A Thought On Clerks II.

A funny thought occurred to me while thinking about Clerks II today. Having it fresh in my mind, I came to the realization that many of the themes championed by Kevin Smith in the movie are really wrong-headed (slacker pride?) and part of his problem is that he subscribes to them.

Think about it. Kevin Smith IS Dante.

That guy who is always on the precipice of change but the more the expectations heap up due to age or ability the more frozen he gets. He makes a movie like Clerks and it feels right. Just like Dante and Randal, Kevin Smith is stuck in the past, relying on what is comfortable for him rather than challenging or expanding himself. That is why he is 33 years old and is still playing a character that acts like a junior in high school. He can't let go. And while their was a certain nobility to that in the first movie eleven or so years ago--the resistance to give up youth for the cynicism of rat race adulthood--it has become unseemly at this point.

Please make movies that aren't about the person you were ten or fifteen years ago. After awhile it has all been said and done. Pop culture wars and taboo sex conversations have been done in four previous movies. Time for something else.

Comics This Week.

Light week.

Action Comics #841 was okay. The basic premise is that no one believes Superman--who has recently returned after a year-long absence--is the real deal. This is a pretty credible plot point considering the last time Superman was gone, four imposters showed up, one of which ended up destroying an entire city. Superman acts surprised (and a little hurt) when people are skeptical of his authenticity, and this actually compromises the situation when an alien force begins stealing churches from three major cities. While the issue moved and the ideas were compelling, I couldn't help but find it a little dry. After reading a Busiek script brought to life by the masterful Pacheo, it is hard to go back to ho-hum art. I felt, also, that many of the guest stars were sort of shoe-horned in. It was kind of cool seeing Firestorm, who is fast becoming a favorite character of mine, but Nightwing's inclusion seemed a little forced and once the Teen Titans showed up Superman's book was co-opted. It is a good enough story for a fill-in before the new writers, but I cannot wait for Johns and Donner to get on this book.

Batman # 655 is the strongest book I picked up yesterday. I am used to reading Morrison's take on the Justice League or Superman, but I didn't know what to expect from his Batman run. I own a copy of Arkham Asylum and I had read Gothic before, but I knew from his interviews that he would not be going in that direction. In this issue, Batman has essentially wiped the streets up with the crazy villains he usually faces; bored and pushed to reestablish his identity as a millionaire playboy, he goes out to London for a society function. Upon seeing the former Man-Bat Kirk Langstrom, he knows something is up. What he doesn't know that is might involve a lovechild he had with Talia and Ninja Mutant Bats! In this post-Infinite Crisis DCU, Batman is more well-adjusted, but Morrison (and Dini over in Detective) have an ability of writing him a little softer without making him sound out of character. There are real moments of humor here, especially with Alfred, who really steals the show. Even Robin makes a brief appearance, but his characterizatio under Morrison is interesting and fun. I have always preferred Adam Kubert over Andy, but his work here is great. I look forward to seeing what Talia has in store for Batman. With Morrison writing no one can be sure!

It has been out for a couple of weeks but I just got ahold of Wonder Woman #1 when I was in the city. I read some people who virulently hated this book while others felt it was a return to a time in Wonder Woman history when she was a little more fun. My reaction is simply, "Meh." I had heard great things about Allen Heinberg from his work over at Marvel and the Dodsons seem to be solid artists. However, what we got just wasn't the kind of kick-off to a rejuvenated Wonder Woman that I wished to see. Too much of the story was dependent on the mire of events, and Donna Troy is temporarily Wonder Woman as the book starts out, making it somewhat inaccessible and counter to the clean start the issue one was suppose to denote. So much of the drama and the mystery was dependent on previous stories by other writers. In addition, the threat was ill-defined and a little silly. Donna Troy, former Wonder Girl, has taken over for Diana for the last year. A group of Wonder Woman rogues has taken over a museum and taken people hostage, asking the "real" Wonder Woman, Diana. Donna Troy fights the villains and loses. She is then kidnapped. The last page is Diana showing up in a new role, somewhat of a throwback to the old television show. The problem is I had a hard time caring. The conflict is simplistic and the hook to the story--will Diana reclaim the mantle or give it to Donna indefinetly--rings false because anyone who read Justice League #0 knows Diana will be back in no time. Heinberg is only on for six issues. Not sure I will pick up #2 next month.

Pirates II

I forgot to write up something on Pirates of the Caribbean: The Dead Man's Chest. All the elements that made the first movie work remain in this movie. This time, time is running out for Jack Sparrow as the ghostly Davey Jones is calling for his soul. In order to get out of this predicament, he has to find Jones's heart, which resides in a chest. Meanwhile, his old friends from the original have their own motivations, particularly Will Turner, who wishes to free his father from Jones's ship the Flying Dutchess.

The story was as fun-spirited, even if it wa slightly more tedious, than the original. The events build organically from The Curse of the Black Pearl 's conclusion; at no point does it feel like the script was developed from committee and the set-ups are always action-packed. I almost imagined the screenwriters jotted ideas taken ideas and plot twists from Ritalin-addled 12-year olds.

There is a certain charm to that, but with it comes pratfalls. Like all movies, it seems, this one is overly long. There is a sequence, for instance, where Sparrow is made chief of a tribe of cannibals and he has to find a way to get away before he is eaten. While funny, the flow of the story came to a stand-still so they could shoe-horn sight gag after sight gag. Clocking in at two and a half hours, it seemed like thy didn't have the kind of time to just dwell on that stuff. There was also a sense that the movie fell in love with its own action sequences, which often got really tedious. While a three-way swordfight was really cool, it just went on and on and on.

Many of the movie's sins can be forgiven for two things: its sense of fun and the fact that it is the second act of a three part story. The movie never loses the spirit and vitality that made the first so exciting, even though it sometimes seemed over-eager to outdo what made the first so great. The other thing that kind of excuses it from some of the excesse that would have sunk other movies is the plot structure issues; it is all middle with no real beginning or end. However, because there is that understanding that there is a third part to the story--underscored by the cliffhanger ending--it is pretty easy to take it as a part and not a whole.

Comics This Week

Another like light, all- DC week.



Since Jeph Loeb thankfully left Superman/Batman #28, I decided to give the book a go. Ethan Van Sciver's art is pretty interesting and Mark Verheiden is an unknown quantity for me as a writer. The books was just okay. The mystery it sets up isn't terribly compelling, but I will give it another month before coming to a verdict. The idea of a comic book about the friendship and partnership between Superman and Batman is sound, but the book doesnt' live up to its potential.



Justice League of America #0 was a typical zero issue in the sense that is serves as an add for the series rather than a complete story, but even on that level Brad Meltzer delivers some great character work. The exploration of the relationship dynamics between Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman was respectful of prior characterization while still bringing something new and fresh to the interactions, so it never seemed like same-old, same-old. I enjoy the fact that the book delved into the rich history of the characters and showed the flow and ebb of their strong and sometimes contentious friendships. It doesn't answer the question of who is going to be in the new team or set up future conflicts, but it is a pretty good read.

Clerks II

2 out of 4 stars

Because of all of the negative reviews swarming around Kevin Smith's most recent production, 'Clerks 2,' I have to say I unfairly walked into the theater with the sense that I had already seen the movie and disliked it. Come the end, perhaps I thought the movie was pretty good - not good, but pretty good - because I was anticipating a wreck of a film; or, perhaps it really wasn't that bad, after all.

I think it's safe to say that no one expected the sequel to live up to the novelty, the charm, and, well, the originality, of the original. For the most part, we live in a world of dissatisfying, inadequate, and overly-eager sequels. Sure, now and then there comes a gem, a sequel worthy of also being referenced as its original's "part two"; but most of the time, sequels are unworthy of being any more than a last-minute rental from a movie store when they don't have anything you actually want to see. I wouldn't place 'Clerks 2' in either of these categories. For lack of a better word, the film was "OK."

Brian O'Hallorhan and Jeff Anderson return as Dante and Randal, the two unforgettable clerks of the Quickie Mart. The movie opens with Dante about to open the store for business when he finds that the entire place is on fire. With their beloved convenience store burned to the ground, Dante and Randal are forced to seek employment elsewhere and finally settle at a bizarre, cow-themed, McDonald's knockoff named Mooby's. Rosario Dawson plays Becky, the manager at Mooby's, and has no problem fitting into the Kevin Smith world with her contributions to the crazy and highly inappropriate banter between Dante and Randal and her frequent and familiar dropping of the f-bomb. Nineteen year-old Elias, a sheltered, Bible-thumping, Transformers/LOTR fan and fellow employee at Mooby's only adds to the chaos. And Jay and Silent Bob return serving as, in my opinion, the most comedic element of the film by far. A memorable moment is Jay's interpretation of Buffalo Bill's creepy dance from "The Silence of the Lambs," man-gina and all. Watch out for a scene with a man and a donkey - also memorable, but not in a good way.

The plot line of the film concentrates on Dante who we find newly engaged to a blonde bimbo and ready to move down the coast to Florida with the hope of starting a new life free of convenience stores and of his drone-of-a-friend, Randal. Of course, we all know Dante can't actually leave the Garden State; the plot then unfolds revealing minor complications to Dante's plan such as Randal's unadmitted sadness at the thought of Dante's move and the fact that Dante had accidentally gotten his boss, Becky (Dawson) pregnant while both were in a drunken stupor. Without giving too much away, at the end of the film Dante realizes who his true friends are, finds real, long-lasting love, and is finally satisfied with his life which is, as it turns out, maybe not as common as he thought.

Without sounding cynical, the movie was not as bad as I had expected it to be. I saw a quote by another movie reviewer claiming that "Fans of 'Clerks' [the original] will not be disappointed." To that I answer: you may be a bit disappointed if you were expecting a continuation of the original because, in this sense, 'Clerks 2' leaves much to be desired; but on the other hand - on the more important hand - you will certainly be entertained.

Catching Up...

Saw a bunch of movies in the last week or so...

Modern Romance (**)

I have seen Albert Brooks in movies here and there but movies in which he writes and directs remain largely unfamiliar to me. I just saw Modern Romance, and I have to say it was a mixed bag for me, mostly because I am a huge fan of Woody Allen and he is more successful at making these kinds of movies than this movie was. Brooks portrays a neurotic and insecure boyfriend who essentially abuses his girlfriend with his psychotic behavior. The movie works well as a satire on the state of modern dating and hang-ups, but the character is totally unsympathetic because his behavior is so irredeemable. There is always an innocent, well-meaning streak to Allen's humor and quirky view on human relations. Whereas the antics of a Woody Allen and Larry David skate the line between believable and absurd, Brooks's character is a kind of monster. And worse yet, his girlfriend in the movie is such a pushover, you think of her as simply a fool-- and the reasons why she is so willing to subject herself to Brooks's self-absorbed behavior are never made clear. If you are looking for nuance in your examinations of relationships, rent Annie Hall instead.

Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (****)

My girlfriend insisted I see this movie, but I had resisted since it came out in the movie. It isn't because it looked bad (quite the opposite) or that I wasn't a fan of Charlie Kaufman's skewed viewpoint on the world. I loved Being John Malkovich and Adaptation. The real reason I looked at this movie with bitter contempt was due to the fact that I had concieved of the story idea prior to the movie! I was so annoyed that someone had beaten me to it. Not only was I annoyed that the movie had been made, it was so obviously a great movie. I was not wrong in that assumption. What is amazing is how the movie can be at once totally strange and alien in its world view and hit on familiar emotions that resonate. The feelings of bitter loneliness followed by the rise, atrophy, and fall of a relationship are so authentic that it really grounds some of the more unconventional elements of the movie. Jim Carrey was amazing in this movie only because, in light of his usual fare, he was able to remain so understated throughout. My only regret is that I didn't see it sooner.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Dead Man's Chest (*** and 1/2)

I loved the first one. It had a real sense of fun, but did its best to have a unique voice and visual style. Even the usually unbearable Orlando Bloom can find a place in a movie such different and colorful characters. As sequels go, this movie was excellent. Nothing about the movie ever felt forced, as if the execs mandated a sequel and they had to really work the script hard to get all the characters in the same place again. It seemed to grow organically from the original.

This movie, however, is a little more complicated. Like the Matrix sequels, this one adds on more characters and a more byzantine plot. But unlike that failed trilogy, this movie manages to juggle all the different characters and their motivations rather well. It is a hard plot to describe since there are so many characters intertwined into the story for their own motivations. Put simply as possible, Jack Sparrow made a deal with Davey Jones to save the Black Pearl and to captain it for thirteen years. Those thirteen years are up and has to find a chest that holds the heart of Davey Jones to use as a bargaining chip to extend his life. However, other people want it for other reasons. Will, for instance, wants to destroy the heart to free his father from Davey Jones's servitude and Norrington, the villain of the last movie, wants it to regain the prestige and station in life he had lost following his humilation.

The first movie had a streak of black humor running through it, but this movie takes it to a new level. I noticed that this for a Disney movie, it has a huge body count. And when people do die, it is often as a result of a punchline. Maybe it's just me, but it seems strange that this is a Disney picture. Stranger still when you remember the source material they are working with is a clunky theme park ride. It really makes you appreciate the Gore Verbinski's ability to make something out of nothing. There isn't really much to say in terms of why you would like this movie. If you have seen the first one, you will like this because it is more of the same, but more of it. And by same I don't mean it gets repetitive; I mean that sense of fun and adventure that most movies are totally devoid of is never in short supply. There is a real sense that anything can happen in this movie; and that idea that in a movie anything is possible and around every corner there is something interesting or bizarre is a quality really missing in movies today. You might get it a little with the Harry Potter movies, as well, but this makes you remember what made you excited to go to the movies when you were a kid.

The movie could have really fallen apart from too many moving parts. However, it holds together rather nicely. The only times it ever felt like it was getting a little off the rails was probably when Jack Sparrow and his crew were held captive by a tribe of cannibals. That sequence seemed unimportant to the plot and entirely too much time was spent on the set-up and the execution on something of no importance to the plot. It could have been whittled down in the editing room. Also, some of the action sequences were so long and elaborate you almost become numb to them at points.

Great movie.

Comics This Week.

Not much of interest came out this week. I've been trying to keep my load light because of money issues, so I only ended up buying two comics: Detective Comics #821 and The All-New Atom #1.

James Robinson's run on the Batman books prior to this issue was pretty mediorce, though it had some good things in it. I liked that they returned Jim Gordon to the series and cemented Batman's partnership with Robin. But the mystery that lay at the center of those positive changes did not at all enhance the obscure mystery or the predictable developments of Two-Face. It got to the point where you wondered why you were reading an 8-part storyline that you anticipated in the first issue.

The promise of better creative teams was too hard to resist. Writer Paul Dini was instrumental in developing what really is the best, most well-rounded rendition of Batman in any media. Some of the best episodes of Batman: The Animated Series were written by Dini. And his work in the comic matches that intelligent writing style. I was disapponted when I heard Rags Morales wouldn't be providing the work--especially after seeing his work on Identity Crisis and Hawkman-- but J.H. Williams is just as good. His distinct arrangement of the panels made for an interest design, however at some points the action did seem a little confusing.

The story lives up to the title Detective Comics as Batman actually does some actual investigative work, something he really hasn't done in a long time. It involves a team of con men and women who infiltrate the highest social circles of Gotham's elite and rob them. A very simple but interesting plot, as we see Batman utilize his alter ego of Bruce Wayne to do most of the leg work. Behind the plot is a promising if somewhat basic new member of the rogue's gallery named Facade.

The All-New Atom was pretty good, but I find John Byrne's artwork pretty inconsistent. While I'm sad to see no inclusion of Ray Palmer, the new guy seems to be an interesting character. Writer Gail Simone is best when she is developing characters, and within the limited confines of the first issue she manages to introduce new faces effectively. The new character, Dr. Ryan Choi, is a protege of Ray Palmer's, who takes over his position in Ivy Town. Soon he discovers some of Ryan's shrinking technology. The story is pretty solid and I will definetly pick up the next issue, but I have to say that the new design for Atom's costume is perhaps the ugliest costume. There was a simplicity to the old one, a timelessness, and this was is just busy and garish looking.

Next week I'm probably going to just get Superman #654 and Green Lantern #12. Review of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind coming tonight or tomorrow.

Superman Returns...

2 stars out of 4

I don't think you could find a person more excited to see this movie than me prior to its release. It was a tough couple of years hearing about all the rumblings going on in pre-production. Jon Peters' bizarre take on the character was well-documented; people photo-shopped Nic Cage's head over Christoper Reeve's head in an effort to work out in reality what their imagination could not--a Nic Cage Superman; Tim Burton signed on for a time, reinforcing the notion that Superman would be almost unrecognizable; production art is leaked, reflecting a darker, harder-edged sci-fi epic. A shell-shocked Kevin Smith told of the horrors of "development hell." It seemed like the odds were against a decent Superman ever seeing the light of day. A terrible abomination, certainly, but little hope for a good one. Then, Bryan Singer signed on and began to explain his approach as Superman fans across the country (and the world?) breathed a collective sigh of relief. He gets it. This is going to be okay.

And it was. Just okay. It had all the right elements and it had moments of greatness, but the movie didn't really tie together as well as I thought it should. And some of Singer's virtues, ironically, turned out to be some of the movie's weak spots. When the movie didn't deal with character and the drama of the human dynamic, there was a sense that movie could have been the greatest superhero epic. Superman's first appearance in full costume, for instance, was one of the best superhero sequences I have ever seen in terms of iconic glory and pulse-pounding excitement.

But then we get into the routine of the plot, where the tire hits the pavement, and the movie kind of falls apart. The basic premise of the movie is extremely suited to the times. Superman, played by Brandon Routh, returns to Earth after a prolonged absence and is forced to grapple with the notion that people simply adapted, accepted, and moved on without him. The central conflict is his feelings over Lois Lane, played by Kate Bosworth. She has a child now and is engaged to get married, and Superman has a hard time facing the notion that the love of his life is no longer interested in him. As almost a sidenote, Lex Luthor, played by Kevin Spacey, is in the wings with yet another real-estate scheme, this time exploiting Krytponian technology and putting billions at risk.

This sounds like a sound starting point for a great Superman film, save for one element which I will address later. However, the movie's script is very weak. And the reasons for this are interrelated. It took too liberally from the Donner picture in the wrong way and didn't learn from the Donner picture and take from it lessons in the right way. The movie borrows liberally from the original film, like a younger brother who wants nothing more than to grow up emulating his bigger, cooler brother. He wants to steal all his cool lines, do all the great things he did before. But what the younger brother doesn't know is that in order to compete or make a name for himself he has to do something great that is unique and shows that he too has his own voice. This younger sibling, Superman Returns, is too into idol-worship. Rather than being a love letter to Superman, it is an obssessive fan letter to the Richard Donner movie specifically.

Exhibit A. Full exchanges and lines were taken from straight from the 1978 script. Superman's rescue of a plane, which included Lois Lane, ends with a public service line straight from the original, after a helicopter accident, which included Lois Lane as a passenger. Later on, Lex Luthor has the exact same exchange with his girlfriend that his predecessor, Gene Hackman, had with his girlfriend(Kevin/Gene: "What did my father always say?" 2006 girlfriend/1978 girlfriend: "Get out?"). I guess Singer and his screenwriters thought these exchanges were so witty that a copy of a copy would be sufficiently funny too.

Exhibit B. The whole plot structure is mirrored after the first film. All the memorable elements from the original were grafted onto this film. The Lois Lane interview and subsequent flight. Luthor's scene of witty plot exposition with his girlfriend. Luthor's silly and improbable real estate scheme. Luthor's confrontation with Superman and his exploitation of Kryptonite. Luthor's girlfriend gains a conscience and aids the good guys. Superman eliminates to the threat to the world that lacks a confrontation with the villain.

What does this all mean? The movie was too familiar. But the movie was conspicuous in what it was missing, like the witty dialogue and banter that really distinguished some of the Daily Planet scenes in the first movie. That sense of child-like fantasy is replaced by this sense of heavy melodrama that drowns out the inherent innocence and fun of the mythology. The humor it does have, as stated before, is incidentally transplanted from the original and not the work of the screenwriters on this picture.

The movie also lacks a credible villain. One of the weaknesses of the original movie is that Gene Hackman was so amusing that he seemed more like a jester and less like a cold-blooded villain. Except in one scene, Spacey's Luthor is very much like that. He has a hair-brained scheme that doesn't make a lot of sense and his character borders on camp, which both undermines the menace Superman's arch-enemy should have. He does have moments of potential, however.

Brandon Routh seems up to the task of being Superman if he can get away from Reeve impersonations. Kate Bosworth often seems like a sophomore in high school trying to play with the big kids. James Marsden is great at being the "other guy," just as he was in X-Men and The Notebook.

Lois Lane's kid is pretty good, but his very existence causes problems for the movie. First, the issue of whether he is Superman's kid or not is a distraction from the larger issue of Superman seeing Lois move on. The question of "Is he or isn't he?" becomes this weird tabloid sentiment that is never adequately addressed or properly fitted into the larger themes of the movie. Also, it made a Lois Lane a far interesting, less credible character. She takes her kid sneaking around Luthor's lot? She flies plane into certain death with her son aboard? Once you saddle her with a kid, you can't have her doing that stuff and have it be anything but child endangerment. It makes her look like either a bad mother or a bad reporter. So the inclusion of a kid does not serve her character. Future sequels are going to forced to explore this tedious plot development.

In future movies it would be nice to get away from the Donner love-fest and the kid and get more into the things that we would actually like to see in a Superman movie that haven't been seen yet. I, for one, would actually like to see him tackle Metallo, the Man with the Kryptonite Heart, or try to keep Brainiac from destroying the city. I mean, do we need another two and a half hours of navel-gazing?