny all by itself. Armageddon features animal crackers on a stomach. 'Nuff said.

Special Effects

Armageddon starts off with a bang, destroying much of Paris in the opening scenes. The bulk of the remaining effects take place of a crappy sound stage (sorry..."ASTEROID") and consist of scared drillers driving golf carts up and down hills. Yawn.

Impact may be talky, but the finale delivers. As the small meteor hits earth (smack dab into the Atlantic), a tidal wave engulfs New York, the Eastern seaboard is flooded, and Ron Eldard does his worst acting job playing a blind astronaut. Ok, so that's not an effect, but it had to be mentioned.

Directors

In one corner, we have the root of all evil in this world - Michael Bay, director of such Oscar-nominated films as The Rock, Pearl Harbor, and The Island. In the other corner, Mimi Leder, who (prior to Impact) directed Clooney and Kidman in the never-seen-by-anyone The Peacemaker and who in 2000 directed Pay It Forward, also known as "that terrible movie with the kid from The Sixth Sense and Kevin Spacey with a burned face."

It pains me to give the victory to Bay.

Soundtrack

Deep Impact contributed nothing to the world in terms of music. Armageddon gave us Aerosmith singing "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing."

Guess who wins this contest?

The Verdict

Well, I told you this right in the title of this post. No one wins, because we all lose. If you want to watch something overtly masculine (coughovercompensatingcough) and/or laughably bad (not that the two are necessarily intertwined), then Armageddon is most certainly the film for you. On the other hand, if you want some story and sentiment with your destruction, it's Impact all the way.

And if you're NFL Adam, you want Independence Day. Why, I have no idea...

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Black Book

Black Book, the new film by Total Recall and Basic Instinct director Paul Verhoeven, is far and away the best Dutch film I have seen this year. Well, actually, I think it's the best Dutch film that I have ever seen, since it's probably the only Dutch film I've ever seen. Stick that on your posters, Sony! It's also far and away the best Verhoeven film that I've seen in ten years. Well, that's not fair, either - the last movie he directed was the abominable Hollow Man, and that was in 2000. Before that? 1997's Starship Troopers (one of my top Underrated Films) - and that movie kicks ass (albeit in a terrible way).

All kidding aside, though it's not really my style of film, Black Book is a solid movie - well acted (I think - it's mostly in Dutch, though there is a decent chunk of English in there as well), historically detailed (I'd say accurate, but I wasn't alive int he 40s) and intense. It takes places in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands, focusing on a Jewish woman trying to stay alive at any cost, sacrificing parts of her soul and losing many individual battles along the way. Star Carice van Houten gives what many would call a "bare, revealing performance," but those are really just thinly veiled code words for "she gets naked a lot," which shouldn't be all that surprising considering the director. In fact, it would be somewhat shocking to not have brutal violence and nudity with Verhoeven at the helm.

However, Verhoeven manages to tone down his in-your-face stlye for the most part, turning Black Book into a mostly earnest period piece that tells an important story and could probably be mistaken for an Anthony Minghella or Merchant-Ivory production at times. The story is strong, with the only annoying thing being the never ending theme chiming in and telling you how to feel for much of the movie. We get it - this is a dramatic portion of the film - no need to beat us over the head with it.

Fletch's Film Rating

"Darn tootin!"


Finally, though I'm pretty sure no one reading this will recognize the name (much less care), I need to point out that Sebastian Koch (seen recently in The Lives of Others, reviewed here) gives a strong performance again here. If you happen to see either Black Book or Others, please let me know which American actor he reminds you of - I have a name on the tip of my tongue, but can't place it. Powers Boothe, maybe? The (non-American) guy that played the bad guy in The Fugitive? Anyway, help would be appreciated.

And then...

Build 'em up...Tear 'em down. (kinda)

I guess all the press surrounding Live Free or Die Hard is just getting to me. There's only so much I can take, reading about how John McClane is an "analog hero in a digital world." Really? Do we really know (much less care) that much about John McClane to say that he hates technology? It's not like there's really all that much "character" written into your standard action flick and, good as they are, the Die Hard series still isn't Shakespeare. Besides, this is still the guy who uttered the cornball line "Just the fax, ma'am" in Die Hard 2. But the technological savvy of the former alcoholic McClane (and subsequent speculation his digital prowess) is what got me to thinking about how "hack-y" Bruce Willis had become. Overhyped films will tend to annoy you like that.

Unfortunately, I can't say that I have much of a case for "tearing Willis down" to put forth, as a glance at Willis' filmography demostrates little to no change in the overall quality (or volume) of films that he has produced over the past two decades.

See, aside from the the barrage of media for Live Free, I'm also reminded of the recent stinkbomb Perfect Stranger, not to mention the commercial failure of 16 Blocks ($37 million) and Lucky Number Slevin ($22 million). However, Willis has also recently had hits with Over the Hedge ($155 million), Sin City ($74 million), and Grindhouse (critically only).

Looking back through his filmography, a similar pattern seems to emerge. Willis' hit to stinker ratio is roughly 3.5:1, and he's done that with remarkable consistency throughout his career. Choose any sampling period and they all pretty much look the same. First, let's look at the beginning of his career, starting with the film that made him who he is today, Die Hard, in 1988. After that came:

* In Country
* Look Who's Talking
* Die Hard 2
* Look Who's Talking 2
* The Bonfire of the Vanities

Not a terrible stretch, I suppose, but not great, either. For reference, the IMDb rating (out of 10) for each of those (respectively) is 5.6, 5.4, 6.8, 3.7, and 5.0 (the first Die Hard scores an 8.1).

Moving along, 1994 brought a renaissance of sorts for Willis, with the gigantic commercial, critical, and cultural success of Pulp Fiction (it holds an 8.8 rating, good enough for the 5th ranked film in IMDb's database). After that came:

* North (4.1)
* Color of Night (4.6)
* Nobody's Fool (7.1)
* Die Hard: With a Vengeance (7.1)
* Four Rooms (6.1), and
* Twelve Monkeys (8.0, and the 189th ranked overall)

In fact, from Pulp to Monkeys is easily Bruce's glory stretch. After that, not so much. Sure, there have been some good films sprinkled in over the last decade (Unbreakable, The Sixth Sense, The Fifth Element, and the films mentioned at the top of this post), but the clunkers are often and unmistakable (The Story of Us, Bandits, Mercury Rising, The Whole Nine [and Ten] Yards, Hart's War).

So goes Bruce's career. While not nearly the money grubbing hound that Nic Cage has become, nor the film slut that Travolta is, Willis has tendencies in common with both, but manages to get a critical or commercial hit (or both) thrown into the mix every now and then.

I guess my point (or wish, being someone who generally likes Willis) is that I would like to see Bruce show some restraint. The guy is obviously talented as an actor (see Sixth Sense or Twelve Monkeys for examples) and can't possibly be hurting for money, so why not take one fewer project a year to even out that ratio, and, in the end, possibly restore some of that mid-'90s lustre back to his career?

Either way, just shut up about the personality traits of one John McClane. As if anyone really gives a sh*t.

And then...

This picture is rated "R"

In case you haven't heard, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is going to start taking onscreen smoking into account when rating a film, placing it along the same lines as sex, language, gore, and violence, amongst other things.

Granted, they didn't go as far as the anti-smoking lobbyists wanted them to go - that being an automatic R rating for smoking, but "film raters will consider the pervasiveness of tobacco use, whether it glamorizes smoking and the context in which smoking appears, as in movies set in the past when smoking was more common," says the Associated Press.

Nonetheless, I'm baffled. Unless you've been living under a rock, you know smoking is bad for you. That point is not debatable. In fact, you can talk about all the reasons that this is right all you want, and I probably wouldn't debate you on many of them. To demonstrate this point, I will now go into "Cliched Ask Myself Questions Mode":

* Should smoking be marketed to children/teens via film? Certainly not. Kids don't need any additional motivation to smoke, as peer pressure and the desire to be "cool" or "rebellious" is motive enough.

* Does onscreen smoking generally serve a purpose central to the plot of the film? I doubt it, though I would probably argue that in many cases it helps to establish a character.

* Is it in the best interest of the general public to see less smoking onscreen? Begrudgingly, I would probably say yes here.

So those are some good reasons, or at least some good intentions for reducing onscreen smoking/taking smoking into account when rating a film. That said, the idea is offensive - to smokers and non-smokers alike. Let me count the ways:

* Sure, smoking is a dangerous activity, linked to 8 kajillion deaths a year and generally responsible for the decline of Western civilization. Guess what? Lots of people die in car accidents, too. Alcohol causes a lot of deaths per year - does that mean if there's a bar scene in a movie that it will likely be rated R? Somehow, I doubt it. Just like with the myriad tobacco taxes over the years, somehow alcohol seems to get a free pass in the healthcare p.r. machine.

* Let me see if I get this straight - you can show someone murder another person (or perhaps many, many other persons) and have no problem getting a PG-13 rating (if not PG), but smoking carries a potentially harsher penalty? Don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of blaming film and television for all of the sex and/or violence in the world, I just see a major inconsistency. It's akin to calling sexual harassment a felony while classifying rape as a misdemeanor.

* Speaking of classifying, I'm a little confused as to what it means to "glamorize smoking." I would love an example of this; the closest I can come up with is a film made by (and for) smokers (and java junkies) called Coffee & Cigarettes. Or perhaps another called (!) Smoke. But aside from films where smoking is part of the basis for the film's existence, where else does this "glamorization" occur? Is glamorization just a code word for "a lot of smoking" in a film? Does Pulp Fiction glamorize smoking? After all, Quentin Tarantino went to the trouble of "creating" his own brand of cigarettes for his films ("Red Apple"). But I like to think that he's just helping to create his own universe and/or setting a mood - I mean, he also thought up "Big Kahuna" burger...

The point is this: where does the line get drawn? While I'm not calling for anyone's head, I certainly do think this is a free speech issue. Will we get to the point that we all deem the eating of fatty foods to be so negative that the depiction of eating said foods onscreen will go a long way towards getting a harsher rating? (I'm looking at you, Nutty Professor.) What about depicting people who don't wear sunscreen? After all, skin cancer kills, and those who flaunt society's conventions by not protecting their epidermis should not glamorize such rampant disregard for el sol to the kids.

I weep for the day...

And then...

The 1st Annual Summer Movie Preview

(Editor's note: I give up on formatting this for now. I will fix it later, but it's frustrating the hell out of me trying to make this look just right. I apologize for the sloppiness of it.)

Well, this has been over hyped, that's for sure (though I may be the only person noticing this phenomenon).

Anyway, I wanted to get my box office predictions down before the summer started so that I could come back to them in August or so and see how I had done (note: I am bad at this, as evidenced by prior posts in this space; for good predictions, please visit http://www.boxofficereport.com/).

As a self-professed movie geek, I have subscribed to Premiere magazine for many years now. Each year for summer, they publish an issue in which they give recaps and predictions for the top 20 films, with a look at some other films to keep an eye out for as well. This is basically the same concept - it ain't rocket science, after all. First up, the predictions (which, thanks to my awesome job on Spider-Man 3 are guaranteed to be wrong. Nonetheless, I'm sticking to my guns and still putting it where I originally said it would be. You never know...):

1. Shrek the Third
This film is virtually guaranteed to disappoint everyone who sees it (a la Spider-Man 3), but it's also destined to become a smash. It's also one of a few big-name kids movies coming out (some others being Ratatouille and Surf's Up) this summer, and it's the first released. From the previews, it looks like more of the same here, though some "dronkeys" (Donkey's kids with the dragon chica) are thrown into the mix.. Add some fart jokes, some zany pop-culture references, and blend.

Prediction: $280 million

2. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Midget Daniel Radcliffe and the rest of the gang are back in this fifth episode of the Potter saga. Expect it to keep getting darker, with more appearances by Lord Rhinoplasty and more fights between the Gryffindors and Snapes, or something like that. Somehow this series has avoided much of a letdown from one movie to the next (though the third, Prisoner of Azkaban, is the best of the bunch), so I expect this film to be no exception, despite its whodat director (David Yates).

Prediction: $270 million

3. Spider-Man 3
This ground has already been covered. A major letdown, yet the masses (myself included) have already proven my prediction wrong. Oh well.

Prediction: $240 million

4. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Fun fact time: the first Pirates film clocked in at 143 minutes. Long, but understood, considering the amount of story told and all of the characters set up. The second film clocked in at 150 minutes, though it felt like it was about 6 hours too long and desperately needed an editor. But it ended on a cliffhanger, so people must be sucked in to the third, right? Well, this one comes in at a whopping 167 minutes - 17 minutes longer than the bloated second. 3 hours for a movie based on a thrill ride? I'll pass.

Prediction: $195 million

5. Transformers
I'm like a see-saw here. I'm putting this movie this high in spite of my instincts, and based solely on the hype and winning combination of Bay and Bruckheimer. For some reason, people are still drawn to them like moths to a flame. Meanwhile, this film has been made for 15-year old boys who probably have no idea what the difference is between Optimus Prime and Prime Rib. Then again, Shia LaBeouf is starring, and he's a hit with the kids. So who knows?

Prediction: $180 million

6. Surf's Up
Continuing the LaBeouf trend, here's his contribution to the animated kids movie genre. In what must (hopefully) become the last piece of animated penguins for some time, Shia voices a surfing penguin who must overcome a much bigger rival and...yada yada yada. As if the story matters - the kids will drag their parents kicking and screaming to this one.

Prediction: $170 million

7. Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer
While it's pretty well accepted that the first one was a bad film filled with bad acting and little to no story, it still made a boatload of money - enough to warrant this sequel. If you listen to the talk from the film's stars, they pretty much admit to the badness of the first and claim they were "chained to the constraints of an origin tale." Normally, the origin tales are the best in the series (Batman, Spider-Man, etc.), but I'm willing to cut them some slack. Heck, it can't get worse, can it? (And the effects do look pretty cool.)

Prediction: $165 million

8. The Bourne Ultimatum
Against all odds, I'm betting that this, too, will be a solid action flick. Despite having the slightest of plots for one movie, much less three, the Bourne series rolls on, with director Paul Greengrass (United 93) back again at the helm. For this installment, Matt Damon's Jason Bourne ventures back to the States to finally shut down the secret governmental agency that set him up in the first. Meanwhile, the series continues its tradition (and probably secret to its success) of featuring strong character actors onboard to complement Damon, including Chris Cooper, Brian Cox, Joan Allen, and David Straithairn.

Prediction: $160 million

9. Knocked Up
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see one climb higher up the list. Seth Rogen, the best part of The 40-Year Old Virgin, gets his own feature here, starring alongside Katherine Heigl as unprepared parents-to-be. Brought to you by the makers of Virgin - expect a hit.

Prediction: $150 million

10. Evan Almighty
Finally - the last sequel in the top 10. If you're keeping score at home, that's four "Part Threes," two "Part Twos," and a "Part Five," and that's not even counting Ocean's Thirteen, Hostel II, or Live Free or Die Hard (or any other sequels I may be missing). Hollywood ran out of ideas 10 years ago - at this point, it's just ridiculous. Everything can and will have a sequel if it is even remotely successful. Expect The 42-Year Old Virgin to hit theaters next year...

Prediction: $140 million

Other films to keep an eye out for:

* Sicko, the latest doc (tackling the medical industry) from Michael Moore.

* The Simpsons Movie, now with more Wiggum than ever before!

* 1408, a hit-or-miss horror/thriller featuring John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson. Based on a story by Stephen King.

* Hot Rod, the first feature starring SNL hit Andy Samberg. He plays an accident-prone daredevil - physical comedy fans should be lining up right now.

That does it - I'm spent.

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: 28 Weeks Later

Just the other day, I mentioned to a friend on mine (also a film geek) how I had seen 28 Weeks Later over the weekend. He looked at me quizzically.

"28 Weeks Later," I said.

Nothing.

"The sequel to 28 Days Later. You know, the zombie flick with Cillian Murphy?"

He was not aware that there was a sequel in existence, much less currently in the theaters, despite his owning the first. This either represents a horrible marketing effort by the folks over at Fox Atomic (which would be a shame, considering the excellent trailer they put out, featuring a great song by Muse. Watch it in HD if you can.), or he has become terribly unaware of the current goings on in the pop culture universe, considering that 28 Weeks Later was the biggest release in theaters this week. Either way, it's a shame.

28 Weeks Later is easily one of the better sequels that has been put out recently, and would stand up quite well even if the first film had not existed. This is partly attributed to the fact that none of the actors from the first film are in this one (Cillian Murphy was busy shooting Sunshine for Days director (and Weeks producer) Danny Boyle), but mostly attributed to the obvious skills of Spanish director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. Though this is just his second feature (the first was the Spanish-language thriller Intacto), this film expands on the images from the first, all the while creating deeper characters while never forgetting that this is a "zombie" movie in the end.

The story takes place yet again in London, some six months after the first (hence the title, see?), in a "green zone" deemed safe by the now-in-charge U.S. military. The virus thought contained, survivors are now being brought back to their hometown. You can probably guess what happens next. Maybe.

Featuring a cast of mostly unknowns (the only exceptiona being Boyle's Trainspotting alum Robert Carlyle and Lost's Harold Perrineau), Fresnadillo spends much of the non-zombie time setting a serene atmosphere, with sweeping aerial views and almost-silent scenery shots. The shots of such an empty, beyond-peaceful London (on display as well in the first) could make for an interesting film in and of themselves, and the film gives off a vibe similar to that of the supremely underrated 2003 film Code 46. Luckily, when all hell breaks loose, the film doesn't follow suit and break down as well, and will leave you waiting for 28 Months Later.

Some leftover thoughts:

* The two kids featured are both relative, if not total newcomers to film, and they do a great job. That's not the crazy part, though - their names are. The daughter is played by one Imogen Poots and the son played by young Mr. Mackintosh Muggleton. I'm sure his family is just thrilled with J.K. Rowling...

* Killer poster - best of the year so far, and much better than the one they are currently using on IMDb (at right, though that one is pretty good as well).

* I doubt they were thinking sequel when the first was made, but regardless, someone deserves kudos for the ready-made sequel name (though I couldn't see it being realistically used beyond 28 Years Later). Aside from not being an unoriginal title like most sequels, it has a built-in plot. Perfect.

* Though I won't give it away, I didn't like the (absolute) ending at all. If you see it and wish to discuss, let me know. I found it to be easily the film's biggest flaw.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Darn tootin'!"

And then...

Greatest cast...ever?

"Now, ask yourself, has there ever been a greater cast ever assembled in the history of cinema? Honestly."

So said The Hater Nation's NFL Adam just a few days ago, in reference to the cast of The Cannonball Run. And yes, the cast is impressive, though terribly dated for not being even 30 years old - many of its "stars" are glorified B-listers at this point: Farrah Fawcett? A joke. Dom DeLuise? He wishes he were relevant enough to still be a joke. Adrienne Barbeau? No one under 35 knows who she is.

You get the point.

So, it wasn't without some sense of coincidence, then, that Boogie Nights was playing (seemingly on a loop) on IFC this past weekend. The 1997 porn-world saga (easily one of the top films to come out in the last 20 years) just so happens to have a cast that blows (no pun intended) Cannonball away, not to mention just about any other ensemble you can think of (though we'll see about that...). By my count, it features no less than 11 actors who have either "starred" or been the main "co-star" in a major motion picture (not to mention a number of porn stars who have surely "starred" in hundreds of films - I'm looking at you, Nina Hartley). Let's run down the lineup:

* Mark Wahlberg (starred in a number of films; Oscar nominee for The Departed)
* Burt Reynolds (ditto; Oscar nominee for this film)
* Julianne Moore (4-time Academy Award nominee; star of the horrible film The Forgotten)
* Don Cheadle (Oscar-nominated star of Hotel Rwanda)
* William H. Macy (Oscar nominee for Fargo, star of The Cooler)
* Heather Graham (not much of an actress, but a star in her own right)
* Philip Seymour Hoffman (Oscar winner for Capote)
* John C. Reilly (Oscar nominee for Chicago; Will Ferrell's main man in Talladega Nights)
* Alfred Molina (acclaimed supporting actor: Frida, Spider-Man 2, Raiders of the Lost Ark)
* Thomas Jane (star of Deep Blue Sea, The Punisher; won praise for playing Mickey Mantle in 61*)
* Luis Guzman (tree-mendous character actor: Out of Sight, Traffic)
* Philip Baker Hall (star of Hard Eight (renamed Sydney), famously played the librarian "Bookman" on Seinfeld)

That list speaks for itself, if you ask me. But instead, I'll ask you. Below, I have listed a few choices (off the top of my head) for best ensemble casts - vote for one (or "Other" if you don't like my choices) or, even better, send me your own choice - with or without a write up - of what you think is the best cast ever assembled.

Which movie has the best cast EVER ASSEMBLED?
	Boogie Nights (see above)
	The Cannonball Run (see above)
	Ocean's Thirteen (Clooney, Pitt, Damon, Pacino, Garcia, etc.)
	True Romance (Pitt, Walken, Hopper, Slater, Arquette, Oldman, Gandolfini, Sam Jackson, Rappaport, etc.)
	The Departed (DiCaprio, Damon, Nicholson, Wahlberg, Baldwin, Sheen, etc.)
	Glengarry Glen Ross (Spacey, Baldwin, Lemmon, Pacino, Arkin, Ed Harris, Jonathan Pryce)
	Magnolia (Cruise, Macy, Moore, Reilly, Robards, Molina, Hall)
	The Godfather (Pacino, Brando, Caan, Duvall, Keaton, etc.)
	Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (Sneezy, Doc, Grumpy, Bashful, etc.)
	Other
Free polls from Pollhost.com

And then...

Run for the hills

We conclude guest column week with The Hater Nation's NFL Adam, a leading "sponsor" of Blog Cabins and one hell of a knowledgeable guy, whether it comes to sports or film or even Liberace. Today, he will take you back in time (1981, to be exact) to a simpler time, when Loni Anderson was considered a megababe and young Fletch was just a precocious first-grader (or so). Time to hop into the way-back machine....


--------------------------------------------

A little indulgence here - take a look at the opening minutes of one of the greatest movies in the history of cinema and take a look at the names of the cast as they appear on the screen.



Burt Reynolds (money)… Roger Moore (money)… Farrah Fawcett (money)… Dom DeLuise (money)… Dean Martin (do you even have to ask?)… Sammy Davis Jr. (money)… Jack Elam (money) (and the rest listed in alphabetical order), Adrienne Barbeau (money), Terry Bradshaw (money), Jackie Chan (money), Bert Convy (money), Jamie Farr (money), Peter Fonda (money), and so on.

Now, ask yourself, has there ever been a greater cast ever assembled in the history of cinema? Honestly. The only other possible names that could have made this even bigger would have been Nipsey Russell and McLean Stevenson. (And truthfully, they probably tried to get them.) And most people think of this as nothing more than your average popcorn flick. A mindless collection of entertainers doing nothing more than entertaining, with more emphasis on mugging for the camera than of actually acting. Hell, Frank Sinatra signed on for Cannonball Run II because Dean and Sammy raved about how much fun they had on the first one, according to the director’s commentary.

And yes, there is a director’s commentary for this movie.

But is that it? No. Not by a long shot. The Cannonball Run is one of the most important films of our (or possibly any) generation.

America really missed out on the true meaning of the film. While often dismissed as mindless crap on par with other Burt Reynolds/Hal Needham vehicles, The Cannonball is really an indictment of the American medical industry.

It’s true. Consider:

Farr plays a Muslim doctor whose sister implores him not to join the infidel Americans in that stupid race. But not just an automobile race, rather a race for superiority in the American medical industry.

The entire picture is pleading for America to move into a socialistic form of medicine. The ambulance, driven across the country in search of a monetary reward, is a metaphor of the American medical industry’s pursuit of material gains, instead of healing. Not looking for cures, we have rouge doctors, posing as humanitarians, driving around the country with money as their lone priority. Reynolds and DeLuise kidnap an innocent woman (Fawcett), convince her that she is sick, pumping her full of drugs she does not need. This illustrates the current state of the pharmaceutical companies whose main agenda is pushing more drugs down the throats of hapless Americans. The doctors then leave the true helpless victim, George Furth (an environmentalist, no less), to die on the streets. Furth’s only crime is trying to uncover the great conspiracy of modern medicine. He plays the hapless folly in the picture, showing just how futile resistance really is.

Elam plays an incompetent doctor who displays only rare moments of lucidity, often only surfacing when directly confronted by the police. The bumbling cops represent the American government that is powerless to stop him. During the waning moments of the film, Elam remains incapacitated because of drugs.

The most moving theme of the picture is when Martin and Davis, dressed as priests, sabotage the ambulance. This signifies the church’s original role in the Red Cross, whose true purpose was to help the sick and not chase money. Martin and Davis’ defiance is punished by a right-wing police officer doing the bidding of the American medical community.

While Cannonball has the best cast in the history of cinema and is a pure entertainment delight, it might also be one of the most important films of our generation. Something that should be studied for generations and given the recognition that it deserves.

--------------------------------------------

I didn't want to tell Adam this, but I've never seen The Cannonball Run from start to finish. It's safe to say that this is due to my rampant dislike of Burt Reynolds (I'd hardly call Dom DeLuise or Jamie Farr "money," either, but that's neither here nor there), but after reading this, I'm more than willing to give Jack Horner a chance. Considering that I'm the guy that can quote Fletch Lives, I'm hardly one to judge.

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Spider-Man 3

To call Spider-Man 3 a failure along the lines of Joel (hack) Schumacher's Batman & Robin would be a slap in the face to Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, and anyone else involved with the Spiderman franchise. However, to call it a colossal disappointment compared to its predecessors (much like both Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were compared to the Tim Burton-directed first two Caped Crusader films) is pretty much spot on.

Suffering from "sequelitis," Spider-Man 3 is bloated in terms of both time and characters, while simultaneously being empty and devoid of any real characters. How ironic, as one of the trailers shown just prior to the film was for Shrek the Third. In it, the voice over couldn't stop saying the words "More ___!" As in, "More funny!" or "More danger!" or "More stupidity!" You get the drift.

Why do "they" always think that "More!" is the answer when it comes to sequels? If your characters and story are strong, you don't need to blow the audience away with what amounts to little more than window dressing - if you are going to, at least ensure that the new additions are adding substance to the franchise. The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise is also heading down this route - what started as something based in a place somewhere in the vicinity of reality has turned into a sci-fi/CGI freak fest, where anything is possible, and everything has something to do with a pirate. Strange, since I don't recall any of these things from the Disneyland ride, and I never realized there were that many pirates in the world to begin with. But this is, after all, a Jerry Bruckheimer production we're talking about. I should not be surprised in the least.

Anyhow, back to Spider-Man 3. What started as a strong franchise with the first, then gained momentum even with the second, has taken a large step backwards with this installment. Gone is any sense of magic or discovery - replaced only by MORE effects (!!), choppily edited action sequences, and campy bad dialogue. It's also bloated to almost two and a half hours.

(Note: spoilers ahead)

For starters, the character of the Sandman is totally useless. His backstory (it turns out HE was the actual killer of Uncle Ben) feels forced, as if the writers (Sam Raimi and his brother, amongst others) felt they needed some extra gravitas brought to the film. Thomas Haden Church, playing Sandman, is given hackneyed lines and a sappy purpose - he was only trying to get some money to save his daughter! He didn't mean any harm! The gunfire was an accident! Who cares? Good as Haden Church may be in other roles, he's wasted here (in more ways than one - he's probably only on screen for five minutes; the rest of the time, "he" is just sand). Cutting his character would have trimmed a good 20-25 minutes from the film.

It's not like they needed gravitas, either. The most interesting plot of the series has been not Peter and Mary Jane's on-again/off-again romance, but Peter's ongoing friction with his best friend, Harry Osborne, whose father Peter/Spidey had a hand in killing. This part of the story plays out well in the first act, only to be rendered ridiculous, as Harry/New Goblin suddenly develops a convenient case of short-term memory loss as if it were a cold that some fourth-grader passed on to him. Insults are later added to "injury" as Harry becomes slightly retarded, apparently a result of his amnesia, and as he telegraphs his fate to the audience, in one of the worst cases of foreshadowing I've ever seen on film (Harry to random nurse, after nurse tells him that he has great friends (Peter/MJ): "They are great...I'd give my lives for them."

Are you effing kidding me?

I'll spare you details from the rest, as it just goes downhill from there. To sum up:

* The Venom character is underused, yet very cool.
* Sand flies without the aid of wind (I'm willing to buy into a lot of sci-fi conventions here, including how a man made of sand also has clothes made of sand, but this one was too much for me).
* Harry (!!) dies saving his friend, just minutes after uttering such cheesy lines as "Hey - do you mind helping me out here?" in the midst of a deadly action sequence - glad the mood was light.
* MJ apparently does not shampoo when her life is in turmoil. Apparently, this is how the filmmakers have decided to inform us of her moods - via how homeless she looks. Dirty, frazzled hair? Unhappy MJ. Clean, bouncy hair? Happy MJ. Shoot me.
* Peter becomes infected with obnoxiousness and does his best BeeGees impersonation, to the giddy delight (er, embarrassed laughter) of the ladies of NYC.
* Fletch stops caring about the Spider-Man franchise.


Fletch's Film Rating:

"Whatever."

And then...

(Mrs.) Fletch's Favored Five: Movies that Open Well

Guest column week continues today with the lovely, beautiful and talented Mrs. Fletch picking up some of my slack (she's good at that). I can't remember if she suggested it or I did, but her task was to write a "Fletch's Favored Five," a feature I have yet to establish all that much around here, but hopefully this post will help to that end. Let's see what she's come up with...

-------------------------------------------------

Upon receiving the assignment of guest blogger, I was a bit overwhelmed… I’m not a writer, nor nearly the movie geek that Fletch is. Then I remembered, write about what you know. So the topic of today’s rant is about good…no…make that great design in opening movie credits. These are the (mostly) unsung graphic heroes who create the coolest movie credits, but are lucky to have their name listed in them, really tiny, at the end.

Mrs. Fletch’s Great 5 Movie Opening Credits

5. Casino Royale
by Pauline Hume

Fractal geometric patterns of flowing playing cards, lyrics sung by Chris Cornell is a nice bonus too.

4.5. Fight Club
by Custom Film Effects

These folks also did the fantastic effects for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

4.25. One Hour Photo
by Imaginary Forces

A beautifully delicate treatment of flash bulbs and film — stark and antiseptic, just like the movie

(no link available)

4. Se7en
by Kyle Cooper

A scratchy, twisted glimpse into the mind of a serial killer.

3. Around the World in 80 Days
by Saul Bass

Simplicity at it’s best. Considered a master title designer, Saul Bass is one of few truly famous designers in this genre.

http://www.notcoming.com/saulbass/caps_around80days.php

2. Thank You for Smoking
by Shadow Play Studio

The credits are set up like old-style cigarette packs, complete with the little tax stamps. Very cool. Great music too.

http://shadowplaystudio.com/smoking.html

1. Catch Me if You Can
by Olivier Kuntzel and Florence Deygas

Nexus Productions must have cloned a modern-day Saul Bass.

-------------------------------------------------

I guess I shouldn't be shocked that a graphic designer chose to honor other designers. Excellent choices all around, if you ask me - my only gripe is how far down Fight Club slipped, but that's just because that film is one of my favorites. The only film I've not seen on this list is Around the World in 80 Days, but I am familiar with Bass's work (it's awesome) - his movie posters are legendary, and check out some of the big-time logos he's responsible for ("I did not know that!" - Dana Carvey as Johnny Carson).

Thank you, my dear - great stuff. If you want to check out Mrs. Fletch's graphic work, just go here.

And then...