Batman & Robin (1997)

Batman & Robin (1997)
Director: Joel Schumacher
Starring: George Clooney, Chris O'Donnel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Uma Thurman, Alicia Silverstone

My eyes! My eyes! I actually looked directly at the screen at one point! The goggles do nothing!

Batman Forever (1995)

Batman Forever (1995)

Director: Joel Schumacher

Starring: Val Kilmer, Chris O'Donnell, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, and Nicole Kidman

Batman Forever brings a few changes to the Tim Burton Batman franchise. Burton handed over the directing duties of this movie to Joel Schumacher. Michael Keaton opted not to be Batman in this one because he didn't like where the series was headed (smart man) and he wanted to pursue other roles (I'll let you decide whether or not Multiplicity  was better than Batman Forever though I will say this: It's a closer call than you'd think).

Val Kilmer suffers from the same problem Michael Keaton did: he makes a good Batman and an unconvincing Bruce Wayne. Whereas Michael Keaton seemed a little too detached as Bruce Wayne, Val Kilmer seems actually bored by the Bruce Wayne half of the role. I guess I just wish that either of them was a little more like Kevin Conroy from Batman: The Animated Series.

While this movie seemed super hip in 1995, it has become very dated as its stars have waned considerably since the mid-90's. For a short time in the 90's, Val Kilmer and Brad Pitt were pretty much equals. Now Val Kilmer is overweight TMZ fodder, which seems really sad. Chris O'Donnel was slated to be the next big thing, but that never really panned out. He went from a legit movie star to a guy who does short story arcs on TV. Jim Carrey was the funniest man in the world in 1995. In 1994 he starred in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Mask, and Dumb and Dumber (I was shocked to find out that all those movies came out in a single calendar year. I don't know if we'll ever see anything like Jim Carrey circa 1994 ever again). Since he took the world by storm in the mid-90's, his star has faded considerably. He's been in a couple decent movies and a whole bunch of duds. His turn as a serious actor didn't work out the way he wanted (probably partially due to the fact that we watched him talk with his butt a mere half-decade before he started trotting out serious films). I honestly don't know what happened to Nicole Kidman. Moulin Rouge made her one of my favorite actresses, but I stopped caring about her for some reason. Tommy Lee Jones is probably the only actor in this movie who is actually probably better now than he was then. Even so, his portrayal of Two-Face is one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen. He set the bar really low for himself in this one, so everything he's done since benefits in comparison.

Before I tell you that Batman Forever wasn't a very good movie, let me pick a bone with the new Batmobile. While the Michael Keaton Batmobile was the greatest we had ever seen (the record still stands if you ask me. Here are the rankings of all the Batmobiles from the movies in case you cared: 1) Michael Keaton's 2) Adam West's 3) Christian Bale's (begrudgingly) 4) Val Kilmer's 5) George Clooney's) the Val Kilmer Batmobile is an example of why you should leave well enough alone. It's basically the Michael Keaton Batmobile with thinner wheel wells, and a bunch of clear plastic with blue lights underneath for no good reason. It's as if someone pimped Batman's ride, which is a ride that doesn't need any sort of pimping whatsoever. It also feature a large batwing-shaped fin on the back which wobbles noticeably any time the car hits a bump. It just looks bad. They shoulda left things alone, but they just had to tinker.

Anyway, this movie is generally a turd. The performances, though tuned to whatever weird phase we were all going through in 1995, seem dated and embarrassing now. My wife, who had never seen this movie before, actually asked if it was a comedy because it looked like a comedy to her. I laughed at this movie, but not for the reasons its creators intended. It falls into the kitschy/bad department and should be viewed only by fans of MST3K.

Batman Returns (1992)

Batman Returns (1992) 

Director: Tim Burton 

Starring: Michael Keaton, Michelle Pfeiffer, Danny Devito, Christopher Walken

If a little Michael Keaton Batman is good, more should be even better, right? I dunno. Kinda. Maybe. Sort of. Meh.

There are a lot of things to like about this movie. It's the same great Batman (same somewhat unconvincing Bruce Wayne as well) same Batmobile, same Alfred, etc. The only difference is that this time, Batman faces a couple of villains instead of just one. Michelle Pfeiffer's performance as Catwoman put her right up there with Julie Newmar and Lee Meriwether. Danny Devito also makes a terrifying and disgusting Penguin, which I guess makes it a good performance.

I like so many things about this movie, and yet there are a couple things that really bother me. 1) Why does Michelle Pfeiffer become Catwoman? I didn't understand it when I first saw this movie, and I sort of figured I'd understand when I got older. I still don't get it. She falls several stories, receives a massive blow to the noggin, and this somehow teaches her martial arts, whipcracking, and how to turn a small jacket into a full bodysuit?! I like Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. She looks good, and she does great things with the role. Her origin story just isn't very convincing. I'm able to suspend disbelief for a lot of things, but a bump on the head does not a Catwoman make. 2) Since when would the Penguin make a decent mayoral candidate? The people of Gotham were terrified when reports of a penguin man started showing up in the papers. They were disgusted by him when he first showed his face on the surface. Even though there was a movement to humanize him, I still don't think anyone would vote for him. People didn't want to elect Richard Nixon because he looked like a weasel with flop sweat. He didn't win until he ran against the equally unattractive Hubert Humphrey. Because the Penguin looks like a freak, talks like a villain, and generally seems uncomfortable around regular people, why would anyone vote for him? His mayoral campaign is a major part of the movie, and yet it makes absolutely no sense to me.

So yeah, those two things got into my craw (whatever that is) and didn't come out. I wanted to love this move every bit as much as the first Tim Burton Batman movie, but I didn't. There's still a lot of good in it, and if you're able to make all the leaps of faith that I wasn't able to make, you'll probably enjoy it more than I did, which is not to say I didn't enjoy it. I just wanted to enjoy it more.

Batman (1989)

Batman (1989) Director: Tim Burton Starring: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger

After seeing The Dark Knight Rises for my birfday, I felt compelled to go back and watch earlier Batman movies to get a sense for where the franchise has been and how far it has come. I remember the first few Tim Burton Batman movies were a really big deal when they came out. Everybody was talking about Batman, and everybody but me got Batman spin-art shirts at the county fair (though I admit I really wanted one). When your logo is the #1 requested spin-art motif at the Apache County fair in 1989, you know you've hit the big time.

Now that the dust has had a few decades to settle, it seems odd that Michael Keaton was ever Batman. I like Michael Keaton, it's just that he was Johnny Dangerously and Beetlejuice before he ever donned the cape and cowl. Sure, he's a good looking guy with solid acting chops, but he still seems an odd choice. I thought I would be bothered by Michael Keaton when I revisited Batman, but I was surprised to find that I really really like him. The unfortunate thing is that although he's a great Dark Knight, he isn't that great of a Bruce Wayne. I don't know what it is, but he just doesn't pull off the normal half of the role. His Bruce Wayne is a little too deadpan. Aside from that, I have to applaud Tim Burton's choice.

The other thing I was surprised to find that I still loved was the Batmobile. I'm probably the only guy on the planet who wasn't impressed by the new Batmobile in the Christian Bale Batman movies. It's too technological and not Batman enough. Michael Keaton's Batmobile is an all-time great. I actually saw a guy driving a replica of it in downtown Phoenix in 2010. I just started following him because even after a couple decades, it was still one of the coolest cars I had ever seen.

One other thing I loved more than I thought: Jack Nicholson as The Joker. We've all come to consider Heath Ledger to be the official greatest Joker ever, partially because he died and we all feel bad/guilty about it somehow. I'm not saying that Heath Ledger wasn't great. He was amazing, terrifying, and spectacular. Even so, Jack Nicholson was a more than capable Joker. The scene where he calls for the mirror after his reconstructive surgery still gives me chills. As with everything he does, Nicholson goes over the top at points, but he delivers an overall very effective villainous portrayal of The Joker.

All in all I was surprised by how much I loved this movie even after all these years. Sure, I can see the seams in it now. The CGI stands out in a bad way because the technology wasn't that great in 1989. Parts of the movie come off as cheesy, but it's still a great Batman flick. The plot is still captivating, the acting has held up remarkably well, and it just looks and feels like Batman. Of course the Christian Bale Batman movies are darker, edgier, have better effects, and stay pretty serious most of the time (a big plus for me), but don't sleep on the first Tim Burton Batman. I think you'll find it's still fairly potent.

Spider-Man 3

I had never seen Spider-Man 3 before today. The main reason I waited this long is because every review of this movie- both word of mouth and written by professionals- made it sound like a cross between Gigli and Ishtar (Ishtar isn't even that bad of a movie. It just has a certain reputation) in terms of quality. I have always noticed that coming into a movie with low expectations always makes it easier to enjoy. If you are one of the many many people who absolutely hated this movie, just know that I was expecting to hate this movie too.

I actually watched this movie in two sittings. Apple TV makes it all-to-easy to stop halfway through a movie and pick it up later. Maybe I watched this movie in two different moods, but I enjoyed the first half a lot more than the second half. By the time I began to wrap my mind around everything they were trying to do in this movie, I realized it bit off way more than it could chew. Many of the intertwined subplots could easily be given their own movie. Spider-Man facing up to the son of the Green Goblin (who happens to be his best friend who also has feelings for Mary Jane) and answering for what happened in the first movie could be a fine movie unto itself. Sandman is definitely a movie unto itself. In the first half of the movie, you get the feeling that the other plots won't play into things at all. I would've been perfectly happy with a Sandman movie.The Venom subplot could also make an excellent movie, but not the way they did it here. Anyway, with all the Mary Jane stuff and the multiple villains as well as Peter's need to succeed in his career, there was just too much story for one movie to tell. This movie is Frank Costanza's over-seasoned meat that sent sixteen of his own men to the latrine.

Before I really launch into the things this movie did wrong, let me first mention a few things it did right. They cast another perfect villain in Sandman. Thomas Haden Church looked almost exactly like the comic book Sandman, and he acted the crap out of that role (of course a lot of it was CGI, but the parts that were clearly him were very well acted). James Franco wasn't even as bad as he was in the first two movies, so that's a plus. Oh, and let's not forget that Bruce Campbell always delivers a solid cameo. I think Spider-Man 3 gives him his best role in the trilogy. It actually seems like he knows French, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he did.

Now here's where I lay into it. Topher Grace is not made for the big screen. He wasn't even the best actor on That 70's Show, and he really doesn't make a good Venom. Venom is a fan favorite, so that's not really a role you want to miscast. Topher Grace played it weakly. He wasn't menacing, and he didn't even seem very evil. I feel I should mention that Topher Grace is my wife's celebrity crush (mine, as always, are Kari Byron and Barbara Feldon). She loves the guy and she didn't even like him as Venom. It was a bad choice, but it wasn't the only bad choice in the movie.

Tobey Maguire with an emover (emo+combover=emover) is a very bad choice. People hate emo. The non-emo public sees emo as a joke. You can't give him a dumb haircut and expect us to just think, "Oh, that makes sense. If he was getting darker and more violent he would absolutely wear his hair like an idiot." Oh, and I didn't see the movie in the theater so I don't know if the theatrical release featured "Stayin' Alive" by The Bee Gees or not. The scene in which Peter Parker is clearly doing a Tony Manero parody would be uncomfortable enough with the right music, but with the wrong music it's an abomination. I hope the theatrical release featured "Stayin' Alive" because the generic porn music on the DVD version just makes the scene uncomfortable to sit through.

I also couldn't stand the fact that they went out of their way to say, "Hey! Peter Parker is becoming a bad guy! Look at the bad things he does!" They honestly spent a half hour more time on that point alone than the audience needed. If they had trusted the audience to understand this simple plot point, they could have spent way more time developing the many (too many) other subplots and the movie wouldn't have been as bad as it was.

Now here's the thing: I was really enjoying Spider-Man 3 right up until he started dancing in the street and acting like a jerk. When all that ridiculousness was happening, I actually turned to my wife and said, "Oh. Now I know why people hate this movie." It really falls to crap in the end despite having a decent amount of promise. If you aren't expecting too much, you'll find some things to really enjoy in this movie. If you expect it to be anywhere near as good as the first two Spider-Man movies, you'll be sorely disappointed. Yup. Take that advice. It's only been 5 years since this movie came out, so this is super timely. (I literally realized as I was writing that conclusion that I might be the only person on the planet who hadn't seen and been disappointed by Spider-Man 3 yet. Bad job by me).

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Considering how much I enjoyed revisiting Spider-Man it really comes as no surprise that I enjoyed this sequel as well. Spider-Man 2 brings back the creative team of this first movie (specifically, they brought back Sam Raimi who proved he could do just as much with a big budget as he could when he and his buddies were monkeying around with low budget horror flicks) as well as the majority of the principal actors. This movie operates in much the same way as the original. Spidey faces a new foe and new Peter Parker faces new social challenges, but it's very much similar to the original.

I thought Alfred Molina made a perfect Doctor Octopus. Not only did he look exactly like the original comic book Doc Oc, he brought sympathy to the character that really made you wish things had turned out differently for him. Of course his downfall (I don't really need to give a spoiler alert to an 8-year-old movie, do I?) could have been prevented if he didn't place the pursuit of science above all other concerns. He is granted a level of redemption in the end of the movie, which is a nice touch. All in all I'm inclined to say that Doctor Octopus is a better foe than Green Goblin was in the first movie. Alfred Molina didn't have the touch of hamminess Willem Dafoe had, so that's a big plus on his side. The performances were generally strong and there wasn't too much in the way of unnecessary humor, which I appreciated.

As it was with the first movie, the effects are a bit dated, but the movie doesn't hang too much on visuals alone. Peter Parker's desire to be with MJ as well as his need to balance his personal relationships with his crime-fighting alter-ego creates a good deal of tension in the movie, and this is exactly the sort of story that doesn't need spectacular effects to work. I will admit that the plot of the movie isn't really mind-bending or groundbreaking, but it wasn't intended to be. This is just a solid superhero flick that is still rewatchable years later. It's every bit as good as the original if not slightly better.

Spider-Man (2002)

So my wife has been out of town and I took advantage of the opportunity to waste more time than usual. I've been hankering for a superhero movie for a while, mainly because I want to see how different they are now that I've a acquired some comic book knowledge. I remember I used to be annoyed with people who would yammer on about the differences between the movie and the comic book, but now I've become one of those guys. I'll try not to do too much of that in this review.

 The first thing I noticed in re-watching Spider-Man is that the special effects have dated considerably. So many movies over the past decade have relied so heavily on special effects while ignoring basic movie making elements such as plot and character development. Luckily Tobey Maguire makes a great Peter Parker and Sam Raimi really spent some time developing Peter Parker as the loveable nerd who happens upon powers beyond his wildest imagining. The relatable characters in this movie more than make up for the fact that many of the special effects just aren't up to scratch anymore. I will say this though: as Spider-Man jumps across rooftops and swings through the city, his movements are very spider-like and still look pretty darn cool.

 The casting for Spider-Man was top-notch. Tobey Maguire was a perfect choice as was Kirsten Dunst. Uncle Ben and Aunt May look exactly like they should, and J. Jonah Jameson is beyond perfect. I actually found that Willem Dafoe was a bit hammy at times and played the Green Goblin a bit too far over the top. The same could be said for James Franco, who is a bit too mopey and distant, so his performance comes off a bit fake.

 The best part of this movie is related to the one thing I really hate in movies based on books and characters I already love: comic relief. The problem is that people like me (nerds) who are already fans of the source material don't need extra comedy to make us enjoy the movie. Unfortunately the powers that be aren't just trying to sell movies to the hardcore nerd fanbase who will always watch movies based on things they love (unless of course it's a Michael Bay picture in which case everyone would be better off not seeing it). Hollywood tries to make movies that are all things to all people. Movies are theoretically a for-profit business, so the model in which they attempt to appeal to the widest possible audience is fiscally sound even if it produces things that slightly annoy me. In The Lord of the Rings movies, for example, they turned Gimli from the proud and awesome dwarf that he was in the books into the brunt of all the jokes and the largest source of comic relief in the movies. They did this so that people who are not fans of the books could more easily endure the 3 hour movies. Hardcore fans like myself were annoyed with what they did to Gimli, but not so much that we didn't see the other two movies and didn't buy them in multiple formats multiple times when they came out. Would I have preferred that Lord of the Rings be absolutely humorless? Yes. That's exactly what I wanted. That's what I want out of my superhero movies as well. All of the recent Marvel movies (Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, The Avengers, etc.) have all included scenes that made the audience laugh out loud, which made me secretly resent all of them. The good thing about Spider-Man is that it really only includes one of these scenes (when Peter Parker is trying to figure out how he got the web to shoot). Because there are fewer clear examples of pandering to the non-nerd audience in Spider-Man, I give it some serious bonus points.

Anyway, my rant about comic relief aside, Spider-Man holds up very well for a movie with lots of special effects that was made a decade ago. It sticks pretty close to the comic books, which is nice. The characters are well-developed, and the plot is engaging. It isn't Citizen Kane, but you could certainly do much, much, much worse in the superhero movie genre (I'm looking at you, Batman & Robin).

The Allnighter: Susanna Hoffs and Precious Little Else

The Allnighter [PG-13] 1987 - Starring: Susanna Hoffs, Joan Cusack, Michelle Pfeiffer's Sister
Before you start hitting me with questions like, "Why would you sit through something like this?" may I please remind you that Susanna Hoffs is a great musician and that I love her music enough to sit through her underwhelming performance in a movie.

All the pieces were there for me to add The Allnighter to my repertoire of movies I like despite poor critical and popular reaction (see: Mystery Men, Evil Alien Conquerors, Midnight Madness etc). I tend to love high school and college movies, especially ones in which all problems are caused and solved by partying (classic example: Can't Hardly Wait. Also, I really love the song "Maybe Partying Will Help" by The Minutemen. I am a man of contrasts). Let's set the table for this by pointing out that I love this genre of movie and I love Susanna Hoffs. Everything was set up for me to like this movie.

Susanna Hoffs (whose mother wrote and directed this movie) stars as Molly, the non-romantically attached soon-to-be-graduating valedictorian of Pacifica College. She lives off campus with Joan Cusack and Michelle Pfeiffer's sister. I finished the movie 15 minutes ago and I could not tell you the names of their characters if my life depended on spewing cliches. Also, I don't remember seeing an actual college anywhere in this movie. I don't know if they couldn't get the rights to one or if they really just thought the movie would be better without it, but there is less college in this movie than any other college movie I have ever seen.

Joan Cusack is an aspiring filmmaker who is constantly taking horrible footage with a giant old school camcorder. She's like Winona Rider's character in Reality Bites only talentless and annoying. Michelle Pfeiffer's sister is engaged to a dorky blueblood who is begging for a come-uppance from the first time he appears on screen. Susanna Hoffs is in love with one of two surfer dudes who constantly keep barging into the girls' house. The surfer dude almost tells Susanna Hoffs that he loves her in the opening scene, so there's really no tension driving what should be the main love interest.

The main problem with The Allnighter (other than the fact that it doesn't even seem like an all-nighter in the classic sense of the word) is that every single one of the characters is flat and cliched. There is absolutely no on-screen chemistry between any of the characters, even the ones you know will end up together. Nothing jumps out at you and nothing begs you to care what happens to these characters. You know at one point that Joan Cusack and Michelle Pfeiffer's sister are going to be busted (wrongly) for prostitution, but it doesn't make you concerned at all. Even if this movie took a wild turn and became a slasher flick, you still wouldn't care who got stabbed because nobody even has the character depth of a horror movie victim. It's just a lifeless, bland concoction that slowly oozes off the screen. At no point in The Allnighter do you get the feeling that someone is carrying a single scene, let alone the entire movie.

Acting and character depth aside, Susanna Hoffs' mom did a bad job writing this movie. It relies too heavily on the viewer's assumptions of what college movies are all about and does too little in the way of actual storytelling. Take, for example, the fiesta. This is the party at which dramatic tension is supposed to build. Surfer dude goes off with random blonde girl instead of protagonist causing protagonist to chase after random alumni and apparent rock star who is only there to make sparks fly with protagonist's advisor. Michelle Pfeiffer's sister's fiancee acts like an idiot, causing Michelle Pfeiffer's sister (yes, I'm going to keep doing that) to question their relationship. The party is the most important part of a college/high school movie and Susanna Hoffs' mom botched it big time. Add to it the fact that Susanna and her surfer dude don't even kiss until the last 5 minutes of the movie and we're supposed to feel good about their relationship despite the fact that surfer dude is going to law school in Minnesota and we have no idea what Susanna Hoffs (who doesn't seem smart enough to be the valedictorian. Sorry) is going to do. And we're supposed to feel closure with this last-minute no future relationship?! I've seen enough college/high school movies to know the formula and this ain't it.

They even put the ball on the tee for Susanna Hoffs when she did the walk of shame to the podium just in time to give her valedictory address right after her dalliance with surfer dude. The scene was set up perfectly. Everyone was cheering. Joan Cusack and Michelle Pfeiffer's sister were beaming as if they knew she was going to knock her valedictory address out of the park, sum up all the important lessons they've learned in the movie, and give a glimpse of the future. That's how this scene is supposed to work. I've seen it a billion times before in coming-of-age movies that are actually good. Instead of wrapping everything up in her address, Susanna Hoffs says the following in a completely deadpan tone (and yes, I went back and transcribed it word for word from the movie): "Many things have happened. Some really great things. Anyway, how can we sum up four years at Pacifica in words? What I've come to realize is that...in a nutshell...experience is really your best teacher. And um..the experiences we've had here together is the best we'll ever have. So the main thing I wanna say is...everyone here, all the graduating seniors of Pacifica, thanks. It's been great."  That's your big finale?! That's how you wrap it all up and put a bow on top?! Where's the catharsis? Where's the moral of the story? Where's the inspiration?

The Allnighter is not a good movie. I only recommend it to fans of Susanna Hoffs who want to remember how cute she was back when Prince was in love with her. Aside from that, this movie has no other redeeming qualities (except for one of my favorite Redd Kross songs that plays in the background for about 30 seconds. Seriously, that was a big highlight for me). More than anything this movie shows us why we have well-trod formulas for college and high school movies.

Scott Pilgrim vs The World (the movie)

Do you like your movies to be visually appealing? If so, run don't walk to see Scott Pilgrim vs The World. it will leave your eye sockets smoldering and empty due to an overflow of enticing visual stimuli. I'm not kidding, this movie assumes you have ADD and splashes cool effect after cool effect on the screen in an attempt to be your visual Ritalin. Prepare yourself, get into the right frame of mind before you see this. Maybe I'm hyping it a bit much. Who cares? I love this movie and I don't care who knows it.

I watched this movie right before I broke down and started reading comics, so that probably factors into my review somewhere. I dunno, I'm the guy who can't listen to anything other than the original London cast singing Les Miserables because it's the first version I heard. Even though Colm Wilkinson is Jean Valjean in most of the other soundtracks, he doesn't sing the songs in the exact same way and my OCD mind can't take it. So there's that.

Spoiler Alert in effect, even though I have no idea what I'm going to write

Anyway, let's talk about the first way in which the movie totally nailed it as an adaptation of the graphic novel: casting. The importance of good casting in an adaptation cannot be overstated. There are a billion fanboys in the world that always try to make up fictitious casts for movie versions of whatever it is they love (Google it and see if I'm lying. I dare you). These attempts at casting are usually flawed and here's why: they put too much emphasis on whether or not the person looks like the role they'll play and not enough on whether or not they can actually play the role. Hollywood makes this mistake as well. How much better would the Get Smart remake have been if they had gotten actual actors for the roles of Agents 99 and 23 (you heard me, Anne Hathaway fans)? Anne Hathaway is no Barbara Feldon. Barbara Feldon played Agent 99 as both quirky and attractive. There's a certain "girl next door" charm to Barbara Feldon. The only person who comes to mind as a Barbara Feldon type is Amanda Bynes, but she's a little too young (Now I'm doing fake casting. Sheesh). Oh, and The Rock is a horrible actor outside of throwaway summer action flicks (actually, he's a horrible actor in those movies too, but it's more defensible because we don't expect Oscar caliber acting in action flicks. It's the reason Sylvester Stallone has had a career outside of Rocky) Anyway, I've spent waaaay too much time talking about how the casting for Get Smart was botched and not enough on why the casting for Scott Pilgrim was great. Let's take it down a paragraph, shall we?

So the casting for Scott Pilgrim was perfect. Not only did the actors in the movie look like the characters from the graphic novel (almost to a disturbing degree at times. Like Alison Pill as Kim. Even her facial expressions were the same in the movie as they were in the book. It's eerie) they act like the characters from the graphic novel. I am using bold too many times to emphasize words. Every single one of the actors carries their part well. There just isn't any dead weight in the cast. Michael Cera is a perfect Scott Pilgrim. You just can't do any better than Jason Schwatzman as Gideon. And where did they get the brilliant idea to dig up Kieran Culkin as Wallace? That was pretty inspired. Anyway, there is not dead weigh in this cast. It's one of the best casting jobs I've ever seen in any adaptation. It's Heath Ledger as The Joker good.

Casting aside, I believe I mentioned that this film is the visual equivalent of one of those oversized caramel apples with the nuts and the extra caramel dripping down the sides. Seriously, I have never seen a film that felt so much like a comic book. You have to see it to know what I mean, but this movie is riddled with effects lifted right from the pages of the graphic novel. It's really a wonder to behold. I felt the same way in watching this movie as I did the first time I saw O Brother, Where Art Thou (a movie I still love and hold quite dear). I found myself saying, "I can't believe someone thought of telling a story this way." It just felt fresh and exciting, which is what a good movie should be.

Then there's the issue of the music. Music played such a big role in the graphic novel. Not only are tabs and lyrics included in the book itself, Bryan Lee O'Malley includes playlists of songs he feels mesh with the characters and events portrayed in Scott Pilgrim. I have to say that despite hefty expectations, the movie doesn't miss a beat with the music. I do admit that Sex Bob-omb won't have me rushing out to buy the soundtrack to the movie, but it did make me want to dig up my old Tascam and bass guitars (I'm a bassist, which also influences my enjoyment of the movie). Oh, and the Clash at Demonhead song was actually quite good. Bonus points there.

Oh, and the ending to the graphic novel is much different than the ending of the movie even though they generally follow the same plot. It's a nice twist that makes you want to dive into both versions of Scott Pilgrim. I guess with all these words I've typed so far I'd better just buckle down and drop a grade on this thing. I give it...

Bond, James Bond

Can you really be a nerd about something as awesome as James Bond? If Brian Posehn and his heavy metal nerd life have shown us anything, it's that it is possible to take almost anything to nerdy excess. So yeah, I'm going to write about James Bond.

My wife had never really seen any Bond movies other than a couple Pierce Brosnan's and a Daniel Craig, so I felt it my duty to pick the best film from each Bond and let her get a taste for the world of James Bond flavors. I forget what my Connery choice was, but I remember that I wish I had picked Diamonds are Forever because it features the two creepiest gay guys in the world, one of whom has a skullet. Anyway, we watched On Her Majesty's Secret Service (George Lazenby is underrated as Bond. He's a lot better than you remember. Also, he plays opposite the Telly Savalas Blofeld, which is my favorite incarnation of Blofeld) and that got me thinking about how I would rank the actors who have played James Bond from best to worst. I would rank them thus:

1. Sean Connery There simply is no other choice for the best Bond. He did it first and he did it best. He was devilishly handsome in his Bond days, and he had a cocky swagger that some of the other Bonds couldn't quite pull off. So much of Bond's character is now derived from the way that Connery played it. You just can't pick anyone other than Connery here. It's that simple. Oh, and he's the easiest Bond to see getting ladies the way Bond has a knack of doing. Connery is a billion years old now and has still managed to be old man handsome. He does better in his old age than any of the rest of us do in our prime. He's Bond. End of story.

2. Roger Moore With your second pick, it might be a good idea to go with the man who played Bond longer than anyone else (7 Bond films to Connery's 6). Roger Moore is by far the most gritty looking Bond. If not for the accent I could easily see him in a gunslinging western. His looks do make it a little harder to like him as Bond because it's harder to imagine the ladies fawning over him like they did for Connery. Looks aside, he provides some of the better action sequences as Bond. These were the days when EON was still trying to be cutting edge in special effects and stunts. At least that's how it was during the early Moore films. They did start to fall off a little when the 80s hit. Overall the Moore films compare most favorably with Connery's, which is really saying something.

3. Daniel Craig Not everyone is going to agree with this choice, but I stand by it. Daniel Craig is a great Bond. He is quite handsome without being man pretty (yeah, we'll cover that with one of our other Bonds), and he benefits from the franchise resetting the clock like the Batman franchise did. Also, there are just things about Daniel Craig that I like. He seems almost completely humorless, which isn't a bad quality in a Bond. He has the chops to spend one minute throwing a guy down a flight of stairs and the next dressed to the nines in a tux (an essential element of the Bond character). I have really enjoyed both of his movies so far, and I can't wait for the next one. What more do you want?

4. George Lazenby I did mention that he is underrated as Bond, but with only one Bond film in his career, what do you expect? I find it interesting that a friend of Lazenby's talked him out of signing a long-term deal to play Bond. The friend felt the franchise was flatlining and soon to be dead. I think Lazenby would have done quite well in any of the Roger Moore films, but we'll never really know. He's the most overwhelmingly British Bond. He does seem a bit stiff and understated at times, which has to deduct a few points. He did, however, get to do a few interesting things in his one shot at Bond. OHMSS is the only Bond film I know where Bond gets married. Also it's the only Bond film I can think of where most of the chases take place on skis rather than in a car (Bond's car doesn't really feature in OHMSS). He also played opposite Telly Savalas, who is my favorite Blofeld. It seemed like Savalas played Blofeld with an almost compassionate side which actually makes him seem more evil in the end. Anyway, I can't rank Lazenby any higher because he only made one film, but I do often wonder what might have been with him.

5. Timothy Dalton Perhaps more a victim of circumstance than any of the other Bonds. When you look back at the older Bond films, especially Connery's, there seems to be a concerted effort to make Bond timeless. Sean Connery didn't really dress like a man of the 60's. He dressed like a timeless character, which is one of the reasons his films stand the test of time. In the 80's Bond seemed to really get with the times, which makes him seem a lot more dated now. It's not just the fashion, it's the way the films are put together. The opening credits tell the tale as much as anything. Early bond films featured music by John Barry and vocals from greats such as Shirley Bassey who sang in a jazzy and timeless way. The Living Daylights features a-ha (a band I love, by the way) in a not-so-great collaboration with Barry that sounds more dated each time I hear it. Jazz is timeless, 80s pop is not. Anyway, Dalton was a fine enough Bond. He actually looks like a more manly Pierce Brosnan. I like him as an actor but I don't enjoy his films as much because they seem stuck in the 80s (I loved the 80s, but Bond is not meant to be stuck in any decade. At least that's my opinion). Like I said, victim of circumstance.

6. Pierce Brosnan I personally know a few people who would give me an earful for putting Brosnan on the bottom, which is why I haven't told those people where to find this blog. Pierce Brosnan is what we call, "man pretty." Seriously, he's so good looking it distracts from the fact that he really didn't play Bond that well. In Brosnan's final effort he allowed Bond to be outshone by Halle Berry, which is unforgivable. Sure, he gave us Goldeneye which was a great Bond film and a better video game but I felt Goldeneye carried Brosnan rather than the other way 'round. Pick any of the other Bonds above and they would make any of Brosnan's Bond films better. Understand this: I don't hate Pierce Brosnan (though his performance in Mama Mia doesn't help his case much). I really enjoyed the Brosnan Bond films because that's the point at which I jumped on the franchise. Choosing a least favorite Bond is like choosing a least favorite breath of air (mine was that one I took near the slaughterhouse. Tasted like pork rinds and dead dreams). All Bonds and all Bond movies have their merits. I wouldn't own all 22 of them if they didn't (or if I wasn't a crazy completist). It's just that Brosnan goes on the bottom of this totem pole. He just does.

Anyway, that's how I rank all the James Bonds and I stand by it. Feel free to make a case for anything other than Daniel Craig possibly eclipsing Roger Moore provided his next film is good and I will ignore it.