Wrapped Up Like a Blog

Today, when I got home from the grocery store, my Ankh broke. Not my ankle but my Ankh (well, my keychain). Some might say that this is a bad omen. Others might point to the movement of the stars and planets -- it's a full moon tomorrow and Mercury is in retrograde, for instance -- and ascribe meaning to that. People want to believe in all kinds of things, from astrology to jinxes. Some people even believe that life is governed by karma, that if something bad happens to you it's the universe's way of telling you that you've been a bad person, that you are getting what is coming to you.

Personally, I no longer believe in karma. I have seen some pretty terrible things happen to some of the best people I know. If karma was really a law of the universe, these people would be rewarded with great boons, not  pain. And there are some for whom the inverse is true. They have wonderful things and people in their lives that they simply do not deserve, but because of circumstances, they have reaped benefits that cannot be ascribed to karma. I don't know if it makes people feel better or worse if they believe there is no rhyme or reason to the universe; perhaps it is better for some to believe there is some order, even if that belief is used primarily for self-flagellation. It would be nice if people could see the good in themselves and embrace it and take ownership of the positive aspects in life and get through the tough times without doing additional harm to their own psyches, but who am I to talk about such matters. I am tougher on myself than anyone, though I tend to blame myself entirely and skip the whole cosmic question altogether.

In the end, we all have our own pecadilloes (mine is using silly words), and some beliefs are ingrained. Perhaps you have a story about superstition you'd like to share, or perhaps you'll join with me to send positive vibes out into the universe to help those good people who deserve good results find their happiness.

Seems like a way to earn some good karma, no?

You consider yourself a George R. R. Martin fan. You have every episode Twilight Zone and Beauty and the beast. You are the world's biggest Wild Cards enthusiast. You've read Armageddon Rag and Fevre Dream. You've even enjoyed short stories about the last Super Bowl, time-traveling chess players and magic amulets that hope you don't drive a Chevy Nova. But if you don't have THIS, you may not be a Completist.



Why do you need this first appearance of Owen Reece, Molecule Man? Well, get to know Mr. Martin before he earned that second R...

I think what I love most about the Olympics is the variety. Yesterday I watched at least a half-dozen sports that I would not normally see, and each one offered something different.

I looked at fencing and wondered why they didn't have, say, more gladiatorial-type combat. I mean, I love sword fighting, but fencing has too many rules. Give me two people in an arena with blunt objects and I am happy.

I learned that air rifle shooters are not allowed to wear supportive tape. I learned that I love volleyball, but I find the beach version more entertaining because two people have to patrol the area and it seems a lot tougher.

I saw street cycling, which looks fun but exhausting, and I was glad I was not the one wiping out on international TV. I was astonished to see the sheer amount of weight that world-class weightlifters can clean and jerk (or snatch, even).

And I decided that Team Handball is the best sport ever.

I also watched archery and rowing and dressage. I barely left my couch. It's a cornucopia, a feast for the eyes and I love it. I look forward to more sports, like water polo and kayaking. It's tough to keep up with all of the content, so I have to skip boxing and soccer and fast forward through swimming and gymnastics, but I am soaking in as much as I can. I wish I could take the next couple weeks off...

I really enjoyed the Opening Ceremonies last night. As always, I made a night of it (after a long day of anticipation), making some of my favorite foods and settling in for the prime time telecast. The pageantry was interesting, but my favorite part was the parade of nations. I love to see all the different countries (or territories or "non-aligned" athletes or what have you). Plus, noting that some of the Olympians are VERY good looking did not hurt!

But today I really got into the games themselves. I put my DVR to work and, as soon as I got up, I started burning through content. I watched beach volleyball and got REALLY excited when Russia upset China. I checked out badminton and table tennis and then some air rifle. All of these sports fascinate me, and I enjoyed them quite a bit. Right now I am watching cycling (I am a bit behind the rest of the country I think). Seeing the cyclists move through London (a city I have visited twice) was pretty cool. Looking forward to more and more competition the next few weeks.

What are YOU watching?

As I write this post, I am counting down the moments to the Opening Ceremonies of the 2012 Summer Olympics. In many ways, I consider that my life consists of long periods of marking time between Olympic Games. For a while, the wait was interminable. We'd go three-and-a-half years between Summer and Winter Games (I I would remember when Presidential elections were held because they always took place in Olympic years), and then a six-month rush to the summer. Thankfully, they righted that ship with the 1994 Winter Games, putting them on an alternate track. Now the longest I have to wait is two-and-a-half years.

One of my clearest childhood memories is being on vacation with my family in 1980 (NOT in Lake Placid, unfortunately. I did vacation there in 1993, eating at the best Howard Johnson's in the country, but that is a story for another time). We sat in the hotel room, and my dad put on the Olympics and, suddenly, people were flying down icy chutes in tiny cars. It was a combination between sledding and the Batmobile. Suddenly, with my first exposure to bobsledding, I was hooked.

I'd always loved hockey, baseball and football, but the Olympics introduced me to sports that grabbed hold of my imagination (I tried to create an entire comics universe populated with heroes that had Olympics-based powers: The Decathlete was one, for example. Strong and fast, he could throw any number of weapons through your skull). I loved luge and dressage, biathlon and pentathlon. I saw races on ice, and the track and the water. People jumped from great heights and twisted in the air, they shot guns and bows. It was like watching training for superhero school.

Every four years, I geared up for the games. I begged my parents for the Triplecast in 1992 and, once I got my hands on a DVR in 2008, I almost burned the thing out capturing beach volleyball and kayaking, table tennis and badminton. I considered taking up curling so I could have a shot at the winter games, and I did take up archery with Geena Davis as my idol.

I always find the pageantry of the ceremonies a little over the top, but I look forward to seeing all the countries enter the stadium (as a youth, I could not believe there were so may countries in the world. It opened up my interest in geography. And, I must admit, I usually root against American athletes in most competitions. I'd rather see someone from Estonia or Djibouti win. After all, how else can I see their flags or learn their national anthems?). I'll be eating shrimp and popcorn as I watch tonight. I hope you join me in enjoying the games and take part in my dialogue. I mean, I can't be the only crazy one, can I?  Can I?

Opening ceremonies for the Summer Olympics are tomorrow and I have a confession to make: I am obsessed. I have been obsessed with the Olympics since I was 3.5 years old, watching my first Olympiad (1980's winter games). Over the next couple weeks, you'll see a series of posts on this blog about my fixation. I'll talk about my earliest memories, my greatest disappointments, my favorite sports (mostly the ones I never, ever get to see elsewhere). I may talk about my favorites this go-round: athletes, sports and moments. I am not the fan targeted by the networks and sponsors: I don't tend to like the "high-profile" sports (gymnastics, swimming, basketball), and I tend to be more invested and interested in athletes and teams from outside the US. But still, if it's Olympic, I'll watch it, from the first countries in the parade of nations to the passing of the torch to Rio. If you don't dig on the Olympics, you may want to take a break from the blog for a while. But if you are like me, feel free to contribute your thoughts and memories!

Of the first batch of Before Watchmen titles, my favorite was definitely Silk Spectre. I thought it did more to flesh out Laurie's character in 22 pages than the entirety of the original series. Well, I am happy to say, I enjoyed issue #2 just as much.

This is my 400th post! I need a cookie or something to celebrate. Also, this post, has topped 2,000 page views. Pretty exciting stuff! What's your favorite post in the history of the blog?

I love superhero prose novels. Soon I Will Be Invincible, From the Notebooks of Dr. Brain or The Coyote Kings of the Space Age Bachelor Pad, I dig them. The latest to come my way is Nobody Gets the Girl by James Maxey. Because I often feel like the guy who never gets the girl, I was interested. I didn't realize the title was a bit of word play, but if I had, I would've had a better idea of the creative fun in store for me.

This is a hard book to review, as I don't want to give away too much. There are plenty of clever twists and turns, old tropes from superhero books, some turned on their ear, some tilted just a bit to give a fresh angle. The book starts out with a dilemma for the protagonist, which turns out to stem logically from another sci-fi trope. What follows is an adventure with an invisible man, dueling super-geniuses, creative power sets (a circus geek and a giant baby with a gun for a head), time travel, the creation (or re-creation of the universe), secret cabals of world leaders, an epic tragedy, some romance and lots of good old-fashioned soul searching.

The book is engaging and fast-paced and kept my interest from start to finish. The protagonist was interesting and his journey fascinated me. Plus, the world Maxey created is fun and complex. I'd love to go back there someday. If you love super hero stories, check this out. I won't spoil anything, but you'll be glad you did.

This review will be split in parts. The first part is spoiler free. I'll let you know when the spoilers begin.

This book would be right up my alley. It involves a lot of concepts that line up with my tastes -- old time photos, abandoned buildings, mysterious places and super powers. In fact, I jokingly refer to this book as "Miss Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters" or some variation on that. You mix young adult literature with X-Men and a dash of time travel, and  you have a winner.

In the book, we follow a seemingly ordinary boy, Jacob, down the rabbit hole, so to speak. He is your typical YA hero, an introvert and an outsider whose closest relationship is with his grandfather, who is his entrance into a mysterious world. When Jacob was a child, Grandpa Abe would show him photos of children with super powers -- levitating girls and super strong boys -- and tell him tales about a pipe-smoking bird who oversaw a home for peculiar children. Eventually, Jacob comes to think of this world as a fiction spun by his grandfather, but a tragic event causes Jacob to attempt to hunt down this mysterious home, the woman who ran it (Miss Peregrine) and the truth about his grandfather and this secret world. The journey takes him across the pond to an isolated island -- and through time, as well.

One of the big hooks of the tale is the use of old-timey photos. The author and his colleagues collected these unusual images from flea markets and the like and incorporated them directly into the text. At times, it's a great addition to the story, letting us see into the unusual world. Other times, they seem forced into the narrative, as if the author was dying to find an excuse to use a photo of a sad kid in a bunny costume and would shoehorn it in at any opportunity. But the book is fun and the world created is interesting and I enjoyed exploring it.

Now, for SPOILERS:

The biggest issue I had here was with the ending. I suppose I read a lot of books that are part of series, and many of them end on cliffhangers. But somehow I thought this book would wrap up at the end, with a satisfying conclusion to the initial story while still leaving room for a sequel. But, of course, it is clear that the book was always intended to be the first part of a greater story, and in that way I felt a bit cheated. Still, I'll read the sequel when it comes out, and I'm sure to enjoy it. Though I don't like the idea of waiting for it...

Since this is a review that deals with spoilers, I'll start by revealing the spoiler that I accidentally read, the one that ruined a beat for me (I'll always be left wondering if I could figure it out). In an article about Liam Neeson's next project, there was an offhand comment about Marion Cotillard being Talia. I THINK I would have figured it out (it fit with the duality of Ra's and Ducard and when the story kept hammering on his child, I might have figured it out, but who knows?)

A couple of disclaimers before I start my review of The Dark Knight Rises: First, I saw the flick at midnight in California, and I was excited to review it -- and then I heard word about the movie theater shooting in Colorado. I do not feel equipped to write about that now, so I shan't. Second, I am going to review this in two parts. Today I'll give a spoiler-free review, and tomorrow I'll write a spoiler-filled review. On Thursday, a co-worker showed me an article about one of the actors in the film and a future project of his. It contained a spoiler for DKR which ruined a major plot point for me. I'll try to be careful.

One other piece of background information: I LOVED Batman Begins. It's my second favorite bat-flick  (after Mask of the Phantasm). I liked The Dark Knight. I thought it was good, but my opinion was not as some. I found Aaron Eckhart's performance to be tremendous, but I thought Heath Ledger was good but not great. The film suffered from being a bit too bloated (I could have done without the "Batman goes to Asia" bit and the secondary villain) -- and this movie suffers from the same issue.

It clocks in at nearly three hours and it has too much going on, I think. One issue I have with many third installments of superhero franchises is their lack of focus on the hero. And this movie has a lot less Batman than I would have preferred. Also, while I love Joseph Gordon Levitt and his character, there is a huge emphasis on him, and he seems to be EVERYWHERE when anything important is going on. I love any scene with Selina Kyle (they don't call her Catwoman, as far as I recall, but that's her character) and not just because I'd like to marry Anne Hathaway.

That's not to say that the movie is not good. I think its character beats are excellent, and as a third installment of the story of Bruce Wayne, it works out well. And SOME of the thematic threads work, especially the ones related to Bruce's journey. Most of the performances are tremendous as well. In addition to JGL, Hathaway and Bale, returning actors Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman are tremendous (and nice to see a little Cillian Murphy, too). The effects are great, and it's very well shot. I also love how it ties back to previous films, and I was pleasantly surprised that it tied back to BB as much as DK.

However, the biggest issue I have is with Bane. I was skeptical when he was announced as the villain of the piece, but I could imagine that the creative team picked him because he could be molded into whatever vision they wanted. But for me, he falls way short. His character history (especially in the months leading up to the main action) is muddy, and his plan is, frankly, a big issue for me. It made little sense and the illogic of it (and the way that everyone dealt with that plan) got in the way of my enjoyment of the movie. Plus, the performance by Tom Hardy is tough to watch. I love him as an actor, but you can hardly tell who is behind that mask, and it makes emoting difficult, plus all of his dialogue comes across as ADR, which was offputting for me.

A lot of people will talk about the end, but I won't address it hear. Tomorrow, though, I'll talk about it, as I must. If you see the movie, check out the rest of my review tomorrow. If not, well, what are you waiting for?

I haven't seen True Blood in a year and a half. I've read the first five of Charlaine Harris' Southern Vampire Chronicles, but, from what I gather, TB has gone far afield of that. I caught an episode last night in my hotel room and, well, here is my review.

The show is, in a word, bloated. I counted 22 main characters in the credits. That is, in my opinion, way too many. There are several plot threads that I simply do not care about (Tara, Terry Bellfeur) and characters who get short shrift (Lafayette, Sam). And, really, the main plot seemed to have promise (with Mac from Veronica Mars as, well, Mac), but at the end of the episode, it seemed that there was a return to an old, tired plot that felt like it would be a retread of a previous season. And, really, though I haven't seen them in a while, I am already sick of Bill and Eric.

If they streamline the show, cut down the cast, concentrate on interesting characters and give them good stories (and spend time on each story!) it can be saved, I think. But after watching last night, I don't feel like I am missing much...

Once again, after I take a cross-country flight, you, dear readers, get to benefit from my time spent sitting down and watching recent flicks on a tiny screen. I saw two movies on my way to the Bay Area. The first of which, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, was surprisingly satisfying.

I have to admit, this movie, for me, suffered from its title. I admit that I did not take it seriously (and this from a guy who writes a book called Misty Johnson, Supernatural Dick) and I missed out. It has a great cast, with Kristin Scott Thomas, Emily Blunt and Obi Wan Kenobi (er, Ewan McGregor). It's about, well, salmon fishing in the Yemen.

A sheik who loves fishing wants to create an artificial river in the desert so he can bring his hobby to his home. McGregor is the government wonk (Dr. Jones) who is smart and introverted (he has Aspergers) and thinks the plan is a joke, though it is supported by the Prime Minister (in the guise of Thomas, his press guru). Blunt plays the sheik's beautiful, intelligent assistant who liaises between the fishman and the fisherman.

It is about salmon fishing the way, I suppose, Shakespeare in Love is about playwriting. The project is an excuse to muse about faith. The sheik has faith that the project will get done, but Jones, a man of science, has no faith. Can he learn it in the process? And, more importantly, will he learn how to interact with other people?

At the heart of the movie is a love story. Jones is unhappily married to a boring, staid woman, and Blunt's character, who is more socialized, is in love with a war hero. He starts to fall for her, but will he leave his comfortable, predictable life and job and take a chance on love in a faraway land with a woman who brings out the best in him? And, can he really compete with her war-hero boyfriend when he is little more than a geek with a lot of potential (we'll ignore the fact that he looks like Ewan McGregor. Few of us geeks do). This plot, of course, resonated with me, as I identified with Jones and his dilemma. I wanted him to get the girl, but I feared he would not. I won't blow it for you but, win or lose, the movie was well acted and well directed, and I laughed out loud at times and teared up at others.

Not bad for an Aspergery geek like me who is still waiting for his Emily Blunt (or the actual Emily Blunt, if Kristen Bell does not accept my marriage proposal...)

Did you ever read a book and think "Why didn't I think of this?" I feel like some writers I know would have that reaction to Warm Bodies, a zombie romance.

I was going to review the book I read on the plane, Warm Bodies, and at least one of the flicks I saw, Salmon Fishing in Yemen, but my luggage did not arrive (yet) and I didn't get Wi-Fi until just now. Reviews, though, will follow, fast and/or furiously...

Trilogies are tricky business. The fact of the matter is, one segment of a trilogy, whether in movie or book form, is bound to be better than the others, and one is bound to be the worst. So it's a tricky dance for the creators, methinks.

We have cycled through the first set of Watchmen prequel issues, and we are back to the second issue of the Minuteman title. The first one frustrated me a bit, as it spent time introducing each character again, but this issue was more like it. We got a Legion-style recruitment montage and their first mission, which played out nicely.

I am still not entirely sold on the framing mechanism with Hollis Mason working on Under the Hood. Other than connecting it back to the text portions of the original series, I am not sure it is necessary. But we only spent a few pages with him before we got to the meat of the story this time. And that recruitment montage, though we have seen iterations of it countless times before, was fun. Some of the duds were even, well, duddier, than the worst Legion rejects, and it was nice to see how the "masked vigilante phase" had gotten out of control.

The meat of the issue was the team's first mission, and it was nice to see them actually in action. But, in a nice thematic connection back to Watchmen, in the end, it was less about the superheroic action itself but more about the perception of it. We saw how the Minutemen, with Captain Metropolis and Laurence Schexnayder at the helm, used the mission itself to their own ends. And, below the surface, there is the sexual tension hinted at in the series, brought more to the forefront, with relationships between and among the characters, effecting their interrelationships and the fabric of the team itself.

The end of the book has a nice crosscut of images from a mission some of the characters undertake, a flashback leading up to that event, and another pair of characters interacting. The juxtaposition is emotionally strong, and does a nice job of using the unique features of the medium. It is very, if I may say, reminiscent of Watchmen. This issue was better than the first, and I think I am on board for the entire series in this case...

Well, I am not in San Diego right now. My fantasy that some beautiful woman would knock on my door, say "Come with me if you want to live," and drag me to Comic Con was not realized for the 16th year in a row. I DID get to go once, and I did get to meet Joss Whedon, and attend a Marvel party. But I really, really hope to go back again.

I get to go to New York Comic Con every year, (though this year it'll be for only one day), and I hope to get to Dragon Con someday, but there is something appealing about San Diego. The city is great, with perfect weather and the best ballpark this side of Camden Yards. And the convention is a blast. It's a lot heavier into movies and TV than NYCC (New York being home to the two largest comic companies while San Diego is a quick jaunt from Hollywood). I have fond memories of seeing the pilot  of Tru Calling (or "I choose not to be Faith Lehane anymore" as I like to call it), but I got to see the pilot of Once Upon a Time at NYCC this year. I catch as many comic related panels at each con as I can, and each has its fair share of cosplayers, but I guess the cool thing for me in San Diego was seeing actorly types. I walked by Quentin Tarantino and Daryl Hannah, and I had a great conversation with Seth Meyers (about baseball, naturally) before he was a big star. But he and I also talked about comics, because there are a lot of comics fans out there.

Some comic fans gripe that San Diego is not about the comics anymore (though Morgan's Spurlock amazing documentary  does a nice job featuring them), and when I first learned of the con, before it was retitled, it was through Assistant Editor month at Marvel. But really, I think this comes back to my discussion on geek solidarity. Whether you have a love for Glee or anime or the latest issue of Saga, you have a passion for something, and you are welcome. At least that is how I felt, surrounded by more than 100,000 people. There is a great Kirby Krackle song about going to cons, and how they feel like home for nerds like us. And, like ET, I kinda wish I was going home today. Since my imaginary geek girl won't be knocking on my door anytime soon, I figure I'll start saving up and, before the decade is out, I'll be back. And you read it here, on the Internet, so you know it must be true.

Of the six main heroes in Watchmen, I would say we spend the least amount of time inside the head of Adrian Veidt (though Laurie comes in a close second, as I have mentioned). Perhaps this makes sense structurally as (stop here if you have not read the comic or seen the film) he is the ostensible villain of the piece, the one with the master plan, and spending too much time in his mind would make the mystery plot trickier.

So I was excited to read his title in the Before Watchmen series of series. It was, to say the least, a mixed bag.

The Art: It took me a short while to warm up to the Jae Lee art. His style is not traditional Jack Kirby superhero stuff. It has a more "artistic"almost "painted" feel to it. And that clangs mightily at first. It's a far cry from the art in classic Watchmen, so it took me out of the story for a bit. And the initial story, about Adrian as a child, looks off, as if the style did not fit the mundane subject. But once Veidt starts traveling the world, Batman Begins style, it clicks, and the second half of the book looks very sharp. I also love Lee's play with panel structure. He eschews the five panel grid completely and weaves in circular and semi-circular panels, throwing in nice callback images to Watchmen where appropriate (the sci-fi monster poster above Adrian's bed, for example). I think the art will be a better fit in future issues. For now, I give it Two Minutes to Midnight.

The Story: These are prequels, after all, and that causes a few problems here. Writer Len Wein (a favorite of mine from way back) sets up the mini-series as Veidt outlining his history for posterity. I found that a bit clunky as a narrative framework. I also had a bit of trouble with his narration, as I felt Wein hit some wrong notes with the voice of the world's smartest man. The other issue I have is the Anakining of Veidt. As much as I needed to know about his past, seeing him as a child did little for me (he was teased. His father was forced to pay a bribe to get him out of trouble). I also found the recap of his world journey -- the one solid piece of info we had about Veidt from Watchmen -- a little tired, as we know most of those beats. But once the story came back to New York and we got to see Veidt use his mind and feel something for Miranda, the story kicked into gear. By the end, I wanted to see him go after Moloch (who is apparently the only villain in town!). I am going to pick up the next issue, but for this one, the writing gets three minutes to midnight

More reviews on the way!

When I got up this morning, I was ready to review Walking Dead issue #99. I pick up my comics every 2 weeks or so, and I do reviews every couple of days, so I was taking my sweet time getting to WD99. But today on Facebook I read a comment about issue #100 and how... brutal it was. So I took a rare Wednesday trip to Heroes Comics (and Taco Bell) and put WD100 on the top of my stack.

It was... brutal.

I'll try to review it without too many spoilers, but for those of you who only know Walking Dead from the TV show, you should check out the comics. They are available in a variety of collections from your local comic shop (or online). The comic is more horrific than the show. There is more viscera, certainly, but the real horror of this little horror comic has always been the way that people behave in the new world order. Fans of the comic fell in love with The Governor, a character who was cruel and brutal and more of a monster than any zombie. He was a fan favorite villain, and the book has not found a foe to top him.

Until, perhaps, now.

Robert Kirkman had done a pretty good job luring readers into a state of complacency recently. We became comfortable with Rick's gang of survivors. We had our favorites who had stuck around for a long time, and we were adding new characters. A fairly major character died recently, even as Rick and company were starting to feel their first wisps of optimism in years, but overall, the journey had become more about building a society instead of just merely surviving.

Then we got to issue #99 and the foreshadowing, the sense of foreboding was palpable. I had a feeling that something bad would happen in #100. I thought I even suspected what that would be. But Kirkman outsmarted me, as he does (he once said to me "Chris Evans is better than me" but I disagree). And not only did the tragedy of #100 surprise me, it was done in a way that was raw and brutal and horrific. It really did punch me in the stomach, and I love that.

I cannot wait for #101.

When it comes to listing a favorite character from Watchmen, there are several usual suspects. Many love Rorschach, the merciless vigilante with a tragic past. Others love the cerebral and powerful Dr. Manhattan. Some adore the nearly amoral Comedian. Then there are others, like me, who dig the sad-sack Blue Beetle/Batman stand in, Nite Owl II.

At first, I think it was because he was such a sad sack that I loved him. That shot of him forlornly hunched over in his lair, sad and soft, gets me every time. And when he gets back in his superheroic groove, he regains his purpose in life and his manhood as well. But on further reflection, I think Dan Dreiberg is meant, in a lot of ways, to represent me. He is smart and a fan of superheroes, having worshipped the first Nite Owl from afar. He was the kid who made good, ascending to the level of his heroes, fighting the good fight with gadgets and smarts.

Why, then, did the first issue of his series fall flat for me?

Perhaps it's because he is not as interesting as some of the others. In this issue we got a standard "daddy issue" plot, which perhaps helped us understand his relationship with Hollis Mason and perhaps set him alongside others, like Laurie and Walter, who had parental issues in their past. And his clever discovery of Nite Owl and subsequent training should have been exciting, but seemed like a mere connect-the-dots puzzle. As did the rest of the beats, from Dan's connection to Laurie and his partnership with Rorschach also seemed... obligatory. There was just not a lot here that was unexpected, and less depth of character, especially as compared to some of the other titles. Still, I do like Dan, and I plan on sticking around for at least the next issue, but for now, this gets 4 minutes to midnight...


Ozymandias review to come!

Check out the article here.

I've dug Jason "I revived the Muppets" Segel since Freaks and Geeks. I love Ed Helms on The Office. And who doesn't like Susan Sarandon? So I was destined to like Jeff, Who Lives at Home, And, hey, the creepy guy from Safety Not Guaranteed co-wrote and co-directed! And dig it I did.

The movie revolves around the seemingly aimless stoner Jeff who goes on a quest to buy wood glue for his mother and ends up fulfilling his own destiny and affecting the lives of many close to him. Jeff is one of those people who believes everything happens for a reason, to the point where he is almost worshipful of the movie Signs, of all things. And he lives his life looking for signs, following, for example, the name "Kevin" wherever it leads him.

But the story is not, in the end, Jeff's. It is really about how Jeff affects the life of his brother, Pat who, frankly, needs some change. He is as lost as Jeff, tied down to possessions and cut off from relationships. He loses much and gains more on this single day as he interacts with his brother. There is also a subplot with Jeff and Pat's mother, which seems a bit out of place at first, but tonally comes together with the rest of the film as its plot strand intertwine's with Jeff's. The acting is understated and realistic, and the film is sweet and whimsical. Again, some of it hit a little close to home to me, as it was as much about finding yourself in others as it is finding your own way. It's a quick, tight little film, but it is well worth a few smiles and some introspection.

Check out my video on Amazing Spider-Man technology!

Just so ya know, I am going to try to give too much away, but I'll be talking about the characters and themes of this movie so, if you don't want to learn anything about this flick, click away now!

I have a soft spot for small, intimate films, what some might call "indy" movies. When I was in DC, I would see every small film that caught my fancy, but here in CT, it's not as easy. Fortunately, I discovered an "art house" cinema not far away from my new place, so I get to check out smaller films more frequently (and this place has the best popcorn, btw).

Safety Not Guaranteed has a great premise. Not long ago, an ad appeared:

"Wanted: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. Safety not guaranteed."

Turns out the ad was a plant by the classified department to fill unpurchased space, but it became a great premise for a high concept movie. A magazine writer takes two interns to investigate this ad, to see if the person who placed it is for real or crazy or a merry prankster. 


It seems like a light topic, but the movie explores some pretty resonant themes of love and loss and regret and the desire for second chance and connections to other human beings. And that is the heart of the movie: it has a lot of heart.


Some might not enjoy Aubrey Plaza, who plays sad-sack April on Parks and Rec with an array of pouts and sneers and to-camera eye rolls. But it's that very persona that sets up a nice character arc here. Her character, Darius, has a veneer, a protective shell of aloof disinterest, which hides her trauma and shields her from interacting with the world. When she meets a man who is also damaged by his past, but who has the optimism that it's never too late to change your fate, that he can literally bend the fabric of space and time to fix what once went wrong, it resonates with her.


There are two subplots in the movie, both of which at first seemed to exist to fill out the 80+ minute running time, to make this a feature rather than a short. One involves the reporter, played by "That Dude from that New Girl Show" and his real reason for pursuing this assignment, and the other involves the second intern, a shy, nerdy intern who struggles within his own skin and in his social interactions. Again, these subplots seem to take time away from the main investigation, but when placed parallel to themes and characters in the central story, it makes for some nice, complex thematic and tonal harmonies.


There are some nice cameos in the movie, too, from Mary Lynn Rajskub, Jeff Garlin and my future wife, Kristen Bell-Steeves.


I recommend this movie to anyone who wants a short diversion from the real world. But be warned. If, like me, you have some regrets in your past, from bad decisions to the one that got away, this movie may hit a little too close to home. It did for me, but maybe that's why I liked it so much...

Why DIDN'T I see this flick when it was in the theater? I mean, it's a superhero story, a coming of age tale, a well-acted movie with strong special effects. It could be, I admit, my aversion to "found footage" type stories. I saw Blair Witch. I dug Cloverfield, but the format was starting to get old to me. It was like the latter seasons of the Office, when I felt they pushed the boundaries of the "film crew" format a little too far. So I skipped this movie, even though I'd heard good things about it.

But I rented it for Independence Day. I NEVER rent movies, but I did (even though I love my Twilight Zone marathon), and I am glad I did.

First of all, the movie looks good. I was able to put aside the presence of the camera (the filmmakers tried their best to make the character of Andrew one who would shoot everything, and they gave us other camera people, like Casey, and footage from traffic cams, etc.) and suspend my disbelief. One of the reasons why I was able to look beyond was the strength of the effects. Telekinesis and flight might seem easy to show on screen, but done poorly, it can really pull me out of a movie. I loved how the filmmakers mixed in what I took to be a lot of practical effects with CGI, though I could frequently not spot the difference, which is a plus in my mind. From small effects of floating toys, to the movement of cars, it almost felt like a high school kid shooting actual events -- which really was the point.

The story is strong, though in a lot of ways, it's a fairly straightforward superhero origin story. There is a source of power, discovery and honing of abilities, transformation of the lives of the gifted, a fall from grace and a final confrontation. Pretty standard stuff for a superhero tale, but the high school and family elements help set it apart. These are teenage boys, and we see their enthusiasm, their poor judgment, their use of powers to achieve popularity, to have visceral fun and to pursue petty vengeance. But we also see how family can affect impressionable young people in a strong way, and there is a tragic streak in one boy's story.

But really, the key to my enjoyment of the movie was in the acting. I didn't know these actors (though one was on True Blood and one on The Wire (which I must see someday)), and that helped. They seemed as if they really could be regular high school kids caught on camera. And they acted that way. They were silly and sentimental. They were petulant and impulsive. They talked like kids and acted like kids, and I rose and fell with them. Their successes felt real and their tragedies did as well. Steve and Andrew were the most interesting characters to me, and their dynamic was at the heart of the story. And the story really did have heart, which is rarer than I'd like these days.

So I dug it. I am glad I rented it. And I rented a second movie that day. Review to follow...

I love me some apocalyptic stories. I am proud to have a tale in Earth's End: An Apocalyptic Anthology ("499 Seconds") but my friend, R O Boras, has one in there which is even better. In fact, his tale, about a man who goes on a quest to find his lost love as the world crumbles around him, reminds me a lot of the premise of the latest Steve Carell movie.

I don't know why this film did not garner a larger audience. It has everything: the end of the world (people love that, look at our obsession with the Zombie Apocalypse), lots of dry humor, social commentary and a love story. Carell is great in one of his best understated roles. His character, Dodge, is such a boring schlub, with a job selling insurance, a loveless marriage and no family to speak of. When the world ends (and the movie smartly starts out by telling us that the Armageddon-style space mission was a failure), Dodge simply does not know what to do. Others have orgies, or spend time with family or commit suicide, but Dodge is so passive he simply keeps going to work and checking his mail.

Eventually, he gets a quest: to find the one who got away (and who among us does not have one of THOSE?) On his journey, he is accompanied by Penny, played by Keira Knightley, and the two, of course, find each other (is that a spoiler?) I am not a huge fan of Knightley. I don't particularly find her attractive nor do I find her character in the film charming, but I am SO charmed by Dodge, who slowly starts to come out of his shell, who learns to feel again, and really exist in the world, even in its last moments. Maybe I identify with him, as I have felt passive and stuck like he is, and have sought that spark to bring me back into the world. And maybe I'm just a sucker for soulmate stories, and I imagine that, if the end of the world was coming soon, I'd be able to find someone to share those final moments with.

If not, maybe I'll just watch this movie again -- as long as the electricity is still on...

Here is my latest video covering top technology and gadgets for your swimming pool!

I am a little late to this party, but better late than never. I am going to review Divergent, the first book in a trilogy by Veronica Roth. I should be receiving the second book, Insurgent, in the mail soon. (is the third one going to be called Emergent? Anyone know?)

I'll try my best not to spoil TOO much here, in case  you'd like to read it. And I'll try my very best to judge the book on its own merits, and not compare it to other dystopian young adult novels (I am especially thinking her of The Giver by Lois Lowry, a favorite of mine and an acknowledged influence on Roth). I'll also try not to judge it based on the elements I wanted to see, rather on the ones that Roth wanted to give me. On to the review!

The World: In dystopian novels, world-building is key, and Roth does an interesting job here. One thing that sets this book apart from others is its scope. We are not dealing with an entire country or world, but rather a single city (what used to be Chicago). The society we see in Divergent is limited to the one city and surrounding farms, which is evident by the fences that play such an important role. It's a tight focus, which first struck me as odd, but allowed the book to have a story that could affect the entire society and where each person individually was important. Plus, it got me speculating about the rest of the world. Another interesting aspect of the book is the level of technology. Most of these books tend to have a society that is either extremely advanced or one has regressed. In Divergent, the tech seems almost identical to ours, with one big exception, which plays a HUGE role in the story itself. As for the societal and thematic aspect of this world that differentiates it from other dystopian books, well that fits in my next category.

 The Themes: The book takes place in a future society where people belong to one of six groups. There are five Factions which each admire a particular virtue (courage, knowledge, friendship, honesty and selflessness) and homeless, helpless people who are factionless. Teenagers start in one faction, but at age 16 are tested and then can select one of the factions, which then becomes their greatest loyalty. I found it interesting that there is a test AND a choice, but those dual aspects become important in the journey of our lead character. I find the choices of virtues interesting as well, and the interactions among them. We get insight into two factions clearly and a bit of a look at a third, but two are barely touched upon. The main character of course faces a choice of identity when she must decide on a faction, and her choice tells her a lot about herself, her family, her society and human nature. While I might have liked to see more about the other factions, their history, customs and interactions, the tight focus on one girl and her journey makes sense as a typical YA trope.

The Plot: We follow the journey of one girl, Beatrice, from right before her test through her selection of and training in a faction. Through her, we learn a lot about that faction and the interactions among the factions. There is also a looming threat to the stability of society which encroaches on her training. This aspect of the story I did not enjoy as much. Seeing the girl go through her journey was powerful, but when the story shifted to bigger picture issues, I felt it got a little simplistic and cliched. I was interested in Tris and in the society, but the central, societal conflict left me a bit cold (especially in the way it intertwines with the girl's story. That seemed quite forced).

The Characters: The heart of the story, for me, was the lead character. In any YA book of this nature, the lead is very important and very tricky. It has to be someone with whom we can identify, but someone who is special, though not TOO perfect. It is a tricky balance and it works here. In a society that values singularity of focus, we get a girl who has many, many gifts. She is smart and brave and selfless, like a good lead character (she reminds me of someone I know, in that way), but that puts her at odds with her society. She has to learn about herself, her strengths and weaknesses, and how to relate to others. The others, in some cases, are a bit weak. Her family is interesting as is her love interest and instructors. But there are so many classmates in her training exercises that they are hard to keep straight (all with cursedly bland names, too), and many of them come off as caricatures. One major flaw I have with Tris (and many YA leads) is the forced blindness toward romance. It seems that every lead character in YA novels must not understand that s/he is attractive and must not believe that the object of his/her affection might actually reciprocate those feelings. Perhaps that is a sore spot for me, as I had this exact same problem in my youth, all the way through college. Still, putting that aside, Tris is a likable and capable character, and I found myself invested in her journey of self discovery. And that is what I need to buy into this 500 page story.

Oh, and the version I bought has cool bonus features, like interviews, Faction credos, discussion questions and more. As a guy who gobbles up DVD special features and commentary tracks, I dug that.

I look forward to Insurgent. In many cases, the second part of a trilogy is the best, though sometimes the books try too hard to be like the original. I hope Roth escapes that trap and surprises me. I want to know more about this world and I want Tris to grow. I hope I get to see that...

Click here to find out how you can tweet your final votes for the All-Star Game!

Yesterday, I commented on the nature of the new Amazing Spider-Man movie, focusing on its nature as a reboot and another origin story. Now I'll muse on the acting, directing and story.

Acting: I wasn't sure about Andrew Garfield. I've never seen his work before, so I didn't know what to expect, aside from ridiculous hair (it distracted me, but I am shallow like that). I thought he was a little TOO handsome for geeky Peter, but his acting was earnest and restrained as Peter, and his humor was strong as Spidey (thanks to the script for that). As I tried to put Garfield's appearance aside (he was a little TOO lean for Spidey, I think), I tried to put aside Emma Stone's looks as well. I know a lot of men (and probably just as many women) find her attractive, but I find her face VERY strange looking and a bit distracting. I have enjoyed her acting in films (Crazy, Stupid Love, for one) and she was good here (and, to be fair, the costume department really did make her look like Gwen from a distance). Her character had more personality here than she ever seemed to have in the comics, and the trend to make love interests of superheroes into geniuses in films is present here (see: Jane Foster and Sue Storm for previous examples). Dennis Leary gives exactly the performance you'd expect as Captain Stacy, and President Bartlett (Martin Sheen) is a good Uncle Ben. Sally Fields reminds me too much of my mom, so I shan't judge her as Aunt May. Rhys Ifans is acceptable as Curt Connors, though the character is not as well drawn in this movie as, say, Otto Octavius was in Spider-Man 2.

Directing: I lived (500) Days of Summer, Mark Webb's previous film, and his deft touch with young love is evident here (though there are no cartoon birds, as far as I saw). The scenes with Peter and Gwen are strong. I get the impression there was some improv there, and it feels authentic. But for a director who didn't seem to have action movie experience, he does a decent job with this movie. Many of the money sequences with the Lizard are short at first, which is a tad frustrating for the pacing, but overall, the stunts, effects and performances mesh well (though I do NOT recommend the 3D. For me, it added nothing). Again, he is burdened a bit by a script that has to cram in all of the superhero origin tropes into this movie while still telling a story about young love, fallen father figures and genetic manipulation gone wrong. Webb does a decent job of balancing these, but I think the greatest failings are in the plot.

Story: There is, simply put, too much going on. As I said earlier, I don't need to see the elements of Spidey's origin retold: discovering his powers, training montages, etc. There are also lots of superheroic elements tossed into the flick that are cliched and conveniently ignored by the people in the world (Spider-Man with his mask off, Peter performing acts at school that are superhuman, the lax security at Oscorp). The movie is also VERY tough on father figures, from Richard and Ben Parker, to Dr. Connors and Captain Stacy. You do NOT want to be an older male figure in Peter's life! The villain is also a bit problematic. He is too much of an enigma. We wonder what he thought and did for 15 years, and his mental transformation seems even more abrupt than his physical one. And the final master threat is foreshadowed in clunky dialogue and seems awfully silly when I think about it too hard. There were also some moments that were groaners, from Peter's training, to his hunt for his Uncle's killer, to a scene on the subway, his plan to track the lizard, his interaction with a young boy and the heroism of construction workers. The strength in this movie is NOT the story, though the acting and the directing raise it above the words on the page.

I'd suggest checking it out on the big screen. I did not adore it like I did Avengers, but I did not abhor it like Spider-Man 3. Get out of the cold and into the AC, and see if you are as charmed by Garfield as I am!

I saw The Amazing Spider-Man at a midnight showing last night.  I have a LOT of thoughts on the movie itself, about the acting, the plot and the direction. But before I get into that, I want to wax poetic for a bit about the very existence of this movie.

Remakes are pretty common in Hollywood, of course. We could talk about Sabrina, for example, or the shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. And we certainly know that comics are "rebooted" all the time (I am looking at you, DCU New 52). We've even seen superhero franchises rebooted recently. There was a "soft" reboot of the Hulk, the semi-boot of Superman and the full-on reboot of Batman. But here is what makes The Amazing Spider-Man different (and, to me, problematic).

Superhero origin movies are tricky things. The original Superman was a great origin story, spending a great deal of time on Krypton and Clark's childhood and teenage years. The leisurely pace set us up to really know the Man of Steel. And Iron Man was another good one, because the transformation of Tony Stark's character was as dramatic and important as his birth as a superhero (it's no coincidence that he got a replacement heart in that story). On the other hand, many superhero franchises plodded through the origin movie only to deliver a bang-up second film: X2 is a much better flick than X-Men, as is Spider-Man 2. We can jump right into the story and tell a fresh tale rather than go through the motions of the hero journey yet again.

Take a look, for a moment, at these recent superhero reboots. Superman Returns was more or less a continuation of Superman II's world. The Incredible Hulk took us through Bruce's origin in the opening credits (rather abstractly) and just told a Hulk story. Batman had the opposite issue. Burton's 1989 flick started with the Dark Knight already settled in Gotham and we got a few peeks into his origin in flashbacks. So when it came time to tell an origin story, THAT was fresh. Many would say that Dark Knight is better than Batman Begins, supporting my "2nd flick is better than the origin" paradigm, but I am partial to BB over DK (though I acknowledge that I am in the minority here).

It's only been five years since we were stung with the Venom of Spidey 3 (sorry), but it's not the quick turnaround that gives me pause, it's the decision to retell the origin. I tried to keep an open mind about this, but it pulled me out of the story as I watched.

It's hard NOT to compare this origin with the Raimi flick, since it was only 10 years ago, and I think the screenwriters are conscious of that as well. Each story picks and chooses aspects of the origin to highlight, and that is all well and good, but the pieces that are missing are what bugs me (er, no pun intended).

We get to see Peter as a geek in school, tormented by Flash. Check. We see him interact with his aunt and uncle. Check. We see him bitten by a spider. Check. We see him learn about his powers and train. Check. And it's these repeated sequences that annoy. I saw Peter learn about his wallcrawling, strength and agility already. I saw him as an outcast at school and being awful to his aunt and uncle. It feels repetitive and I want to get through it.

And I question elements that are missing or altered. Peter does not try to use his powers to make money as a wrestler. The circumstances surrounding Ben's death are altered. And nowhere do we see a hint of J Jonah Jameson. Maybe I am nitpicking, and maybe it's not fair to compare this movie to the other, but that is how I felt as I watched.

Oh, and the spiderbite sequence did not work for me at all. Also, Peter's quest to find his uncle's killer made little sense to me. It was too cinematically convenient.

On the other hand, there are elements I love. Peter working on his webshooters is great (the organic shooters didn't bother me too much, but this film is heavily focused on Peter the scientist, so it works well). The presence of Captain Stacy is nice, for the most part, as is most of Peter's relationship with Gwen. And the performances of all the Parkers are great, as I'll touch on tomorrow. But the addition to the story I dig the most is the focus on Richard and Mary Parker. Father figures have it rough in this movie (more on that tomorrow), but emphasizing the loss of Peter's parents and their scientific legacy is a nice framing element for the movie. It also adds an air of mystery, which I'm sure will grown in The Spectacular Spider-Man.

I have ranted quite a bit about this aspect of the flick. Tomorrow, more on the characters, plot, acting and direction!

Before I get to the most recent review, a quick clarification about the rating system for the Before Watchmen titles. I wanted to have a consistent rating for each book in the line. I had planned on making it based on Charlton characters (you got a: Peacemaker! 1/5!) or supporting characters from the original Watchmen series, but I figured the "Minutes to Midnight" rating would be fun and appropriate. But in real life (and the comic), the closer to midnight, the closer to nuclear armageddon. In MY rating, the closer to midnight, the closer to Nuclear Awesomeness. It may not be a perfect system but it works. Now, on to COMEDIAN #1

ART: J. G. Jones is listed as the artist on this one. The cover of the comic is an almost-charcicature of Blake in his psuedo-S&M mask with the famous Watchmen blood splatter on it. Not too informative, but raw, like Blake. Inside, Jones is faced with a tricky task: drawing famous people so they look recognizable but are not stiff and out of place. He does only a decent job, in my opinion. His depictions of various Kennedys and Marilyn Monroe are ok -- the faces are a little exaggerated and muddy, though we know who they are supposed to be and we can roll with it. He does a much better job with Moloch, I think, and the images of the villain whose demise we see in Watchmen is the best part of the book, in my opinion. Jones does not lock himself into the nine-panel grid, which gives the book a little bit less of a familiar feel, but he does a decent job playing with the panel layout to make some dynamic pages. All in all, a perfectly serviceable job, but nothing too overwhelming. Call it 3 minute to midnight.


WRITING: Azzarello and I have a complex relationship. I adored his early work on 100 Bullets (heck, he played with some of the same historical ideas in a classic issue of that series), but I felt that comic buckled under the weight of overwrought conspiracy when I wanted it to stay a more episodic exploration of vengeance and the human spirit. I do, however, dig his current work on Wonder Woman, so I was intrigued to see what he would do here. He took a plot point that was hinted at in the Watchmen comic (and explicitly shown in the movie) and tossed it on its ear. In 22 pages, he gives a far more complex view into the soul of Eddie Blake than we see in the two pages of Minutemen 1 and in most of the original series. We see him smile and laugh; we see him truly happy. He is not the cruel sociopath of his teenage years, or the broken, bitter warrior of Vietnam and beyond. We see him in action, which is fun, but also in quieter moments. He performs one act that is expected, and others that seem surprising. This is the one comic in the event so far where I don't feel like I know what is happening, and I want to see more of this depiction of the lead. I am cautiously optimistic that this will turn out to please me in its complexity. So far, call it 2 minutes to midnight.


Tomorrow: NITE OWL!

With all of the crazy weather around the country, you may be wondering where to get the most up-to-date weather information. Well, try here.

Yesterday, I spoke a little about why I feel that Daredevil is the best superhero comic on the market right now. Now I finally get around to reviewing the latest issue, #14.