The Expendables gets a (generic) official trailer.

Well, that looks every bit as underwhelming as the leaked 'bootleg trailer' from a couple months ago. This has been tested a couple times and the word has been generally unimpressive. The film certainly feels like an 80s throwback, right down to the cheesy theme song that inexplicably shares its title with the film in question. The film also feels very 80s in that it's mainly just planning for action with a major action blow-out coming only at the finale (think Commando). I'm still beyond shocked that Lionsgate gave away what should have been a applause-garnering surprise cameo (the scene at 0:51). This trailer at least looks polished and clean and the cast rundown does a better job of highlighting which big action stars are actually in the picture. If Lionsgate has any brains (who knows these days?), they'll cut a second clip later this summer highlighting the bad guys (Eric Roberts and Danny Trejo) and the women in peril (Charisma Carpenter and Giselle Itié) and emphasizing hard action over 'the bonds of brotherhood'. This is a pick-up for Lionsgate, so their exposure shouldn't be too bad. At this point, The Expendables looks every bit as disappointing as that other 'dream team-up' Freddy Vs. Jason.

Scott Mendelson

Guest Review - Clash of the Titans in 3D (2010)

Friend and fellow film critic R.L. Shaffer has begun doing audio reviews on his movie/Blu Ray review site DVD Future. It's something I've considered doing now and then, but frankly I'm a better writer than an off-the-cuff speaker. If you think I ramble and go into a dozen random digressions when I write... Anyway, back on point, Mr. Shaffer just posted his (very sharp and occasionally funny) audio review of Clash of the Titans. I, alas, was stuck at work (boo!) and/or Passover Seder with relatives (yay!) over the past two days, so I was unable to attend the press screenings. In all likelihood, I'll be attending a showing sometime over the weekend at my convenience. Said showing will be in glorious 2D. Anyway, please enjoy.

Scott Mendelson

Review: How to Train Your Dragon: an IMAX 3D Experience (2010)

How to Train Your Dragon: an IMAX 3D Experience
2010
98 minutes
rated PG (sequences of intense action, some scary images, brief mild language)

by Scott Mendelson

I often talk about how certain directors are actually two different filmmakers who share the same name. Surely the Wes Craven who directed Vampire in Brooklyn and Deadly Friend couldn't be the same guy who directed A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream, or Red Eye. And could the same Chris Columbus have helmed both Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief? By that token, the folks at Dreamworks Animation seem to suffer from a sort of split personality disorder as well. Sometimes they give us A Shark Tale and Monsters Vs. Aliens and sometimes they give us Over the Hedge and Kung Fu Panda. Which Dreamworks showed up for work this time? Well, I spent $16.50 on my IMAX 3D ticket and I don't feel the least bit ripped off.

A token amount of plot - In a small Viking village plagued by decades of dragon attacks, the son of the village head yearns to impress his father by becoming a dragon hunter himself. Yet fate casts a wicked spell when the young Hiccup (Jay Barachul) accidentally injures a young dragon and is shocked when it shows mercy. Deciding to nurse the creature back to health, Hiccup soon discovers that dragons are not quite the thoughtless killing machines that the world has presumed, and he's soon torn between his desire to please his father Stoick (Gerard Butler) by becoming a dragon slayer and his realization that the generations-long war between Viking and dragon may not be so simple a conflict.

The story isn't exactly groundbreaking, and it's actually similar in plot and theme to Miss Spider's Froggy Day in Sunny Patch (was one of Tony Jay's last projects). You can probably chart out most (but not all) of the major developments before they occur, but the film is done with such high style and sheer quality that the well-worn myth becomes new again. The animation is beyond beautiful and the 3D is genuinely immersive. With all of the current hub-bub about studios racing to convert their live-action films into 3D, here is a shining example of how powerful a tool it can be in animation, especially if it was planned that way from the start. This film easily stands alongside Coraline and Avatar as one of the finest theatrical 3D experiences thus far. There are moments that look so three-dimensional that I could have sworn I was looking at claymation. To the picture's credit, most of the visual razzle-dazzle is held back until the second half of the picture while the first half is allotted to character development and storytelling. But the visuals are at-times breathtaking, especially the second act moments of Hiccup flying on the back of a newly healed 'Toothless'. If you can, splurge for IMAX and sit as close as you comfortably can.

All of the vocal talents give real and grounded performances. Jay Baruchel does his usual nervous shtick, but he tones it down just enough so that it feels like plausible human behavior in the face of inexplicable situations. Gerard Butler, no longer forced to approximate an American accent, gives the best performance of his career as Hiccup's stern but genuinely loving father. Craig Ferguson does grand work as Gobber, head-teacher to the youngest would-be dragon slayers and Stoick's best friend. The film actually takes the time to develop the relationship between the two elders, so that their actions in the climax have real dramatic weight. All of the younger characters are given personality and charm. Even the token love interest (America Fererra) is fleshed out and allowed to be funny and grouchy, and she is given goals and interests of her own not related to her relationship with Hiccup (and equally refreshingly, she's not the only female in the picture).

Whether the film is appropriate for the youngest of viewers, I can only say that I left my two-year-old at home. But the film has moments of awe-inspiring terror, especially in the third act when the stakes are clearly defined (sorry to be vague - no spoilers). To be honest, the greatest risk to young audiences is that they will get truly upset at the third-act story turns, but then so will plenty of grownups. Just know that the film is rated PG for a reason, and it's not because of a couple vulgar 'adult' references or a token amount of profanity, of which this film contains next to none. It's a real adventure story with genuine thrills and moments of real sadness. If the film has a real flaw, it's that the film tries to have it both ways in regards to its morals. Without going into details, the film tries to position itself as a pacifistic story where an enlightened member of a warring tribe realizes that the other side has feelings and motivations too (real-world geopolitical parables are there if you're looking). Yet the climax basically brings up a new threat so that the film can preach peace while giving audiences an action finale anyway. Said finale is a fantastic sequence, full of eye-popping action, character growth, genuine emotional impact, and surprising consequences, but it feels like a bit of 'having your cake and eating it too'.

Regardless, How to Train Your Dragon is a wonderful motion picture. It's perhaps Dreamworks' best animated film thus far and it's easily the best film of the year at this juncture. It's exciting, funny, scary, and compelling, with actors and voice-over pros giving real vocal performances. It's a visual delight and a textbook lesson in how 3D technology was intended. As family entertainment, as a cartoon, as a motion picture, How to Train Your Dragon soars.

Grade: A-

No shock here... Iron Man 2 wins summer movie hype poll.

For the past couple months, I've had a poll up basically tracking anticipation levels of the (likely) biggest hits of summer 2010. None of this is the least bit scientific, but here you go, if you cared enough to vote...

What was your most anticipated film of summer 2010?

Iron Man 2 - 38%
Inception - 20%
Toy Story 3D - 16%
Twilight Saga: Eclipse - 14%
Sex and the City 2 - 7%

Shrek Forever After - 3%

There you have it. No real surprises, so make of it what you will. For what it's worth, Inception spent the first month with a huge lead before the Tony Stark fans apparently came out in force. Obviously the readers on this site tend towards the nerdy, but the fact that Inception is solidly in number two based purely on the marquee value of director Chris Nolan is impressive. As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Weekend box office in review (03/28/10).

Maybe it really is a case of 'it's the movie, stupid'. After Avatar opened to $77 million and ended up the most successful movie ever by a huge margin, and after Alice in Wonderland opened with $116 million and ended up as one of the highest-grossing non-summer releases of all-time, the studios at large seemed to think that the answer was '3D'. In the last months, every studio has rushed to proclaim that pretty much all of their upcoming tent-poles will be released in 3D prints alongside the traditional 2D ones. Some will be shot with 3D in mind (the stunning-looking Tron Legacy), while others will be converted after the fact (next weekend's Clash of the Titans). Surely the reason that these films broke out was purely because they were being offered in 3D, not because of the innate appeal of the films themselves (a big-budget Tim Burton adaption of Alice in Wonderland with Johnny Depp and Anne Hathaway - who would want to see that?), or the top-flight marketing jobs performed by (respectively) 20th Century Fox and Walt Disney. No, it had to have been merely the 3D. Right? Well, maybe not so much...

This weekend's number one film was Dreamworks Animation's How to Train Your Dragon, which opened in 2D, 3D, and IMAX 3D theaters. Yet despite rave reviews and would-be magic bullet of 3D, the picture pulled in just $43.7 million this weekend. That's no small potatoes, but it's $16 million below the opening weekend of Dreamworks' Aliens Vs. Monsters. Heck, this opening is lower than the openings achieved by Dreamworks 'classics' such as A Shark Tale and the first Madagascar ($47 million apiece). Adjusted for inflation and taking into account the higher 3D-ticket prices, this opening is more in line with Bee Movie and Over the Hedge ($37 million apiece). If I seem bitter, it's because the reviews were dead-on, How to Train Your Dragon is the best film of the year thus far and a template on how to make good animated films (rich storytelling, beautiful visuals, real acting, no topical pop-culture references, etc) and a textbook case on how to use 3D to its fullest potential. I paid $16.50 for my 3D IMAX ticket and didn't feel the least bit ripped-off.

So while it may be a good thing that studios realize that 3D will not make moviegoers rush to a film that they otherwise wouldn't have much interest in, the question now becomes why moviegoers didn't have much interest. As is often the case, marketing is to blame. The film stressed boy-friendly adventure, which is always a harder sell in family-friendly animation than cross-gender comedy. Monsters Vs. Aliens may have been a lousy movie, but it was advertised as harmless comedic amusement that wouldn't terrify your wee ones and wouldn't be too painful for you (those dreaded pop-culture references to play well to a general audience demo in trailers). By contrast, there was a real question about whether How to Train Your Dragon was too scary for kids under five or six, or whether it would have any real female appeal. Ironically, the token love interest is actually a fully-fleshed out character and she's not the only female in the picture It may not be fair, but the old-fashioned quality of the latest Dreamworks entry may have been a disadvantage when came time to sell the picture, as there weren't very many trailer-friendly moments to pick from without giving away major plot twists.

Having said that, spring break will be in full effect for the next couple weeks, so one can only hope that the word of mouth and weekdays that act like weekends for countless vacationing families can carry this $165 million picture across at least the $150 million mark. Much has been written over the last week regarding the rising ticket prices of both 3D and traditional theaters, and I sympathize with those who wonder if the studios are going to overestimate the willingness of cash-strapped moviegoers to shell out extra money for the 3D gimmick. Let me just say, as a critic and a moviegoer, this film is worth seeing in whatever format you or your family can afford. If you can splurge for 3D or IMAX 3D, do it. But this is a terrific and exciting adventure picture that will lose only a token of its power in a cheap 2D matinee. Having films like this or Over the Hedge (somewhat) under-perform while Monsters Vs. Aliens and A Shark Tale explode can only teach Dreamworks the wrong lessons. You wouldn't want Dreamworks to make nothing but Shrek sequels or lowest-common denominator comedies anymore than you'd want Pixar to make nothing but sequels to Cars.

Third place went to the other wide-release debut, the accurately-titled Hot Tub Time Machine. The MGM comedy was inexplicably expected to gross around $20 million, so the perfectly reasonable $14 million debut is seen in some circles as a failure. Not so, as the picture was always going to play to a niche audience. The marketing campaign was downright goofy and the film's trailers all-but put a sign on the door exclaiming 'no slimy girls allowed!'. Like Snakes on a Plane, the goofy title led prognosticators to presume that it could break out beyond its specific demographic. MGM made the same mistake that New Line did with Snakes on a Plane, selling a movie as 'so outrageous, you have to see it!'. Problem is, most people don't pay first-run prices to see a movie that they are being told is 'so bad it's good!'. And, just like the Samuel L. Jackson thriller, the studio was unable to take advantage of the relatively positive notices that the picture received from critics. Still, the picture only cost $36 million, and the (theoretically unrated) DVD will likely sell like hotcakes when the time comes. Like usual, MGM now sits on the precipice of doom, waiting for the next James Bond picture to save its butt once again.

Second place went to last weekend's top picture. Disney was able to keep 75% of its 3D screens for Alice in Wonderland, which allowed the picture to drop just 48% to gross $17.7 million over the weekend and end day twenty-four with a mammoth $293.5 million. The Tim Burton paycheck gig is now days away to becoming the eighth film not released in the summer months to cross $300 million. That Disney was able to keep a large majority of its 3D screens is a sign of the Mouse House clout, and it must add extra insult that it was able to damage the opening weekend of a Dreamworks animation debut. We'll see how much it gives up next weekend when Clash of the Titans debuts in converted-at-the-last-minute 3D. Anyway, this film has surpassed The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Up, and The Sixth Sense to become Disney's sixth highest-grossing film of all-time. By next weekend, it may well have leapfrogged Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl ($305 million), Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End ($309 million), and possibly The Lion King ($312 million) to become Disney's number three domestic grosser. And if this weekend's animated debut taught us anything, Alice's massive success wasn't really about the 3D.

Among limited release openings, the news was pretty grim all around. The heavily touted Atom Egoyan erotic thriller Chloe grossed only $900,688 on 350 theaters for a lousy $2,573 per-screen average. Let's be honest, the appeal of watching Amanda Seyfried make out with Juliane Moore is strongest amongst viewers who would rather wait until DVD release so they can enjoy such things in the comfort of their home. The well-reviewed adult horror picture, The Eclipse pulled in $2,201 per screen in six theaters. Ca$h grossed just $16,649 on 27 screens, Lbs grossed $11,690 on one screen, and Bluebeard made $8,370 on its single-screen debut. The documentary Waking Sleeping Beauty, chronicling the rebirth of Disney animation from the mid-80s to the mid-90s, opened in five screens and grossed just $6,623 per screen. The film was given next-to-no publicity and I can only wonder if it covers much of the same material dealt with on the "Treasures Untold" documentary on the 2006 DVD release of The Little Mermaid. The fact that the DVD will allegedly contain 85-minutes of added material does not help matters, as why should one venture to a theater to see a documentary when they can wait for the DVD and basically get two documentaries for the price of one? No End In Sight had the same issue, with the 105-minute feature supplemented by 105-minutes of additional material.

Among holdovers, there is little unexpected to report. The Bounty Hunter dropped 42% after a 'disappointing' $20 million opening weekend. The $40 million Jennifer Aniston/Gerard Butler comedy has now grossed $38.4 million. Diary of a Wimpy Kid proved a one-weekend wonder, as it plummeted 54% as a result of direct demo competition. Still, the $15 million picture has already amassed $35.8 million. Repo Men dropped 50% for $11.3 million domestic total, which is impressive considering how lousy it is. She's Out of My League (-39% this weekend) is now at $25.5 million, The Green Zone (-44%) is at $30.4 million, and Shutter Island (-33%) is now at $120.6 million. Pity poor Avatar, which finally dropped out of the top-ten in its fifteenth weekend with a whopping 49% plunge. On the plus side, it crossed the $740 million mark, so there's that small comfort.

That's all for this weekend. Join us next weekend when 3D again gets put to the test with the Warner Bros 3D-done-on-the-cheap spectacular, Clash of the Titans. Also opening is Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married Too and the Miley Cyrus melodrama, The Last Song (that one actually opens on Wednesday). It's based on a Nicolas Sparks novel, so don't expect a happy ending. Considering how well every demographic is being served, expect a big healthy Easter weekend at the box office.

Scott Mendelson

On the eve of cancellation, a look back at 24's first groundbreaking season.

As most of you know, it was officially announced yesterday that Fox's 24 would be ending its run at the conclusion of its eighth season. I'll have more to say about that later, but for now I'm publishing this college essay I wrote at the conclusion of the show's first (and still best) year. Looking back over this piece, I am again amused by those (on both sides of the political isle) who were shocked... SHOCKED in the middle years to discover the moral gray zone that this show operated in. Not only has the show always dealt with moral characters making immoral decisions to preserve morality, that has been what the show was about since day one. Enjoy this nearly eight-year old piece of film-school writing. And yes, this covers the WHOLE first season, so a big fat SPOILER WARNING...

All in a Day’s Work

How 24 played with suspense conventions to become a near-perfect 17-hour thriller
originally published on May 29th, 2002

There is an old saying that proclaims simply that no good movie is ever too long and no bad movie is ever too short. While this is not completely true, it does relate to a common principle that a good movie is one that we do not want to end. To accomplish this task for two hours is an impressive achievement. But, to carry an audience along for twenty-four chapters, with a single story uncoiling over the course of seven months is a miracle. Granted, the “film” in question is a season-long television show. But, artistically superior in every way, Fox’s first season of 24 is worthy of the very best in the thriller genre.

The general plot, in brief concerns Counter Terrorism Agents Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) and Nina Myers (Sarah Clarke) in their attempts to prevent leading presidential candidate David Palmer (Dennis Haysbert) from being assassinated by secret forces who may have moles placed within the agency. To make matters worse, doped-up teenagers have apparently kidnapped Jack’s daughter, Kim, and her friend Janet. His wife, Teri, will soon be in danger as well. To the surprise of no one, those two plots eventually become connected. Meanwhile, Palmer must deal with an internal scandal within his campaign that will pit his family against one another. The central gimmick is that the show unfolds in real time over one twenty-four hour period, at one hour per episode (time is allotted for commercials).

Obviously, the extended format gives the creators great leeway to slowly raise tension levels while also fully developing all the major characters. If suspense occurs when desires are blocked, then having the storyline take place over seventeen hours (without commercials) was a successful way to keep the tension ratcheted. The long format allows the audience to relate to all of the allegedly heroic characters so that when a character is revealed to be a mole both in episodes eight and twenty-three, we are affected. The first episode establishes one of the key factors in building apprehension by climaxing with the mid-air explosion of a crowded 747 from which a conspirator escapes. With this shocking act, the series establishes that human life is completely expendable. This is cemented in episode two when a major starring character, Jack’s boss (Michael O'Neill), is killed in a shootout. Not only are random bystanders expendable, but also so are the apparent stars. Throughout the entire arc, it is clear that every character is in constant jeopardy.

The creators also exploit television conventions to play games related to Loker’s guilt rules. First of all, it allows the heroic characters to make many human blunders, some of which cost innocent lives. Since most TV watchers find it exciting to witness shocking events, be they weddings, births, or deaths, the makers understand that viewers of 24 will, perhaps on a subconscious level, actually want to see major characters being murdered so they can say they witnessed “the event.” Thus, the creators occasionally give the audience what they want, implicating them in such acts as the episode six suffocation of a hospitalized Janet by a man claiming to be her father (the father’s body was found in a trunk in the previous episode). We are horrified but also exciting both because the story has taken a shocking turn, and because taboos are being shattered. We were curious as to whether the show will have the nerve to brutally kill off a fifteen-year-old girl. When Janet and other non-villains are bumped off or threatened with execution, we feel guilty because we wanted it to happen both because we wanted to be shocked and because we feel that the show (and by extension us) has gotten away with something.

There are several points throughout the series when Jack is forced to choose between saving his family and saving Palmer. Specifically, there are a few instances where Jack is ordered by villains to partake in Palmer’s assassination under threat of his wife and/or daughter’s death. Thus, Jack is torn between two horrible choices. The audience is torn as we wish neither Palmer nor the Bauer family to perish, but it seems that A cannot be saved without sacrificing B. There is also a key scene in episode seven where Jack is ordered to kill Nina, his partner and former lover, under the same threat. Although he is able to avoid murdering her (he has secretly slipped body armor on her and unloads into her chest), the audience is given a few moments to wonder which option he should choose. And so the story moves along, slowly explaining itself and its characters with several noteworthy set pieces. There is a real time shootout in an abandoned building in episode two, which is filled with the scariest kind of dead air. There is a terrifically tense encounter in episode seventeen between a suspect and a Palmer campaign aide who, after realizing that her new boyfriend was an assassin, has offered to plant a tracking device on him. Sure enough, the encounter again surprises and concludes not by having the terrorist murder the young female aid but rather have the aide murder the killer in a fit of scorned rage.

As far as categories are concerned, 24 falls squarely in the realm of moral confrontation. Aside from following the guidelines as offered almost to a tee (the sole difference is that the main villain is introduced only near the end), the show concerns a duel between Jack Bauer and the forces of evil. But the show also deals with moral ramifications of an act committed by Senator Palmer’s son, which may or may not constitute murder (his son confronted a kid who had raped his sister, and the rapist then plummeted to his death). While Palmer’s wife and his campaign leaders want to cover it up, Palmer is torn as to how to handle the situation. Alas, both he and his son decide to come clean when people who work for him go behind his back and murder an individual with possibly incriminating information. Since we like Palmer and want him to become president, we are also relieved by and thus implicated in that murder. It is worth noting that although Palmer and son eventually make a public statement about the incident (after which Palmer’s approval ratings actually go up), we are never given a definitive answer as to whether or not the son actually committed murder.

Also muddying the moral waters is the whole motivation for the assassination plot. It is orchestrated by Bosnian despot Victor Drazen who wants revenge for a Black-Ops mission that resulted in the death of his wife and daughter (Jack was the team leader and Palmer ordered the botched hit). To the show’s credit, Drazen (Dennis Hopper) is actually given a speech in which he acknowledges blame for placing his family in harms way but still questions the difference between Jack’s actions and the Drazen plot that is unfolding. And, in the final episode, Bauer viciously pumps lead into an unarmed and surrendering Victor Drazen, thus at last losing the moral high ground. And yes, the audience is implicated by their cheering of Jack’s actions despite their immorality. But Jack, and thus the audience, is punished severely for it. In the final half hour, Palmer decides to leave his wife due to her dubious actions involving the attempted cover-up of her son’s actions. Nina is exposed as a mole for a third party unrelated to Drazen. After Teri unfortunately walks in on Nina as she is talking to her contact, Nina sees fit to tie Teri to a chair to buy time for her escape. Although Jack catches Nina as she is leaving, he resists the urge to kill her. Only after Nina is detained does he realize that Nina has shot his pregnant wife in the heart, and the story ends with Jack cradling his dead wife, sobbing and apologizing to her over and over again. Both Palmer and Bauer have saved their children and saved their jobs, but they have both lost their wives.

The climactic execution of Teri is worthwhile for two reasons. First of all, it keeps the suspense going, as we do not know whom in fact Nina was working for and now have a reason to want to continue to watch. Thus our curiosity is not completely satisfied so there is still suspense even before season two even begins (this the general purpose of your standard cliffhanger). Second of all, it implicates the audience in one last murder. In a show that has allowed us to cheer and anticipate the potential for violent death of innocent victims for the sake of shock-value, the final shot leaves us both mortified and excited. We are horrified as this extremely likable character has been callously shot by another character who we until recently liked and respected. We are excited, as the show has again surprised us and we now have a reason to become involved again when the show returns next year. And finally, we are again disturbed by our own excitement. We wanted these shocking plot twists and we got them. According to lectures, the last item of the moral confrontation thriller is the analysis of the ambiguity of the moral issues.

The masterstroke of 24 is that, in the end, the moral issues in question are not just the actions of the characters, but how we spent the last “day” constantly rooting for blood.

Blu Ray review: Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Sherlock Holmes
2009
128 minutes
rated PG-13
Available April 30th from Warner on DVD, Blu Ray, OnDemand, and iTunes download.

by Scott Mendelson

It's a rare thing to get generally decent reviews, open to $62 million, slowly but surely cross $200 million domestic and $500 million worldwide, win a Golden Globe for lead actor and still end up with no respect. But that is the fate that faces Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes as it makes its way to home video. Completely overshadowed by Avatar, this relatively successful franchise starter had to deal with constantly being referred to as 'the other movie' in a holiday season that it expected to dominate. Oversold as a slam-bang action adventure that retrofitted the world's greatest detective as a Playstation 3/Twitter/Facebook friendly action star, the film reveals itself as a relatively character driven detective story that has only a token amount of gratuitous action.

While Ritchie's film is a flawed and often messy picture, it is an interesting piece of work and contains two surprisingly challenging lead performances. Come what may, Robert Downey Jr. resists the urge to simply play Holmes as Tony Stark in period London, as his work has a certain morose and low-key desperation at its core. His Holmes is a sad, confused man who has realized that his uncommon intellect and obsessive nature has come at a cost, as it has rendered him completely at odds with the world around him. He rarely speaks above a whisper, often mumbles, and takes no real joy in what he does aside from the relief at temporarily being useful. Contrasted with that is Jude Law's delightful turn as Dr. John Watson. While countless prior adaptions has rendered Watson as a bumbling fool, this film gets it right. Holmes may be an anti-social genius, but Watson is bloody brilliant too, but with an ability to actually enjoy his life and take pleasure in his relationships. If this sounds familiar to TV fans, now you know who Dr. Gregory House and Dr. James Wilson are based on.

To the film's credit, the film is surprisingly light on spectacle, with only a handful of action set pieces and only one completely gratuitous action detour (a large-scale scene of combat, chase, and property destruction at the halfway point that resolves nothing and reveals no new information). The majority of the film is what you'd expect: Sherlock Holmes and John Watson working together to solve a case. While the case in question is relatively mundane (and surprisingly similar to Young Sherlock Holmes), it makes a token amount of sense when all is revealed. And, without giving too much away, the film earns major kudos for ending not merely with a bloated action climax, but with a long scene of Holmes explaining in intricate detail just how he deduced all of the clues (Adrian Monk would be proud).

While the film has serious pacing issues (it takes nearly the entire first act for the game to become afoot) and most of the supporting cast is wasted (Rachel McAdams is the very definition of the 'token love interest'), the picture earns its keep by placing emphasis on character and mystery rather than pyrotechnics and spectacle. Above all else, the film is about a deep friendship between two colleagues that allows them to do great things together. Come what may, the film feels very much like a Sherlock Holmes picture. And while the climactic sequel-set up is laughably over-baked, this is a franchise that is worth developing. I genuinely look forward to the sequel.

Grade: B

If ever there was a case where the Blu Ray looked better than the theatrical prints, this is it. On the opening week of play, countless audience members (including myself) complained of washed-out and muddy visuals that lacked detail and vibrancy. It would seem that the main culprits were theater owners and their refusal to show films projected with the correct light levels. The Blu Ray picture looks relatively gorgeous, with vivid colors and every bit of detail that was missing from the theatrical print I viewed. Of course, this is not Spider-Man and the main colors of choice are subdued black, gray, and blue. But what is onscreen is beautifully and accurately rendered. And that mumbling and low-volume whispering that Downey Jr engages in for much of the picture, further hampered by his thick accent? Well, either you can turn up the volume on your home system (English 5.1 DTS HDMA, French 5.1 or Spanish 5.1) or turn on the subtitles (English, French, or Spanish) of your choosing. With improved visuals and alternatives to trying to decipher Downey's low, muddled accent, the home viewing experience for Sherlock Holmes infinitely improves on the theatrical one. If theaters want people to actually return to the theaters, they really ought to start showing films at the proper light levels.

The extras are more a question of quality than quantity. Aside from opening trailers, a digital copy, and a DVD copy of the feature (the last quite useful for trips to the in-laws), the Blu Ray comes with just two bonus features. The first, a fifteen-minute making-of is pretty standard pr-fluff. The second feature is Warner's standard 'Maximum Movie Mode'. For those unaware, this is basically a visual variation on the standard audio commentary, where the director stands in front of the screen and narrates with various visuals (illustrations, behind the scenes videos, interviews, etc) pop up in the appropriate places. The track isn't quite as illuminating as McG's Terminator Salvation chit-chat, but there are goodies to be found. Most refreshing is Ritchie's comments concerning the trend of studios turning over mainstream pictures to singular filmmakers and pretty much getting out of their way. Ironically, with a few exceptions, Warner Bros is really the studio most willing to do just that. Also available to view separately are about thirty-one minutes of 'Focus Points' segments, which are also available within the Maximum Movie Mode.

So, the film is pretty good, the technical specs are actually superior to my theatrical experience, and the disc has at least one terrific supplemental feature. Proceed accordingly. Oh, and if you do buy this and know how to navigate BD-Live and what not, the 'live-community screening' (with Robert Downey Jr. answering online questions) will take place on April 1st at 9pm eastern-standard time.

Review: The Runaways (2010)

The Runaways
2010
109 minutes
Rated R

by Scott Mendelson

The Runaways tells a story so old that director/writer Floria Sigismondi barely sees fit to tell it at all. The film, purporting to chronicle the quick rise and fall of the first popular American all-girl rock band, has little to say and little to justify its existence. Knowing next to nothing about the real history being presented, I couldn't tell whether I was seeing a cliff notes version or a relatively small story stretched out to feature length. Nothing much happens in The Runaways. Take out the classic rock biopic journey and all you're left with is a few decent musical numbers and a whole lot of confused sexual politics.

In brief, the film concerns the formation of the titular band, as Kim Fowley finds five rock-ready young girls in the trailer park portion of Hollwood, California in 1975. The picture immediately focuses on just the two lead members of the band, lead vocalist Cherie Currie (Dakota Fanning) and guitarist Joan Jett (Kristen Stewart). If you've seen any up-from nothing rock biopic, you know what happens next. The band overcomes early resistance and overt sexism to achieve moderate success, but eventually falls apart due to conflicts and a greedy manager who puts his own pocket book above the mental health of his performers.

The picture doesn't even pretend that the story hasn't been told a thousand times, and even openly spoofed at least once (Walk Hard). But Floria Sigismondi seems to either not care or think that the fact that this version is about teenage girls makes it unique. It doesn't, as Satisfaction covered much of the same territory without the navel gazing. The picture contains no sense of time or societal impact, so we never know why what we're seeing matters in the grand scheme. Oddly enough for a film that's at least partially about girl-powered rock n' roll, Michael Shannon steals the film with a showboating performance that doubles as an audition reel to replace Health Ledger as the Joker in Shadow of the Bat. Yes, Fowley is a greedy hustler intent on using his girls' jail-bait sexuality to sell records and concerts, but the movie never really acknowledges that he basically plucked these kids out from obscurity and gave them a chance at fortune and glory.

Everyone save for Fanning and Stewart are pushed well into the background, including the other three members of the band. Dakota Fanning does what she can with a walking cliche, but her Cherie Currie suffers from a confused script that can't decide if she blew her chance because she fell into drugs or she fell into drugs because she never wanted the rock star life and/or felt guilty about abandoning her family for the road (Currie certainly doesn't seem to enjoy performing). Kristen Stewart gets the showier role, but in the end Jett is presented as merely a more confident and enthusiastic rock star who eventually succeeded through sheer force of will. We don't get even an ounce of character development for the rest of the band (Stella Maeve, Alia Shawkat, and Scout Taylor-Compton), which leads us wondering how they feel when their dreams are dashed due to Currie's personal demons.

Without much of a story to tell and too little music to perform, the film basically relies on sexual titillation to draw in audiences. There is a certain discomforting amusement at watching Fanning play a scantily-clad punk rocker in an R-rated picture (for the record, this is a VERY soft R), and the rest of the (age-appropriate) band isn't exactly hard on the eyes, but the film is overly confused about its own sexuality. On one hand, the picture seems to condemn the commercialization of Fowley's quasi-jail-bait rockers (Currie was actually 15 at the time), on the other hand the film seems to want to celebrate these young girls taking control of their own 'gifts' and using them for their own artistic purposes. Considering that Currie wasn't much of a singer (and we don't get to see what talents the other three possessed), all the band seemed to offer, according to the film, was the teasing of teen sexuality and Joan Jett's genuine acoustic skills.

In the end, The Runaways dresses up a groundbreaking female rock band in the most generic biopic imaginable. Without a real look into their talent and their personalities, we're left basically with the assumption that the Runaways was successful because they were awfully cute. If there is more to it than that (and I presume there is), then the film actually is a disservice to the history being told. The game cast treads water against a script that shoves everyone but Fanning's Currie into the background yet even shortchanges the lead in terms of honest character development. For what it's worth, the movie makes me want to learn, as this can't be all that there was. As a rock band, The Runaways were the first of their kind and paved the way for the acceptance of women rocking and/or rolling. As a movie, The Runaways would get booed off the stage.

Grade: C-

Transformers 3 now worth seeing?

When I was a freshman in college, a close friend of mine had this dream project of doing a big-budget Friday the 13th movie (part 10 at the time), with a real budget and a real cast. His two dream co-stars were Kurt Russell and John Malkovich. I distinctly remember giving him hell over the likelihood of two big stars and/or respected thespians taking part in such an obvious blow-off gig, as well as the desire to hear a trailer guy gravelly intoning: "John Malkovich and Kurt Russell in... Friday the 13th part 10.

Well, that was ten years ago. As most of you already know, Michael Bay has somehow convinced Frances McDormand and (yes) John Malkovich to come on board for the next Transformers picture. Comic god Ken Jeong has also signed up, but that doesn't mean anything other than that Jeong will be in the movie and will likely be funny in it. As for the other two, Malkovich will be playing Shia LeBeouf's boss (not a jewel thief, alas) and Francis McDormand will be playing the head of the NSA or something to that effect. While Malkovich has been known to ever-so-occasionally play in the genre pool (Eragon, Jonah Hex, Mutant Chronicles), McDormand has more or less stayed out of the action/adventure sandbox since her damsel-in-distress turn in Sam Raimi's Darkman back in 1990. So while Malkovich will likely dive head-first into the cheese (like John Turturro), expect Frances McDormand to simply make like Glenn Morshower or Michael O'Neal (both 24 vets) and just pretend like hell that she's in a real movie and exit stage right with her head held high.

While we can all randomly guess just how and why two uber-respected actors were convinced to appear in the least-respected major franchise currently going (I'm guessing Malkovich wanted/needed a quick payday after Spider-Man 4 fell through), it does seem to confirm that Malkovich is reaching the self-parody second-act of his career, where he just wants to enjoy himself and occasionally mock his image (in Hollywood, you either die a villain, or live long enough to see yourself become the punchline). As for McDormand, maybe she and Malkovich got along on Burn After Reading and she just wanted to cash in for once. It is fascinating that, come next summer, many people will be discussing Transformers 3 because of the inexplicably high-caliber cast. Weird...

Scott Mendelson

For those who care - Iron Man 2 gets an international poster.

As I mentioned last night, the opening weekend competition basically comes down to Iron Man 2 vs. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, with Toy Story 3 possibly playing the spoiler. The one-sheet above is a solid piece of work, clearly emulating the core design of the first film's poster. Like the last picture, you have a collage of floating half-bodies, with the superhero designs in the back ground hovering behind them. While the first poster pretended not to reveal who the key villain was, there is no mystery in this sequel, hence the bottom action shot of Whiplash. What I do find amusing is that both posters have Tony Stark and James Rhodes looking away from us, while Pepper Potts and the big bad stare us directly in the face. The outlier is of course Black Widow, who also refuses to look us in the eye. Oddly enough, Both Stark and Rhodes are both looking up at the sky, but in the respective opposite directions that they were looking in the first poster. Point being, I do adore when marketing attempts to create a sort of continuity for franchise pictures and this one fits the bill to a tee. Nice work at Paramount marketing.

Scott Mendelson

For those who care - The Twilight Saga: Eclipse gets a poster.

Laugh all you want, but choke on your mockery when Team Not--You pulls in one of the biggest opening weekends of the summer, if not the year. Only Iron Man 2, Toy Story 3, and Shrek Forever After will come close to the first three days on this one in summer 2010. Iron Man 2 is a serious threat to the $158 million scored by The Dark Knight, and Eclipse is a threat to the five-day $203 million record. Toy Story 3 will likely open just below those two but do a slower-but-mightier run as the top-grosser of summer of 2010. As for the poster itself, it's a nice minimalist image, but I am amused with the tagline. "It all begins... with a choice". Fair enough, but we're halfway through this series, so I think it's a little late to 'begin' anything. Who does David Slade think he is, a writer on Lost ('gee, we've got 18 episodes left, let's invent a whole new conflict that will confuse the hell out of everyone!')?

Scott Mendelson

Titanic: Two the Surface trailer.

This is a pretty terrific fake trailer, done with minimal tricks and simply a collection of completely appropriate film clips that really do merge into one coherent preview. Double points for the priceless use of an infamous dance mix of 'that song'. Like most things like this, it's about twice as long as it should be, but I chuckled several times throughout.

Scott Mendelson

Dilemma of the token actress. Poor female roles or no female roles?

As everyone who reads this site probably already knows, Chris Evans was officially, finally cast yesterday as Steve Rogers in Joe Johnston's The First Avenger: Captain America. With Evans donning the shield and Hugo Weaving apparently The Red Skull, the next step is to locate the 'female lead/love interest'. Among the leading contenders are Alice Eve, Emily Blunt, and Keira Knightley, with Blunt in the lead due to her having to turn down the role of Black Widow in Iron Man 2 due to prior commitments. None of the articles concerning these actresses bother to name the character in question.

We have no idea if the eventual leading lady will be playing Shield Agent Sharon Carter (a relatively three-dimensional character in the current Ed Brubaker arc) or someone else entirely. In the realm of franchise film-making, the name and/or character of the 'female lead' is all-too often completely irrelevant. Actresses in most mainstream pictures are merely placeholders, basically playing one variation or another of 'the girl'. Her name is irrelevant and her character usually is too. She is eye candy for the boys, and for the girls often merely a cynical attempt to pull in females by promising romance and/or a moment or two of alleged 'female empowerment'. In all but the most overtly female-driven pictures (Sex and the City, Mama Mia!, Whip It), the actress is cast only in regards to how well she complements the hero. She may be twenty years younger than him, but rarely older than him. She is often 'hotter' than him, but rarely taller than him. She is occasionally beside him, but never in front of him.

Does anyone really think that Jessica Biel will have anything of substance to do or say in The A-Team? Sure, she may get to carry a gun and she may even defeat a token bad guy or two, but she's there just to look attractive and to give Bradley Cooper someone to make out with. And what purpose does Megan Fox serve in the Transformers movies other than to run around looking like Megan Fox? While there are some exceptions (the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, the X-Men trilogy, the Harry Potter series, Fantastic Four 1 and 2), most mainstream franchises have no female representation beyond the token 'love' interest. Even in franchises that begin with fleshed-out, three-dimensional female leads (Hulk, Batman Begins), the sequels will often undo much of that work and regulate the female lead in question to just another romantic prize to be won and/or woman-in-refrigerator (TheIncredible Hulk, The Dark Knight).

Aside from the obvious issues involving sexism and gender representation, such tokenism actually harms many of the films in question, to the point where said film would be better off with no female representation at all. Sure, we all love Vera Farmiga in Up in the Air or Nothing But the Truth (two movies that actually pass the Bechdel Rule), but how wasted was she in The Departed, with nothing to do but choose between dating Matt Damon or Leonardo DiCaprio? And Emily Blunt may be both talented and beautiful, but what did she really offer in The Wolfman other than a tossed-in romantic subplot that dragged the picture to a crawl in the final act (Del Toro may have turned into a werewolf and slaughtered dozens of innocent people, but will he find love with his brother's former fiancee)? And what purpose did Alice Braga serve in Repo Men save for a random hot chick for Jude Law to grab by the hand and pull along during the various action scenes (never-mind that the plot had him leaving his wife and son behind and instantly falling in love with his new travel buddy)? It's not the actresses' fault of course, most actors take what work is offered to them. It was and continues to be the fault of whomever decides/mandates that there has to be a part in such pictures for a female lead and chooses not to come up with anything more interesting that 'love interest'.

I suppose what I'm getting at is, well, why must there be a 'love interest' in franchise pictures? Why can't such obviously guy-centric pictures make a choice to either create a female lead worth giving a crap about or simply be honest and exclude women from the picture altogether? It is possible to do the former. Cate Blanchett was cast in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull not as the romantic interest, but as the lead villain. Diane Venora was on-board to provide professional and moral support as a Russian government operative helping Richard Gere and Sydney Poitier bring in Bruce Willis's Jackal in the 1997 remake. Say what you will about Wanted (a terrible picture with serious gender issues), but Angelina Jolie was cast not as the love interest for James McAvoy, but as his teacher and partner in crime. And while Live Free or Die Hard had a standard damsel-in-distress teen daughter for John McLane to save, it also had Maggie Q as a lead villain who gave and received as much brutality as the male heroes and villains.

Of course, slight digression, an issue with women being cast as villains is the perception of a male hero fighting with a female villain leading to charges of sexism. Arnold Schwarzenegger crudely but tellingly commented that it was refreshing to fight a female terminator in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, because it was the rare occasion that he could fight a female opponent with the same ferocity that he showed towards male antagonists. Same goes vice-versa for heroines. The two Charlie's Angels movies were criticized because Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu were allowed to be beaten up by the likes of Crispin Glover, Sam Rockwell, and Justin Theroux at least as much as our heroines in turn whaled on the bad guys. Just as writers may be afraid of writing flawed roles for minorities to avoid charges of bigotry, I can only imagine the same pressure exists when crafting females who are heroes or villains in action scenarios (which may lead to the genuinely insulting phenomenon of female villains turning heroic in the finale as with Wanted, A View to a Kill, or The Phantom).

It is possible to write roles for actresses that don't completely revolve around looking attractive, romancing the male lead, and/or being rescued in the climax. It is possible to write female supporting characters who have their own goals, their own ambitions, and their own respective character arcs. Do you really think there isn't a correlation between the large cross-gender appeal of Avatar and the fact that both Jake Sully and Neytiri are fully-written characters and are truly co-leads for the majority of the picture? The problem comes when so little effort is made to flesh out the lead female, that the character becomes nothing but a token inclusion via some mandate. Thus, with nothing to do and nothing interesting to say, said character becomes a drag on the picture. I guess it's the eternal question of whether doing 'this' is better than doing nothing at all. Is it better to have franchise pictures that are basically all-boys clubs, or better to awkwardly shoehorn a token love interest or random 'girl part' for alleged demographic requirements, perhaps to the detriment of the picture as a whole? Obviously, the best choice would be "C", which is simply to write interesting roles and simply choose to cast them as female without regard to alleged gender demands. But, since I don't see that happening anytime soon, the tragic choice for too many actresses is the choice between bad roles and no roles.

Scott Mendelson

Neat. Scott Mendelson quoted in Time Magazine.

That's last week's Time Magazine, dated March 22nd, 2010, on page 19. You can click on the image to see a version large enough to actually read, but it's quoting from the Huffington Post version of my post-Oscar Kathryn Bigelow article published on March 8th. How nice that I'm featured right next to both Sarah Palin and Chief Justice John Roberts. I can only hope that it's a coincidence. You can see the original article here, or the Huffington Post version here. I know it's not a huge deal, but it's a nice moment of validation and something neat to show the kids/grand-kids when they are old enough/young enough to be impressed by such trivialities.

Scott Mendelson

Blu Ray review: The Lord of the Rings: the motion picture trilogy (2001-2003)

The Lord of the Rings trilogy
The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King
2001, 2002, 2003
178 minutes, 179 minutes, and 202 minutes
Rated PG-13 (for intense epic battle scenes and frighting images)
Available for Download, Blu Ray, OnDemand, from Warner on Tuesday, April 6th.

by Scott Mendelson

They are the finest fantasy films ever made. The best trilogy of all-time. Winner of seventeen Oscars. With worldwide box office totals of $2.9 billion, with $1 billion of that from the US alone. Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings is truly a one-of-a-kind accomplishment. They opened to rave reviews and captured the hearts of audiences worldwide, leading to unheard-of box office and awards for the genre. Yet when the time came to tally up the cinematic achievements of the past decade, the one trilogy to rule them all was strangely missing from many of the lists. Salon asked why there was not more love for this epic adventure series, and I'll reprint here what I wrote back in December of last year.

It's called "blockbuster backlash," and it's not a new phenomenon. I actually found an essay I wrote in early 2005 about this, which stated that The Lord of the Rings backlash has only recently started." Can you find anyone, film critic or otherwise, who still admits to loving or even liking Independence Day, Jurassic Park, Titanic, or the Lord of the Rings series? Someone did back in the day, as those films made tons of money, back in the olden days when it wasn't so easy to gross $200 million, let alone $300-$600 million. But since it's considered uncool to like something so beloved by the masses, blockbuster backlash has set in, swinging the pendulum in the other direction. What starts as "Oh, it wasn't that great" quickly turns into "That movie was terrible."

The tide of critical opinion almost immediately turns, so that the focus on these films revolves purely on the technical merits, with snide disdain at the idea that the films succeeded for any reasons related to character, story or craftsmanship. "Oh, those films were just about the special effects and the battle scenes," says someone who bawled like a baby during the finale(s) of The Return of the King. "Oh, it was just the groundbreaking FX of the dinosaurs," says another who gripped their seat in terror during the raptor kitchen attack in Jurassic Park. We immediately forget that these films were not only popular with the masses, but with the critics too. Titanic received rave reviews upon its release. Jurassic Park received solid notices too, including many ecstatic sighs of relief that Spielberg still had the goods to scare the crap out of us eighteen years after Jaws. And each of the Lord of the Rings films was greeted with a wave of "I can't believe Peter Jackson pulled this off" hysteria, to the point that The Return of the King's Oscar triumph was a foregone conclusion.

Just you wait: The tide is already starting to turn against The Dark Knight ("It only made so much money because Heath Ledger died"), and I can only presume that Avatar is next on the chopping block ("People only went because of the 3D effects," which explains why Captain EO was the century's top-grossing film). This isn't a case of people who disliked the film from the get-go voicing their opinions louder than everyone else. This is a case of mass amnesia that renders any prior smash hit as something to be disdained by the critical elite, which then filters down to the general public. Regardless of why their stock has inexplicably fallen, Peter Jackson's adaptation of JRR Tolkien's groundbreaking fantasy series remains the awe-inspiring, exquisitely-cast, wonderfully acted, and emotionally-draining powerhouse that it was starting in December 2001. Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King combined represent the crowning cinematic achievement of the last ten years, as well as one of the true pinnacles in filmmaking history.

I'm assuming that if you're reading a review of the Blu Ray release of The Lord of the Rings, you probably agree at least in part with the statements above. Watching the films again, as I do every few years, I am always struck at how Ian Holm completely owns the first third of Fellowship of the Ring. As the aged (in spirit if not in body) Bilbo Baggins, Holm brings the full weight of a man who has the choice of living forever, but instead has finally decided to allow himself to die. His scenes with Ian McKellen's Gandalf are magical and priceless in establishing the humanity and inherent tragedy within this fantasy world. The films will of course eventually give way to spirited chases, Campellian-heroics, and epic battles inter-spliced with meditations on death, sacrifice, and the horrible burden of living in dark times. But that initial act of Fellowship of the Rings remain the most emotionally poignant right up until the wrongly-mocked finale of The Return of the King (it was the end of a nearly ten-hour saga, did you really want a freeze frame on Mount Doom exploding and then a cut to credits?).

The special effects remain as impressive as ever, because so much of the work is practical and so many of the sets are real New Zealand locations. The acting, from Sean Astin to Sean Bean, remains Oscar-worthy all-around, because everyone treats this material like it is historical fiction rather than outright fantasy. Unlike so many of the franchise pictures before and after, The Lord of the Rings trilogy feel real because so much of it was real. There were real costumes and real weapons, the characters were covered in real sweat and real dirt, and the action was a glorious mix of practical stunt work and state-of-the-art movie magic. The battle scenes remain the most impressive ever put on film, with the mass warfare of The Two Towers and The Return of the King unmatched in spectacle and emotional pull nearly ten years later (only James Cameron's Avatar and John Woo's Red Cliff came close). While one can nitpick here or there (why didn't Gandolf just fly Frodo to Mount Doom on a bloody eagle?), the films are genuine, undisputed masterpieces.

As far as only including the theatrical cuts, we can expect a mega-box set sometime in 2011, in time for the tenth anniversary of Fellowship of the Ring. The only extended version that I vastly prefer is The Two Towers, which adds character detail and a more epic canvas to the most conventional film of the trilogy. Heck, the theatrical cut of The Return of the King is actually superior to the bloated extended edition (unlike the prior two films, the third picture's longer version had footage cut not for time but for quality). But this set is a nine-disc package, neatly packed into two Blu Ray keep-cases. The first case contains six discs, with three Blu Rays for the theatrical features and three DVDs for extra features (more on that later). The other keep-case contains three digital copies of each picture.

If it needs to be confirmed, the films look and sound spectacular. This is easily the best these films have looked since their original theatrical release (and, refreshingly, the CGI-intensive moments suffer little from being viewed in such digital clarity). Audio options lead off with English 6.1 DTS HD for all three features. However, please note that the audio display on my Playstation 3 read only English 5.1 DTS HD, but I cannot firm due to a lack of surround sound. Oddly enough, The Two Towers and The Return of the King have Spanish 5.1 EX mixes with The Fellowship of the Ring only gets a Spanish 2.0 stream. English SDH and Spanish subtitles are available on all three films. As for the bonus, the box advertises six hours of bonus material, and that may very well be true. But, for better or worse, the special features are identical to the supplements found on the original theatrical DVD releases for each respective film. So you get the TV spots, the trailers, the Sci-Fi channel specials, the National Geographic presentations, and the various web-casts (some of the video game trailers may be new, I wouldn't know). While there is solid material to be found here (the first and third films have around 90 minutes of pure documentary footage apiece to go with the PR fluff), it's a shame that Warner/New Line didn't see fit to upgrade any of this to HD (only the theatrical trailers and video game trailers found on the feature Blu Rays are rendered in 1080p). Still, considering that I presumed that these discs were going to be bare-bones affairs, the inclusion of the original DVD supplemental features was a welcome surprise.

It's no secret that we will eventually see a mega-set of some kind with the extended-cuts and the bazillion hours of extras from the previous four-disc sets (and hopefully the Costa Botes documentaries from the 2006 re-issues, which I've never seen), probably around December 2011 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the theatrical release of the first picture. It's not like anyone is being conned. If you want the original theatrical cuts in glorious Blu Ray, in a lovely and slim package, with a healthy helping of extras that you haven't watched in years (since you probably sold your theatrical DVDs when the extended-cuts came out), then you know what you're buying. Blockbuster-backlash has somewhat diminished the reputation of this astounding hat-trick, but perhaps revisiting the pictures on Blu Ray will remind people why they loved this trilogy in the first place. Now if I can just get my wife to sit through them even once. It's not like I don't suffer through goodness knows what horror/disaster dreck for her...

Scott Mendelson