From the Files of Letters Will Likely Never Get Around to Sending

EDIT: To anyone reading this now, sorry about the slightly batty formatting.  Trying to fix it, but Blogger is being quite testy.

Well, I didn't lie.  This week's not a review. It's something of an experiment may see more of in the future.  As the title suggests, this is something of an open letter.  The people it's addressed to might see it, they might not.  They might take its input into consideration, or write me off as a drunken whackjob (hey, it's possible.)

Anyway, this is something that seemed like it could be a nice thing to do from time to time to frame some mental spitballing.

In this case, the open letter is addressed to the good people who run the Criterion Collection. As some of you remember, I already indirectly plugged them last Halloween for their release of Carnival of Souls.  For anyone who isn't quite familiar with this (a long shot, but I'll humor,) the Criterion Collection is a high-end collection series of various films chosen from all over the world on the basis of artistic or historic significance.  Each film that is selected is given a thorough remaster and, in most cases, an extensive set of extras regarding either the making of the film or its impact.  These are very much a collector's market release of films.  While some of them can run up price tags (though timed right, you can get some good deals with sales,) they're usually such that you get what you pay for.

Now for the inevitable question of why am I writing them an open letter?  Good question - the answer to which goes back to last month. One film I'd been waiting to see the collection pick up, Guillermo Del Toro's The Devil's Backbone, was announced with a release in July.  Suffice it to say, I was pretty pleased to hear this.   In light of that, and as one of the many people who's given probably way too much thought to titles they'd like to see the good folks at Criterion give their attentions to, it could be interesting to try and actually put together a list of 10 films in particular I'd like to see them consider at some point in the future (though I imagine many of these they already have.)

Once again, these are merely loose thoughts and, at best, suggestions.  Take them as you will and realize, in the long shot anyone from the Collection does read this (and if you do, thank you guys for all hard work you've put into what is out and coming out), again...purely suggestions.

Note: While this list is for 10 films, given there are two cases of two films with different reasoning, I'll have them clustered together for 8 entries here total.

Having said that, let's begin:

DON'T LOOK NOW

The 'Things Turn Red = It's Gone To Hell' rule gets established pretty early and pretty strongly.

It always struck me as odd that a movie with this one's critical reception and praise among horror films has been out of print for as long as it has.  Though alongside the chance to get it back in circulation, this has a number of elements of to it that would have me interested in seeing Criterion have a go at it;  Nicholas Roeg's thriller is very well shot, both in terms of some of the shots used to help build the suspense (such as this movie doing the 'red as a warning color' trick a good two decades before it became repopularized by The Sixth Sense) as well as the scenery.  Like Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock, this is one of those films that, alongside being well done in general, is just very nice to look at on the strength of its locales.  That the acting is equally strong only further helps the film's case - as a couple still trying to get over the trauma of the loss of their child, Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie deliver two of the best performances of their careers (complete with a controversial love scene that had people convinced that Roeg actually filmed them in the act.)  Finally, it's a rather nice mix of genres, blending a bit of mystery, thriller, and some pretty poingnant character drama.  Really, if anyone can give this film a return to shelves that it deserves, it would be the Criterion people.

THE WICKER MAN

"GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!"

Speaking of horror films that tweak ones expectations of the genre, here is another that is still arguably one of the most divisive depending who you ask based on its presentation.  While I'll definitely acknowledge it's not to everyone's style, I would still say Robin Hardy's cult classic actually has a lot to offer for itself as far as its merits within the collection.  Even now, there really aren't many films that really seem to do what this film accomplishes - offering a blend of British horror, culture shock, mystery, and a now famous ending that contains a rather unsettling message about the things people will do for their beliefs.  This mix of themes is only further added to by the film's neo-pagan setting (the musical elements, in particular, tend to throw people here) and have really made this title distinct.  Finally, there's the film's history, which is also a pretty impressive little tale of a labor of love that danced close to falling off many times, but survived on the basis of the committment of the players involved (in one famous example, Christopher Lee was so dedicated to seeing this movie happen that, when the budget got tight, he was willing to cede his payment to let it be used to fund the production instead.)  The resulting film is a strange ride that, to its credit, also has a message to it that still remains effective nowadays.

A FACE IN THE CROWD

"Opie isn't gonna believe this one!"
NETWORK

Like so much of this movie, time just makes this reaction to everything feel THAT much more appropriate.

Speaking of films whose messages still have an impact nowadays, here's two that are not only still relevant nowadays, if anything, they feel even more relevant now.  Which, given the two films in question, is a pretty frightening prospect.  Sidney Lumet's Oscar-winning tale of the lengths a struggling television network will go to may look a bit dated in some of its aspects now, but the idea of the news being turned into an entertainment all its own for ratings seems much less like a joke now than it used to, especially in the current technological age where people are free to pick and choose whichever news source will tell them what they want to hear (for good or ill.)  Likewise, Elia Kazan's tale of a drifter turned media demagogue, played by an electric, and at times disturbing, Andy Griffith, feels alarmingly ahead of its time.  Griffith's Larry 'Lonesome' Rhodes, seen nowadays, comes across as a sort of prophet of the modern pundit age - in fact, by today's standards, Rhodes would be seen as soft-balling it.  Alongside this historical relevance, both in and of themselves are well made films with some very strong sentiments regarding how media is used and abused in our society.  It's one of those rare times where it's both encouraging and alarming to see a film get better with age.

AKIRA

OK...I don't really have that much of a zinger here.  This is more just a demonstration of the attention to detail in the film.

In starting this one, I do have to say - I'm actually kind of surprised Criterion hasn't done much with animation to this point.  I'm not sure if it's been consciously omitted or just simply not come up, but there are certainly some titles that could lend themselves well to that list.  It's with this in mind that we come to this suggestion - Katsuhiro Otomo's 1988 cult hit Akira.  Now, I will admit this film does have its drawbacks - as a movie adapted from a then-incomplete source, Otomo did have to try and come up with his own ending, which does somewhat muddle the film's second half.  Despite this, the film also has a fair number of aspects going for it - even among animated films, this movie's got an amazingly smooth and detailed look to rival even some of Disney's main fare (the opening gang battle through the streets of a post-apocalyptic Neo-Tokyo is still stunning to look at now.)  Further, Otomo's command of direction in individual scenes actually makes for several strong individual sequences, even if not every part of the film gels as a whole.  Finally, there's the movie's role as a breakthrough in how the west perceived animation.  While it's true that this wasn't the first 'not for kids' piece of animation that had been known of in the west (that said, some of Bakshi's fare could also be worth considering) this was one of the first pieces that really made a significant splash, garnering strong reviews and accolades from high profile film critics.  While the resulting boom of Japanese animation that came over in its wake was full of stops and starts, it's hard to deny the impact this movie had in paving the way for many others to follow here.

THE BROOD

Pictured - #6 on the top 10 banned episodes of Wild Kingdom

OK, I'll start this one by admitting this- truth be told, I'd get behind almost any David Cronenberg films getting picked up for the collection alongside the ones already in (to that end, I'm still pricing around to get a copy of the old Dead Ringers release.)  But if I absolutely had to pick one over any of his others, and considering Videodrome is already in, while it would be a VERY tough call, I think I would have to pick this title.  Not because I consider it to be his best, mind you.  He's done others that definitely trump this.  Rather, I'm curious to see and hear what would be done with this film.  For one, this is the movie that really saw Cronenberg start coming into his own as a director after the ambitious but somewhat rocky work on Shivers and Rabid.  This contains a more focused narrative and a better sense of a direction in what it wants to do, combining his signature body horror with a rather interesting exploration of the devastating effects of abuse and pent-up anger.  Further, part of the reason I'd be interested in seeing the Criterion take on this is that, as Cronenberg's films go, this is one of the ones which feels the most distinctly personal.  This feeling coming even before I learned that, yes, this film was born out of a rather messy custody battle with his wife.  Now, I'll grant there is the possibility he may not want to go into that part of his life again, which I can't say I'd blame if that were the case.  However, I would still be up for it if he was. 

SONG OF THE SOUTH

Pictured: Br'er Rabbit looking smug that he can still appear on merchandise and the log ride while Remus would be a lawsuit waiting to happen.

THE DEVILS

I'm REALLY getting a bad feeling about this Sound of Music remake...

Speaking of 'I know these will probably never happen'...
These are two films which are arguably more about their role in film history than their own merits...but for what that role is, it's prominent enough that I'd say they could merit the attention.  Many films that are out of print are simply a matter of either lack of interest or rights.  These two mark two of the rare cases of movies that have been actively blocked from being rereleased by their studios, fearing backlash over their content.  The controversies have become such that the movies in question have had it become a part of their identities as 'the banned films.'  This, in itself, has given them a certain curious mystique (Song of the South being one of the single most requested titles to be released from the Disney vaults thanks to its reputation.)  While Ken Russell's fairly graphic tale of madness and religious persecution in 17th century France isn't quite as known, in what circles it is known is because of its reputation.  Suffice it to say, that gives the films in question a LOT to actually live up to if they have any chance of seeing the light of day (though as I understand it, they ARE available in Europe, which has lead to a pretty lively import/bootleg trend for them here.)  In this light, the Criterion treatment is probably the single best thing that could be done for both films.  Alongside an effort to ensure the movies themselves would be presented as completely and without edits or censoring as possible, their attention to extras and film historian input could help properly explore just why these films have become so famous/infamous and try and look at their more controversial aspects in a more balanced light.   It's that seasoned, reasonable voice that is necessary for dealing with hot topics such as what these films address.

BARTON FINK
"Well, MY work here is done!"

Like Cronenberg, I'd be okay with just about anything the Coen Brothers made getting put into the collection.  If I was, however, told I could only pick just one film to consider for the list, despite many of their other greats, I think I would have to give this to their 1991 comedy-drama Barton Fink.  For a film they put together as a side project while working on Miller's Crossing, this is a surprisingly ambitious movie for Joel and Ethan Coen.  Taking the story of an up-and-coming playwrite who's been tapped for writing for Hollywood, the film actually plays with a LOT of ideas.  Right at the top of the list being an exploration of the darker creative politics of Hollywood that, despite the movie's 1940s setting, could still say a lot about nowadays.  Alongside this, the film also works as an interesting, if somewhat nightmarish, look at the creative process.  Turturro's Fink goes at points almost off the deep end reconciling 'common man' and 'intellectual' in his work, with a surprisingly scary John Goodman riding sidecar.  All this in a film that dances the lines of drama, dark comedy, and at points even horror.  Even among the Coen films, it's hard to find something that really pulls off what Barton Fink accomplishes.

FREAKS

They may be circus performers, but you make even one social faux-pas and there is NO going back with them...

Once more for old time's sake:
ONE OF US!
ONE OF US!
GOOBLE GOBBLE!
GOOBLE GOBBLE!
Tod Browning's 1932 film is one of those movies that would never be made nowadays.  Between its content and its decision to actually cast genuine circus performers in the roles of the titular freaks, the movie would be a legal nightmare waiting to happen.  Hell, it was arguably too much even when it came out, as a good thirty minutes of the movie have been missing and presumed lost since its initial controversial first screening.  It's this film's troubled history that is one of the big reasons I would like to see what Criterion could do with this movie.  The current release isn't bad, but I do feel like a more intensive release could go deeper into the history of this endearingly bizarre milestone of cult cinema.  It's the kind of film that really does feel like it needs a more attentive eye to give it the release it deserves.

Well, there we have it.   Ten titles would be up for seeing on the list.  Actually, I could likely think of some more, but for now, ten seemed like a nice round number to leave it off at.  Who knows, maybe one or more of these will eventually make it on there some day.  In the meantime...let me dream.

That said, once again, in the very long shot that someone from Criterion is reading this - again, thanks for all the great work so far, looking forward to The Devil's Backbone in June, and I'm also looking forward to what else may be coming down the line from here!

As Another Movie Once Put it Best

Hey guys, remember when I said that this next entry wasn't gonna be a review?
I LIED.

Well, maybe not a lie per se.  More accurately, I decided to bump this one up as it's still pretty relevant, having come out this weekend. With that said, some of you can guess where this is going.

I will admit, I initially went into Iron Man 3 with some reservation.  I still enjoy the first movie, and actually consider it to be one of the better movies to have come out of the comic movie renaissance to this point.  The second movie? Let's just say I found the second movie to be something of a mess of muddled ideas and actors running away with their parts.  In fact, while I'd consider Iron Man to be one of the high points of the current generation of comic movies, I consider Iron Man 2 to then be among the lowest.  So my expectations were kept fairly restrained going into this one, even with the strong advanced reviews. So, I finally got to seeing it this Saturday and I have to say, I was satisfied and a bit surprised.

Part of the reason for the surprise was the fact that the film's promotions were simultaneously accurate and misleading in what they presented.  For those who need a quick, spoiler-free recap: the world is reeling from attacks by a mysterious terrorist known as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley.)  As the world (with the rather curious exception of SHIELD, apparently) scrambles to find the man, our hero Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) steps up to challenge him.  Of course, Tony's been having his own problems - the events from The Avengers have left him with a case of PTSD that's affecting his life, his creations, and his relationships, and this is before the Mandarin decides to take Tony up on his challenge.  This is all in the first act, by the way. Much of the film then follows Tony's trying to find the Mandarin and becoming mixed up in a conspiracy involving a dangerous new biological agent with the ability to create supersoldiers. Suits fly, lines are quipped, and there's only so much more I can say for the story without spoiling things.

Also, the action figure designers need a towel after this finale...an awesome finale, I might add.

Anyway, to start from that point, the story is kind of a mix of feelings on this one.  As an overall concept, it's relatively solid.  Under closer inspection though, it does have some plot holes- such as the above-mentioned lack of SHIELD involvement.  When a man threatens, on a hijacked media feed, to kill the President of the United States, you'd think Nick Fury would at least send a consultant for the situation.  Also, much as I like the idea of addressing Tony not quite being over what he experienced at the end of The Avengers, it does feel like something of a discarded plot thread after a while.  It's an interesting idea that never really gets the time it needs to develop.  Despite these elements, the plot still moves at a largely good pace and manages to work in a few nice surprises along the way, culminating in what is arguably the most satisfactory final act of the three movies.

Like the story, the characters are kind of a hit and miss spread here.  I will start by saying everyone's acted well in this. The two standouts are RDJ,  who remains at the top of his game with this role, and Ben Kingsley, who plays the role so well I'd watch an entire movie devoted just to him.  The problem for others seems to be less with how they're acted and more in how they're written.  A major example of this is in Rebecca Hall as Maya Hansen, a former fling of Tony's whose research is opening a pandora's box in terms of human enhancement.  Her role starts out interesting, as a means to introduce audiences to the idea of Extremis. Yet after that, she just seems to linger.  They make an effort to give her a little more by inverting the cliche of her role, but still doesn't really add much.  Likewise, Guy Pearce as sinister industrialist Aldrich Killian feels like there's no real personality to him beyond just being a bad guy.  Now, I will give him some minor leeway here since, to be honest, villains haven't been a strong suit for the IM movies anyway. Prior to this, Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane was the only one who didn't feel like a muddled heap of quirks and ideas (which is kind of sad to say, since I usually love Sam Rockwell, but his Justin Hammer was just useless comic relief.)  Granted, this still doesn't make it right that Pearce's character is flat, so much as it's acknowledging this is more just a problem they've had in the series anyway.  Like I said above, character-wise, the Mandarin is actually the standout of the new characters in this movie - as a character, he's always been something of a tricky one to translate into film - by his original design, he was something of a racist caricature, and even as he was depicted in the promotional material to this, he seemed on the verge of being your classic 'brown terrorist' archetype that's been done to death.  The way he is actually executed, however, really adds much more to him and really handily sidesteps a lot of the pitfalls the character could have led to.  The one other new character that actually makes any sort of impression for the better was Harley, a child character introduced in the second act played by Ty Simpkins.  Rather than being the classic overly innocent kid who helps bring out the better side of Tony, the two actually verbally spar off each other, which actually makes for a nice change of the traditional dynamic. Also, while the kid does bring out Tony's better half, Tony is still himself, and at times a colossal dick to said kid, including driving off and leaving the kid in the cold. And it's hilarious.

Yes, I would watch a whole movie of this guy.  When you see this movie, chances are you would too.

I know I've come back to the idea of this film skewing expectations a number of times so far, and honestly, it's for a good reason.  In the newly transferred hands of Shane Black (taking over for Jon Favreau, who still remains playing bodyguard Happy Hogan,) the film does a LOT with the idea of messing with traditional cliches and expectations in terms of plot and characterization.  It's actually rather interesting when one considers that the promotions for the film, while technically accurate, were also presented in such a way as to give us a completely different impression of the movie.

In terms of technical achievement, the movie is solid.  The editing and music are good, if not anything that will immediately stand out as strong suits, and the effects continue to hold up Marvel's high quality.  This particularly pays off during the film's finale, in which the better part of the Iron Man arsenal is deployed in an impressive final battle.

Admittedly, half the stuff I want to really discuss about this movie, I can't get into without going into details that would give things away.  In fact, even as comprehensive as this writeup was regarding the writing, it still feels lacking to me.  Overall, it's a fairly solid final chapter to the Iron Man trilogy.  It certainly has its faults, largely results of the writing. However, the film still holds up despite them.  Even if parts of this movie have overall surpassed the quality of the first movie, I would argue the original IM remains an overall better (and summarily, the best) movie of the trilogy.  Thankfully, it certainly is an improvement over the second movie's let down.  I'm not sure how this one will branch into the eventual Avengers 2, but as it is, on its own merits, it still does its job nicely enough.

With that, the summer movie season is now officially in full swing.  I'm looking forward to a couple of titles, but all in all, still in 'wait and see' mode.

In the meantime, next time I make good on that non-review article next time...and if I lie then, THEN you can come after me for it.

(...I could regret that, huh?)

On the plus side, at least this means I've got 1.5 people waiting...

...theoretically, anyway.

How to Save a Clubhouse (If You Can't Breakdance)

Much to the confusion of some of you who are wondering why these haven't been on Thursdays like they used to be (...oh, come on, I'm sure one of you's noticed!,) it's time for another visit to the Third Row.
You know, this year's been off to...kind of an interesting start.  Up until sometime earlier this month, this year's theatrical releases were...kind of a mixed bag.  By that, I mean, for a while there, of the films I'd seen in theaters, two of my top three weren't even actually made for release this year.

This, as you might guess from a comment like this, is in review of one of those above mentioned two of three - more specifically, Studio Ghibli's 2011 film From Up on Poppy Hill, that only recently got a wide release here in the US.

I'd like to take a moment to say, yeah, the captions on this one won't be quite the usual zingers here...cause man, riffing on a Ghibli film feels strangely wrong.  Like hitting a cat wrong.

I have to say, I went into this film with some degree of reservation.  On the one hand, yes, it's Studio Ghibli, which is almost always a sure bet for quality.  On the other, this was the follow-up directorial effort of still up-and-coming Goro Miyazaki, whose previous debut was the rather lackluster Tales of Earthsea.  Now I have not read the books there yet (though the movie did make me curious to look into them,) but from what I heard from those who have, this wasn't even a case of fault in the material - the movie was just weak all around.  It had interesting ideas, but a rather listless story and no real sense of a directorial voice behind it.

Why am I starting this review by unloading on Tales of Earthsea that much?  Because after seeing his follow-up feature, I am honestly starting to come around on Goro as a director.  This isn't to say I'm looking the other way on ToE's faults. However, the more I look at it, the more it reads as a case of an inexperienced director in over his head.  From Up on Poppy Hill, meanwhile, shows Goro in a bit of a stronger light.  It's still a bit rough around the edges, but with this, he's starting to show signs of improvement and thankfully, a strong voice.

The movie's story is adapted from the 1980s shoujo manga of the same name by Tetsuro Sayama and Chizuru Takahashi.  Its focus is on protagonist Umi Matsuzaka, voiced by Masami Nagasawa and Sarah Bolger.  As the elder sister in her family, she's been minding the house while her mother has been away, her father having died during the Korean War.  Every day, she raises signal flags in memorial to his father, which she later finds out someone has been responding to.  Alongside her life at home, she becomes involved in a movement at her school to save an aging club house that is in danger of being demolished (Editor's note- AW SHIT. Does this turn into Breakin' 2?).  As a result of this, she gets involved with the president of one of the clubs, the popular Shun Kazama (Junichi Okada/Anton Yelchin.)  This is also mixed with a storyline involving school love and a question of lost family connections, which I won't elaborate too much on, one part because they try to build it up to a reveal, and one part so we can get to talking about the movie itself.

While the screencap is kind of small for it, one other thing I have to hand to this movie - the backgrounds are quite nicely done.  Especially in the clubhouse before it gets cleaned up.  They do a great job with making the place look lived in and cluttered.  I kind of wanted to just keep poking around that building.

The story itself is, as you might guess from that synopsis, a bit busy at points.  In order to keep things moving at a decent pace, some stories are given precedence (the romance/mystery around Shun and Umi is the primary plot with the club house taking second.)  This is something of a mixed blessing, in a way - the stories that get the focus are handled fairly well, but the secondary plot strands do somewhat peter out with the diminished attention.  Much of Umi's home life, for example mainly just winds up feeding back around into the main romance storyline and doesn't really stand otherwise on its own.  This somewhat hurts characterization for the boarders in their home, who mainly just seem to serve to help nudge the plot forward.

Of course, like the story, on the other side of the coin, the characters that do get the more direct plot focus do far much better.  Umi and Shun are fairly fleshed out, and while not as fully carried out, many of the locals at the school's club house are still quite entertaining, even if a couple of them are one note characters.  Part of what helps in this latter case is some of the dialogue in the script (written by Keiko Niwa and Hayao Miyazaki.)  Several great bits that make the various clubs memorable are little moments in passing (an exchange between two club members: "How can we make archaeology cool again?" "We can't.") help make up some for the fact the cast are really too large for everyone to really get a chance in the limelight.

In some ways, it does feel a bit odd looking at this movie compared to many of Studio Ghibli's other films.  Compared to many of their greats, I will admit, it does come up a little light.  But at the same time, I don't find myself minding that.  Partially because I still see this as an improvement for its director.  It's still rough around the edges, but this film shows some promise for where the younger Miyazaki could go as a director.  While it still shows a couple of the flaws that he had in ToE, he also has a better sense of focus on this movie.  More importantly, this film has more of a distinct voice to it.  A voice that, thankfully, isn't that of his father's.  Put down the pitchforks, that was NOT a slam on Hayao.  He's a great director (one of his films is actually on my favorite movies list,) and I would not challenge that.  What I mean is, I'm actually pleased to see that his son is trying to strike out a path on his own and with his own voice as a director, instead of just trying (and potentially failing) to emulate his father's style.  With this film, Goro shows some potential to be able to handle character-centered pieces well, if he can just narrow his scope from here.  I can't say at this point if he has the potential to be as good as his old man, but at the same time, I do at least see in this movie the signs he could still stand on his own quite well.

All in all, if you're a fan of Ghibli's work, I'd say it's worth a watch.  It's admittedly not on the scale of some of their peak offerings, but given the nature of its storyline, that's not necessarily a problem.  It's a very down to earth story and its narrative and direction reflect that fairly well.  For all its rough edges, it still has the heart that has really helped allow Ghibli to become such an established name in the states over the past 20 years or so.

Just remember - if you fumble with Ghibli, it's lucky if you can get a second chance.  The injury featured here is strike one.  Let's just say no one's seen strike three...at least, as far as the authorities are concerned, anyway.

Goro, you're almost in the clear.  Just keep at it, cause I'd hate to feel like I was wrong in saying you could still go places.

Join us next time when I...OK, next entry isn't actually a review (STOP CHEERING, DAMMIT!) but still, hopefully will see you guys then!

A Mustachioed Bit of Levity

[NOTE: This entry was initially lined up to go up much sooner...but as you can imagine, last week was one of those weeks for...just about everyone, really.  For what it's worth, to those still effected by last week's happenings, my best wishes and hope things fare well.]
 
Well, let no one say we here at The Third Row don't keep our word (...most of the time.)

Last entry, I promised you guys Italian Spiderman, and I haven't been this happy to oblige in a long time.

...I'm gonna be honest.  Captioning may be tricky with this one.  I mean, riffing a movie that's already a parody feels kind of redundant, no?

Right about now, some of you are already thinking "Oh God...", while others are likely wondering "What the Hell is Italian Spiderman?"  So, let's get started with some of the background -

Italian Spiderman is a two-fold sendup film conceived of by a team of Australian filmmakers.  It serves as both a send-up of Italian action movies of the 60s and 70s (presented as a 'lost' film of fictional Italian orange magnates, Alrugo Entertainment,) as well as a good natured send-up of the custom of foreign 'repurposes' of popular titles (things like Turkish Star Wars, etc.)  The result is a low-budget, dubbed over, and downright hysterical piece of insanity.

In fact, before I go any further on describing this movie, I'd argue now would be a good time for you to look up the trailer.



It's OK, I'll wait.

For those of you who didn't want to look up the trailer, I'll try and keep the description short and sweet.  For those who did...well...bear with me for this description.  Again, I'll keep it short.  For starters, this isn't the Spiderman you know from comics and films.  Naturally, this is part of the joke.  Rather than being the endearingly gawky nerd who gained superpowers from being bitten by a radioactive spider that now allows him to leap from building to building in a skintight red-and-blue costume, this movie's vision of Spiderman is...different.
Picture a stocky man with an appearance like a cleaner Ron Jeremy, a domino mask, and a red turtleneck with a giant spider on it.

For as many weird things as Marvel has done with the character, I feel kind of saddened this was never one of them.

Our hero, ladies and gentlemen!

Also, he's not about nimble acrobatics and quick quips.  This is established in the first scene, where, in the midst of a tense poker game with a classically one-eyed villain, he produces a shotgun from nowhere and starts the shells firing.  It's a sequence that has no real purpose for the rest of the film, but it's still a great way of both introducing our hero and establishing the flavor of the movie.  Low-budget effects, including a man turning into a rubber snake to escape a beating and goofy as Hell fight choreography, including seeing Italian Spiderman cold-cock several women, all set the stage for what's to come wonderfully.

From here, we establish the movie's actual story, loose as it is.  Italian Spiderman, who simply is...that's just his full identity, job, and any other aspects, is the friend of scientist Professor Bernardi.  Bernardi has been researching an asteroid that fell to Earth (first presented into a sequence that introduces us to a young student who's shocked expressions turn into a brilliant running gag.) 

I'd like to believe somewhere there's an entire reel of alternate reactions this guy gave for every scene he had to look shocked in.

Unfortunately, his research has also caught the eye of the villainous Captain Maximum - a cackling villain whose dress sense involves a sharp grey business suit and a Mexican luchadore mask.  These three, as well as Jessica, Bernardi's niece and Spiderman's love interest, make up the four main players in this loose story that plays as a whirlwind of action, espionage, and some over the top insanity that's hard not to love.

Likewise, kind of saddened that such a villain doesn't appear to be part of the classic Marvel rogue's gallery.  If someone knows otherwise, feel free to correct me.

I will admit here, it feels a bit odd to try and seriously review a movie that, by its very design, is meant to be a parody of incredibly goofy, low budget films.  Mostly because it's not the kind of film that is necessarily quantifiably good, but it is VERY entertaining.

In particular, that entertainment comes down to two elements more than anything else (not to diminish the rest, but these have earned the praise.)  The first is the performance by 'Franco Franchetti' (David Ashby) as the film's hero.  Half of what makes Italian Spiderman such a fun movie and character is the fact Ashby plays the role with such zeal.  Whether it's dispensing morals to people he's just punched out, or demanding information from a rubber snake, Ashby plays the character with just the right level of over the top energy.  He's fun without feeling like overkill.  A trick that, in a parody, is a pretty delicate balancing act to get right.  The other standout here is the film's director, Dario Russo.  Russo, as director and producer, does a lot for helping give this film its wild feeling.  Between the faux-60s setting and the over-the-top low budget action (one of the highlights being a scene where Italian Spiderman makes a man's head explode using only his mustache.)  Like Ashby's performance, Russo has a sense of how much is just right here and hits the mark almost all across the board.

Proof of the above-mentioned interrogation and head explosion.

Really, this is one of those movie that feels almost impossible to hate.  It's a parody that understands its subject well enough, and approaches it with the right levels of good humor and, oddly enough, love to make the film still feel enjoyable while also feeling relatively faithful to what it's riffing on.  I realize I'm coming back to that element of balance a lot in this entry, but it's because it really is a big element of what can make or break a parody movie.  It's also what causes this movie to succeed with such flying colors.

Seriously, they pull no punches.

Like I said, given the film's big failings are in there by intent, I can't rightly find much to fault this movie for.  The only complaint I could really feel with this movie is the fact that, as an independent project, it's only 40 minutes in length.  Though at the same time, I almost can see how that could be an asset.  I mean, I walked away from this movie wanting more (and not just because of its cliffhanger ending,) but I can also acknowledge maybe it's best we only got what we did rather than risk the idea of the joke overstaying its welcome.

With an ending like this, the knowledge a sequel will never come haunts me.

Though I must admit, I certainly wouldn't say no if the team ever decided to reform Alrugo and revisit this mustachioed hero one more time.

The movie is actually available on the web, legitimately, and free of charge (with English subtitles) for all to see.  Suffice it to say, if you haven't watched this yet, and if this article has raised even the slightest interest, then by all means - Go! Go! Make yourself a Machiatto, pull up a chair, and watch Italian Spiderman!  It may not be necessarily artistically fulfilling, but it's still a VERY enjoyable 40 minutes to just unwind and have fun.

OK, so this entry was a little bit more freeform than I was expecting.  Though given the nature of the movie in question, that actually fits, in a way.  If it helps any, the next review is already in the works and will be a bit more structured, if somewhat less insane, sadly.  Ah well, can't have 'em all that way, or I'd get sick of it.   Such a prospect terrifies me.

Until next time...

See ya!

...and now, for something actually kind of serious. (Yep. It's Ebert.)

It's a lot sooner than I was expecting to get back to you guys here at the Third Row, but life does have its way of surprising us like that.

This isn't going to be a review piece.  I have Italian Spiderman lined up in the queue for you guys to dread when the time comes, but for now, we're here to talk about a much better subject and a much better person.

As you likely already know by now (unless you're in a self-instated media blackout...in which case, why the Hell are you reading this? ... Wait!  Don't leave!) today saw the death of beloved film critic Roger Ebert.  The man was 70 years old, and this came one day after his announcing his intention to step down from professional review due to cancer.

Despite this heads-up, his death still felt sudden, and I find myself even now trying to sum up just what to say. This was a man who inspired a love of film in millions of people (no, I'm not sure that's an exaggeration.)  Many have also sounded off on the man's passing already.

As a result, I've spent the last hour or so trying to sort out just what I can say for the man and his legacy that hasn't already been said...so here goes.

I wish I could tell you all how this man was a direct influence on my decision to go into review, but that would be disingenuous, as the thanks for that goes to many people (he is on the list though.) At the same time, however, he did manage to impart an important lesson on me that properly helped shape how I decided to look at reviewing to this day.

One of the things that I always found interesting with reading Siskel and Ebert's reviews is, even when I didn't agree with them, I could see their case.  This being at a time where, for a while, I was regularly at odds with the local reviewer (and while I will concede some of my issues there were biased, there were a few things where it did honestly feel like the guy just wasn't paying full attention.)  Regardless of how Siskel and Ebert, and later Ebert on his own felt about a movie, I could count on knowing that, yes, they watched it and absorbed it, and they knew what they were talking about in their discussion.

Here is where I will again stress the fact that Ebert and I didn't always see eye to eye.  For proof of that, compare our views of Zarchi's I Spit on Your Grave.  At the same time, damned if I wouldn't still respect the man his view for the fact he didn't simply write it off without giving it its proverbial day in court.

I guess what I'm getting at here is, to me, Ebert was essentially the model of proper reviewer conduct, embodying many of the key virtues that I feel all reviewers should take to heart, and sadly don't always:
-Never write off a work simply because of your prior impressions of the medium.  Give it a chance (for an example of this, look up his review of Grave of the Fireflies.)
-Not everyone will agree with you.  That's perfectly acceptable.  If everyone had the same opinions, this would be a boring enterprise
-To this end, don't be afraid to be in the minority vote on something if you like it.  Stick with your guns. But always...
-Make sure your case is solid.  If your stance is worth defending, then be ready to defend it.  Make sure it holds water and be ready to stand behind it.

I realize this sounds odd, but looking back, this really is the biggest impression Ebert made on me.  The man was a good writer, passionate about films, and when he completely unloaded on a bad movie, it was arguably more entertaining than the movie in question would be.  But for me, his strongest point will always be those points listed above: he was the man that helped prove to the world at large that film review could be a legitimate field (despite the number of people who will try to argue otherwise) and helped provide, for lack of a better term, a gold standard to hold review up to.

Alongside that, I also have to hand it to the man - his was a life spent sharing his love of film with others, and, in doing so, helping people discover their own love of film.  In a world filled with critics, few have had quite the impact he had.

God speed, good sir...
...hey, I can't be making these things jokes all the time.

I'll be having a drink to your memory tonight, good sir.  Thanks for the films, the memories, and the inspiration.

Fear and Loathing in the Land of Oz

(Yeah, yeah, this is twice I've titled something inspired by the Hunter S. Thompson work.  I held out on a LOT of obvious James Franco stoner jokes on this one, so humor me.)
Well, the Holy Week/Easter chunk of time is over, and it's back to work here at the Third Row.

It also gave me a chance to get out to the theaters for another current review...and like last time, I find myself really trying to work out how to sum up my thoughts here.  Albeit in this case, it's got less of a nice sound to it.

Several weeks after the rest of the viewing public, I finally got around to seeing Sam Raimi's first big post-Spider-man bid for the blockbuster crowd with Oz: The Great and Powerful (much as I enjoyed it, I never really got the sense Drag Me to Hell was meant to be a blockbuster film so much as a fun horror title.)

This was a film that, admittedly, I was uncertain of from the off-set.  On the one hand, I have to admit, the idea of seeing a fresh take on the land of Oz in film had a lot of potential, and doubly so from a director like Raimi.  However seeing the teasers, I found myself feeling somewhat underwhelmed.  "Still," I thought "Now that it's out, why not give it a watch?"

Unfortunately, the uncertainty is still there.  To start with, I just want to say I didn't hate this movie.  It actually does have some nice visual flares, the callbacks to both versions of Oz (the 1939 movie and Baum's novels) are nice without feeling overly "SEE WHAT WE JUST DID?."

The story is, as the promotions show, pretty obvious - James Franco plays the titular character, Oscar Diggs (Oz for short,) a traveling Carnival magician in turn of the century US, which, in keeping with the homages, is filmed in black and white.  He's also, as is often the case in these stories, an absolute jerk.  He's a womanizer, he belittles his assistant (Zach Braff), and constantly focuses on the idea of becoming more than he really is.  It's the kind of personality we all know is due to get changed as the story goes on, and one that, to his credit, Franco plays well.  Anyway, after bombing on stage, and then crossing the carnival's strong man the wrong way, Oz is high-tailing it out of Dodge.  He's confident that he's gotten away with his antics once again with no consequences...until he realizes the hot air balloon he took to get out of the carnival is heading right into a tornado.

"THIS is what it's like in a tornado?  I should have gone into one of these years ago!"

One guess where said tornado leads him.  To his credit, they do avoid just making the tornado sequence a retread of the famous semi-hallucination scene in the 1939 movie.  Rather, this results in a crisis of conscience as Oz pleads with the powers that be for one more chance to prove himself.  This scene also has one drawback I'll be coming back to later, as it's a drawback that haunts a lot of the movie.

Anyway, Oz touches down in the brightly colored land of...do I even need to say it?  It's a pretty far cry from the world people only familiar with the movie will remember - rather than being put down in a village of munchkins through an act of residential manslaughter, Oz is plopped down in the middle of the wilderness of the land that bears his namesake.  Here, he's found by one of the local witches, Theodora (Mila Kunis, in a fairly well acted, if somewhat directionless turn.)  She informs him of the situation - Oz's old king (a creation unique to this movie, as Baum didn't have a patriarchy in his books) died, and a prophecy declared a wizard bearing the land's name would arrive.
...yep.
Oh, and of course there's the whole little pesky element of the fact he has to find and kill a wicked witch to get the throne. You know, easy stuff.

"Remember the pie scene in 'Spider-man 3'? 'So good?' THAT'S our new king.  Still think this is a good idea?"

All in all, this film is something of a mixed bag.  While the story is basic, it certainly doesn't damn the film on its own nature, as basic stories can make up for their simple set-up in their execution.  Unfortunately, this is probably one of Oz's biggest stumbling blocks.  Many otherwise simple elements feel ultimately muddled - Oz's 'jerk who develops a conscience' arc feels somewhat understated, as he really doesn't seem to properly reap any consequences of his carelessness.  He feels bad for not being up to snuff, but when the film reveals the biggest mistake from his actions (which I won't go too much into as a courtesy), he doesn't seem to feel all that bad about it.  There's no regret and, at the end, only a fleeting attempt to make amends for what he's done.  It's not even like anyone else beyond the wronged party takes him to task either.  Even the movie doesn't seem that interested in taking him to task, since it then eclipses his misdeed by having it amplified by the movie's wicked witch.  Simultaneously rendering him slightly less to blame and also considerably less effective within his own story.  Everyone just keeps expecting him to step up and become the great and powerful wizard of prophecy.  Never mind the fact the situation has now become more dangerous because of him.

"Told ya.  No consequences.  It's pretty sweet being Franco."

Which leads into the next strength and weakness of the film overall - to be honest, while Franco makes the most of the role, Oz just isn't a very interesting or likable character.  Which is strange, since it's not like you can't make a jerk likable (just ask Robert Downey Jr, the man who made Tony Stark so beloved was at one point in talks for the title role here.)  He simply doesn't have a whole lot of personality beyond his desire to be a great person.  Even after he changes, there's not much to him.  By comparison, the witches of Oz are all a bit more fleshed out and interesting characters.  Alongside Kunis giving a sort of doomed optimism as she falls for the film's chosen one, Rachel Weisz plays her sister with a understated, but still malevolent edge that, unfortunately, feels somewhat underused here.  Rounding out the trifecta, Michelle Williams makes the most of what she has to work with for Glinda, and still manages to make her character stand out as someone willing to use what tools she has on-hand to make the most of the situation.  Unfortunately, said tools in this case often means putting her trust in a man she doesn't even think is the prophecied one.  On the one hand, it's a case where I can see the criticisms that she comes across as lesser to Oz, but in this case, I'll still give some points for the fact that the only reason Oz actually gets anywhere is because she gives him a swift kick in the rear to do it. 

While I'm discussing the criticisms of the gender dynamic, I have to say, it does further hurt the relative lack of personality to Oz that these three women all seem to orbit around him when they all have more character by comparison and two become romantic interests to this ultimately pretty forgettable cad.

The rest of the cast produces mixed results as well.  In keeping with an element of the 1939 version, several of the cast (including the above-mentioned Williams) are mirrors of characters encountered by Oz in our world.  Braff's assistant is regenerated as a talking flying monkey in a bellhop suit named Finley (to differentiate between him and other monkeys, Finley is a smaller, cuter monkey while the villainous "monkeys" are more like winged baboons that fight like they're on bath salts.)  This mirroring is also supposed to help give us a bit more to show Oz becoming a better person when a young crippled girl (Joey King) is mirrored in China Girl, a porcelain doll whom Oz helps after her village is destroyed (I just have to say here, while I realize they wanted to create a sense of shock with the destroyed China Town, it's hard to look at a civilization made of china and not think "...well, it was bound to happen sooner or later.")  Like the cast above, these two are played fairly well, but the problem is...there's just not much to them.  I mean, they definitely exist to try and play to Oz's dormant conscience, especially Finley who sees himself as Oz's friend, but mostly, like everyone else, they just seem stuck waiting for him to do something.  Even China Girl's one big moment is largely just about helping set up someone else's victory.  The other main players here (including Tony Cox and Bill Cobb, both making some commendable effort to make their characters a bit more than the writing leaves them) are unfortunately in much the same camp.  There's only so many ways I can say 'well acted, but the script does them no favors' before it gets old.

"What do you mean 'natural selection?'"

But since I'm already going over the script pretty roughly here, I do want to go back to the witches one more time for one point that irks me.  The sisters Theodora (Kunis) and Evanora (Weisz) feel like a half formed idea that they meant to go back to but never really did.  They have a fairly full story arc as this movie goes, don't get me wrong, but so much of it feels only roughly set out.  What is supposed to feel like a major turning moment and the film's designated tragic twist instead comes up rather short, lacking the emotional impact the actresses seem like they want the scene to have.  It simply happens and we move on.

Unfortunately, that feeling pervades a lot of this movie.  This is especially surprising coming from Raimi.  For a director with as unique a style has he has had over the years, there were times this movie felt rather lacking in his personal touches.  Even his bigger budget work on Spider-man (well, the first two, anyway) had his style survive the blockbuster system.  Here, it only crops up on occasional scenes, as well as in the now traditional cameos by Bruce Campbell and Ted Raimi.

The visuals...here I get the feeling I may have made a mistake in how I watched the movie.  It's no secret this film was made with 3D in mind, and it doesn't mind pointing that out to us many times (such as in the above mentioned tornado scene, where Oz has debris and luggage floating and whipping around him.)  Unfortunately, many of these scenes seem to lose some of their edge in 2D, the motion appearing overly blurry and out of place with the live action sequences.  This particularly bugged me with regards to scenes where China Girl was involved.  On her own, she actually looked like some very well done CG, actually believably appearing to be made of china.  Unfortunately, her interactions with the flesh and blood actors don't look anywhere near as impressive, as they don't appear to be actually holding her, or at least, having no actual acknowledgment of her having any weight.  I'm debating seeing if some of these effects look any better in 3D and I just made the mistake of going with the alternate viewing, but as it was, the film does lose something without the spectacle element for it.

I hate to feel like I'm just ripping on this film, because it did have some good things going for it.  Unfortunately, those good things were often countered by some drawbacks.  The end result is a rather mixed affair.  It should feel magical, but ultimately achieves more of a sense of 'just OK.'  The cast do the best they can with what they have to work with under the circumstances, which does help improve the film some, but the fact is, they're still bound by a script that feels like it could have stood some more revision.  If you have any interest, I'd still say it's worth giving a watch at least once, but if you're not really sold on the movie already, I don't imagine this will convert you any time soon.

Apparently the movie has still managed to perform well enough that they've greenlit a sequel.  Based on where the movie ends, I do wonder how they propose to continue from here.  I'd like to believe they could hopefully use that as a chance to build on some of the elements that needed work this time around, but for now, one can only speculate.

Wow.  I got this far without making a single James Franco stoner joke.  I feel strangely proud and ashamed of myself.

So let me just close by saying this:
Between his casually antagonizing everyone in the film, and making his way through a world loaded with bright colors and things coming alive and trying to hurt him (apparently the land of Oz is a death trap off the yellow brick road), this movie strikes me as a pretty good representation of what was going through Franco's mind when he was co-hosting the Oscars two years ago (Editor's note: Or any day of his life. In fact, I think Franco is playing himself in this.
Jackass.)

In rebuttal:
"Problem?"

(...I have to hand it to him.  Most other actors, I'd Photoshop the troll grin on.  He's one of the few who can just do it naturally.)

OK...now we're done.

Till next time, folks!

Fun For the Whole Family

Well, I think we may finally be clearing the initial theatrical rough patch of the year.  This marks the first entry for The Third Row in 2013 reviewing something currently in theaters. And MAN, is this one interesting...

I should probably start out by saying something that is going to be a major point to keep in mind throughout this review - Park Chan-Wook's Stoker is definitely not a film for everyone.  The mixed reception it's receving now is further testimony to this fact, and I feel it bears repeating now.  I mean, while watching it, I liked what I was seeing, but I could also see this was definitely gonna be a film that would alienate a lot of people.

...and I just watched a few of you already leave assuming that was the review.  Cheap buggers.

Anyway, allow me to explain further.  Best known to viewers over here for his violent and squirm-inducing adaptation of the manga Oldboy, Chan Wook-Park makes his first foray into English language-film.  The result is a bit of an enigma, but certainly a memorable one.

"Yes, yes, we all remember how Oldboy ended.  But this isn't that film, so stop asking your uncle to cut out his tongue."

The title of the film comes from the surname of the family its plot unfolds around, most notably young India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska, playing something of a cypher, though given the nature of her character, it works well.)  As the film begins, her father (played by Dermot Mulroney in flashbacks) has been killed in a car accident. At the funeral, she and her mother (Nicole Kidman, going from distant and troubled mother to ruthless ice queen quite effortlessly) are visited by her previously unknown uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode.)  Alongside having never met the man before, India finds herself uncertain of Charlie - he's outgoing and charming, and makes efforts to engage her, despite her generally antisocial behavior.  Despite this, there is a lingering suspicion that there is more to him than he's willing to let on.  Naturally, these suspicions prove to be right (to be expected...while you could make a film just on paranoia, it isn't as likely to happen.)  As more people try to discover Charlie's secrets, more people disappear, and India finds herself being drawn further and further into his orbit.

'Heart and Soul' has never been creepier...

All in all, the film is something of a curious product - it's a film that's tricky to go too much into without ruining some of the surprises (likely why the marketing for it has been so vague), and even now, I wonder if I've tipped a few more cards on the plot than I should have.  That odd sense of mystery is one of the things that this film has going for it fairly well.  In no small part, this is likely thanks to the decision of the character we're seeing the plot unfold through.  Like I said before, Wasikowska's turn as India is something of a mystery, and given the overall plot of the movie, that feels less like an accident and more a deliberate choice to lead us to question our narrator.  This also seems to inform some of Chan-Wook's direction over the movie - there's a strange sense of emotional detachment in many of the scenes, which seems to mirror India's own somewhat detached view of events around her.

Despite how that might make it sound, Chan-Wook's direction, and the editing and cinematography by Nicolas De Toth and Chung-hoon Chung (respectively) are still very present in the movie.  Every shot of this film feels carefully arranged, and in many cases creates some very involving scenes.  I know a lot of people have criticized this style as over-edited and needlessly stylized, but honestly, I'd be inclined to disagree.  It's definitely not a style I'd like to see applied to every movie, but for the story this one is trying to tell, it's a good fit.  Further, it actually makes an impression just in how the entire film looks.  Given my druthers, I'd take an overly stylized film that may not necessarily click over something that just doesn't have any really distinctive identity of its own in its direction or editing-But I digress.  While I can see where the criticisms may be coming from in this case, personally, I felt the very controlled style of the movie worked in its favor.

On a not really humorous note - this scene actually leads to a pretty cool transition shot.

Further adding to the feel of this movie is the score by Clint Mansell.  Once again, the man proves his strength in understanding the story and creating atmospheric music that really helps set a tone.  This is one of the best things I can say for Stoker - everything in it works together well to really create a film with a very distinct feel for itself.  It's a microcosm, a sort of parallel world to our own, simultaneously feeling like ours but through a dark lens.

As far as the rest of the elements of the movie go, I want to further build on what I said before by saying the casting on this works well.  Alongside the earlier statements of Wasikowska and Kidman, Goode makes for a good antagonist, all smiles, but all the while giving the feeling of something sinister waiting to make itself known behind those grins.  (On this note, I should probably look into more of his work - the only roles I've seen him in to this point, he's been largely playing those characters with something of a hinted at malevolence.  He does it well, but I really should see if he's got the range for other parts.)  For only being featured in flashbacks, Mulroney still manages to make his part worth it, as his character is the film's heart/conscience, both for the general story and for India.  He is the one person we see her interact with where there isn't some semblance of detachment or malevolence, and his performance really helps bring that out.

With that note, I have to say, the script on this is an intriguing one.  Far from being a straight-up thriller, it plays into some interesting, and disturbing, ideas about family and legacies that can be passed along.  This particularly informs the last act (which I can't say too much about without spoilers) and leads to a climax that is likely to leave a lot of people trying to determine what message they walk away from the film with.  It's definitely an ending that doesn't mind just presenting the events and going "so...what do you think of that?"  Wentworth Miller and Erin Cressida Wilson have constructed an unsettling narrative that builds up with just enough clues at any given time to keep you going and (mostly) avoiding making a complete 'A-HA!' reveal (the end kind of slips some here, but not enough to really kill the movie.)  To their credit, the twist was going to be a bit of a hurdle regardless - from the start of the movie, you can tell there's something lurking that is just waiting for an opportunity to float to the surface.  So in a way, you're already waiting for it, which makes it hard for the writers to still properly surprise when the time comes.  To their credit, while some parts of it are still somewhat predicted, they do manage to make up for that in the execution - offering turns that, even if you're trying to guess them, you'd be hard-pressed to fish out of the plot before the writers want you to find them.


The result is a film that can, and has, proven its mileage will vary.  Some will like it, some will love it, but it's also going to turn off a LOT of people with it style and content.  For my own vote, I have to say it honestly worked well for me.  While Chan-Wook still seems to be learning the ropes of English language film, this is still a fascinating first step into it, and I hope he doesn't lose the edge he has here with subsequent projects.  Even the parts that may not click with everyone are something of a strength here - giving the film a voice that's actually fairly distinct rather than simply blending into the noise of a lot of the other releases for this time of year.  Despite my warnings that your mileage will vary, I do still think it's worth at least giving it a chance if you can to see what you think of it.  I won't guarantee you're going to like it, but at the very least, it's worth taking the try to see what you think regardless.

Suffice it to say, this made for a pretty interesting release to get this year started off with.  Hopefully this marks the end of the 'meh' phase the first part of this year has had. It will be nice to be looking forward to things on the horizon again.

Till next time, folks!

In the meantime, heed the advice of the Third Row's token creepy uncle - always remember your umbrella.