As you may have noticed, I normally am not the one to review discs.  I don’t own a lot of movies, but I make an exception in the case of movies by Wes Anderson, because they are perfectly re-watchable to me:  with Moonrise Kingdom that proves to be the case.  I saw it on the big screen when it came to my city, but I was worried about the home watching experience because this film is even more atmospheric than the rest of Anderson’s live action offers.

First of all,  I was a bit off put because this disc pulls “fresh previews” from the internet at the start.  I confess that I had not seen that feature before, and was pleased to see it could be skipped via the menu button.  The menu was simple, fresh and easy to navigate.  It was also the most not annoying menu that I’ve seen in a while.  I could have lived in that menu, because I just want to live in Moonrise Kingdom.

This film is really served by Blu Ray,which was relieving.  Being a nostalgic flick set in the sixties on a (fictional) New England island the cinematography switches between Instagram feeling vignettes,  awesomely beautiful and lush fairy tale feeling moments, and the almost stage play like continuous shots that Anderson is famous for.  All this is beautifully rendered in the disc.  The score by Alexandre Desplat and the selections from Benjamin Britten also feature well… one of the best mixed movies I’ve watched at home for a while.

The story itself is very much a variation on the themes of alienation and identity… but done in a sweeter way than I’ve seen this director offer previously.  Roman Coppola co-wrote the script, and perhaps that is the difference… it’s missing Owen Wilson’s narrative snark.  The story is both too simple and too complex to go too far into without spoiling, but suffice it to say it is sweet, funny and tragic.  An orphan (an Khaki Scout camp escapee) and the privileged but disturbed daughter of two lawyers run away together during a hurricane threat, and the whole island embarks on finding them.  Of course, it’s never that simple.  The whole thing is narrated by Bob Balaban, with that ironic and sweet manner that only he can deliver.

One thing that I know people complain about is that Anderson is all style and no pay out.   To me, especially in this film,  Anderson is the teller of fables.  His world is just left of what our world is like, and yet it is completely familiar.  The disaffected characters are sometimes a bit too distant, but the beautiful part of this film is that the protagonists are children, and are inherently perceived as being more vulnerable.  Unlike Margot Tenenbaum, Suzy’s ways of acting out seem to be a bit more realistic, a bit less odd and privileged.  Sam’s plan is plausible, and never gets to the extremes of Max Fischer.  In these ways, Moonrise Kingdom may be his most accessible film.  However, if you are not the kind of viewer who can “buy in” to a fable realm that looks a lot like ours,  a romanticized nostalgic trip through ideals and failures,  then you probably will not enjoy it much.

The cast is simply amazing.  As some of our long time readers may know, I adore Edward Norton.  He completely engages with this script in a beautiful way.  Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand and the two child leads are brought together beautifully, along with the usual suspects from Anderson’s casting favorites.  The real surprise of the movie is Bruce Willis, who seemed like an odd choice for this sort of film, but brings a complex and understated performance that is the heart of the movie in many ways.

As far as extras, this initial release is a little lacking.  What amounts to an extended trailer, and some quick promo material does not really scratch my itch for behind the scenes material.  Even Bill Murray giving a backstage tour, though the highlight of the “extras” as it is amusing, is not particularly informative.  I’m hoping that later releases have more interviews with the cast, and maybe a mini-doc on the concept art (although I realize I’m spoiled by the thoroughness of the Criterion Collection Royal Tenenbaums).  Still, I would recommend this Blu Ray to anyone who wants to live in Moonrise Kingdom.

Tonight, in honor of the 25th Anniversary of Star Trek: The Next Generation, select theaters aired sneak peeks at the beautiful remastering and special features of the Season 1 Blu-Ray.   To show off this hi-def polished version, the episodes “Where No One Has Gone Before” and “Datalore” were viewed, and let me tell you it was a super treat for the whole audience… and  make no mistake, the theater was packed.

The first featurette started to delve into what goes in to remastering a film that is a mix of both practical (physical) effects and models, along with early stage computer generated images and green screen.  It’s overwhelming to realize what went in to the original series, not to mention what it takes to remaster it.  Fortunately, this is the Roddenberry people and not the Lucas people, so there’s great loyalty to the original vision and the charming attributes of the sci-fi at the time.  Instead of making new/more complex effects,  there’s an amazing amount of sharpening existing effects, or changing them just enough to not look cheesy.

Before you start to complain that the cheesiness is the charm, think about it and don’t kid yourself.  I’ve recently re-watched the bulk of TNG on Netflix.  The special effects do NOT hold up.  They are incredible for their time, but are missing a precision that would give them longevity.  For instance, the intelligent crystal in “Datalore” originally was computer generated in a pretty good way for 1986, but definitely looks like the background of one of my school pictures around the same era… very “lazer beem” if you know what I mean.  In the remastered version, it is exactly the same shape, colors and has the same pulsing effects, but it now looks like a crystal.  It was gorgeous.  The whole audience gasped.  With touch ups like that, it’s tempting to forget the little nudges that make the experience better.  The screen at the front of the bridge no longer looks like green screen, it’s been finessed to look as they intended but were not able to do at the time.  It’s still 80′s-tastic, but more palatable.

As far as cheese, it’s all still there. There’s some gorgeous outtakes and screen tests that add to the fun; lots of footage that previously was only available in bootleg VHS form if you were a true Trekker. I thought they did a good job at this teaser event of mixing the stars of the show along with the production crew, the effects people, and the remaster team.  It did it’s job well because now I TOTALLY want the Blu-Ray, not just for the show but the extra content.  Season 2 was announced to be released remastered as well, and THAT season with have a 25 year reunion interview footage with the entire principal cast, of which the preview was tantalizing.

I went planning to enjoy the event, but also planning on resisting any desire for the Blu-Rays, especially with the whole series on Netflix… but was surprised at how beautiful the visuals and sound was, how fun it is to still yell “Shut Up, Westley”, and determined to buy the series in the new format and watch all the extras.

Finally, we get a little taste!!!

 CLICK HERE FOR THE PRETTY

All the sudden, I’m WAY more excited about this flick.  It looks very like the best bits of Burton’s Alice, with some great nods to the Oz books.

Tonight debuted the first episode of the second season of JourneyQuest. 

My first exposure to Dead Gentleman Productions, and later Zombie Orpheus came with the original Gamers movie, a low budget production that spawned a fandom.  It’s now available to watch in it’s entirety via YouTube, and worth it for anyone who has ever played a tabletop RPG (or even WOW heads can appreciate).  The premise was simple: a bunch of guys are sitting around playing a tabletop role playing game, and you saw not only their real life conflicts as gamers, but also got a peek into the internal mind’s eye of gamers.  It was so funny and intelligent that the sequel, Dorkness Rising, boasted not only better production quality but also a cameo by D&D godfather Monty Cook.  (Also available to watch in it’s entirety at the link/on Youtube).

Then came JourneyQuest.  As I’m a bad nerd and don’t follow things, I didn’t realize it was out until it became available on Hulu’s streaming service.  Because of that my husband and I were able to watch the first season all in one go.  And then watch it again.  And then force everyone else to watch it.  Seriously, if you haven’t watched it go watch it right now.  I’ll wait.

Good! See what I mean?

For those of you too lazy to watch something awesome, the premise is basically the kind of story you’d find in a tabletop RPG, but minus the inference that there’s a “real world”.   This story follows a bard writing her first epic based on secretly observing a party of adventurers: a cowardly inept wizard, an elf ranger, a noble cleric, and a murderous glory hogging knight.  They are obviously a little less than legendary, with a wizard who doesn’t care about the quest, and a knight who just wants to kill orcs… even women and children orcs.

The first season left on a bit of a cliffhanger, but season 2 is well funded (YAY Kickstarter!) and does not pick up the storyline right away.  This first episode gives us some good backstory on our bard, with a pretty kickass opening sequence involving miniature puppets.  Seriously, you read that right.

To my delight, the new storyline has introduced two really great cast additions: Bob Sapp as Karn the barbarian king, and Fangirl Favorite Jen Page as his queen Starling.  (You can check out the interview with Jen on our Podcast page for the radio show… episode 27)

The hardest part is that this time I have to wait for the weekly show to come out, just like any other peasant… but it’s well worth it, and my delight in this first episode is unbounded.

If you like it, I strongly recommend making a one time donation to this fan-funded Creative Commons production company.  This is one of those rare cases where the success and continuation of this show are truly in the fan’s hands.  There’s no middle man,  and every little bit makes a difference.

Just in case you live under a rock and didn’t see the internet explode with it:

Neil’s San Diego Comicon Announcement

Yes, I fainted and then died.  Obviously I’m writing this from heaven.

I recently saw Pixar’s new feature length film “Brave”, and quite enjoyed it… I’m sure Jessica and I will discuss this later on the radio show, both it’s strengths and weaknesses, but in the meantime it’s got me thinking about a staple of Disney archetypes; the rebellious daughter.

Enough has been written over the years lambasting Disney’s seeming hatred of intact families, which is not really the issue in this Pixar movie; there’s no widowed father or orphan child in this film.  Instead, we have the Rebellious Princess trope played out to it’s fullest.  Merida is wild and free and won’t marry to keep the peace because she’s her own person you see.  It’s a great motivator, one that I think any girl can sympathize with, which is why it gets used so often in children’s movies.  However, the behavior displayed by many of the young women in these films makes you think that maybe they are spoiled and horrible and shouldn’t have their own way.

It’s worrisome to me that “strong and independent” is signified by “disobedient and sassy” in so much fiction aimed at young girls.  While I’m all about being true to yourself and finding your own path, I don’t understand how selling your voice for basically plastic surgery to win a man’s affection leads to a happy ending (which is why it doesn’t in the original story, obvs ).  It’s also worrisome to me that the main reason that most Rebellious Princesses rebel is over, you guessed it, romantic love.

The converse is, of course,  the princess that is subservient to the point of destruction, e.g. Belle volunteering to stay with the Beast,  Cinderella staying with her evil stepmother.

(It gets sorta spoliery here… not much, but just so no one yells at me, spoilery).

Brave deviates from both in a wonderful way, as there are consequences to the protagonist for her rebellion. She actually takes responsibility for what she’s done. However, other than the realization that she’s been selfish, all the concessions in the movie are on the part of her mother and there is no indication that she has decided to concede anything towards maturity.

While I personally love the tomboyishness of Merida, it shows again that there’s little balance in children’s films for young girls to look up to.  Why must you be a frou frou Cinderella or an arrow weilding warrior princess Merida?  Yes, yes, I understand that these movies are for children and they’re not thinking about complex feminist issues… but guess what?  Their subconscious is.

I used to think that “my princess” was Belle, because I loved reading and had brown hair.  I started to think that my princess was Merida because I like being outdoors and I’m obviously not Pocahontas.  Are you Ariel or Cinderella? Betty or Veronica?  Why do I have to pick just one princess?

Why are all these girls princesses? I know little girls love princesses, but I also loved stories about the peasant daughter in the woods growing up.  I liked Laura Ingalls Wilder.  When I saw the teaser trailer for Brave (the very first one, not the one with all the voices) I was so happy because I thought that I was going to get my peasant girl. Maybe she was defending her village from faeries!  Maybe she was going to brave a dark forest to feed her family! It was so lovely and felt like a Miyazaki movie meets the Secret of Kells or something.  By the time the full length trailer came out it was obvious that it was not the case, and though I adjusted my thinking for viewing, I was secretly disappointed.

Brave is a beautiful film.  The animation is lush and the humor keeps the otherwise standard plot going.   It’s clunky compared to the subtlety of other Pixar films, but still heads above what’s been coming out for kids lately.  But, when I ask my future child who “her princess” is… she better damn well say “Coraline”.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a movie that in some ways I’m hard pressed to critique.  I found it fun, silly and enjoyable and though it had more than one thing for which I can (and will) critique it… I sort of don’t want to.

See, I’m not sure how seriously you really should take a movie that has the premise of an alternate history in which the late president of the United States is a monster killing, matrix style fighting, silver ax wielding badass.  The movie occasionally doesn’t seem to know either, but does a good job of walking the line between a nod at history (following major events in the real Lincoln’s life) and a CGI packed action flick.

I won’t go into the plot terribly much, because it really is just take Abraham Lincoln, add some vampires to the story, a sprinkling of historical figures and a plucky group of dedicated friends.  Abe is played by Benjamin Walker, who looks at first less like the former president and more like Liam Neeson (he actually played a younger version of Neeson in Kinsey) but morphs into an impressive facsimile as the age makeup gets piled on.  The makeup on this character really is pretty impressive, although not all the actors take to it as well.  He is trained by a hobbyist vampire hunter, Henry, played by Dominic Cooper.  Both characters want revenge for slain loved ones; Abe is after Jack Barts (Marton Csokas) and Henry after the Big Baddie Adam (Rufus Sewell).  Mixed in are some of my favorite character actors, like Alan Tudyk and Jimmi Simpson… they’re not given enough to do, but they bring a lot of richness to their moments on screen. Abe turns from a life of slaying to beat vampires in the political arena, as vampires are apparently behind slavery in the south.  (This concept sounds silly, but I had the distinct impression from the movie that the book probably fleshed out that idea to something a bit less trite.)  Inevitably; Abe’s past comes back to haunt him and he must take up the silver ax of badassery once again.

The movie moves through the events leading up to integral scenes a little too quickly for my taste, with little time to invest in characters or often to understand the flow of events unless you actually know your history.  There are some moments that hint at subplots that either were cut, or were perhaps added as fanservice for readers of the book.  However; the movie was decided in it’s tone and style and to flesh out those plots and make the movie less absurd it really would needed to be made into multiple films.  The pacing was quick, which is better than slow and boring,  serving the tone of the fun monster slaying theme.  This, to me, really shows what an accomplished director  (Timur Bekmambetov of Wanted fame) can do with a shallow but cohesive script.  Seth Grahame-Smith wrote the book as well as the screenplay, and though the screenplay wasn’t un-watchable, there were definitely some cringe worthy dialogue moments… but I wasn’t really watching the movie for the dialog.  Some of the payout moments of the movie were definitely muted for me by the quick build up, but killing monsters is killing monsters: that’s what everyone was there to see.

Speaking of monsters,  the vampires in this movie are monsters! Hooray!  Rufus Sewell is especially wonderful as the head vamp, channeling Rutger Hauer as he delivers his lines with relish.  I really liked the look of the vamps, they had a mix of lovely oldschool paleness along with some monster moments that reminded me quite a bit of 30 Days of Night, in the best of ways.  The vamps are sinister enough to really fear but not so perfect that it’s implausible that normal people can kill them.  The script takes joy in killing them in less than plausible but very fun ways, and the audience really seemed to enjoy that as well.
If you are looking for (minus vamps) a historically based fiction, this flick won’t be enjoyable… they play too fast and loose for that (for instance, Abe and Mary only have one child),  but if you want to see a pretty stylized world where Abraham Lincoln uses the Civil War to kick some undead butt this is the film for you.   Now that I’ve seen it, I want to read the book to uncover all the hinted at subplots.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a fun summer popcorn flick, and should be watched as such.

I have been eagerly awaiting the debut of Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Claiming to be “the Boldest Show on Television” with the visual panache of “300″ and the writer of the last (and best) season of “Angel”, Lucy Lawless nudity and a smoking hot protagonist, it seemed they had a good chance of living up to the hype.

But this show, produced by Rob Tapert and Sam Raimi, has some growing up to do.

Taking the folklore surrounding the Thracian gladiator who fought in a slave uprising in the Third servile war, Steven S. DeKnight adds some modern debauched flair. In the first episode, we see our hero start as a doting husband simply trying to defend his native village. He forges a Faustian alliance with the Romans to this end, which ends with him at odds with the Legionnaire Glabus (the angsty and sexy Craig Parker) who then takes him prisoner, meaning to  bring him back to Rome and have him killed publicly in the gladiator pit to appease his embarrassment.

This plan backfires, as Spartacus puts up a mean fight, overcoming his opponents and gaining the crowds favor. Spartacus is consequently sold to Batiatus (John Hannah), a once affluent ludus owner who’s wife Lucretia (Lucy Lawless) has not given an heir. The couple’s scheme seems to have no downside, and may help restore their fortunes.

Next we see Spartacus train to be a gladiator, bullied by the seasoned gladiators, all while the Romans scheme.

This plot is riveting, intermixed with authentic touches such as the gladiators bathing by being slathered with oil, and .having the oil scraped off, which makes us history buffs very happy (non history buffs probably enjoy it as well… I’m looking at you, Jessica). Little touches in the set and costuming make a lush and historical background, just ripe to have a larger than life comic book sheen woven into it.

Lucy Lawless is spot on in a character that she describes as “very Lady MacBeth” that is sexual and smart. “Playing a role naked is new and challenging, but what attracted me to this role is that I just knew this would be a new kind of television,” she admits “I never read the script before I accepted the job. But I knew the way that Rob (Tapert, executive producer and Lawless’ husband) talked about it, and the team that he was putting together, that this was not a project that I could afford to walk away from.” Even the nude scenes could not dissuade her, and why should they? She has a slammin’ body.

Craig Parker, whom we all loved to loathe in Legend of the Seeker and Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, is again wonderful to hate and feel sorry for and think looks best really pouty and frustrated.

Spartacus himself, Andy Whitfield, is beautiful. He smoulders under the blood and sand of the arena. How does he feel about stepping into a role made iconic by Kirk Douglas? “Obviously, it’s hard. The last thing an actor wants to do is try to mimic or try and reacreate someone elses’ performance; particularly something as iconic as Spartacus.” How did he overcome that? The thing I took most from it was that he didn’t assume leadership, this guy, he wasn’t saying follow me. He was presented with that leadership by those people who were inspired by him. He modeled his… unwavering dignity on righting a few wrongs. And that was the kind of tone I went for.” He also notes that the storyline varies vastly from the Douglas movie, and so in that way he didn’t have to worry about stepping on those cinematic toes.

The casting is spot on from the gladiators to the slaves in the castle, but most especially is showcased in the talent of one of my favorite “character” actors of all time, John Hannah. “When we landed on John  Hannah, it was one of our most brilliant moments,” admitted DeKnight. This character is a more sinister, less loveable character than I have ever seen Hannah play and he is taking it to the hilt. Nobody could have done it better.

So, you may be thinking, “What’s your beef, Moore? Why can’t you just drool on this one and shut up?” Because I have integrity dammit. And if I can’t bitch in review here at Fangirl, I may just explode.

Let’s start with the most obvious problem, the special effects. I understand that this is a highly stylized show. I’ve seen 300 and Rome and liked them well enough. I have an inner manhard in me that goes for all the machismo and blood. However, on my giant flatscreen tv, the image fell, well… flat. What should have been wonderous gore (and there is gore… lots and lots of it…) it failed to stay balanced on that fine line between excess and outright camp. The first scene where Spartacus kicks ass in the arena had cartoon blood spatter that did not fall to the ground but disappeared mid air. I know that sounds picky, but when I have been hearing months of hype over how this pushes everything to the limit, these are the things I’m expecting not to be disappointed on.

While I can very easily accept and even appreciate the vast amounts of green screen in this film, and even vast amounts of blood, they must match each other in stylization, so that instead of thinking “Omg, was that computer generated blood, or cartoon blood” I should be thinking “AWESOME !!! His head CAME OFF”. Sadly, it was the former and not the latter.

Whitfield explains that after working with green screen with Gabriel, he was comfortable enough with it for it to not affect his performance. The hard part was the slow motion, and learning how to hold his face so it looked right in slo-mo. There’s a lot of slo-mo for you manhards out there, but the beefcake mostly evens it out.

Next comes the language/sexuality. DeKnight has said in the same interview that the language and orgies are historical and they are there not to be gratuitous, but to be authentic… and then says that they literally wanted to see how far they could go and get away with. Now we are in ancient Rome, folks. And this is paid cable. I’m not expecting something prudish, or even particularly tasteful. But there are only so many times I can hear the c-word said before I’m annoyed I’m having to hear it. In a british accent. For no particular reason other than to be edgy. I have come to accept that my action movies and shows will probably say “fuck” enough times to make this potty mouthed reviewer come out of the story and say “Really? Who says that THAT much?” I realized that that’s a given. But a highly offensive word not saved for a perfect moment, but thrown out to test the boundaries of acceptability rubs me the wrong way. It doesn’t make me question anything socially pertinent. It makes me question why I’m watching the show.

Meanwhile, the much lauded, very beautiful, and able actor Whitfield, gets to be…. the strong and silent type? Other than a “my name is Kunta Kinte” type moment, he keeps pretty much to himself, and is there with his soulful eyes and custom built chest, and the lamest lines to come out of DeKnights comic book mind. He’s our HERO. Maybe he’ll come out of his shell once the trauma of going from a small village warlord to a captured warlord in the arena is over, he’ll get some good lines.

I get the appeal of sex on the screen. I get that since shows like The Tudors, True Blood, and Rome have paved the way, it’s expected in pay cable shows. But stop shoving plot in quickly between these scenes as if the plot is just set up for porn. “We shall restore our fortunes, Batiatus” should not be the new “I heard your pipes broke, and I was already delivering this pizza…” A Roman orgy, sex scenes… that seem to be more in the name of  “They wouldn’t let me do THIS on the Dollhouse” then “this plot point can be moved along or made more interesting by some erotica”.

We’re only a few shows in, so I’m not going to write off Spartacus. Lawless pointed out that this crew worked on Xena back in the day, but has since gone on to work with Lord of the Rings and Avatar. “It’s like we’ve all grown up, and we’re very proud to be working on this and showing what we can do”. I’m hoping that as they get into this series a little deeper that DeKnight highlights the story over the shock value, and that the crew takes a page from graphic novels and finds their own take on the Rome/300 style that is less bad slasher flick style and more stylized gorgeous gore. They are just on the edge of making that happen.