Review: Run, but not too far, from Dax Shepard's uneven Hit and Run

Kristen Bell, Dax Shepard, and Shepard's serious face.

Grade: C-

Who tricks out a '67 Lincoln Continental?

Seriously, who drops 14 grand to put 700 horses under the hood of a car clearly built for luxury, not performance.

Dax Shepard does. Or, at least the former Punk'd and current Prenthood star wishes he could. He probably also sank a substantial investment into his vexing vanity project and second directorial effort, again with an assist from David Palmer, Hit & Run.

Hit & Run is a perplexing experiment. Shepard and Palmer invest a indie sensibility into this tale of a former wheelman, Charlie Bronson--seriously--(Shepard) who was forced into witness protection after dropping dime on his old bank robbing crew, including a dreadlocked Bradley Cooper, Ryan Hansen, and Joy Bryant as Charlie's ex-fiance and "mastermind" of the crew, and is trying to settle down with his college professor girlfriend, Annie (Shepard's real-life main squeeze, Kristen Bell). When Annie gets an opportunity for a great job, Charlie is goaded and guilted into driving her from their Northern California hideaway to LA.  Along the way, he must elude all manner of escalating danger, from Annie's ex (Michael Rosenbaum) to his bumbling handler (Tom Arnold) to his old crew. Hilarity and a handful of adequately staged car chases ensue.

That indie sensibility I mentioned earlier occasionally elevates Hit & Run above its middling trappings, but generally Shepard's is an uneven effort. The tone is locked somewhere between sharp-tongued, foul-mouthed comedy; cheeky 70s-style on-the-road actioner; and earnest romance. The pacing is painfully slow yet it allows time for the characters to develop, and even if the audience doesn't really like the characters, they will have some solid investment in the players.  As would be expected of the type of project where the director is also the writer and the star--who also managed to a cast of his girlfriend, friends, and co-stars in lead and supporting roles--Hit and Run gives Shepard's Charlie ample opportunity to be the ultimate Marty Stu: he's talented, earnest, funny, tough, and completely devoid of flaws (same almost goes for his slightly neurotic but sharp-tongued girlfriend). Every ounce of the flick smacks of potential but each of the element of the film that may have realized that potential is squandered by Shepard's narcissism and inexperience. If only he had some one to reign him in and remind him that its not all about him, even if his name is on the director and the lead actor's chairs.

For all that doesn't work, Hit & Run is peppered by moments of moderate intelligence, wit, and thrill. The dialogue is fairly sharp and quips fly at full speed but are often so sly that they either fly over the audience's head or fall flat thanks to Shepard and Palmer's kitchen sink approach. The flick occasionally boasts some thrills with a handful of car chases that seem more like Shepard and friends were enjoying a fun day at driving school rather than crafting a taut, purposeful chase sequence, yet there is a fraction of dynamism and an obvious love for cars that makes those scenes slightly more bearable if still ineffective. The performances, unfortunately, do not carry much weight with most of the cast alternating between un-ironic earnestness (Shepard mostly) and winking detachment (Cooper, Arnold, Rosenbaum, and Bell). Again, there are moments within the performances, particularly the opening scene, which treads the line between acting and reality with Shepard and Bell's cutesy, gag-inducing gushing. It's a scene that does wonders for building Shepard and Bell's characters while peppering in some Nolan-esque foreshadowing, but it drags on to a point that is so off-putting and squirm-worthy that you be hard-pressed to keep their eyes from rolling into the back of your head. It is this inconsistency that plagues Hit & Run and places it in an odd space where it is hard to recommend on anything other than unfulfilled potential.

With Hit & Run, the parts have occasion to be greater than the sum, and if movies were moments, Hit & Run might be something special. As it is, Hit & Run is--pardon the pun--a little too hit and miss to be a bonafide hit.

In-Between the Scenes Observations:

• Seriously, as boss as it is, a 67' Lincoln Continental is not a car that needs to be tricked out.
• Advances in communication and surveillance technology may have made it harder to get away with crimes, but in some cases they have made it spectacularly easy, especially if one were inclined to boost an car with keyless entry.
• Bradley Cooper is basically playing Phil from the Hangover with a blondie dread wig; aside from the wig, this seems to be Cooper's default, which should ensure a lengthy career for the young thespian.
• Remember how good Kristen Bell was in Veronica Mars...yeah...it's almost a shame the geek community elevated her so quickly.

Review - Step Up Revolution

Grade: C-

Dance movies are an odd beast. Like musicals, there is always a sense that the stories told in dance movies should not be told onscreen but performed live in a theater, where the bombast and melodrama of the performances and the "performances" can exist with the visceral ferocity they deserve.  In a theater, an audience is far more likely to be enrapt in the immediate and unburdened by the downtime that would allow even the most distracted mind to unravel the stupid simplicity of the threadbare plots holding these "stories" together.

By that logic, the Step Up franchise would enjoy an understandably long life on Broadway. But, Step Up doesn't exist on or off Broadway, it survives as a middling, seemingly indestructible franchise that continues to pump sequels out with alarming regularity. Each sequel to the original that launched Channing Tatum's career has been remarkably consistent, sporting identical plots led by interchangeable charisma-less would be CW stars who can barely emote but move with a fluidity that would make Bruce Lee envious. In a way, it's a demoralizing tradeoff, the price to pay to witness some amazing routines by superb dancing talent is being forced to sit through some of the flattest acting ever committed to celluloid, or digital as the case may be.

Assuming that the narrative of the latest Step Up, Step Up Revolution--this time, revolving around a Miami flash mob crew, The Mob, attempting to win a YouTube competition while it's twinkle-toed leader (Ryan Guzman) woos an aspiring dancer (Kathryn McCormick) who happens to be the daughter of a development magnate (Peter Gallagher) threatening to gentrify the Mob's "hood"--and the acting performances are reliably thin and flat, respectively, it is more beneficial to look at what works and doesn't work with the alterations to the Step Up formula and the dancing, the real draw.

Based on the first half hour of Step Up Revolution, it appears that director Scott Speer may have had an ambitious plan for this entry in the franchise, framing the Mob's flash mobbing in terms of a heist, complete with specialist team members, escape plans, and wheelmen. I'll admit, as an absolute fan of the heist genre, this would have been an extremely interesting angle to follow, if it hadn't been abandoned after one scene. Disappointingly, and predictably, Speer prefers to go with the tried and tired power of dance narrative, which is built around the laughable conceit that a flash mob can bring a land developer to his knees simply by through their enthusiastic dancing. Despite the seeming conflict that could arise from such a heated issue, the narrative is generally low-stakes.The Mob faces little resistance from any form authority, aside from a few wagging fingers by pompous broadcasters. Even the love story attached to the main narrative lacks any sense of conflict with Guzman's Sean facing no competition in his courting of McCormick's Emily. All of which ultimately proves that for all of his ambition, Speer failed to ensure the fundamental core of any dramatic narrative was in place before attempting to bring something new and ambitious to the table.

Yet, Step Up is not, nor will it ever be unless something drastic happens, Oscar worthy--it's barely MTV movie awards worthy--and the audience hasn't come for the story since, maybe, the first entry. That said, Speer's ambition does lend itself to some interesting dance numbers that double as performance art. In particular, The Mob's invasion of Miami's Museum of Contemporary Art, which resembles Cirque Du Soleil more than America's Best Dance Crew, and the multi-stage final dance number are fairly impressive, if only because there are so many moving parts to manage. The final dance number even brings back franchise favorites like Adam Sevani's Moose for an all-out dance assault that gets credit for its combination of audacity and naivete. The rest of the routines are well -executed but not particularly memorable, unless you're taking notes for your own dance crew, but they are sure to appease Step Up's fan base, a fan base that has floated this series to four installments. As a cinematic narrative, Step Up Revolution fails, but as an alternative to pricey performances in stodgy venues  pricey theater tickets it should continue to do the trick for the dance fanatics; the rest of us can skip this without even missing a beat.

In-Between Observations:

• No cops try to stop a flash mob that stops traffic and hijacks public spaces...only in dance movies
• Poor Peter Gallagher and his eyebrows; even with a USA series in his pocket, times must be tough.
• If you ever wondered where your favorite dance show contestants went after they won or lost whichever dance show they were on, a likely bet is the background of a Step Up movie.

SPOILED ROTTEN - A Second Discussion on The Dark Knight Rises

SPOILERS AHEAD

Full disclosure: I hedged my bet on The Dark Knight Rises review. 

I gave it an A- based on my revised grading scale, which means it was worth going to see on opening weekend, and I stand by the grade. However, if you read the review, you'll find a far more tentative examination of Nolan's final Dark Knight Saga chapter, one which yearns for the unpredictable and far more entertaining ethos of The Dark Knight. 

Of course, in light of the shootings at the Friday night screening of DKR in Aurora, CO, there has been a necessary call for a bit of a moratorium on the DKR discussion, out of respect for the victims of that senseless tragedy. In fact, I'd like to applaud the studios for holding back on releasing box office numbers for DKR over the weekend. Unfortunately, the combination of the Colorado shooting and the increasingly sober reflections on the film itself, DKR is likely to go down in the annals of film history as a disappointment.

Throughout my review, I constantly referenced how DKR paled in comparison to The Dark Knight, and I firmly believe that, left to his own devices, Nolan would have abandoned the series with Batman riding the Batpod into the darkness as a hunted vigilante. In truth, maybe we all should have left the story there as well. Slowly but surely, articles about DKR's skewed, neoconservative politics, slapdash plotting, and tone deaf character work have a popped up online, with more surely coming down the pike. In a sad way, the shootings somewhat opened the door for the responses, as prior to the shooting, critics were receiving death threats for calling Nolan's film to the carpet on some glaring flaws that practically crippled a surefire hit. Suffice to say, fans have calmed down, if only because many don't want to be compared to the madman who robbed so many innocent people of the right to escape terror and hardship in the darkness of a movie theater. It's just such a shame that, in some cases, it took a loss of that magnitude, rather than time and sober reflection, to make the populace calm down a bit and think before responding with violent fervor rather than measured fanaticism.

I myself don't mean to take advantage of the situation to kick DKR when it's down, and I apologize if it seems that way--that is not my intention--but rather to reflect, after seeing the film twice in a weekend, on the fact that this film could not have succeeded the way many hoped it would because you do not trap lightning in a bottle, you can only marvel--no pun...never mind, pun fully intended--at the moment that fire from the sky cracks the ground and shows you just how amazing a moment of perfect creation can be.

The Dark Knight was lightning cracking the ground. It was an exceptional, if also a bit flawed, work that turned on an amazing, unmatched performance by Heath Ledger as the purest Clown Prince of Chaos to grace the silver screen...ever. Nolan could have toiled for years, waited decades, and still he may not have been able to capture a fraction of the magic he poured into the Dark Knight. His efforts on DKR prove that. 

Nolan is a director who truly, admirably aspires to give meaning to what many inaccurately classify as meaningless. Magic, superheroes, dreams. Nolan has worked with turned examinations of each of these subjects on their heads by revealing the not-so-hidden depth within these subjects. However, Nolan has always had an approach to his subjects that rarely treats characters as more than philosophies. Sure, sometimes he really delves into the humanity of his characters, as in his earlier works like Memento and The Prestige, but often, a few days distance from his work reveals that the characters in his more popular works barely exist as anything other than mouthpieces for esoteric philosophies and perceived dichotomies. Rarely do audiences remember his characters for who they are instead of what they represent. In something a movie like The Dark Knight, that approach is novel because the characters have philosophies that propel them into compelling action--also known as motivation--but in DKR, that approach is distracting because the philosophies led to action that is more head scratching than compelling.

In my initial review, I mentioned the disappointment of Bane, a character built up through every ounce of marketing to be the unstoppable force to Batman's immovable object. He's also framed as a revolutionary seeking to restore balance to economic inequality afflicting Gotham. By the end, he's nothing more than a lovesick henchman following orders and caring little for the plight of the average 99 percenter, finding them no different than Gotham's elite. This bait and switch is not surprising considering how Bane has been used as little more than a heavy in any media other than comics, an approach unaided by his goofy voice and weakly sardonic mannerisms. Even less surprising is the fact that the true mastermind behind Bane's plan is Bruce Wayne's new love interest Miranda Tate, who prefers her birth name, Talia Al Ghul.

Marion Cotillard plays Talia, a role telegraphed since the first photos of her on set surfaced. As soon as it is made clear that Ra's Al Ghul's League of Shadows is involved in the plot to destroy Gotham and the child of Ra's Al Ghul is mentioned, anybody who caught the Batman: The Animated Series episodes based around Ra's Al Ghul knew where DKR was headed, despite Nolan's predilection to change the names of characters in the films to protect their doppelgängers in the comics. This predilection extends to Nolan's favorite character in the film, Robin John Blake, a puzzling name change that is actually hokier than naming the character Dick Grayson or Jason Todd or Tim Drake. 

Now, I can't fault Nolan for his fairly dignified approach to including Robin in his ultra-serious Batman narrative, as it was one of the most consistent and well-conceived narrative threats within the film, albeit a bit contrived considering how quickly and effortlessly Blake ascends to a position in Batman's circle of trust. However, the same can be said for Selina "Don't Call Me Catwoman" Kyle, who also has a real character arc that leads her to a happily ever after with boyfriend/husband/traveling companion Bruce Wayne, after Batman "dies" in a nuclear explosion. Anne Hathaway does a good job with Ms. Kyle, especially in light of the fact that our last onscreen Catwoman was Halle Berry's Razzie winning performance as Patience Phillips. Sadly, as with Talia, Nolan cares more about the boys than the ladies, which means Selina gets an arc but not quite enough character development to make the audience believe that she and Bruce are destined to end up together. It's more of a case of populist appeasement: Fans like the Bat and Cat together so that's what they get for sitting through the 3-hour epic. Again, this can be traced to Nolan's favor of philosophy over character. Selina has a very character driven arc, one that is not bound to a significantly measurable or bombastic philosophy. As a result, her arc is truncated and she becomes more of a guest star than she should have been.

While the Catwoman and Robin development arcs are fairly solid, the failure of Bane overwhelms much of the proceedings, eclipsing the adequate work with Selina Kyle and John Blake. In particular, the Bane issue jabs at the audience's suspension of disbelief, especially our ability to believe that he wants to waste months dangling a nuclear device over Gotham simply to make Bruce Wayne feel like crap when blowing up the city immediately would have crushed Bruce Wayne far more effectively. Even more, Bane wants to show Bruce Wayne how his city is falling apart, but Nolan only shows a bunch of cops living underground with every other citizen locked inside their homes...not tearing the city apart. Based on what we are shown, Bane's plan failed before Batman even showed up. 

What Bane's plan does is allow for a second act that is equivalent to the unseen moments that preceded the very beginning of Batman Begins. Essentially, Bruce Wayne is locked in a prison and, through sheer force of will, must rise to become a hero, just like he did in Batman Begins. And that's exactly where Dark Knight Rises exists, in the space around and behind Batman Begins. The Dark Knight is an afterthought in DKR. With the exception of a mention about the Harvey Dent act and Commissioner Gordon's guilt over the lie he told about Batman killing Harvey Dent, the events of The Dark knight are vapors that ignore the elements of what is to date the most popular entry in the franchise. This is to say nothing of the marginalization of great characters like Alfred, who is excused for most of the film, and Lucius Fox. 

Despite the stack of flaws, DKR deserves to be seen in the theater if only to enjoy the spectacle, which it undoubtedly is, with an audience that will likely respond with shock and awe to the twists and the middling action--never Nolan's strong point. Just know that once you get some distance from this event of a movie and start pulling at the threads, this thing is gonna unravel faster than rayon. At that point, you'll probably end up right where I was after seeing DKR for the first time--wishing Heath Ledger was still with us so that we could watch the Joker challenge the Bat to dance with devil in the pale moonlight of Chicagotham.

Why the Oh So Serious Dark Knight Rises Above the Average Superhero movie

Grade: A-

The Dark Knight Rises may not be a masterpiece, but it is an exceptionally tense and taught epic that wraps up the plot threads that Christopher and Jonathan Nolan initiated in 2005's Batman Begins in a way that will satisfy a lot of people.

That said, I miss The Joker.

As a sequel to Batman Begins, Dark Knight Rises (DKR) is near perfect, but as a sequel that exists in the shadow of the more compelling The Dark Knight, DKR is weighed down by a rampant, but apt, joylessness that makes one long for Joker's antics. Indeed, the proceedings of DKR are no laughing matter, and while one doesn't go to a Nolan film expecting to double over in laughter, the general sense of unpredictability that permeated The Dark Knight is a bit lost in DKR. It's still a decent bit of work, but for those who prefer the Dark Knight over Batman Begins, it's a bit slight.

What works, more than anything else, in DKR is the characters, especially the arcs for the three main 'protagonists': Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), and John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Since the end of the Dark Knight, which saw Bats on the run after Commissioner Gordon lets Batman take the fall for Harvey Dent's death, Batman has disappeared and Bruce Wayne's been laying low. When a madman in a muzzle and a fur-lined pimpcoat, Bane (Tom Hardy) roles through Gotham threatening to turn the city into a prison-state, Wayne and the Bat come out of seclusion out of a sense of duty as a much as in response to goading by a slinky cat burglar, Kyle; a noble young cop, Blake; his trusty accomplices, Alfred (Michael Caine) and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman);  and earnest potential love interest Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard).

Bale, Hathaway, and Gordon-Levitt all excel at giving a range of depth to their characters despite splitting time with almost half a dozen other main characters. Hathaway and Gordon-Levitt in particular shine with Hathaway delivering the most accurate and compelling Selina Kyle ever committed to film. Her first scene with Bale, where she flips so casually between naiveté and sly aloofness is pretty masterful. Gordon-Levitt's Blake is also fascinating but hard to discuss without spoiling too much of the film; however, he does provide an interesting and inevitable twist on the notion that few good men survive in the GCPD. Not to be outdone, Bale continues to bring much needed humanity to a character who has grown increasingly bereft of humanity despite being the most human of heroes. The moment when Bruce Wayne literally rises is a triumph mostly because Bale shows that Wayne's fortitude burns through his body and mind. It's great to see each of the characters grow into their roles as they face the horror of Bane's plan, but so much of their growth is steeped in a lore that many members of the audience are extremely familiar with, which ultimately reveals that Nolan's take on Batman follows in the vein of other creators who have tweaked this infinitely malleable legend.

What is less successful, or maybe just less surprising, is Nolan's take on Bane, which is unfortunate because he is one of the prime engines behind this story. At this point, I have to qualify this dissection by remarking on my knowledge of Batman lore, which is not relatively extensive but nowhere near as in-depth as some true Batmanologists. Having grown up in the age of the first round of Bat-flicks, the legendary Batman: The Animated Series, and the Knightfall crossover that introduced Bane, I know a thing or two about Bane. The Bane of the comics, and the animated series to some extent, may rock a luchador mask and get hopped on a comic book drug, but he is a smart guy who often gets the better of Bats because he is just as driven as Bats. Without spoiling anything, the Bane of DKR starts out just like this, but an eleventh hour twist to the character really hurts because it is very reminiscent of Schumacher's take on Bane in the maligned Batman and Robin. 

On its own merits and taken as an introspective and thoughtful superhero actioner and the second act to Batman Begins, DKR is solid if not exceptional. Nolan really excels at making the terror of a super-villian plot tangible. Something comic readers take for granted is the fact that living in the wake of a some deranged cosplayer with an itchy trigger finger is legitimately terrifying. What Nolan does with DKR, and has continually done with the series, is ground the world of Batman in a way that strikes a nerve with post 9/11 Americans. Bane's plot to take over Gotham is particularly unnerving, but not as unnerving as Joker's plot in the Dark Knight because the human element is less scarce in DKR. In DKR, Nolan focuses more on the suffering of the police force and the city's costumed hero than its people, which would have driven home the oppressive conditions of Bane's confusing "occupation" in  which he takes over the city to give people their freedom (?). Despite the missed opportunity to focus deeply on the suffering of Gotham's citizens, Nolan uses Bane's occupation to set a tense third act where the fate go Gotham hangs in the balance. It is here that DKR rises above other superhero epics, even the Avengers to a degree, because the tangibility of the threat makes the efforts of the heroes, all of the heroes, matter in a way that makes the Avengers battle in Manhattan lack some significance. 

DKR is smaller in scale than Avengers, but its tangibility makes it seem far more epic. Yet, it is not necessarily the better film. Simply, it is another variation on superhero mythos that shows just how adaptable superhero stories are. As the closest narratives to modern myths, superhero tales like Dark Knight and Avengers succeed not on their ability to follow a formula but to be shaped according to the needs of their audiences. Avengers and DKR both appeal to similar audiences but with tones that reflect jarringly different takes on urban terror in America. What is great about this fact is that these stories exist to address such topics in a way that entertains and challenges audiences. Granted, some audiences, myself included, may be more partial to a lighter take on the material, but Nolan's approach is just as valid. In fact, it is necessary because it never hurts to remind audiences that the folks in the goofy outfits can be serious when the occasion calls for it.

In-Between Observations:

• Bane's voice is clearer but absolutely hilarious; Joker would have never let him live it down.
• Anybody remotely familiar with the Birth of the Demon arc will not be surprised by the ending.
• Bruce Wayne's injuries recall Terry Funk's injuries as described in wrestling expose Beyond the Mat. Coincidence?
• Gotham City is no longer Chicago but Los Angeles and New York as evidenced by some sloppy editing.

Comic Con Day 3 Report

Doing lines is unavoidable at Comic Con.

Today, we stood in three lines, and only one of those lines got us anywhere.

We got to the convention center around 11 and went straight to the back of the line to the consistently crowded Ballroom 20, where we stood in line for three hours to get into the Vampire Diaries panel, which you can see the live blog of here.

After scooting out of the Vampire Diaries panel, we jumped in another line, this one for Marvel's movie panel. Unfortunately, the line didn't move, and ten minutes before the panel started, we escaped and made our way back to the Exhibit Hall to scour for more free stuff.

While trolling for handouts and giveaways, we caught a few pictures of Taraji P. Henson, for those Baby Boy and Tyler Perry fans out there, during a signing for CBS' Person of Interest. Taking pictures of celebs at Comic Con is the equivalent of being a red carpet paparazzi. Teeming crowds converge on a less than 100 square foot booth. Hands raise above heads, dangling cameras at odd angles. Flashes pop as the crowd some random soul screams for a distracted star's attention, and all you can do to get a shot off is slide your hand between a pair of bodies and push the button blind, hoping you caught a picture with the star facing you.

I was lucky. I managed to get a picture with the star actually facing me.

Other highlights of the day:

• The Vampire Diaries panel was great for the fans but ultimately revealed very little about where the fourth season was going.
• Marvel debuted footage of Iron Man 3 and announced the titles of the upcoming Thor and Captain America movies, respectively: Thor: The Dark World and Captain America: Winter Soldier.
• Marvel also announced movies for C-list hero Ant-Man (Spider-Man but not) and cosmic superteam The Guardians of the Galaxy.
• Warner Brothers debuted footage of Zack Snyder's Superman: Man of Steel, Guillermo Del Toro's giant robots vs. giant monsters epic Pacific Rim, and Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings prequel The Hobbit.

 Pictures from day 3 are forthcoming. Also, check back tomorrow for the report on the last day. 

The Vampire Diaries panel live blog

We're gonna try this live blog for the Vampire Diaries panel

3:39 - Cast comes out to deafening screams after screening a clip of barely new material

3:40 - Creator Kevin Williamson moderates. Only one week of filming

3:42 - Producer Julie Plectrum explains that everything feels fresh this season.

3:43 - Michael Trevino, Tyler Lockwood, speaks to his evolving character.

3:45 - Nina Dobrev, Elena/Katherine, is looking forward to the challenge of playing two vampires.

3:48 - Ian Somerhalder, Damon, is playing a Damon with a brand new I don't care attitude.

3:50 - Paul Wesley, Stefan, looks to embrace his Dark side.

3:51 - Zach Roerig, Matt, hopes to hang onto Matt's humanity

3:52 - Steven R. McQueen, Jeremy, will be delving into more sixth sense shenanigans.

3:53 - Plec discusses the dilemma of meeting fan demand for the Damon, Stefan, Elena triangle.

3:55 - Who would the cast want their characters to sleep with? Matt, Sheriff Forbes. Stefan, Elijah.

3:57 - Fave episodes: McQueen: episode 10; Dobrev: the finale.

3:58 - Bad ass is uttered for thethousandth time at the Con.

4:00 - Plec's favorite scene: Alaric's vigil.

4:01 - Audience questions

4:02 - What don't the fans know about the cast? Paul Wesley is the funniesti man alive and Ian Somerhalder is the most interesting man in the world.

4:03 - More Katherine? As soon as Klays is gone.

4:04 - Tough keeping the Elena vampire secret? Absolutely.

4:06 - Plec mentions that the Klaus storyline kicked off Elena's turn.

4:07 - Any Alaric flashbacks? Maybe.

4:08 - Somerhalder went to Brazil.

4:09 - Who is Esther's mentor? Plec plays coy.

4:10 - Is Damon looking forward to Elena becoming a vamp? New dynamic and new revelations between the core triangle. And vamp sex.

4:11 - Meredith and the Kitsunes? Meredith, yes. Kitsunes, no.

4:12 - More adult themes? Plec plays coy.

4:14 - Hunger games arena, who dies first, last? Zach, first. Plec promises to kill Williamson. Dobrev allies with Roerig. Somerhalder promises to kill them all.

4:15 - Panel end.

Comic Con Day 2 (Day 1 for us) Report

Comic Con belongs to the young. But, it sure enough goes out of its way to make you want to be at least ten to fifteen years younger.

There are few experiences as simultaneously thrilling and painful as shuffling through the crowds on the Exhibit Hall floor of San Diego's expansive convention center to make your way to a, at least, thousand-person line that seems to go nowhere. By the end of the day, your feet feel like they've been stabbed by hot needles and your back is almost numb. But, the waiting and shuffling is all worth the pain, as long as you get to see that one panel or actor or creator or toy or video game or, heaven forfend, comic book. Isn't it?

That thought crossed my mind as soon as my girlfriend, Danielle, and I missed Nickelodeon's Legend of Korra panel--yes, we're fans and we're not ashamed, mostly--because Con security cut the line to Ballroom 20, forcing us to mosey around the Exhibit Hall for almost six hours before we managed to get into a 45-minute line to access the elusive Hall H. Between missing the line to Ballroom 20 and capturing two back row seats in Hall H, we managed to find a few bright spots that made our end-of-the-day exhaustion and pain seem almost worth the trouble. Almost.

Highlights:

• Managed to score a print of a cover to the new Cyber Force #1 series by Top Cow Comic founder Marc Silvestri for a meager twenty bucks.  Check it out.

I'm partial to the multiple Crow knock-off characters. Sue me.  I was lucky enough to get this print signed by the artist after waiting in line for about 45 minutes. Standing in line with Art Hunters--those intrepid few who cross the country form convention to convention collecting sketches (some costing upwards of thousands of dollars) and signatures from comic artists--will teach you a lot about patience and devotion. Most art hunters are mega-fans with a ridiculous amount of investment in stories behind the art, and they will bicker about which storylines and characters are the better than others while hounding unshapely cosplayers for a quick picture. Devotion. Patience.

• I played a demo of Square-Enix's upcoming Hong Kong GTA action game, Sleeping Dogs. In ten minutes, I chased a bald dude with a knife through the crowded streets of Hong Kong and broke many a thug's bones. It was great. I'm looking forward to this title probably more than any other movie this summer. 
• We moseyed on over to the least trafficked section of Comic Con: the comic book vendors section. I managed to pick up a cheap hardcover of American Vampire for roughly what it would have cost to buy the same book on Amazon, which was fair.
• We snuck outside to get some air around 3pm, sacrificing the opportunity to be denied a spot in the Ballroom 20 line to see the new Green Arrow show panel. The Gaslamp Quarter just beyond the edge of the Convention Center was almost as packed as the Convention Center and navigating the streets of the Quarter is easily the same as traversing Times Square on a Saturday morning.
• After gulping down a couple of slices or charred pizza, we decided to brave the line to Hall H, which stretched from the side of the convention center to the front of the Hilton behind the Convention Center.  

Thankfully, the line moved swiftly, and we made it into Hall H in time to see the end of the Resident Evil: Retribution panel, which Milla Jovovich dominated with a spark of charisma unseen in most of her onscreen roles.

• Following the Resident Evil panel, Sony delivered a panel around three of its biggest upcoming sci-fi flicks: Total Recall, Looper, and Elysium.

• The Total Recall, a reboot of the Paul Verhoeven-Arnold Schwarzenegger "classic" directd by Len Wiseman, panel brought director Len Wiseman and stars Colin Farrell, Bryan Crnaston, Kate Beckinsale, and Jessica Biel to the Hall H stage. Here are the panel highlights:
• Wiseman spoke about building an intricate sci-fi world and differentiating the narrative of the reboot from the original and maintaining the presence of the three-breasted hooker from the 1990 original. 
• Farrell talked about his character's, Doug Quaid, search for identity as well as his efforts to distance his performance from Arnold's, a challenge I'm sure.
• Beckinsale fielded more questions than Biel, mostly centered around being a bad ass action hero in multiple movies.
• Cranston delighted with astute non-sequitirs and glib comments while also promising that his character would be different from the original.
• Wiseman also delivered an extended trailer with a lot of footage that's already available online somewhere, none of which made Total Recall seem all that more spectacular than the mindless diversion it is destined to be. (apologies for the grainyness--remember, back row seats.)

• Next, director Rian Johnson, of the impressive Brick; Joseph Gordon-Levitt; and Emily Blunt came out to discuss this September's Looper, the tale of a time-traveling assassin forced to kill his older self, who looks a lot like Bruce Willis--or is it the other way around. Highlights ensue:
• Johnson's goal was to maintain the feel a smaller film despite the scale and scope of Looper, which Gordon-Levitt echoed, and to keep the time travel elements from dominating the narrative.
• Gordon-Levitt, a frighteningly smart guy who seems far too candid and aware to be a movie star, mentioned the challenges of acting as a young Bruce Willis and echoed Johnson's appreication for narrative over spectacle.
• Blunt, also disarmingly smart and candid, shared some interesting insight into going radically against the typical hardy Brits she plays with her role as a Midwestern "bad ass", indeed the most overused word of any comic convention
• The extended trailer for Looper revealed what appears to be a fairly thoughtful yet action packed take on the time traveller's dilemma and looks to be one the better flicks to come out this fall.

• Finally, District 9 director Neil Blomkamp debuted footage from his second major film, Elysium, which stars Matt Damon as man with days to live in a future where the rich have created an exclusive space station that orbits an overpopulated, diseased Earth. 
• Blomkamp briefly expressed an unease with hawking a movie and wished to be in the "darkness" with the fans before debuting the fairly impressive, if typical sci-fi, footage. 
• Damon and co-stars Jodie Foster and Sharlto Coply joined Blomkamp to discuss the importance of creating a flick that was both meaningful and exciting. 
• Overall, the footage was solid, but not exactly revelatory, save for Copley as--you guessed it--a "bad ass". 

After the Elysium screening, we ran back to the Exhibit Hall to snag some free stuff. We did okay, but there's still two more days.

Soider-Man and the Amazing Zeitgeist

Apparently, not everyone loves their friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, at least not as he was portrayed in last weekend's box-office winner, The Amazing Spider-Man.

While by no means a perfect superhero flick, nor anywhere near as purely fun as The Avengers, The Amazing Spider-Man was an ambitious attempt to retell Spidey's origin in a way that won't make the kids' eyes roll. As a cinematic enterprise, Amazing was pretty slapdash, filled with dangling plot threads, underdeveloped characters, and an aesthetic that is a pretty blatant Nolan knock-off. That said, I still recommend it (I'd give it a B) to both comic book fans and the uninitiated because, despite it's flaws, Amazing is vaguely ambitious -- not swing for the fences ambitious, but audacious enough to upend central elements of a classic origin in service of table-setting and trend-chasing. This vague ambition that has insulted so many critics and Spidey purists but thrilled the casual audience is no different than any attempt by the Big Two comic publishers (DC and Marvel) to court readers younger than 30.

Based on the box office, Amazing was a success with that casual audience--one which is far less elusive to movie studios than comic book stores--but it seems the price of that success is a collection of disappointed fans and movie reviewers who felt that this new, hip Spidey, and his franchise-establishing origin--just doesn't measure up to Tobey Maguire's puppy dog-eyed portrayal of Peter Parker in Sam Raimi's vibrant, campy trilogy that launched a decade ago. The point of contention is likely rooted in director Marc Webb and his attempt to capture the zeitgeist of the contemporary teenage experience as well as the popularity of serial storytelling with a drawn-out mystery at the core with Amazing.

In Amazing, Webb introduces us to a "postmodern"--for lack of a more salient term--Peter Parker, one who exists in a world where geeks are gods and fewer kids are bullied because they have an aptitidue for technology and an appreciation for comic books. The Peter Parker of Amazing, played with equal parts snark and smarts by The Social Network's Andrew Garfield, recalls the disgruntled everyman of Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's early Spidey stories. He's nowhere near as passive as Tobey Maguire's  spin on the character, going so far as to stand up to bullies before he turns into Spidey. He's even more comfortable with girls--in this case, the target of his affection is the (SPOILER ALERT) doomed Gwen Stacy (played with typical pluck and wit by Emma Stone)--which brings to mind one of Parker's defining traits: his bad luck with multiple women. Now, think about that for a moment: Peter Parker is smart, reasonably handsome, decent, and kind of a ladies man. How do any of those traits translate into socially awkward geek? They don't necessarily, mostly because Peter has been whatever the era of or creator needs him to be (case in point: John Romita Sr.'s fashioning of Parker as more of a square-jawed lead tailored for romance comics than a bookish "science geek").

The sheer fact that Garfield's Peter is a bit dickish and geeky yet comfortable-ish around a lovely lady like Gwen reflects an amalgamation of multiple facets of Parker as he has been defined through the ages, all pulled together into a shape that would seem reasonably appealing to the modern "disenfranchised" teen geek. To respond to this version of Peter Parker with the disdain that some critics and comics fans have shows something of a misunderstanding of the basic nature of comics, that of constant change.In fact, such responses recall the shocked response of Channing Tatum's Jenko in this past spring's 21 Jumpstreet. Jenko could not understand how in five short years geeks, gays, and eco-emo kids rose to popularity when jocks and cheerleaders clearly should have ruled the high school roost. By that same token, some critics find it difficult to digest the very real need for Sony to make Spider-Man attractive to a new demographic by making his alter-ego less of a mopey wallflower and more aggressive, snarky, confident, petulant, and, well, contemporary. This may not jibe with more classic interpretations of Peter--I'll admit that Garfield seemed far too "cool" to be Peter Parker before reflecting on this topic--but times change, and while the core of the characters should remain, the trappings will inevitably change. 

As much as the changes to Spidey himself reflect an attempt on Webb's part to reach a younger audience, so to does Webb's, more likely Sony's, choice to craft Spidey's efficient origin into a serialized mystery. The Abrams-Lindelof Mystery Box approach--so named for Lost creator J.J. Abrams and showrunner Damon Lindelof--to storytelling is "hot" these days, and its popularity is very attractive to studios looking to build franchises rather than tell to good, complete stories. As a result, we get a flick like Amazing Spider-Man that ties Spidey's origin into a "touch of destiny" mystery that removes some of the everyman quality of Spidey's beginning. Of course, the purists and some critics rankle at this change, with good reason, but the, excised, notions that Peter Parker is genetically destined to become Spider-Man and the secrets of his parents are far more intriguing than implied by the Lee and Ditko's original tale are not new. In fact, Marvel has repeatedly broached this concept with mini series like 2006's Bullet Points, which asserts that, one way or another, Peter Parker was destined to become a super-powered hero of some sort, and the entire existence of Madam Web, a clairvoyant who guides Spider-Man towards his 'destiny' as a hero. This concept expands to other heroes as well, particularly Captain America, the perfect test subject for the super soldier program simply based on his inherent goodness and decency.  Granted, the whole "chosen one" angle is inherently hokey and terribly rote thanks to overuse and is generally a poor fit for Spider-Man's story, which has always had kind of a "it could be you" vibe, but it is nothing new. Marvel has always pushed the limit of the integrity of its original stories by allowing its creators to make strenuous connections between errant plot threads, an approach which is far from limited to Marvel (see Grant Morrison's multi-year run on Batman). 

The serialized franchise building on display in Amazing may be disheartening because it appears to be a naked attempt by Sony to retain the Spider-Man license, which it absolutely is, but it is hardly unique to the movie studios. As much as this approach disappoints some of the audience,  it is, for better or worse, the nature of comic books writ large; they must constantly reinvent themselves at the risk of losing the past generation of readers; but if we accept that some of the more popular characters are not the sole dominion of one generation and must be made relevant to the next generation of readers then we can come to place where we accept the idea and the spirit of the effort even if the execution is flawed. Amazing Spider-Man may not be the most perfectly executed version of Spidey origin, but the changes are far more indicative decades old trend of reinvention that consistently risks gaining a new audience at the expense of another. That said, the new Spidey flick may not be everybody's cup of tea, but it deserves at least .

Grading on a Curve

Giving grades for movies is pretty much de riguer these days, but few critics really take the time to explain the "logic" behind their grading systems. Having taught a few classes here and there, I know it's important for folks to know what grades mean so that they don't freak out when they get a C. The thing about grading movies, as has been noted by a number of online critics (from the always wonderful FILM CRIT HULK to the good people at the AV Club), is that the grades don't matter as much as the discussion, which is absolutely true.

The enjoyment of movies, any type of storytelling in fact, is so completely subjective that there's no way a single grade from one critic should ever be the sole deciding factor in your decision to catch a flick or wait until it hits itunes, Netflix, or cable. Instead, reviews should seek to give you, at best, an overview of the story and some insight on what works and what doesn't. Bear in mind that all reviews are tinged by the reviewers experiences and interests, so despite our best efforts, all reviewers are inherently biased and whatever scale we use to assess a movie reflects those biases. As much as I try to avoid bias, I often fall victim to movies that remind me of my favorite movies from my formative years. That said, I would hope that my years of experience absorbing literally thousands of films from all genres and continents helps me to help you answer one simple question: should I catch this flick in the theater or wait until I can see it on the cheap?

These grades might help too:

A - See it on opening night
B - Catch a matinee
C - Wait to stream or download
D - Don't pay for this flick; if you must see it, wait to watch on TNT on a lazy Sunday afternoon
F - Avoid at all costs; don't even watch this for free

Hopefully, this helps makes of sense of those grades at the top of the reviews. More importantly, I hope this helps you make the best decision possible with your entertainment dollars.

Review - Savages

Grade: A-

Short of the Avengers and a few expected (Madagascar) and unexpected (Ted and Magic Mike) successes , this summer has, so far, been depressingly disappointing. In fact, you know things are bad when A-list auteurs of the 70s, 80s, and 90s like Ridley Scott and Oliver Stone are dropping flicks in the middle of summer, when, by all rights, they should be releasing prestige films in October or November. Sadder still is the experience of watching these directors being forced to claw their way into to relevance for an audience, myself included, that was likely to young to remember when each was at their peak. While this has been particularly agonizing to watch in Scott's case, with his alternately praised and maligned Prometheus, Stone turns the table and offers a far more pleasing experience with Savages, a simple tale of love, entrepreneurship in America, and the threat of globalization. Oh, and it's about weed, vicious drug cartels, and the sublime pleasure of watching trust fund stoners and Bush-era war vets raised on Call of Duty and computer hacking fight back against those cartels with more brains than brawn.

Savages centers around SoCal kush kings and lifelong friends, Ben (Aaron Johnson, almost completely unrecognizable from his role as vigilante punching bag Kick Ass) and Chon (Taylor Kitsch, utilized far more effectively here than in his previous outings this year), and the love of their life, disaffected shopgirl, Ophelia (Blake Lively). Between weed-addled trysts with Ophelia, together and individually, Ben and Chon manage to run a marijuana empire that sells the finest bud, 33% THC content to be exact, in the world, thanks to college boy Ben's experience as a Business-Botany double major at Berkeley and former enlisted man Chon's access to Afghani marijuana seeds during his deployment in Afghanistan.Within their relatively illicit enterprise, Chon is the muscle, enforcing deals that must be handled with a particularly hard-nosed delicateness, and Ben is the face, spending more time utilizing profits to philanthropic means by building schools in developing countries than growing or brokering deals. When confronted by an expanding north Mexican cartel, led Elena Lorena (Salam Hayek, wonderfully over-the-top but with greater nuance than Charlize Theron's performance in June's Snow White), Ben and Chon are faced with turning control of their empire to the "Wal-mart" of grass distribution. As any independent, successful businessman would do, they turn down the offer, which sets off a chain of events that leads to Ophelia's capture by Elena's duplicitious, decapitation happy enforcer, Lado (a slimier than usual Benicio Del Toro). To save Ophelia, Ben must eschew the Buddhist leanings that have guided his life and business and embrace the ugly practicality of Chon's more physical approach while learning why takeovers are rarely anything less than hostile.

Stone dials back his typical stylistic indulgences, mostly, to make Savages a pretty straightforward adaption of Don Winslow's, who wrote the screenplay, 2010 novel. Stone does an especially solid job of using Winslow's script to craft a flick that is reminiscent of the Tarantino-esque crime films that dominated the late 90s--which, as a show of my age, I'll admit to being partial to--without delving into the parody or shameless aping of Tarantino's style, which a director of Stone's ilk should never have to do. One thing that Stone understands is the one thing that makes Savages work and other "hip" crime dramas fail is that Stone and Winslow allow the characters to remain generally smart, relying on brains over brawn, generally. One of the central conceits of Savages is that Ben and Chon are clearly outgunned by the cartel, but they have resources that are equal to, if not greater than, the cartel's, which they use in a way that prevents them from generally diving into the kind of two-man army assault that would have likely got them killed. When the two turn the tables on one of the cartel's higher-ups, it is so simple and smart that one can't help but be impressed, right up until the consequences of their actions becomes painfully tangible. Stone and Winslow don't play coy with the consequence angle either; it is very clear that, no matter how clean Ben and Chon have tried to make their business, it is an inherently dirty business, at least until the fed finally legalizes Mary Jane.

Savages is hoisted near greatness not only by the work behind the camera but by some solid performances from some unusual suspects. Aaron Johnson, in particular, shines as Ben, playing him as an earthy peacenik with just the right balance of naiveté, melancholy, and optimism. Taylor Kitsch is finally used properly as a member of an ensemble rather than the main attraction, revealing the same shell shocked sadness that marked his work on Friday Night Lights. John Travolta, as a DEA agent who keeps Ben and Chon out of cuffs, relies on his trademarked wacky mania, which would seem out of place if it wasn't such a clear complement to Del Toro and Hayek's own brand of controlled insanity. In fact, Del Toro almost deserves an MVP trophy for playing his slimy executioner with such dynamism that you're not sure whether to laugh at him or cringe when he's on screen. Blake Lively is...Blake Lively. Nothing about her character is significantly likable or engaging--she's effectively a human MacGuffin--and her performance doesn't do much to change that opinion, but I wonder if that wasn't the point. Maybe her character, and her performance, were meant to evoke the sense of an aimless, possibly worthless empty vessel. If so, she knocked it out the part; if not, she'll likely be in another similar role very soon.

All in all, Savages really shows that Stone, despite a run of missteps, steal has more than enough juice left in the tank to crank out a near-classic. Granted, the flick is steeped in late 90s crime movie tropes, so expect gratuitous sex and violence to a degree not seen in the increasingly sanitized world of mainstream film. Also, some of Savages' more direct stabs at humor fall a bit flat, but overall, this is a real return to form for Stone and a solidly engaging experience. If anything, it is a far better R-rated flick from an A-list autuer than Prometheus.

Yin and Yang of it:

Yang: Sharp direction, smart plotting, and solid performances elevate already great source material. 

Yin: May be a bit violent and explicit for those who were not raised on real R-rated movies; Blake Lively; Humor occasionally misses the mark

In Between: There has to be a cut of this movie where Ben calls Hit-Girl for some help with this pesky cartel.