Pompeii

My parents have always been big movie fans, often seeing everything that comes to the theatre regardless if
it's good or bad. Whenever I go visit them, I eagerly anticipate watching a movie in one of their many recliners, embraced by the heavy blanket embroidered with majestic golden retrievers. The air conditioning typically runs high, so the blanket is needed, and the end result is a cozy movie watching experience that only mom could provide.

On a recent visit, my father was listing off the movies that we could watch. I'd seen many of them, but voted for Pompeii. My perception of the movie made it seem like a good match, and it didn't matter that everybody said the movie was terrible. If anything, that works for the movie in these situations. I often can't take my mom's word for the quality of a film, as she tends to enjoy it all - unless it's overly violent, vulgar or offensive. Pompeii is a PG-13 rated film that has been scientifically melded together to be as inoffensive as possible: you won't find much blood here (although there is violence), a lack of skin, no sign of band language, and simple leading characters with names you don't need to remember.

The story is familiar for anybody who has watched movies in the past, and the Pompeii name is going to be familiar to many who learned about the disaster in school. To catch everyone up though on the story, Pompeii was an ancient city that was devastated by the eruption of the nearby Mount Vesuvius in the year 79AD. Instant death occured for most of the inhabitants, estimated at around twenty thousand. The city was then covered in many metres of ash, where it would remain for another thousand years before the city (and a neighboring town) were rediscovered, so to speak. What you see in many images of are the result of injecting plaster into the digs, which exposed "perfectly" preserved people and animals, in various living and dying states. The images are both fascinating and unsettling; a reminder of how fragile life is and how humanity seems to love living on the edge. Indeed, there are over 3 million people living close to Vesuvius now.

So how do you fit that into a full length feature film? Well, you first watch Gladiator a few times to figure out what worked for it, then remove those elements. Halfway through your film, have the volcano explode and we can proceed to run frantically around, and hope that our hero gets away with his girl, and the villain is taken out with a gigantic, burning rock. Use Pompeii for the backdrop, because people will actually recognize the name. It's a recipe for success, right? With a budget reportedly hanging around $100 million, the film would gross just $23 million ($98 mil internationally) to become classified as a gigantic flop. And unfortunately it's not even the type of movie that will live well afterward, perhaps picking up a cult following of sorts. No, this is an example of a movie that will be forgotten, only coming up as a footnote in articles describing the history of the ancient town.

Is the movie all that bad? It is - and it's not. For a formulaic, inoffensive romp of special effects, it could have done much worse. It's just that the story has been done before, and this brings nothing new to the table. Gladiator was released in 2000, was a brilliant film and still in the minds of movie-goers, so a film like this may seem like a bit of a cheaper, weaker rip off. What stands out then are the elements missing from Pompeii that really made Gladiator shine, which is nearly everything: real emotion, motivation, context, acting, pacing, etc. The list goes on. Pompeii is empty and harmless. But it may not be fair to compare this to Gladiator in the end: Pompeii could have done much worse. Kit Harrington and Emily Browning were decent enough, and it's always nice to see Jared Harris on screen. I haven't seen Carrie-Ann Moss in anything in what seems like ages. Keither Sutherland though, damn. If anybody could be accused of phoning in a performance, this is definitely it. I'm thinking the movie would have been better off without his character at all, and instead spend more time on building the chemistry between our main love interests and our hero's rise from orphan to slave, from slave to gladiator, and from gladiator to free man. The shining star in this film has to be Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, who plays another gladiator who must do battle one more time before earning his own freedom. You may recognize him as Eko from LOST, or from other films like Thor, and The Mummy Returns. Let's get a Pompeii prequel that focuses entirely on Atticus' story. Now that, could be great.

Godzilla

There is a tremendous amount of guilt when I tell myself - and others - that Godzilla has been an institution in my life since, well, as long as I can remember. In the mid-eighties my father and I would spend an inordinate amount of time watching Godzilla movies on Betamax. My favourite around the time was GODZILLA 1985, although I haven't seen it in years (and reviews indicate it may be one of the worst). The guilt comes from not having watched any for a solid period of time, perhaps fifteen years or more; the only exception was taking a break to watch GODZILLA 2000 and of course, the abomination of Hollywood's 1998 remake. For one of my birthdays, my friend obtained a large amount of the franchise films and we watched a few, and it was all new to me. It turns out I don't know much about Godzilla, but that hasn't stopped me from loving the character, or falling into a warm, nostalgic bliss when I recall Sunday afternoon's spent in front of the black and white set watching the King of Monsters' exploits as a child.



There's no better way to break back into the Godzilla franchise than experiencing it on the largest scale possible, the IMAX screen. If a large screen was ever needed, it's to fit the scale of Godzilla himself. So it was a Monday afternoon when my friend and I undertook the mission, plopped down our cash and strolled into the IMAX screen. The ominous voice told us it was time to put on our 3D glasses; we obliged, and the famous IMAX countdown began. When it hit 2, then 1, a quiet moan turned into a monstrous thunder of rage and fear inducing terror that only the voice of Godzilla could pull off. The roar of Godzilla brought shivers down my spine. I was instantly transported back in time as nostalgia reached out and caressed the back of my head. At this point I had a feeling that this was going to be it: I was going to love this movie regardless if it was terrible or not. If all I got was an amazing rendition of the King himself, with more of that mighty roar, I would be satisfied.

So at this point, my opinion may be skewed into bias. I loved this film. The slow build-up and reveal of the King of Monsters was perfect. Godzilla himself looked incredible: he had all the appearances of the Godzilla we've come to know and love, and none of the giant lizard monstrosity that appeared in Roland Emmerich's 1998 attempt. His sound was spot on, and loud, just as it should be. This is exactly how a young Ryebone would picture Godzilla in the future: larger, louder, full of menace and warmth. Satisfaction was finally here.

In the 1998 version they attempted to make Godzilla the villain, which he inherently will be, as he tromps through cities causing death and destruction. And that's how Godzilla first appeared, in 1954 (and 1956 in the American butchering). Godzilla represents the nuclear threat, a man-made terror that we unleash on ourselves and once out, are unable to stop. This remake takes the focus away from monster-as-man's-creation and puts humanity as the semi-hapless victim (they are partially responsible, but the film focuses elsewhere), which is a significant change that doesn't really detract from the quality of the film, but definitely takes away potential, meaningful depth that could help the film long term.

It's unfortunate then as well, that the acting stood out as particularly terrible. Our main protagonist was barely that, played with wooden stoicism by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who you may remember from the Kick-Ass films. He may be a victim of the script, which doesn't give him a lot to work with: his character is fairly passive and seems to wander from location to location, coming into close contact with more important characters through sheer chance than anything else. It would have all been forgiven though, if it wasn't for the great job that Elizabeth Olson did opposite Johnson's character. The scene was lopsided, awkward and seemingly cut short out of embarrassment. Bryan Cranston delivers, of course, but he doesn't get nearly as much screen time as he deserves and what the film actually needs. I would have thought that Ken Watanabe would be more significant as well, but he seems to be stuck in a daze throughout the film. I'll blame the script for that one. When you boil it down, it seems there were quite a few missed opportunities: they had the right actors, but didn't do the right things with them.

A slow build-up to Godzilla and his fight scenes may put off the modern viewer, but they are faithful to the Toho films of past and allowed the anticipation to build to a solid pay off, although we could have used a bit more (who wouldn't want more, really). There are times when the camera seems to cut off too early, but I feel as though it executed properly. Gareth Edwards was able to capture Godzilla's character and makes us see why he's named the King of Monsters. It doesn't blatantly set us up for a sequel - although there will be one - and stands tall in the franchise. The problems and missed opportunities will not get in the way of the child-like awe and giddiness that I felt throughout the film. It's an excited state that I haven't felt at the movies in quite some time, and seems rather fitting that it comes back here.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

That the general public wasn't ready for a Spider-Man reboot ten years after the release of the "original" in 2002 is proven by the relatively poor box office numbers the new one has managed to do. However, I think it's safe to say that everyone is happy that it wasn't as bad as Spider-Man 3, which was a boneheaded mess (for the most part). I didn't really care for The Amazing Spider-Man in 2012, but it wasn't terrible. I like to think that it would have done much better if it wasn't overshadowed by Marvel's runaway juggernaut of The Avengers films. And as time keeps on churning, the need to bring the largest Marvel properties back into the fold of the home studio is becoming more pertinent with every release. Sony did a good job twelve years ago, but Marvel came in and disrupted the whole thing. We wanted a crossover with X-Men as well back then, but the fact that different studios licensed our beloved characters all but cemented that this will not happen. Enter Marvel, who turned the comic book movie industry on it's head. With the advent of Spider-Man 2, Sony is talking about a similar structure, albeit with purely Spidey related characters - the only ones they are licensed for. They're talking Sinister Six and spin off movies, so it's relevant to look at this singular movie not only as a Spider-Man sequel, but as a setting off point for a gargantuan franchise of movies, television series and toy lines.


The first movie in this series did not impress me. I felt as though they messed with the origin of Spider-Man just a bit too much: they took him away from the wrestling ring yes, but what really got me was Peter Parker as a character. That is to say, he was ass. And I don't want to discredit that Parker was an ass in the original story, but he had good reason for it (kind of). My issue is that Parker is an ass throughout the entire film. He's kind of a passive aggressive bully with a jerk attitude that just didn't fly with me. I chalked it up to modern times: this is a remake for the current generation. I realized that Spider-Man was not being written for me anymore, but molded into a persona that current kids can relate to. So yeah, I'm just too old now, great. There were also a few ridiculous elements in the movie, and maybe too-convenient coincidences but overall, it was a decent ride, just not entirely my thing. As a child, I collected Spider-Man comics like it was nobody's business - they make up the bulk of my collection. And today, when I look at a modern comic or storyline, I become bewildered, and swing back to my old collection of eighties and nineties comics where I find comfort in the writing and art styles (except Spectacular Spider-Man, the art always bothered me in that title).

So I was pleasantly surprised in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. It was pretty good!

First, there was the acting, which I think has improved greatly since the first iteration. Garfield is definitely hitting a comfort spot here and has dropped the smug, jerk like mannerisms. Emma Stone turns in another good performance, as she has more to work with in this film. What it equates to real, genuine (I'm buying it) on screen chemistry which helps the film quite a bit and actually leaves the original trilogy in the dust (many moments between Maguire and Dunst were just weird). The rest of the cast, including Foxx as Electro, is full of talent and put in decent performances.

This isn't a Spider-Man origin story, which helps (for me) my enjoyment of the film. We've sat through enough already, so moving on to something new feels refreshing. Tackling new villains is perfect, although I will say that I don't feel as though Electro had much motivation or screen time. The same could be said for other villains, although I appreciate that Rhino merely book-ended the film, which lends itself to appearing in future movies. It's become pretty defacto that our favourite villains will be enhanced through technology, as opposed to their original powers. X-Men set the standard for costumes that will work on screen, and this is no different, as the villains take on somewhat realistic looks, although I'm glad to see them go over the top a bit. Electro looked very cool, although it reminded me too much of a recent video game release. You could easily say the movie dragged on too long - and it did. The movie's plot didn't necessarily focus on what I want it to, and spent a lot of time on Peter and Gwen's relationship. Which is great and all, but I got it already, you know? The movie isn't necessarily subtle, and because of this, I feel it wastes some time here and there.

Spider-Man, as depicted on the streets fighting crime, has matured a bit in his juvenility: he's quick with his wit, and is more comfortable with both criminals and fighting. He's tormented though, and in wanting to protect everyone he pushes them away. With great power, right? I'm really looking forward to the third film now, to see where Spider-Man's actual character goes: they introduce villains but they also grow Spidey's character, so we should have a fairly solid trilogy. Then where? Well, they were talking about Sinister Six, which is always classic. They've firmly established that all these great villains will be a byproduct of Oscorp special projects working in the dark, which is fine I suppose; it's a popular comic book trope. Spin off movies? Maybe we can get a Black Cat film to help fill the lack of female heroes on screen. He has one of the largest, most diverse rogues gallery in the industry, so there is a lot to tap into. We got a glimpse of a solid Sandman story in Spider-Man 3 (I believe - if the rumours are true - that he was the focus of the third film, when the studio forced Raimi to include more villains and plot than the movie could sustain) that was driven not by a greedy criminal, but a man trying to make ends and doing anything for his family. Done right and with some actual character study, there could be a long list of movies featuring Spider-Man villains that could lead into a mixed movie. They could do for villains what The Avengers did for heroes, and because it hasn't really been done before, it would feel fresh.

Sorcerer

As I "review" films I often make a note of what my expectations were going into the film, and how those
expectations affect my level of enjoyment. It's typically an inverse relationship with low expectations often resulting in a high enjoyment of the film. That is to say, it's easier to enjoy a movie if you bring in low expectations, as it's harder to enjoy a movie with high expectations. Oftentimes, I think of it as a crutch, and it's easy to dismiss or praise a film based on that binary scale. Every so often though, I bring in expectations not of general quality, but regarding specific elements, which can either be met or not met, and in turn, my satisfaction could go either way. For an early example, I look back to the original Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. In this case, I knew very little and didn't expect very much, but I did want to see some great skeletal action - you could say I wanted an update on the old Clash of the Titans skeleton combat that I so thoroughly enjoyed as a child. I got it, and much more (did anyone expect such a clever performance from Depp though, really).

Over the past few weeks I've been keeping tabs on the latest Blu-ray releases, and saw a movie named Sorcerer come up on a frequent basis. I hadn't heard of the film before, and for some reason, I never sought out any information on it. I would see the cover art - and this is crucial - in thumbnail form alongside other April releases, but I would never click on it. I saw news of different editions, and discovered that the film is from 1977 and directed by William Friedkin, a name of whom I did not recognize (although in retrospect I should have, being the director of The Exorcist). None of this was on purpose, but it ended up being quite the experiment in what your expectations can do to a film.

I'll allow you to stop reading now if you don't want to know more about the movie - an effort for me to pass onto you the ability to view the movie with a completely blank slate. (So spoilers ensue, of course.)

Movie Collection part 6: The Third Era

The Second Era of movie collecting for me would be marked by the wrap up of The Great DVD Purge, which began in 2005 and ended a short year later in 2006. For the record, the First Era would be everything before DVD technology, so all those VHS movies I bought and movies that were crudely recorded off television. It could also be marked by a shift in the rules of buying. I developed a DVD Counting Standard before, but the rules of acquisition were never clearly defined, nor would they be. But there would be - and has been - a value in placing, at least, some loose guidelines to my own buying habits.

I wouldn't say that I was out of control with DVDs. Financially, it was difficult to do so. Today, with a decent amount of disposable income, combined with easier access and an abundance of special editions create a perfect recipe to get carried away. I tried putting some limitations on myself.

Don't buy a movie that is less than one year old.

This may seem odd, but I wanted to ensure that I truly appreciated the movie and had an interest in seeing it again before buying. This could be done to avoid any kinds of duds that would begin to litter the collection. It also addressed specifically my habit of loving every movie I saw in the theatre - the entire theatre going experience would skew my score on a film - and would result in me buying a movie upon home release based on that experience. Sometimes I would see a movie again at home after buying, and wonder, "why?"

While the collection quality could be increased, there was a flip side in that the addition of special, time limited editions of films that I truly did enjoy were out of grasp. There are a few brilliant movies that have sub-par releases in my collection now because of this rule, but there are also a decidedly higher ratio of "quality" films that I'm proud of.

Stop Caring About Editions

As a result of the one year rule, I told myself to stop caring about what edition I had. It was about the movie, moreso than anything else. When the lights are off, it doesn't matter how many extras are there, or what type of packaging the movie is in: I'm here to enjoy the movie itself. The only thing that could grab me though were remasters where the audio/visual quality was better than a previous release, but I had to carefully weigh those purchases. Another benefit of waiting at least a year was that those remastered editions were typically coming out during the time I wanted to buy.

The rule was steady until the collecting bug really bit me and I started seeing more "special" editions than I was accustomed to. What ended up happening is some catalogue releases coming out with special editions, like SE7EN, in its digibook package. I love the movie, so I was going to buy it, and the edition was properly mastered and so happened to be in a format that I loved. It would inevitably lead to me considering digibook editions more often than not, for the sake of the collection - although, I still had to enjoy the movie.

Steelbooks are a Scam

I was pretty negative toward steelbook releases initially, as I viewed them as cash-ins on what amounted to the exact same release of a normal Bluray, but with "steel" packaging. Some movies lacked the extra features that their regular counterparts had, affirming that you were paying a premium for the package alone. The marketing for them left a bad taste in my mouth as well, as they were typically touted at Future Shop as exclusive. It was easy to avoid most of them of course, as they would be released for newer movies that I wasn't going to buy anyway.

INCEPTION was probably my first steelbook. It broke two of my guidelines (being recent and a steelbook) but it was a gift, so the guidelines were moot. However, it had an unexpected side effect of being a special edition that contained just the movie, which went with my overall goal of just enjoying the movie itself. They typically feature better artwork, and makes for a much nicer display on the shelf. I realized the error of my way and slowly began picking up more steelbooks, although I always made sure it was the movie I was buying foremost, rather than the packaging. It also doesn't help that digibook editions are few and far between (my preferred packaging).

Love the Movie

This was easier back when I started, but becomes more difficult: once you buy all your favourite fims, where do you go? Well, instead of buying only 10/10 movies, you buy 9/10, and so on. I've never been partial to rating films in that way either, and determined that there was no set rule here and that I could simply buy a film to enjoy the film for any number of merits.

No Blind Buys

This was probably made in an effort to save money, of course, and to ensure the quality of my collection was up to my own standards. But, I break it from time to time. I find myself downloading a movie to watch first, then going out to buy it if I find it enjoyable. While this may be reprehensible to many, it's definitely operating in the gray area and without a doubt, has had the benefit of increasing my total purchases and expanding my interests into artists and genres that I normally wouldn't visit. It's also a lot easier to blind buy a movie when it's cheap enough and has enough positive reviews.

Embrace the Hunt

This is a more recent guideline that's always been in place, but never brought to the forefront. Embracing the hunt is just that: enjoy the search for those movies. Enjoy looking for the deals. Enjoy looking for movies that will fit into your collection. Enjoy looking for things you've never seen. The list is long, and it was kind of there to prevent me from just going online and ordering everything I wanted, especially in terms of pre-orders. Not only do you support local establishments, you get the satisfaction of the kill. Unfortunately, unbeatable prices will often win out and it's nearly always cheaper to buy online.

So in the end, the guidelines were a nice thought but many of them have been thrown out, or at least, bent a bit. I didn't hesitate to buy PACIFIC RIM when it came out, and I haven't regretted the purchase nor the broken rule. I'm getting into steelbook editions: it creates goals during the hunt, and is fun to research. This goes for collecting day to day as well. I'll buy equal parts special and bare bone editions of movies.

There are so many instances where your guidelines are going to be broken: maybe you are collecting every film from a certain director, and you like 90% of them. Do you buy the rest? In time, I can see myself doing exactly that.

There are few other guidelines too, including the issue of upgrading. Typically I don't, unless the release is significantly better (see FULL METAL JACKET, for example). In terms of price, I like to avoid anything over $20 (unless it's a high quality product or a favourite movie), and when a decent title goes under $10, there becomes very little guarantee that I can resist it.

MOVIE COLLECTION

part 1: The Beginning

part 2: Collecting

part 3: The Great DVD Purge

part 4: High Definition

part 5: Current DVDs

part 6: The Third Era