So, here's the set-up: Clark Gable has fallen asleep, drunk, in a nightclub. He awakens, woozily, to see the kindly countenance of --

AAAAAAAAAHHH! Shit! Get it away from me!

This is DANCING LADY, from an unimaginable bygone age when M.G.M. didn't know how to make musicals. So they borrow Fred Astaire from R.K.O., concoct some faux-Busby Berkeley visuals in the manner of Warners, and apply them both to a backstage story likewise lifted from Warners.

The reckless randomness of the musical numbers actually make you appreciate Busby Berkeley for his LOGIC.

Robert Z. Leonard directs, showing a lack of aptitude for framing dance that basically sinks the terpsichorean aspects of the production, but on the plus side we have Slavko Vorkapich on montage, linking nearly every sequence with peppy visual effects, swish-pans and wipes. "A wipe up Joan's legs!" exclaimed Fiona. "They probably needed it," I rejoindered. We decided that Slavko was the film's true auteur.

Clark Gable, whom I regard as kind of a nightmare from which the world has finally awoken, is actually pretty good as the brusque and rowdy musical director. Franchot Tone is the Other Man, in the film and in real life: Joan was bigamously engaged to both Tone and Tom Neal, who beat the crap out of Tone when he found out. Ted Healy, he of the Stooges, gives the best performance, hovering in some strange hinterland between dyspepsia, blind panic and incipient homosexuality. He's a fascinating case study in something-or-other.

Incidentally, why, in these putting-on-a-show things, does the show never have a graspable plot? Gable is supposed to be staging a musical epic on the Spanish-American War (co-written by a hissily "artistic" Sterling Holloway), but rejects the old-hat concept for something "modern", concerning factory girls and city life -- but what we see in the end is Fred and Joan on a flying carpet, landing in Bavaria and drinking beer. WTF?

"Here in Bavaria / They take good care o' ya."

And at last I find something Joan Crawford can't do. I was a little wary of her for years, then finally gave in. I had assumed that, given her air of terrifyingly sincere, demented fakeyness (especially in interviews -- ugh, creepy!) she wouldn't be able to convince or move me in drama, but she proved me wrong. I still felt I would never find her actually sympathetic, but then found I did. I was positive she wouldn't be able to do comedy, but in SUSAN AND GOD she manages it, and seems to be parodying herself (fakey, humourless and egomaniacal), with too much skill for it to be entirely unconscious.

But. She. Can't. Dance.

I know she WAS a dancer, but now that I've seen her effortful, heavy, gangling perambulations in this movie I know they mean that the way they say "Oh, but Richard Gere was a chorus boy for years," as if that proved the silhouetted figure glimpsed in two-second shots in CHICAGO was (a) Gere and (b) dancing in a way that we could actually SEE. I mean, Joan Crawford dances better than I do, but so do Robby the Robot, Herbert Marshall and Manoel de Oliveira.

People who dance better than Joan: Lionel Barrymore, Donovan's Brain, and Baragon.

Still, she's pretty awesome at everything else.

His superpowers would include corruption, fear/hate mongering and unwavering denial in the face of incriminating evidence.

Now that I have my cards out on the table, I guess you'll have to take my reviews with a grain of salt knowing that i'll be writing with an anti-Kwame bias.

The only question is, what would his super villain name be?

Friday to Wednesday - 1:00, 3:00, 5:00

Get Smart -- Rated PG-13, 1 hour 51 minutes

Friday & Saturday - 7:00 only

Sunday to Wednesday - 7:00 & 9:10

Emperor's New Clothes  a live production brought to you from Plaza Productions

Friday at 11am only $10 per person includes popcorn and soda.

Cannibal The Musical   a live production brought to you from Frantic Fran's Theatre Troupe

Friday & Saturday at 10pm only  $18 per person or $16 with current student ID Card.

Pippin  a live production brought to you from Plaza Productions

Thursday July 31st at 7:30 pm

A while ago, I posted some bleakish news from the "Where the Wild Things Are" front — Warner Brothers execs, although seemingly supportive of Spike Jonze and his, well, darker vision of the classic children's novel, were stern about the changes that needed to be made to the picture, including making the lead character, Max, more likable and the Wild Things, which consisted of huge puppets with animated faces, more believable.

Well, I couldn't be happier to announce that Warner Brothers, in a very bold and seriously kickass move, has decided to let Jonze ( a dude they probably shouldn't have hired in the first place if they wanted and super-sun-shiny kids' flick) the final say on what happens with the flick. I'm sure that he'll still elect to make some pretty drastic changes (even if he wants to create a darker interpretation of the book, he still was probably pretty shocked to see kids running out of the theater crying during the test screenings), but at least he still know that this is HIS movie, with his ideas, visions, character developments and whatnot.

This coming from CHUD

"There was an Alan Horn conversation where he said his vision and Spike's vision weren't on the same page," (producer of the film and one of the head guys at Playtone) Gary Goetzman said. "We support Spike's vision. We're helping him make the vision he wants to make."

Goetzman does cop to technical problems on the picture - "Spike wanted to do things low tech. He wanted big animatronic Wild Things in the jungle, which look great. As you go deeper in the jungle and weather sets in... We misjudged that, production-wise."

He dismissed rumors that the film isn't kid friendly. "Kids are much smarter than [the studio types] think," Goetzman said. "Spike won't talk down to kids. He's got a kid's soul."

That last quote is great — hopefully everyone can really convince the studio heads that this movie won't terrify kids; it'll just get them to think. There's nothing wrong with that, and you have to expect a certain level of intelligence from Spike, who I feel is really one of the smartest directors in Hollywood. I mean, some of his movies just but you in a philosophical daze — I thought long and hard about "Being John Malkovich" and all the ideas presented in the film for days and days afterward.

I had obviously heard that they had problems with the Wild Things, but this is the first time I've heard anything about specific issues with the costumes, so that's pretty interesting to me. The fact that the costumes just weren't easy to work with in the jungle is better news than the costumes just didn't play well in theaters (at least there's a practical reason the Wild Things need to be changed, if indeed that is going to happen).

Still no timetable for reshoots, which really makes me nervous. Max Powers, the kid playing Max in the movie, is a kid, and thus must succumb to that annoying little fact of life called "growing," so the clock is ticking on how long they have before he looks completely different from when they originally shot the flick.

I read Superhero comics back when it was originally published, and finally read it in the 1990s, whilst sipping a Grande Mocha at my neighborhood Barnes & Noble. My impression? To use a fanboy term - "Meh". I appreciate the effort, and understand its industry impact, but I think its a bit overpraised. Here are some other Scathing Reviews of Watchmen that would encourage you not to Watch the Watchmen:

There are people around who insist on comparing this stuff to great works of literature. I wonder if they ever read any.

...and:

The art is subpar, the cliches glaring, and the "mature humor" nearly as subtle as Roseanne.

...and:

The artwork is gross and uninteresting, the characters, at least in the first 60 pages, are completely boring, uninteresting and hollow. And there's not a moment of comic relief.

...and:

The story was incredibly average. The art was mediocre at best. Alan Moore's writing is eloquent but an eloquently written boring story is still boring.

...and:

Teenagers, poorly-read and possessing malnourished tastes in prose, [are] predictably awestruck... They thought it was 'realistic'; they thought this was 'great literature'.

...and:

I did not care about the characters at all. Who cares! Oh boo hoo I am a brooding super hero. Feel my pain?

...and:

It is the kind of thing that is trying sooo hard to be deep and witty, but fails miserably because of a lack of ANY REAL STORY... Moore seems to want to remind you on every frickin' page how clever his "real super heroes" idea is. First of all it ain't and secondly WE GET IT ALREADY NOW DO SOMETHING WITH IT.

...and, for what I hope is the first and last time that I know of, a link between Citizen Kane and Watchmen:

I would not really call The Watchmen the "Citizen Kane of graphic novels." It is more like Tarentino's movie, Pulp Fiction, multiple plot lines, hip references, and plenty of gory violence and power trip fantasies to satisfy a basically adolescent audience.

Alright, so the headline is a little misleading, but I didn't know how else to put it. Warner Brothers execs. have decided to forgo the usually terrible video game adaptation for the March release of "Watchmen," instead opting to develop two smaller, high-quality games that will be available for download on the internet. The first will be released to coincide with the movie's theatrical run, and the second will drop along side the "Watchmen" DVD. When I first heard this idea, I immediately thought of those crappy cellphone games and dismissed the games as lame money-making ploys.

But then I started thinking about it, and I really think Warner Brothers is onto something here. Most movie-to-video-game transitions are bumpy at best, with the production time on the game cut so severely (to make sure it comes out in accordance with the movie) that it sacrifices the integrity and quality of the game. With this plan — which allows the game to forgo all the distribution, packaging and disc-related hoopla — the games' producers  can focus on actually making a good game, albeit a smaller one, to keep the fans happy, instead of pumping out a subpar adaptation just to pad their ever-growing wallets. And according to Variety, the guys behind the plan had a similar thought process to mine:

Warner is undoubtedly hoping that the new model it’s testing with "Watchmen" will let it avoid (a subpar adaptation) and put out high-quality games that will appeal to the large number of videogame players who are fans of the classic comicbook and will likely come out to see the film.

If successful, the studio could also produce more installments following the initial two. It may also use the downloadable videogame tie-in model for future pics.

"Watchmen," which is being made by Danish developer Deadline Games, will feature film’s characters Rorschach and Nite Owl in an action title that’s likely to earn an M rating. It will be available to download on PCs, Sony’s PlayStation 3 and Microsoft’s Xbox 360.

So, I applaud Warner Brothers for this. It's good to see execs thinking with their heads as opposed to their bank accounts. There's no question that there's good money in video games, and almost all of the big Hollywood productions as of late have tried to take advantage of that with quickly produced games. I'm glad to see big movies like this and "The Dark Knight" (which somehow escaped the video game trap. There isn't, and there won't be, a game coming out for that movie) think outside the box in terms of video game adaptations. If you have a good idea for a game, and you have sufficient time to produced it, then be my guest. But if you're rushing to crank out a lame game, don't bother.

I saw it at the Lowes Webster theater.  I wasn't sure what I was getting myself into.  You see this theater is a pretty old one.  Nice for its time, but its time is up.  Actually wasn't bad at all.

The one part that kinda sucked was there must have been every kid age 15-17 in all of Webster sitting in that theater.  It was nuts for so many people to be in a theater on any day other then opening day.  I can't remember the last time I saw that.  Must have been a solid 10 years ago.

Anyways.  So the movie of course was great.  The comedy was very cynical.

Great movie.  I didn't like the ending though.  What is the point?  Seemed like a huge waste.  But great movie none the less.

May be the best Batman movie ever.

El estudio reporta haber encontrado copias pirata de mala calidad filmadas en el cine dos dias despues del estreno. "vamos a perseguir a los sitios que contengan informacion sobre estas copias y los vamos a dar de baja como ya hicimos con tantos otros..." fue lo que dijo Craig Hoffman, vocero de Warner... un copado!

The book chapter goes on to explore what the film did and didn’t do for Collora’s career---and fan films in general---but in this excerpt, we join the story already in progress as he develops the concept for his short.

Collora noticed that fan films got incredible support from, well, fans, not to mention decent attention from the press. If franchise devotees could rally behind such homespun efforts, what would happen if someone made a professionally produced fan film---and what if that someone was Sandy Collora? As a life-long comic book fan, it didn’t take long for the idea to emerge: He’d make a Batman movie.

“It seemed right; it felt right,” said Collora. “Batman is such a great character: dark, brooding, complex. He’s tough, man. Calculated, cunning…just cool.”

And “cool” was one thing Batman hadn’t been in a while, having last graced the silver screen in 1997’s box-office bomb, Batman & Robin. The unsatisfying movie series had always owed more to hype and stunt-casting than comic books, so by the time that fated production had come along---the fourth Batman feature film in just eight years---the public had wised up and moved on. The franchise had been milked dry, and Hollywood abandoned the carcass to rot while comic book fans were left to mull over what might have been, had the studios decided to follow the darker, more dramatic vision of the Dark Knight that graced comic pages every month.

Collora was one of those fans. He began mapping out Batman: Dead End, a $30,000 short that would present the flawed hero as mad, bad and dangerous to know. He needed to put the arch-villain Joker in there, but given his own background, Collora decided to bring something else to the table---namely characters he’d worked on in feature films. Certainly he’d spent enough time detailing the title character’s costume during the production of Predator II, so he could do one of those. Soon, the big baddie from Alien was added to the genre goulash, too. There was some precedent for the idea---there had been both Batman Vs. Predator and Aliens Vs. Predator comic books, the latter which eventually became a series of poorly received feature films---but the cross-pollination between a trio of Billion-dollar franchises was something that Hollywood suits would never allow in real life. If Collora could shoot it to look like a clip from a big-budget action feature starring the Dark Knight mixing it up with the Joker and two of genre cinema’s most potent bad guys, it would be nothing less than a fanboy fever dream. The cherry on top would be to debut the flick just like Troops---at the annual comic- and movie-fan destination, the San Diego Comic Con; now that would get attention.

“No, I didn't do it for the buzz,” Collora corrected. “I did it to do it. I love Batman; I wanted to see him real---done like in the comics.” Of course, to say you spent $30,000 just “to do it” is a bit disingenuous; plenty of people talk about what they’d do if they made a superhero movie, but few go ahead and shoot one, and fewer still allot themselves such a budget. Pressed on the point, Collora rebutted, “No guts, no glory…. I pitched stuff for over two years; there was some interest, but ultimately, nothing happened, (so you’ve) gotta make your own dreams happen. No one's gonna do it for you.”

The filmmaker had his work cut out for him. While keeping up a full schedule of the art and design work that paid the bills, Collora spent six months readying to shoot in April, 2003. Mere weeks into the prep, however, things took a serious turn for the worse: “My mom was diagnosed with cancer in December, 2002. Merry fucking Christmas.”

Collora was shaken: “It was the hardest time of my life. I'd work 12-16 hours a day, then go hang with her in the hospital while she was getting chemo.” While his mother Joann’s cancer made a Batman movie seem insignificant, she insisted that he keep plugging away: “You can't let anything get in the way of your dreams; Mom wouldn't have that.”

Despite the situation, Collora pressed on, casting the two speaking roles of the film, Batman and Joker. Before long, the cast and crew headed to an alleyway in North Hollywood for an arduous four-night shoot.

Batman grabbed the highest weekend opening ever by grossing an official $158.3 million — even more than Sunday’s estimate of $155.3 million -- and bitch-slapped Spiderman 3 in the process. That's because The Dark Knight also broke Spider-Man 3's record ($4.7 million) for best debut in IMAX theaters with $6.2 million in 94 locations. Budgeted at $180 million, the film opened in a record 4,366 theaters nationwide and broke the new single and opening day records on Friday with $67.85 million. Spider-Man 3 previously held those records with $59.8 million, but seriously, how could a crappy emo Peter Parker hold those records for long?

And can we go ahead and award the Oscar for Best Actor over to Heath Ledger's family right now? I mean really, that shit was ridiculous. He absolutely stole the film.

This one's in a world all its own.

Starring Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman. Directed by Christopher Nolan

The story: some time has passed in Gotham City since “Batman Begins.” Rachel Dawes (now played by Maggie Gyllenhaal) is working with and dating head D.A. Harvey Dent (Eckhart). “The Batman” has been cleaning up the streets of Gotham, inspiring copycat fanboy crimefighters. The police (except for Gordon) aren't sure what to make of Batman. The city's crime bosses are dwindling block-by-block and are propositioned by a Hong Kong national named Lou to hold their money since the police are catching them one-by-one using irradiated money. Batman/Bruce Wayne is dealing with the copycats, Rachel being with Dent, and his internal struggle of being the “hero of Gotham City,” and the police.

Entering the scene is The Joker (Ledger in his final performance). Maniacal and scheming, he (in the words of Michael Caine) “just wants to watch the world burn.” Whatever he plans on doing the only person who knows the plan is him, and he's not letting anyone in on it. Anyone.

That's as much as I'm going to tell you about the story. There is so much going on in this film that to tell you anything else you may want to see it more or may want to see it less when this is the type of film that can't entirely be presented on paper; it is truly an experience. The Nolan Brothers (Chris and Johnathan) have a nearly perfect script. The theme of “what is a hero?” resonates so much between Dent and Wayne; the “White Knight” and the “Dark Knight” of Gotham.

And everyone does as well as they had in “Batman Begins.” Gyllenhaal did a good job as Rachel Dawes. Some may prefer her to Katie Holmes but when it comes down to the line, the character is so small it doesn't make a lot of difference who plays her.

And you, dear reader, are wanting to know my thoughts on Heath Ledger's performance. I'll be the first to say that I have never really followed him in too many movies; I've seen him do a part here or there, but that was about it. Saying that, the Joker that Ledger portrays is something else entirely. Any time he's on the screen, the film's tone suddenly shifts. If you didn't know Ledger was playing the character, you wouldn't have known it was Ledger.

As for Bale, this time around Batman is more menacing; lower, more whispering/gravelly voice and hatred in his eyes. “Batman Begins” was apparently a warm-up.

I'll take a moment to talk about the Bat Pod (Bat Cycle). Before I saw “Batman Begins” I saw the “Tumbler”/Batmobile. I thought the design sucked. Watching it in “Batman Begins,” I was like, “Dude, where do I sign up for one of those?” Same thing applies to the Bat Pod. Once you see it on screen it's way cooler.

I do have one complaint on the movie: The Scarecrow. So much time was spent in the first movie building up this villain who used a hallucinogenic compound to incite his terror. He gets a small scene in the beginning of the film where he gets captured along with a gang and Batman wannabes. A cameo for the sake of a cameo? I thought Nolan was above that.

Should you see this? It's dark, brooding, but with clever action sequences. This movie is on a plane of existence of its own. Should you watch this just for Heath Ledger? Only if you get nothing from watching a Batman movie. Is this better than “Batman Begins?” It's just as good. Who's my favorite actor to play “The Joker?” No comment.

My grade: A

I don't think you can argue against the statement I made in the headline of this post, that 2008 is truly the Year of the Comic Book Movie. There's two reasons why I feel comfortable making that claim, and those reasons are as follows.

1. The Quantity

Let's be completely honest here, if you're picky about your comic book movies, you had, and still have, plenty to choose from this year. Like Batman? well, here's "The Dark Knight." No? They made an "Iron Man," too. Or you could go with a more obscure adaptation like "Wanted," "The Spirit" or "Hancock." Still nothing? "Speed Racer," "Hellboy II," "The Incredible Hulk" and "The Punisher" also have a big-screen presence this year. Although there is going to be a small lull after "The Dark Knight's" release, it seemed for a while there this summer that we were getting one of these movies a week, keeping fanboys across the globe happy-ass campers and giving them plenty to gossip and speculate about all over the interwebs. I can't remember another year like this, one that was completely dominated by comic book movies. This is really insane.

2. The Quality

I've recently rewatched some older comic book movies, circa early 1990s, and you know what? Some of them were just laughably bad in comparison to what we're getting nowadays. Maybe it's just that I can't remember that far back, but I can't seem to recall people complaining about them back then. Comic book movies were ridiculous, campy, over-the-top and goofy, but that's just what people expected. Somewhere between now and then (maybe it was "Spider-Man," maybe "Batman Begins." Who really knows?) The general public started to demand and receive more from their comic book movie experience. "The Dark Knight" very might well be a masterpiece ( I have to see it again before I truly stamp that word on it), "Iron Man," even though I knew nothing about the books, was pretty kick ass, "The Incredible Hulk" reboot was far superior to Ang Lee's disaster, "Wanted" took everyone by surprise, "Hancock" was good for what it was. These movies are starting to transcend the comic-book-movie-genre target audience and becoming, well, just movies; people actually respect the comic book adaptation, giving serious Oscar consideration to its actors and so on and so forth.

Well, there's an interesting article up at Variety that explains that the genre might not be able to take advantage of this momentum, thanks to the writer's strike:

For now, 2009 only has two traditional superhero films on the sked -- Warner Bros.' "Watchmen" and Fox's "X-Men Origins: Wolverine."

The same is pretty much true for 2010, when only three such pics are on the docket: an "Iron Man" sequel, "Thor" and Sony's launch of "Green Hornet."

The reason is largely being blamed on the writers strike that kept studios from developing new properties.

For example, after successfully launching its first two self-financed pics, "Iron Man" and "Hulk," Marvel Studios is forced to sit out all of next year because the walkout kept it from developing a slate of new pics with scribes.

The strike is also partly to blame for stalling Warner Bros.' highly anticipated take on "Justice League," which would team DC Comics' Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Flash characters.

This is both good and bad news for the comic book movie fanatics out there. Of course, it sucks that just five new adaptations are expected for the next two years, even though they should be pretty good ones. "Watchmen" is already getting people talking, "Iron Man 2" is bound to be good now that John Favreau is back, and, although I personally don't like the franchise, "X-Men" has a big fanbase.

But there is a silver lining to this cloud, and the Variety article talks about it briefly — people will be hungry for more after a short break in between comic book movies. It's no secret that the general public is still clamoring for comic book movies. I mean, just look at what "The Dark Knight" is doing right now. But there will be a point where enough is enough, and people will start to grow tired of the same ol' formula. If Hollywood, even though its more out of the necessity created by the writers' strike than by a solid plan, takes its foot off the gas pedal on these movies, it'll leave fans wanting more instead of finally deciding to not go to these flicks anymore. Even though comic book movies have huge bankability and create money-making franchise opportunities, it might be better for everyone in the long-run that this lull is taking place right at the genre's height of popularity.

And don't worry, there are more on the way in the future. Here's a list of in-development projects from around the industry (via Variety):

• Marvel plans to release an "Iron Man" sequel in April 2010, and follow that up with "Thor" that June. In 2011, it will intro "Captain America" and "The Avengers," which teams Iron Man, the Hulk, Captain America and other Marvel heroes. It also has pics in development based on "Ant-Man" and "Luke Cage."
• Warner Bros. and DC want Superman to fly again, another Batman is a given, and individual pics for Wonder Woman, the Flash, Green Arrow and Green Lantern are being scripted. "Shazam!" was in the works at New Line.
• Sony has a fourth "Spider-Man" planned for 2011.
• Universal has "Sub-Mariner," based on the undersea character Namor.
• Fox is readying sequels or spinoffs based on its successful "X-Men" franchise, including one on archvillain Magneto.

I actually stopped watching the previews and new trailers and 'making ofs' and behind the scenes about a month ago (with the exception of the www.gothamcablenews.com stuff). I was a little worried that there would be very few suprises left.

A final note. Keep an eye out for THE WATCHMEN movie trailer. It's going to be a big one. It is considered THEE single greatest comic book story ever conceived and for good reason. ZACH SNIDER of Frank Miller's '300' fame is directing and the preview looks very very promising.

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

Read more HERE.

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

Read more HERE.

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

1. Overall, the movie is wonderful.  I went in with no expectations, because I knew whatever expectations I might form would be nothing like I would see.  I was right.  For about a half an hour after I came out of the theater, every other word out of my mouth was "Wow..."
2. That said, I did have a few issues.  First of all, I don't see the big deal about Christian Bale.  He's a great actor, but I don't understand the physical appeal.  Not only that, but I think the voice he adopts as Batman is... well, it's a bit much.  I find myself simultaneously annoyed and amused. I will agree that he revitalized the role of Bruce Wayne, much in the way that Daniel Craig breathed life back into James Bond, although not to the same degree. Of course it could merely be that the franchise itself was revitalized as a whole, and it wasn't really his doing. The fact remains, however, I felt more interested in the other players than I was in Bruce Wayne.  He was a set piece, not a character.  Like I mentioned previously, I do hold he's an accomplished actor, but this isn't exactly a movie for him to flex his acting muscles.  Apparently that was left to the others.
3. One of those players was Aaron Eckhart, who played Harvey Dent:
   Now, I will honestly put aside my adoration for this man.  (Hi, Aaron, you're amazing and I love you, you sexy man!) I'm of two minds about him in this movie, which is funny since his character does turn into Two Face, the villain.  First, he was incredible.  I thought he was the perfect choice for this character, and when he made his transformation, it was incredible.  (I would post a picture of what his Two Face looks like, but it was so shocking and perfect that it shouldn't be spoiled.)  It was incredible how he radiated pure rage and desperation.  It's so easy to mess that up.   What was even more tragic was knowing what was going to happen to Harvey Dent the whole movie.  You know who he becomes, and as it draws closer, it is so tragic in the anticipation of his downfall.  Also, any man who could hold his own against Heath Ledger in this movie deserves a round of applause.
4. I'm going to say it straight out: Maggie Gyllenhaal, while I love her, was a bad choice in casting.
   I adore her in so many things, but she's too soft.  They made the same mistake when they cast Katie Holmes the first time.  Her recent Scientology antics aside, she suffered from the same youthful softness that Rachel shouldn't have.  I get the whole thing about her character being something of a metaphorical oasis for Bruce Wayne in a gritty world of darkness and corruption, but her character should have had SOME fire.  Instead she fell flat.  Completely.  Give me a Rachel McAdams, even.  Anyone!  Not these waify flowers that buckle under the weight of a role they simply can't carry.  It's so incredibly evident in the scene where she has a "showdown" with the Joker at Harvey Dent's fundraiser.  We all knew that Heath Ledger was not going to be a scene stealer as he was going to be a scene demolisher, but she just withered.  She futilely tried to show spark and strong indignation, but it was outright pitiful.  Give me a power stare, Maggie!  Give me some sort of sign of life!
5. Of course I'm going to write about Heath Ledger as the Joker.  How can anyone write any semblance of a review without talking about his performance?
   I don't even know where to begin.  He was absolutely terrifying.  Even when you were laughing, you were scared.  His performance was not overhyped in the least.  It wasn't a performance, actually.  It was a transformation.  You could spend pages and pages and pages discussing the psychological ideas his interpretation of the character brings to the forefront.  I love how he created a singular character, who was also at the same time an anonymous physical embodiment of an idea.  He wasn't the Joker.  He was chaos.  He was anarchy.  It was brilliant.  I know it seems as though I had much more to say about other players in this movie, but don't take my lack of commentary as a bad sign;  he simply rendered me speechless with this role.
6. As for the controversy surrounding Warner Brothers supposedly cashing in on the death of Heath Ledger for commercial gain, I don't agree.  After some serious thought, I think they would have marketed it the same way.  The hype surrounding the movie, due to Heath's death, seems to have been completely brought on by the public.  At first I was a bit skeptical, but after seeing Heath's performance in the movie, I see why his costars spoke out in favor of an Oscar nomination.  His turn as the Joker was, in a word, mezmerizing.  Alive or not, he deserved the accolades he received.  Did the viral nature of this movie become enhanced due to his death, of course, but I don't think it was on the part of a studio.  It was the media and the public.

Go see this movie.  It's worth the money.  It'll be one of the few movies I'll be seeing twice this year.  Actually the only movie, more than likely.

here: http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/watchmen/hd/

First things first: this looks incredible. Which is good. Cause something incredibly cool looking will get people's butts into a theater.

WATCHMEN is one of my top 10 favorite things ever. It's status as "The greatest graphic novel of all time" is wholly justified. It is the masterpiece of the great Alan Moore and flushed into the world through the wonderful art of Dave GIbbons.

It deals hyper-intelligently in matters of history, politics, and socialization. It's a wonderfully written epic story that also happens to be a complete deconstruction of superheroes.

It spans 50+ years of history and 2 planets.

What if heroes and superheroes were real? How would our political history be different? How would our society be different? (all using specific events).

It's enthralling to me.

... and yes Zach Snyder, the guy who directed 300, has directed the movie version of WATCHMEN... which I'm on the fence about. The trailer definitely shows he got Dave Gibbons sensibility for the world down and the stylization feels just about right.

But the question is can Snyder get Moore's nuance and subtlety? Can he show intellectual depth in the film? He really hasn't had that kind of challenge thus far, but if he keeps all of Moore's dialog in tact then most of the job will be done for him... which leaves it up to the actors. I love two of the choices (jackie earl haley, patrick wilson), think two will work out pretty good (cudrup, matthew goode), think it will be a break out role of (can't remember the guys name who's playing the comedian) and I have magnificent doubts about Malin Akerman. Everything I've seen her do thus far has been... um... pretty awful.

But with the look? yeah... really nice.

New characters! Never-before-seen pics!

By Jeremy Azevedo

It's hard not to be excited about all things Batman with the Dark Knight coming out this weekend. Well Here's something else to get excited about: We played Lego Batman at the E3 and it was rad!

Check out these new pics from Lego batman, showing off a number of new playable characters. More to come as additional characters are revealed!

Friday,  7/11

• We started the day out fairly early, getting up and getting ready. I ate my leftover el Coyote for breakfast with the pilfered fork. And it was still amazing.
• First thing, we headed to the Los Angeles County Department of Coroner. That's right. We were really there to see the gift shop, Skeletons in the Closet. But I couldn't help but hurry and get a picture of me under the sign. What? I have a criminal justice degree. It was cool!

• We went into the gift shop, which only one of a couple in the world. The proceeds fund the Youthful Drunk Driver Program, so our money went to a good cause. The only disturbing part was that there was a thrift shop that appeared to be attached to the coroner's office... We weren't sure but our conspiracy theory is that they sell dead people's stuff there. Okay, maybe not. But isn't it a creepy thought?
• We headed down to Hollywood to catch a special ceremony. On the way we finally saw the Hollywood sign. (The night before we'd tried to find it but learned that they don't light it up at night. For some reason we thought they did.) We parked on Hollywood Boulevard and looked at the stars on the Walk of Fame as we made our way to Grauman's Chinese Theater. This one was my favorite because I'm a Gilmore Girls fan...and it foreshadowed events to follow later in the day:

•  The reason we headed to Grauman's was to see the handprint ceremony for Sir Michael Caine. It was crazy - we were pressed into a crowd directly across the street from the theater. It was so warm, but the wait was worth it. First, Leonard Maltin talked for a few minutes. He then introduced the bigwig of Warner Brothers, Alan Horn, who introduced the director of The Dark Knight - Christopher Nolan. Finally, out came Michael Caine who talked for a few minutes. We listened to him as best we could, but then had to leave for the next adventure of our trip: our Warner Brothers VIP Studio Tour.

• Up next was our tour, and we started out by watching a quick movie to get us excited about the tour. I never realized just how many TV shows and movies Warner Brothers is responsible for. We got the best tour guide - Kevin. He was very knowledgeable and made it a point to be upbeat and keep things interesting. We started out in the backlot, where we saw lots of interesting stuff. The fake streets that they use for filming were pretty incredible. We saw a room used in Something's Gotta Give, a doorway famous from Spiderman, a building front used as the orphanage in the original Annie, set up for a carnival scene in a new episode of Cold Case, and even some actors filming an episode of Pushing Daisies. Watch for nuns dressed in white and green if you like the show. We were allowed to take pictures in some areas, but not everywhere. For the picture below, take away the archway in front and it's Mrs. Hannigan's turf.

• We got to go into the sound stage for Two and a Half Men and sit where the live studio audience sits during filming. Kevin explained how everything is set up. It was really interesting, but kind of ruins the show for me because now all I can think about is what is real and what is fake. :) We couldn't take pictures, but I would have loved to!
• Another fun part of the trip was this little room where they had a bunch of vehicles from Warner Brother's films. We even had our picture taken in front of a green screen to put us on the platform of the Hogwart's Express! See if you recognize a few of these.

• We went into their museum next, where photos were not allowed. The lower floor had all kinds of costumes and props from movies. I had asked Kevin if there was anything Gilmore Girls, but sadly there wasn't. The upper floor, however, was entirely devoted to Harry Potter. It was pretty cool - they had textbooks and costumes and wands and Tom Riddle's diary and Aragog and Hermione when she was petrified and Harry's room under the stairs. I could go on and on. The best part was the real sorting hat from the first movie, and the fact that we were "sorted". Shakira went into Hufflepuff after the hat thought about it a bit. I went straight into Gryffindor! I know, I'm silly.
• Next we checked out on of the highlights of the tour. After the show ended, the crew couldn't bear to tear this set down, so now it's got a room all it's own. I'm sure you'll recognize it!

•  We also saw more of the backlot, including the ambulance bay for ER complete with the el right outside. Then...Kevin took us to the street that used to be a main street and the square in Star's Hollow, Connecticut. If you watch Gilmore Girls, you will know what I am talking about. Though the signs have long been gone, Luke's, Miss Patty's, Doose's and the gazebo were all recognizable. Somehow I didn't get a shot of Doose's though. Shakira and I were thrilled!!! Kevin actually cut us short at the museum so that we'd have a couple of minutes to see what was left of GG sets! That's him on the steps of Miss Patty's in the top right corner - warning us to watch out for loose screws.

• We wrapped up the tour and bought some souvenirs (I got a Luke's coffee cup and posed for a picture with a wand from Harry Potter...). After we ate some yummy gelato, we were on our way for *cue scary music* sushi!
• We decided to name the GPS Babette after the Gilmore's neighbors from Gilmore Girls. She's loud, bossy, and kind of flaky. Perfectly fitting!
• However, on our way to our next destination, we were stopped at a red light on Sunset Blvd. when someone familiar walked in front of us. It was Dick Donato - the winner of Big Brother 8! He was talking on his cell phone. We raced around the block, found him in a parking lot and waited until he was done with his conversation. We asked for pictures and chatted with him for a minute. He's a really cool guy! While we were there, Danielle texted him and asked him about books for school. :)

• Next, we were off to Beverly Hills to check out Rodeo Drive and get some sushi. Rodeo Drive? Um...it was kind of boring because I can't even afford to walk into a store on that street let alone entertain the thought of purchasing something. It was cool, though - exactly how I pictured it. We saw an actress, but we have no idea what her name is. I'm still trying to figure out who she was - no, of course I don't have a picture.
• We went to Yu & Mi sushi next and ordered California rolls and cucumber & avocado rolls. I ate one of the vegetarian, but Shakira bravely tried both! Then...we asked for a box and threw it away on the way back to the car. Sushi is not for us!

• To get some good, real food we headed to a restaurant called the Alcove. Babette's battery died on our way, so we got lost. We had to stop at a scary gas station in a very scary area, then also ask three people on the side of the street where we were going. But...we found it! And the wait was worth it - it's a bakery that serves some pretty amazing sandwiches and salads. We both had delicious panini sandwiches and ogled the baked goods before deciding to head down to Hollywood Boulevard to look around again. We actually found it without Babette's help! Be proud.
• Parking was...interesting. We found a FREE spot right on the street not far from most of the main museums and theaters. (Shakira broke her foot and has a handicap tag so metered parking is free.) But...there was a Vespa parked in between vehicles. I let Shakira park the Jeep because frankly, I despise parallel parking. I can do it, but not on a busy L.A. street. We got it into the space, but the back tire was up on the curb. We needed about six inches to get in there better, and the Vespa had plenty of room to be moved. These guys in a cab told us to move it, so we tried. *hangs head* We didn't tip it over, but we managed to get the kick stand out of whack. Some Japanese (I think they were anyway) tourists helped us fix it, and we gave up on the spot and parked in a lot. I was so afraid we were going to wreck the thing!
• Anyway, we headed back to Grauman's to see Michael Caine's prints, but it was all covered up. We wandered around and snapped pictures of other celebrities' prints, though. My favorite (because I'm a dork) was this one, though it was cool to see the likes of Frank, Dean, Shirley Temple, Julie Andrews, and Judy Garland immortalized.

• We walked up and down the street, watching street performers, shopping at the Virgin Megastore and street vendors, and generally getting caught up in all the touristy wonder. We even bought matching leather bracelets engraved with the roman numerals 'VII XI MMVIII' for the date that was in the middle of our trip.

• And when we were too exhausted to go on, we hopped in the Jeep and found our way back to the hotel pretty easily. (Really, it was - just took the 101 North from Hollywood Blvd and get off at the Mulholland Drive/Calabasas exit. Beautiful!) We crashed after preparing ourselves for a day at the beach on Saturday. Tomorrow I will detail Saturday, complete with Santa Monica and the Getty Center. Until then!

*lyrics from California Love by 2Pac

Betsey Johnson, who isn't afraid of a bit of theatrics and who in fact based a whole collection on the Wizard of Oz, complete with scarecrow, lion and tin man, has went all out with platforms, sparkles and bows with a shoe that looks deliciously camp!

Jimmy Choo has went for a more subtle caged toe style, very elegant but still capturing the theatrical element required when one designs the most famous pair of shoes in the world.

The ruby slippers, which will also be getting restyled by Oscar de la Renta, Diane Von Furstenberg and Manolo Blahnik, will go on a big tour around the States to show off all their beauty and will then be auctioned off.

The makeover forms part of a big campaign by Warner Brothers who have asked several designers to update the look of many of its characters, so far we have seen DVF create a new outfit for Wonder Woman, so I can't wait to see what other exciting things are to come of it!

By guest-writer Michael Mak

First things first: a little bit about me. I love computer games, I love comic books, I love manga and anime. I play magic cards and I paint little soldier miniatures. In other words, I am a huge geek. That being said, you may view this review as a fanboy's tribute to one of his favourite icons. However, a good movie is a good movie, and "Batman: The Dark Knight" makes the cut.

The plot of the second movie picks up shortly after where "Batman Begins" left off. Gotham has a new hero (or anti-hero, as some may call it) and the oppressed citizens are starting to fight back against the corruption and decay that has long gripped the city. However, there is always a balance to things, and Christian Bale's ginormous biceps tipped the scale. This is where The Joker comes in. Fantastically played by the late Heath Ledger, this classic comic book villian is transformed into a character diabolical in vision, psychotic in action, and even skirting the bounds of genius in execution. This guy is the epitome of evil. He inspires tyranny for the sake of tyranny. He makes Superman's Lex Luthor or Spiderman's Harry Osborn (hmmmm strawberries) look like members of the power rangers. From the way The Joker talks, moves, and spreads fear, every last action is embedded with the touch of a madman. This is Heath Ledger at his best and unfortunately, last.

The other new entry into the second installment is district attorney Harvey Dent (played by Aaron Eckhart). If you're a geek like me, you'll know which significant Batman character this guy is. For the uneducated (but more socially active), this guy is Gotham City's new 'white knight,' the hero to Bruce Wayne's more anti-hero persona. Whereas Batman fights crime in the streets with high tech gadgets and smooth kung fu, good ol' Harvey takes the battle to the courtrooms with indictments and sentences, putting away criminals with the power of the law. As you would expect, this guy isnt exactly on the best terms with the mob and his actions will eventually catch up with him. His joyful optimistic demeanor is a great contrast to batman's brooding loner-type personality.

Throughout the movie, we see these three forces interact and overlap with each other, both physically and psychologically. Between Batman, Harvey, and The Joker, each face their own demons and must come to terms with their actions. What should take precedence? Justice, or revenge? Nobody is guilt-free and their decisions lead to ramifications from which they will never recover from. The story is more complex than "good vs. evil". Perhaps it is closer to "evil vs. evil" and the actors give an amazing effort in portraying a realistic look in to the human psyche.

If you were sitting on the fence about this movie, or if this movie is out of your typical genre, I would highly recommend that you give this one a chance. Lots of fights, explosions and car chases! And I would say that it's in the running for one of Ledger's best works. I suspect that Ledger will get a nomination for this year's Oscars. The soundtrack is excellent, the picture quality is superb and the camera work is fantastic. This might be biased as I did get to watch it on iMax, but I am sure you normal folk will get a similar experience. Enjoy!

For movie times and locations in British Columbia, please click here.

Guy Ritchie is currently getting a lot of press because of his relationship with media lightening rod Madonna, but despite all of the negative attention, there is a good chance that he may finally be able to shake the proverbial monkey off his back (by directing a profitable movie) with an upcoming film project.

Ritchie is set to direct Iron Man’s Robert Downey Jr. in the Warner Brothers project currently called “Sherlock Holmes.” Unlike Columbia’s upcoming comedy on the English Sleuth featuring Sacha Baron Cohen/Will Ferrell, this version of the famed detective’s story portrays the hero as more adventurous than past incarnations. Think Indiana Jones meets 007.

The film starts shooting in the fall and the studios has suggested a release date of October 2009.