It took four years for the comic book follow-up to Mark Millar and Bryan Hitch's "The Ultimates" and "Ultimates 2" to see print. It took less time for this 6-episode (66 minute) mini-series to be produced, then gathered with a brief interview to see life on DVD. Most of the art by Leinil Francis Yu comes from the original pencil work and then animated, This does give a bit of a jerky, stylized feel to the visuals, but Yu is so good one quickly adapts; enjoying the fairly static drawings with minimal movement. This is ameliorated by the more subtle facial expressions and solid voice acting throughout. In terms of story, "Marvel Knights: Ultimate Wolverine versus Hulk" launches from the pages of "The Ultimates" rather than the current film cycle by Marvel; although both are based on the same material. Daniel Lindelof uses a non-linear storytelling method, frequently jumping back and forth in time. (It is not hard to follow.) In it Nick Fury sends Wolverine to flat-out kill Bruce Banner - the Hulk. In Ultimates, Hulk's rage kills 815 people in New York City. For this he is tried and condemned to death, which does not work. This (quite violent) film opens with Hulk literally ripping Wolverine in half. How this came to be and how it resolves is the meat of the story. Along the way we meet a new She-Hulk and see Iron Man and Captain America, and many cameos. This may be the closest translation from comics to animated action yet; and if you enjoyed the comic, you will enjoy this film.
Reviews
10 Reviews
From the Inside
22 October 2006
Know that, as of yet, I have not seen this documentary. So why might I be arrogant enough to comment? My father, Jack Loveland, was General Manager of Chasen's 1949-1966. He passed in 1967. I grew up in the bowels of Chasen's; knowing Dave Chasen (and to a very limited extent, a few contacts with Maude Chasen) and brother Phil. I knew more about the wine cellars, the pantry (and pantry chef Joe), the freezers, meat preparation areas, and unseen corridors than just about anyone. As a wee boy I rolled butter into balls to placed into iced silver bowls, vacuumed the dining room floors, took inventory in the deep freeze. I knew where they kept the massive barrels of MSG and spent hundreds of hours doing child-drawings on the backs of unused menus (brought home by my dad). I heard stories of how Peter Lorre spent massive amounts of time in those wine cellars with my dad pouring his movie salaries down his throat in the form of rare bottles and vintages. Bob Hope gave me a toy wind-up tank when I was five or so. Every once in a while we would get a case of chili or a cake or a Per Al's cheesecake as gifts. Oh, yeah - I never ate in the dining room. Ever.
So just finding out about this DVD from Wikipedia and our noble host, IMDb, I look forward to viewing this video with a very prejudiced eye. From the comments, should hope for an accurate presentation of the hard-working staff. I note Tommy Gallagher is cited, and I remember him well. With any restaurant, presentation - by waiters and bartenders and maitre-d's - as well as the celebrity owners and customers is they typical fodder for the most amicable of filmmakers. Here, as with others, however, they had best beware. Some of us know far more than you do, and it had better be a fair and balanced presentation! Yea, I have a voice on the web (albeit minor) and a history of reviewing film. One so close to my heart and dear to my memory will indeed undergo the harshest of scrutiny, and this small piece will indeed lead to a review of microscopic detail. (One day, soon, to show up under IMDb's Miscellaneous links.) Should anyone care to send me a review copy, I'd be delighted. As is, I am grateful for a tribute of any sort to a Hollywood / Beverly Hills landmark, an important meeting place and watering hole for many celebrities; provided by a group of very fine people who worked hard for a living.
So just finding out about this DVD from Wikipedia and our noble host, IMDb, I look forward to viewing this video with a very prejudiced eye. From the comments, should hope for an accurate presentation of the hard-working staff. I note Tommy Gallagher is cited, and I remember him well. With any restaurant, presentation - by waiters and bartenders and maitre-d's - as well as the celebrity owners and customers is they typical fodder for the most amicable of filmmakers. Here, as with others, however, they had best beware. Some of us know far more than you do, and it had better be a fair and balanced presentation! Yea, I have a voice on the web (albeit minor) and a history of reviewing film. One so close to my heart and dear to my memory will indeed undergo the harshest of scrutiny, and this small piece will indeed lead to a review of microscopic detail. (One day, soon, to show up under IMDb's Miscellaneous links.) Should anyone care to send me a review copy, I'd be delighted. As is, I am grateful for a tribute of any sort to a Hollywood / Beverly Hills landmark, an important meeting place and watering hole for many celebrities; provided by a group of very fine people who worked hard for a living.
Best of 3!
6 August 2006
Having followed the entire production from green-light, I was entirely pleased with Fellowship of the Ring and Return of the King. However, I did prefer the extended versions on DVD, with the voice-over commentaries and all. The shorter theatrical version of THE TWO TOWERS holds a very special place as perhaps the most exciting film ever made. True, it is not 100% accurate to the novel. It stands on its own. Theoden's speeches, the lighting used, the great Warg battle, and of course Gollum working as well as he did all contributed to an eminently satisfying experience. Every actor has taken their role and made it completely their own. The spectacular sets, particularly those of Isengard, blend so well with the natural beauty of New Zealand to provide both eye candy and attention to the fine details of model-making. The dramatic changes of scene to the approach to Mordor are dynamic. And Brad Dourif gives yet another creepy performance, being one of the finest living actors who has carved out his own niche. Perhaps this is a bit violent for younger children, but once they turn ten or so they will likely eat this up with a spoon. Never does the gore overwhelm, nor do the spectacular effects dominate the intricate story. Great stuff!
One Sole Problem with this Film
11 January 2002
The first film in this magnificent trilogy has but one, single, sole problem. Those who have read and loved J.R.R. Tolkien's work, and have often immersed themselves in the words and the images they evoke shall encounter this problem.
Cognitive dissonance. This is a term (Eliot Aronson's, methinks) of the psychological jolt one gets when expecting something familiar, and what comes in the senses (usually sight) is different. Had a building you pass every day been abruptly demolished, you might even see an afterimage of the building in the expected spot, then wonder what was wrong, then figure it out when the expectation and reality got straightened out in the mind.
So it is, in a way, with Fellowship of the Ring. Everything you see up on the screen is just about perfect. The differences in performances (particularly McKellen and Christopher Lee) have nuance and logical-but-unexpected movement built in. What the cast does is give everything expected with added dimensions. No still photo can convey the movement, and Viggo Mortensen's deep capture of Aragorn's character is a good example. The dissonance, what there is of it, comes from knowing the novel too well. Every plot point could be filmed, but then we'd see forty-hour-long films. Can't happen. So as all the images come alive and speak, we too familiar are jolted a bit at the absences.
Thus the "errors" are infinitesimal. What we have here is Best Picture, Best Director, - and the other two parts arriving to perhaps sweep the Oscars for three years. In other words, it ain't too bad.
Cognitive dissonance. This is a term (Eliot Aronson's, methinks) of the psychological jolt one gets when expecting something familiar, and what comes in the senses (usually sight) is different. Had a building you pass every day been abruptly demolished, you might even see an afterimage of the building in the expected spot, then wonder what was wrong, then figure it out when the expectation and reality got straightened out in the mind.
So it is, in a way, with Fellowship of the Ring. Everything you see up on the screen is just about perfect. The differences in performances (particularly McKellen and Christopher Lee) have nuance and logical-but-unexpected movement built in. What the cast does is give everything expected with added dimensions. No still photo can convey the movement, and Viggo Mortensen's deep capture of Aragorn's character is a good example. The dissonance, what there is of it, comes from knowing the novel too well. Every plot point could be filmed, but then we'd see forty-hour-long films. Can't happen. So as all the images come alive and speak, we too familiar are jolted a bit at the absences.
Thus the "errors" are infinitesimal. What we have here is Best Picture, Best Director, - and the other two parts arriving to perhaps sweep the Oscars for three years. In other words, it ain't too bad.
Brilliant adaptation has only microflaws
23 December 2001
When 'Two Towers' and 'Return of the King' hit the screen in 2002 and 2003 some of the perceived flaws in 'Fellowship' might vanish. Oh, not a few blunders (Boromir not sounding his horn at the departure from Rivendell, eliding a crucial Tolkien line "..I shall not go forth as a thief in the night" - and may have avoided audience members from asking "Who's honking?" when Boromir does sound his horn on Amon Hen), but some. Whether or not Merry and Pippin, as well as the pursuing trio of Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli know whether Frodo and Sam are off to Mordor or not -the dramatic angst can be handled with either set-up.
Everything on the screen is spot on. This includes sets, props, atmosphere, and most of all actors. Christopher Lee is frightening, Gandalf with a full range of responses, Frodo scared, ary, sick and strong. The only drawback is Howard Shore's score, which at times becomes intrusive to the point of pulling the viewer out of the movie and give a moment to consider pummeling a sound mixer.
As for effects, they are prevalent, and for the most part seamless. A combination of techniques helps one suspend disbelief and not see the magician's tricks. The hardest to accomplish and easiest to overlook is the consistent "sizing" of the characters, the six-foot Rhys-Davies always appearing only an inch or so within the hobbits' 3' 6". The fireworks were pure Gandalf, and yes, we do see the swooping Smaug.
The purists and completists (like myself) suffer from missing pieces. We wanted Glorfindel, and Tom Bombadil, and Fatty Bolger, and Sam bopping a half-eaten apple off Bill Ferny's forehead. Perhaps, at some time in the future, another magical cast and genius director and mega-brave studio will come together to make the "Compleat" Lord of the Rings (run time, 15 days, 6 hours 12 min) - but until then Peter Jackson and the Companies of the Ring have given us all we can get. Enjoy the hell out of it! -M.
Everything on the screen is spot on. This includes sets, props, atmosphere, and most of all actors. Christopher Lee is frightening, Gandalf with a full range of responses, Frodo scared, ary, sick and strong. The only drawback is Howard Shore's score, which at times becomes intrusive to the point of pulling the viewer out of the movie and give a moment to consider pummeling a sound mixer.
As for effects, they are prevalent, and for the most part seamless. A combination of techniques helps one suspend disbelief and not see the magician's tricks. The hardest to accomplish and easiest to overlook is the consistent "sizing" of the characters, the six-foot Rhys-Davies always appearing only an inch or so within the hobbits' 3' 6". The fireworks were pure Gandalf, and yes, we do see the swooping Smaug.
The purists and completists (like myself) suffer from missing pieces. We wanted Glorfindel, and Tom Bombadil, and Fatty Bolger, and Sam bopping a half-eaten apple off Bill Ferny's forehead. Perhaps, at some time in the future, another magical cast and genius director and mega-brave studio will come together to make the "Compleat" Lord of the Rings (run time, 15 days, 6 hours 12 min) - but until then Peter Jackson and the Companies of the Ring have given us all we can get. Enjoy the hell out of it! -M.
Howling IV: The Original Nightmare
(1988 Video)
If desperate for a Hallowe'en flick
31 October 1999
'Here's another film that slowly grinds along, echoing to some degree the original "Howling", but sadly lacking any sense of humor whatsoever. There is a nice sense of the surreal from time to time, when the "nightmare" (Is she sleeping? Or is she awake?) sequences run. The last twenty minutes abruptly shift from the slow surreal suspense to graphic gore effects; which can be startling. These f/x are quite uneven, for example a cheesy and very plastic skeleton cut with a much more weathered skeleton. Another one of those last-five-second "surprise" endings, incongruous with the rest of the film; leaving the entire thing a mish-mosh of barely tolerable watching, and suitable only if desperate for a flick on Hallowe'en.
A film that haunts with images.
20 August 1999
Somehow from childhood I've been sucked into horror films, and those featuring vampires in particular. So, back in 1968 as a naive teen I wandered into the three-films-for-a-buck World Theater on Hollywood Boulevard. This was my first Hammer Film. It was a quantum leap point, blasting from the moodiness of Tod Browning and the camp of the later Universal films into a dark world.
Time passes. And out of the hundreds of genre films, "Dracula Has Risen..." haunts with images. Is it a good film? In its way. It is a good, solid B movie; one under Miqque's Ratings I'd give 90%. (Percentages are arrived at via a matter of actualization: the concept to the product, the question is "Is this the best film they could have made with this idea?") Some of the sets are cheap, some acting stiff, some writing clumsy, some pacing awkward (or, as typical of the genre, slow). But the darned thing works. Dracula gets staked at one point, and is frighteningly unhappy about it. That one image burns. The period pieces from Hammer all seem to be shown in the USA complete with dropouts and scratches, along with unwelcome cuts (mostly to avoid signature brief flashes of nudity and violence). An unexpurgated copy reveals Hammers strengths of use of color, making the most of a minimal set dressing budget, and the stunning charisma of Christopher Lee. This is one where he is not teamed with the late Peter Cushing, but the recurring role of the priest makes for a sharp foil. The denoument is striking, and flows directly into the next in the series. If you enjoy the genre, this is a good one. -M.
Time passes. And out of the hundreds of genre films, "Dracula Has Risen..." haunts with images. Is it a good film? In its way. It is a good, solid B movie; one under Miqque's Ratings I'd give 90%. (Percentages are arrived at via a matter of actualization: the concept to the product, the question is "Is this the best film they could have made with this idea?") Some of the sets are cheap, some acting stiff, some writing clumsy, some pacing awkward (or, as typical of the genre, slow). But the darned thing works. Dracula gets staked at one point, and is frighteningly unhappy about it. That one image burns. The period pieces from Hammer all seem to be shown in the USA complete with dropouts and scratches, along with unwelcome cuts (mostly to avoid signature brief flashes of nudity and violence). An unexpurgated copy reveals Hammers strengths of use of color, making the most of a minimal set dressing budget, and the stunning charisma of Christopher Lee. This is one where he is not teamed with the late Peter Cushing, but the recurring role of the priest makes for a sharp foil. The denoument is striking, and flows directly into the next in the series. If you enjoy the genre, this is a good one. -M.
Manos: The Hands of Fate
(1966)
MST3K Fodder, fer shure
12 August 1999
If Torquemada had this film available as a tool for torture, the Inquisition would have been over in a week.
The one redeeming quality of this horribly written, badly filmed (so bad it does not even deserve the damned-by-faint-praise comment "It was in color!") was that it provided a rich romp for riff by robots (Tom Servo and Crow T.; although I believe only one survived with its circuits intact). Alas! The film stock! The film stock! -M.
The one redeeming quality of this horribly written, badly filmed (so bad it does not even deserve the damned-by-faint-praise comment "It was in color!") was that it provided a rich romp for riff by robots (Tom Servo and Crow T.; although I believe only one survived with its circuits intact). Alas! The film stock! The film stock! -M.
Batman
(1943)
A Very Dark Knight
12 August 1999
It is 1943. Supplies of all types are scarce. Americans are interred in camps in the California desert for being of Japanese or Asian descent. Studios had some string, barely enough film, and a weekend to make 240 minutes worth of movie, split into 15 episodes. One modern videocamera has more special effects than were possible for an entire production. The writer(s) worked on the fly, cranking out scenes moments before they were filmed. "Hey! The train's slowin' down! Quick! Write a train scene!" (Yes, this DID happen.) Take all of this as background, a large tub of popcorn with real butter, and have yourself some fun! Sure, this Batman chucks a few bad guys off rooftops. The adolescent Robin has one heck of a 5 o'clock shadow. Costumes are stored in a file cabinet, not a glitzy techo-safe. And some of the narrative is flat-out racist. So were the times. Bruce Wayne smoked. And this serial rocks! Want real family entertainment? How about a 40's-50's Double Feature Night? Two films, with cartoons, newsreels, and meting out one chapter a week of this, or Captain Marvel, or Atom Man vs. Superman, or one of a dozen others? History becomes real and vital. Don't talk at your kids about history, show them - and then they'll talk to you! Let the scratches and mistakes show. Look beyond the story to the buildings and the scenery - these were not sets, they were the real thing (Same with "Perry Mason", by the way. In one episode is the house I grew up in, just as it was in 1961 or so.) This is not high art, but good solid story-telling with real people in real places (and a really cool pair of costumes). The action is gritty and real, the stuff Jackie Chan is made of. Suspend your disbelief and being judgmental - just enjoy this one! -M.
John Fogerty: Premonition Concert
(1998 TV Special)
Hall of Famer Again Proves Himself
10 August 1999
Just a taped concert...in front of a record company crowd. One that proves why John Fogerty is in the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame. John carefully constructs songs, and plays them live as he wrote them. Steely Dan, Peter Gabriel and a few others have this type of perfectionism while constructing their music, yet are able to make it vital, exciting, and fresh when performed.
Warner Brothers has two excellent Fogerty concerts performed in-house. "John Fogerty's All-Stars" (which should also be on DVD, but with John's history there are no doubt legal snarls with the various artists) and now "Premonition". "All-Stars" featured a band with names like Duck Dunn, Booker T., and clunky interview segments with some snotty kid (George Thorogood). In that vein "Premonition" features the Fairfield Four brought on for backing vocals on "110 In the Shade", and other singers for other tunes. "Almost Saturday Night" and "Rockin' All Over the World" finally show up on U.S. release from the available-imported "John Fogerty" album. Nothing shows up from "Eye of the Zombie", nor, again, is a saxophone player to be found (a lack that weakened the "Zombie" tour). The backing band is seamless, and Kenny Aronson on drums is stellar.
Pleasant stage dressing (a swamp, of all things); enough camera movement to maintain interest with only a few inappropriate shots; all help the music remain the central focus - which is as it should be. This is not a world-changer. It's a full-ahead rock concert by a master.
Warner Brothers has two excellent Fogerty concerts performed in-house. "John Fogerty's All-Stars" (which should also be on DVD, but with John's history there are no doubt legal snarls with the various artists) and now "Premonition". "All-Stars" featured a band with names like Duck Dunn, Booker T., and clunky interview segments with some snotty kid (George Thorogood). In that vein "Premonition" features the Fairfield Four brought on for backing vocals on "110 In the Shade", and other singers for other tunes. "Almost Saturday Night" and "Rockin' All Over the World" finally show up on U.S. release from the available-imported "John Fogerty" album. Nothing shows up from "Eye of the Zombie", nor, again, is a saxophone player to be found (a lack that weakened the "Zombie" tour). The backing band is seamless, and Kenny Aronson on drums is stellar.
Pleasant stage dressing (a swamp, of all things); enough camera movement to maintain interest with only a few inappropriate shots; all help the music remain the central focus - which is as it should be. This is not a world-changer. It's a full-ahead rock concert by a master.
Tell Your Friends