2008-07-22: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Update: It's showing free on the website again, thanks to Hulu.

I know that I really screwed up huge for not putting this up until the free Internet viewing period had passed (two days ago), but it's still well worth talking about. The story goes that during the great writers' strike of '08 Joss Whedon wrote, with some help, a three act, one shot musical comedy about a super villian for the Internet. Well, that has happened and is finished and was delightful beyond belief. You can still view the trailer, but you have to pay to see the whole thing now (without breaking copyright law, anyway). It's only $4 for all three parts on iTunes, though, and easily worth the price. There will also be a DVD out some time in the hopefully near future. The trailer gives a decent idea of the flavor of the piece and those familiar with any of Joss' past work should have no reservation about shelling out a little cash for the unbridled joy this production gives.

2008-03-14: Sara Silverman vs. Jimmy Kimmel

Genius. Celebrity practical jokes are just on a completely different level.

2007-08-14: High Speed Camera from Japan

Yeah, this is just really cool. (If you find it takes too long to buffer, you can download it here.)

2007-05-15: Spider-Man 2

A lot of people seem to think this movie is the best comic book/superhero movie of all time. I think it is crap. It doesn't make any sense. I'm not just hating. I liked the first one a lot. But nobody can explain to me why this sequel is supposed to be so good. My biggest problem with it is that supposedly Peter deals with all the problems he's having and is able to overcome them. The movie starts out with half an hour of showing why his life sucks because he has to be Spiderman. I got the point after five minutes. I hate when stories do this. Spending a bunch of time making your protagonist miserable doesn't mean that it's proportionally more satisfying when he finally makes it through the trials. It just makes me angry. Not sympathetic. Angry. At nothing. Just angry. J. K. Rowling is one of the worst offenders in this department. But Spiderman 2 fails to even redeem the misery. I challenge anybody to tell me how his life at the end of the movie is any better than at the beginning. The only change is that he is with MJ. OK, he's got a girlfriend (who he rejected at the end of the first movie because he knew it would bring trouble). How can he keep a job or do well in school any more than before? And Doc Ock is such a boring character. He's not even a character, he's a possessed scientist. It was impressive that he created this unstoppable dynamo that would certainly destroy the entire world... Oh, wait. All you have to do is add water. I guess it wasn't that big of a deal to push a rickety shack into the ocean.

The plot is nearly identical to the first movie. Peter is Spiderman. But being Spiderman is hard. Peter saves someone in a burning building. Peter can't beat the supervillain. Peter saves people on a train. Peter beats the supervillain. Being Spiderman is easy again. I can excuse the supervillain plot because that's what a superhero movie is. But how about something actually happens in Peter's life? I actually liked the scene where that Russian girl gives him a brownie and some milk, but it didn't flow with the rest of the plot. The most disappointing part of the film was how one-dimensional the characters were. With the exception of Harry (James Franco was a bright spot in the movie) nobody changes. Actually, Jonah Jameson changes, but goes from hating Spiderman to loving Spiderman to hating him in a bizarre sequence that looks more like an animated gif montage than anything from a blockbuster movie. J.K. Simmons plays Jameson perfectly, but you have to drop him a crumb every once in a while. I have a hard time faulting any of the actors. It's not like they had anything to work with. And let's face it, the only thing Sam Raimi can direct is action sequences. It just gets so boring when you have to make up your own plot to supplement what you see on the screen (maybe I'm the only one who does that). I realize that this is more of a rant than a review, but with the recent release of the home-rental worthy Spider-Man 3, my Spiderman ire has again been raised and it was either this or Shrek 2 and that's just too easy.

2006-11-13: Dracula

I got the 75th Anniversary Edition of Dracula on DVD last week. This has always been my favorite of the monster movies. It has such an air of suspense and romance and mystery and is less ponderous than many of the other ones, though it has some problems. One of the best features of this special edition is that it includes the Spanish Language Version of the film on Disc 2. It seems that back when sound was a new thing in movies, dubbing wasn't used very much. Some movies were made in multiple languages with entirely different casts and crews but the same set and script (translated, but not rewritten). Many critics say that the Spanish version is better; in some respects, I agree. The cinematography is superior and some plot holes in the English version are filled in. Unfortunately, only Barry Norton as Harker (the leading lady's fiancé) improves the cast. It's fantastic to be able to watch the movie without hearing David Manners' shrill cry of "Mina!" every 10 seconds. Lupita Tovar's Eva is quite good in some places, but the other key characters just don't match the performances of their English counterparts. It's inevitable (and often cruel) to compare anybody's Dracula to Bela Lugosi, but Carlos Villarías brings no charisma to the part. Dwight Frye is spectacular as Renfield and Pablo Álvarez Rubio appears possessed rather than deranged. He matches Frye's intensity in one of the later scenes, but his performance is disappointing. I would be remiss if I neglected to mention Van Helsing. Edward Van Sloan, who, like Lugosi, played the same character in the stage production, is much more compelling than Eduardo Arozamena who frequently seems to forget that the camera is rolling.

Still, the Spanish version is very enjoyable and I think it compliments the English version rather than competes with it. If you get a chance to see both, you probably won't regret it. But make sure that you at least see the English version. It is still the definitive Dracula against which all others are measured.

2006-11-08: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

I finally saw Anchorman. I have to say it was something of a disappointment. It was a qualified disappointment because it had the funniest line I have heard this year. Still it was another comedy with great potential that completely misuses one of the stars (see Vince Vaughan in Old School). I think Will Ferrell is one of the funniest actors around when used correctly. The crying scene in the phone booth was hilarious, but they completely misfired on most of the scenes. It's as if there were writers sitting around a table saying, "It's freakin' Will Ferrell with a mustache! He could read a keyboard and it would be funny!" While the accuracy of that statement may be open for debate, the truth is that just because Will Ferrell says something unusual does not make it a catch phrase. One of my favorite uses of Will Ferrell is in the Matrix Reloaded Parody as The Architect. What makes that funny is that he is just being ridiculous. While Ron Burgundy is certainly ridiculous, he rarely pushes his character over the top. What troubles me is that Will Ferrell is a co-writer for Anchorman. I think he was relying on the story, which is OK, rather than the actors, which can be great. The only consistently funny character was Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). But let's face it, non-sequiturs are easy to write and they're only funny the first time or two you see the movie. I said that there was one insanely funny part. Up to that point, I didn't think the movie was worth watching, but I would sit through two hours of mediocre comedy to see Ron Burgundy deliver the line that got him fired.