Random Rants: Questing for the Dark Tower ... in a Lincoln

I tried writing movie reviews for a while, but gave it up because I’m not really a cinephile. Every now and then, though, I see something so good or so dreadful that I just have to comment.

If you’ve read anything about the adaptation of Stephen King’s “The Dark Tower,” I’m guessing you don’t have to wonder long which category this falls in.

I used to dread movie versions of favorite books, but I have to admit that, in recent years, Hollywood has done a better job of it. Beginning, I think, with Peter Jackson’s adaptation of “The Lord of the Rings” (we won’t talk about the hot mess that he turned “The Hobbit” into), movie and TV versions started to get more right and less wrong, at least on occasion. Most adaptations still won’t please hardcore book fans, but they’re better. So, I was actually looking forward to this, despite my misgivings.

Random Rants: There and back again ... sort of

 

It’s been about a week since I finally saw “The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies,” and I’ve taken some time to reflect on Peter Jackson’s adaptation before putting my final thoughts down.

(Note: If you haven't read "The Hobbit" or seen the films and don't want spoilers, it's probably best not to proceed. Then again, if you haven't read "The Hobbit," what are you doing here? Go read it. Now.)

I’ll start by stating what most regular readers of this site already know. If I had to pick a single book as my favorite of all time, it would be “The Hobbit.” So, going in, I knew there were going to be things about this adaptation that I didn’t like.

Revisiting "The Phantom Menace"

I both looked forward to and kind of dreaded it when I heard about the 3D conversion of the Star Wars movies. I was excited for my son to get the chance to see them on the big screen, but there is the gimmickiness of 3D, and you always have to wonder what George Lucas will decide to change in a new edition.

I took my son to see “The Phantom Menace” last week, and I had a few observations. First, I’ll admit that I really liked the movie when it was originally released, and I’ve never quite understood the hatred for it. I think, perhaps, most of us had expectations that were far too high. We expected something that connected with us like the original movies, but these were made in a different time and, really, a different world. I don’t believe they had a chance to be nearly as good as the originals, which were a fairly new and fresh idea when they were released.

Review: "Ghost Rider"

I'm a lifelong comic book geek. After years of horrible adaptations of comics for TV and movies, I was thrilled in the late 1990s when the technology finally caught up to allow Hollywood to make good big screen versions of my favorite comics. When it comes to the resulting glut of comic movies, I've seen them all, from the very good ("Batman Begins," the X-Men franchise) to the downright horrid ("The Hulk," "Elektra") and a whole bunch that fall somewhere in between.

For the most part, I've never really been drawn to the Spider-Mans and Supermans of the comic world. I've always preferred the darker characters, the ones that, at times, make you wonder which side they're really on -- guys like Wolverine, The Punisher and, of course, Ghost Rider.

I was actually quite interested to see how they would handle Ghost Rider in a live action movie, and after seeing the film, I now understand there are some things that are probably best left in the comic books. My first problem with the movie is in casting. Nicolas Cage is just a little too old to play Johnny Blaze. They dyed his hair black to make him look a little younger, but in truth, it just made him look like a guy in his mid-40s with his hair dyed black. I could live with Cage because at least I know he has respect for the comic, but I just didn't buy Wes Bentley's turn as Blackheart at all. I have a hard time picturing the son of Mephistopheles as the clean-cut John Stamos look-alike that Bentley played him as. He either needed to be a little more refined and sophisticated or a little more, well, black-hearted and evil. As it was, I kept expecting the young Olsen twins to show up to ask him a question. It's tough to build a comic book movie with a villain the audience is indifferent about.

Other roles were cast much better. I like Sam Elliott in most anything, and he does a great job as Carter Slade, as he usually does with Western themed characters. Peter Fonda's turn as Mephistopheles is also memorable.

Now, we get to the CGI, which for the action scenes is incredible. When riding or fighting, the Ghost Rider looks great. When speaking and trying to be menacing, the CGI fails completely. Here's why I say some things are better left to comics, or at least animation: A live action skull just can't be expressive in any way. No matter what the lines are, the skull looks the same. At times it's downright silly, especially when the witty repartee is like the first meeting of Ghost Rider and Blackheart. Ghost Rider: "You're going down." Blackheart: "I don't think so." Man, where's Spider-Man when you need him?

I wouldn't say that "Ghost Rider" is a horrible movie. There were some funny bits, the action sequences were very cool and I actually enjoyed it in a shut your brain down and watch kind of way. It is, however, definitely one of those middle-ground productions that will probably be enjoyed much more by fans of the comic than those unfamiliar with it.

Get "Ghost Rider" or the 2-disc version.

Review: "300"

Effing amazing.

Truthfully, I could leave my review at that and it would be entirely accurate. Of course, that wouldn't make for very good reading, would it?

There's always this little tinge of apprehension when I approach a Hollywood adaptation of something I know and enjoy, whether it be a favorite book, comic or graphic novel. Tinseltown isn't known for its faithfulness to the source material, and in many cases will just downright destroy a good thing. So even having seen the fantastic previews of "300" and having heard nothing but good things about it from people whose opinions I trust, I wondered if it could really match Frank Miller's graphic novel. Like "Sin City" before it, the answer is a resounding "yes."

Films that blend CGI and live action as liberally as "300" does have been a mixed bag in the past, but this movie gets it entirely right. The CGI creates a sense of unreality that makes the movie feel like Miller's comic book. The live action performances give it the grit that's required for the brutal battle scenes that make up the movie.

Critics, of course, had plenty of bad things to say about the movie, and I have to roll my eyes when I hear complaints about the movie putting style and action ahead of the story. I mean, the style and action are kind of the whole point here. Like Miller's graphic novel, this adaptation of "300" is a visceral display of the kind of unflinching machismo that most men, whether they're willing to admit it or not, wish they could achieve.

You don't see this kind of movie looking for a deep statement on the human condition. What you want in "300" is exactly what you get - some of the most epic and breathtaking battle scenes ever put on film, great one-liners and heads flying. You want something that speaks to that archaic, chest-beating, testosterone-fueled warrior that still lurks somewhere inside. You want a movie that makes you want to grab a sword and dive into the enemy ranks, even though most of us know realistically we'd get our soft butts kicked before the blade cleared its sheath. "300" delivers that and more.

Want a movie that dissects the whys of war and makes a statement on it? Pick up something else. Want to revel in the bloodlust of one of the best action films in recent memory? Grab some popcorn, sit back and enjoy.

Get "300" or the 2-disc special edition.

Review: "Hannibal Rising"

One thing that Thomas Harris seems to have forgotten in his last two novels and screenplays about cannibalistic killer Hannibal Lecter is what made Lecter such a fascinating character in the first place - his personality and the performance of Anthony Hopkins.

It's much more chilling to hear the smooth, smiling Lecter talk matter-of-factly about eating someone's liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti than to actually watch him do it.

That was the problem with "Hannibal" and also with "Hannibal Rising," which tells the tale of the young Lecter and how he came to be Hannibal the cannibal.

It begins in Lithuania during World War II, when Hannibal is a small child. The Nazis and the Russian army clash on his family's land, resulting in the death of his parents and leaving Hannibal to fend for himself and his younger sister. When a band of rogue locals who have been denied entry to the SS come calling at the house where Lecter and his sister are hiding, things get worse - much worse.

We're then introduced to the teenage Hannibal, who escapes from the orphanage that used to be his family's home, sneaks across the Soviet border and winds up with an aunt by marriage who lives in Paris. Lecter starts a new life and begins medical school, but he hasn't forgotten the horrors of the war, seeing the men who tormented him in his dreams every night.

"Hannibal Rising" is a far superior movie to "Hannibal," but it still doesn't stack up to either "Red Dragon" or "Silence of the Lambs." This is a brutal vision of the young Lecter, far from the suave mastermind of his later years, though he does occasionally show the tendency toward the killer he'll later become (the last scene in the film, in which the violence isn't shown, is perhaps the most Lecter-ish moment.)

Gaspard Ulliel steps into some big shoes taking on the role of Lecter, and handles it well. While he portrays a younger, more brash and less scheming Lecter, we do see him develop the cold charm and show flashes of Hopkins' famous portrayal. Ultimately, though, he's stuck in what is more or less a gory revenge tale. While it shows us Lecter's origins, it offers little insight into the character once he has that revenge. To me, the more interesting tale may be the transformation from the angry young man bent on revenge to the cold habitual killer of "Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs," and it might offer more of those things which make "Silence of the Lambs" a creepier film.

"Hannibal Rising" is an enjoyable enough revenge tale, but in a couple of years when I'm flipping channels and see it on TV, I'm not likely to stop and continue watching the way I will when I see "Silence of the Lambs."

Get the "Hannibal Rising" DVD.

Get the novel.

Review: "Happy Feet"

I have a two-year-old that loves penguins, so if there's an animated movie with penguins, we're probably seeing it at some point. I happen to like animated movies myself, so I'm not that opposed. Except when we run into one like this.

Mumble, voiced by Elijah Wood, is an emperor penguin that can't sing - the only one, apparently. But he can dance. His lack of vocal ability makes him an outcast, and he's shunned because of his love of dancing. The elder penguins even blame the lack of fish on Mumble's dancing. Of course, we know that's actually caused by overfishing by humans, and of course, Mumble is the one that will discover that and set things right because that's how these kinds of movies work.

The problem is, the environmental message in the second half of the movie falls flat because the filmmakers fail to make me care about their animated penguins in the first half of the movie. There are pretty pictures. There are some funny gags and some fun moments during the singing, but I'm just not invested.

OK, so it's a cartoon, and adults are not really supposed to have an emotional investment, but I should at least care about what happens to Mumble, and I don't.

My son liked the singing and dancing penguins, and an action sequence where they're chased by a leopard seal, but even he lost interest when Mumble's out on his own trying to save the world. That whole storyline just seems to drag and drag the movie down with it. While I understand and applaud the filmmakers trying to make an environmental statement, they might have been better served to deliver the fluffy kids' movie about being yourself that "Happy Feet" started as.

Get "Happy Feet."

Review: "Pan's Labyrinth"

When you're watching a foreign movie, there's an easy way to tell if it's really good. At some point during the movie, you forget that it's subtitled. That happened to me while watching "Pan's Labyrinth" over the weekend. At the risk of sounding like the redneck I am, I'll admit that I hate subtitles. But somewhere during the final scenes, I suddenly realized again that the movie had them. I had been completely absorbed in the world presented by Guillermo del Toro.

The movie revolves around a young girl named Ofelia who travels to Spain in 1944 with her pregnant mother, who is in a seemingly unhappy marriage to Capt. Vidal, a vicious and merciless officer in the Spanish Army. Shortly after her arrival, she begins to see fairies who eventually lead her to a faun who tells her she's the daughter of the king of the underworld. The faun assigns her tasks that must be completed before she can take her rightful place. While trying to complete those tasks, she must also deal with her mother's worsening condition and the war between her stepfather's men and the rebels in the mountains.

At heart the movie is a fairy tale, but it's definitely not for kids. There is, of course, a lot of violence and some very dark themes that run through the movie, though, to me, the violence was not as graphic as some reviews have suggested.

When Ofelia is in the fairy worlds, the movie is absolutely beautiful. The creatures she encounters during her challenges are both whimsical and sinister at the same time. The fantasy land sequences play almost like some warped and dangerous version of "Alice in Wonderland." It's a world that I'd like to spend more time in, and if I have one complaint about the movie, it would be that I would have liked to explore the fantasy side of the film more. Some of those scenes, like the one in the hall of the Pale Man, went by far too quickly for me and left me wanting to go back.

I don't mean to say that the "real world" part of the movie was at all weak. It was equally absorbing story-wise and probably could have stood on its own without the supernatural elements. But I still longed for the visual treats and wonder of the fantasy world.

"Pan's Labyrinth" is an impressive achievement for del Toro, so much so that "The Devil's Backbone" has just moved to the top of my "to see" list.

Get "Pan's Labyrinth."

Get the two disc version.

Review: "Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny"

I stumbled across Tenacious D years ago, after stumbling into the house late one night and flipping on HBO. I remember laughing my ass off, thinking "it's a shame these guys will never go anywhere." I guess it shows how much I know.

So now that Jack Black is in demand, it's nice to see that he hasn't forgotten the people who were watching him on HBO at two in the morning all those years ago. He and Kyle Gass released a record a few years back under the Tenacious D moniker, and now comes the movie.

The movie covers the fictional beginnings of the band and a quest to find an ancient pick made out of the devil's tooth that has supposedly made many of the world's greatest guitarists who they are. If they get the pick, they're almost assured of greatness.

Of course, the plot really doesn't matter. It's Jack Black's manic energy and over-the-top personality that makes the movie. He's one of the few actors in Hollywood that can be consistently entertaining, even in a lousy movie (which this one isn't.) Gass has always been the straight, quiet guy of the duo, but we get to see a little more of him in the early going, and he has some moments as a cocky, fake rock god.

There are also some nice cameos sprinkled throughout the show, with Meat Loaf starring as Jack's father and Ronnie James Dio jumping out of a poster on his door to sing a song that urges him to follow his dreams. Tim Robbins shows up as a creepy, bumbling villain who had his leg ruined while trying to steal the pick, and of course, Dave Grohl reprises the role of Satan.

The movie is as much a musical as a film, and it works on both levels. No, it's not great cinema, but did you expect it to be? I laughed often, and I enjoyed the corny songs, and that's really all I wanted. Long live the D.

Get "Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny."

Review: "Eragon"

The advances in fantasy movies in recent years have been amazing. I remember sitting through a lot of truly awful fantasy films over the years, longing to find one like Peter Jackson's adaptations of "The Lord of the Rings" or some of the "Harry Potter" adaptations. The technology now has gotten so good that even a mediocre fantasy film can be impressive.

It's unusual for me to not have read a book before I see the movie, but for some reason, I just never got around to picking up "Eragon." I had a vague notion of the plot, but didn't really know what I was getting. The film starts well enough. Some might fault it for the typical "farmboy with hidden greatness" plot, but it's a staple of the fantasy genre and still very viable when done correctly.

Visually, the movie is very good, even if it borrows more than a few camera shots and digital sets from "The Lord of the Rings." The dragon Saphira looks great both on the ground and in flight, and the climactic aerial battle between Eragon and Saphira and the Shade Durza and his nightmare creation is stunning.

The cast also does a good job with what they have to work with. Ed Speleers is appropriately innocent and brash as Eragon, John Malkovich seems to be having fun as the evil King Galbatorix and Jeremy Irons brings some gravity to Eragon's mentor Brom. The problem they have is that toward the end of the movie, the dialogue devolves into a series of clichés. Combined with the digital backdrops and camera shots that should have Jackson on the phone with his lawyers, it really took me out of the flow of the movie because I'd laugh a little every time I saw one.

"Eragon" isn't a bad movie, but it isn't a great one, either. It has a lot of nice eye candy, which distracts from a mediocre script. A common complaint I see from fans of Christopher Paolini's books is that the script takes much of the depth of the story away. I can't say either way since I haven't read the book, but I can say the movie certainly doesn't compel me to run out and get a copy of the book.

"Eragon" is a fun way to pass an hour and a half, but when the credits roll, it's not one of those recent fantasy movies that leave you thinking, "wow, I can't wait to see that again."

Get "Eragon."

Get the Special Edition.

Review: "The Departed"

Though "Goodfellas" is one of my favorite movies, I've been underwhelmed by most of Martin Scorsese's more recent movies. That's why I was pleased to see him return to the kind of gritty, and yes occasionally gory, movies that have produced some of his best work.

"The Departed" features Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio as double-agent police officers playing against each other. DiCaprio tries to take down Irish crime boss Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson) as an undercover member of his crew, while Damon is actually working for Costello and feeding him information as the officer officially assigned to take him down. Costello has his own secrets, but those I won't reveal.

Initially, the film is a bit confusing simply because DiCaprio and Damon are so similar, and I found myself playing a game of which is which (perhaps fans of the two won't have that problem). After I got it all sorted out, though, the movie became an enjoyable game of cat and mouse with some good performances among the all-star cast.

While the movie focuses on Damon and DiCaprio, the real star is Nicholson. He plays Costello flamboyantly over the top, and it's great fun watching him chew up the scenery. It's perhaps his most entertaining role since "The Shining." Even though I'm not a fan, I also enjoyed seeing Alec Baldwin ham it up as Damon's somewhat bumbling boss.

The film is apparently an adaptation of the Hong Kong movie "Infernal Affairs." Having never seen it, I can't make the comparison. All I can say is that this one feels like a Scorsese piece from top to bottom.

Ultimately, "The Departed" is what Scorsese does best. It's at times hilariously funny and at times brutally violent. Much like real life, the good guys don't always win, and the things that happen don't have to "make sense." It's his best film, at least since "Casino" and possibly since "Goodfellas."

Get "The Departed."

Get "The Departed" special edition.

"Episode III" marks the end of a long journey

When "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" opened across the country at midnight Thursday, it marked the end of a 30-year journey for filmmaker George Lucas. It also marked the end of an almost as long journey for me.

To this day, I remember the first time I saw the words, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away …" on the theater screen. It was 1977, and I was a 5-year-old, sitting in the old Rose Theatre in Bastrop, back when it was a movie theater. It may or may not have been the first movie I saw in the theater, but it was certainly the first movie that I remember seeing.

I was captivated by the Star Wars mythology. I had the books, the toys, everything I could talk my parents and grandparents into getting for me.

I remember a few years later when "The Empire Strikes Back" hit theaters. I was disappointed when my family arrived at the old Twin City Mall theater to find the line stretching back around the corner of Montgomery Ward. I didn't get to see the movie that day, but I did eventually get to see it when the line shortened.

I remember fondly my father grumbling about the cost when we saw "Return of the Jedi" at Twin City Mall. With popcorn, it cost about $25 for my mom, dad, myself and my brother to see the movie. By today's standards, that seems like one heck of a deal.

At the age of 32, "Star Wars" still has a hold on me. In my office at home, you'll find a light saber (a plastic one unfortunately, but a real one is still on my all-time wish list as soon as it's invented), a number of Star Wars action figures and a photo of me in full Darth Maul regalia during Halloween 1999. (That's not a rubber mask either; it's full makeup.)

I relived the wonder of the series in 1997 when I introduced my wife to the movies. Despite having been around me for quite a few years at that point, she had never seen the movies. It was almost as much fun watching her discover the secrets of the movies as it was watching them again myself. Her reaction even lessened my grumbling about the changes Lucas had made in the movies.

I look forward to that experience again in a few years with my son, and I hope he one day gets to see all six movies on the big screen. (And to answer your next question, yes I did like "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones." Perhaps not as much as the others, but I did like them.)

Over the years, rumors have swirled about "Star Wars" possibly being a nine-movie series. Lucas has been adamant in saying he thinks "Star Wars" is the story of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. It's now been fully told, so he insists he's done. But even he has hedged his bets a bit in recent interviews.

While I'd love to see a few more "Star Wars" movies in the future, I'm more than happy with the six I have. The closing chapter in the "Star Wars" saga arrives at an appropriate time for me, as a new chapter is opening in my own life. Here's looking forward to the next chapter.

"Lord of the Rings" adaptations surpass expectations

No one was a bigger doubter than me when New Line Cinema announced its intention to put J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings" on film. Visions of the disastrous animated adaptations of the books swirled in my head, and I imagined Ringwraiths that acted like Jason Voorhees and a Gollum with razor-blade tipped fingers. Those were, after all, my biggest reference points for New Line.

Then I began to hear about this New Zealander named Peter Jackson, who was a devoted fan of the books, and I began to see some of the early stills and notes from the movie via the Internet. Those little things piqued my curiosity, but I still wasn't convinced.

Once upon a time, I had a yearly date with Tolkien's trilogy, well, actually with all four books, because I include "The Hobbit" in the cycle. The month before the first film opened, I realized it had been several years since I visited with my old friends. I passed over the leatherbound version and the shiny, new version with illustrations by Alan Lee that hold a place of honor on my bookshelf. Instead, I dug out the old, torn, stained and dog-eared paperbacks from my youth and dived back into the world of Middle Earth.

I read the books with a passion that I hadn't experienced them with since the first time I picked up "The Hobbit" in seventh grade. I knew, after all, that this was the last time I'd see Middle Earth through my own eyes. This was the last time, I'd see my own personal vision of Tolkien's lands and characters. I knew my perception of the story in future readings would be clouded by visions of Elijah Wood and Ian McKellen (who, by the way, is about as close as you can get to my original vision of Gandalf.)

Then came the day when I sat in a darkened theater, waiting with a mixture of excitement and trepidation to see those words that were burned into my memory scroll across the screen - "One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

I knew they'd trump up the romantic angle and leave some other things out - it is Hollywood after all. But I'm happy to report that the films were nowhere near the disaster that I expected. In fact, they were better than I had ever imagined they could be. Oh, I've got quibbles, of course, but no major complaints. Among the quibbles that my colleagues are tired of hearing about:

· No Tom Bombadil. OK, I know he wasn't really essential to the plot of the books, and I know that sidetrip has little bearing on the story. But I still would have liked to see the barrow wight scene.

· Arwen's calling of the river at Rivendell. I thought the change in the story undermined Frodo's character a bit, and we all know it was Gandalf who crashed the river down on the Nazgul. Arwen was hardly in the book, but of course, Hollywood needs the romance.

· No final come-uppance for Saruman. This one probably bothers me more than any other. I wanted to see the scene where Gandalf confronts Saruman after the fall of Isengard. I also think viewers need to know Saruman's fate. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for the DVD for the Gandalf scene. As for the other, apparently Jackson didn't shoot it at all.

But for every quibble I can find, there are 10 things that Jackson and Co. got right. Among them:

· The hobbits themselves. Realistically, I know it's done with camera angles and digital tricks, but when I see the actors who played hobbits in another setting and see they're human-sized, I do a double-take.

· The casting. I haven't seen a single bad casting decision. No one in the world could have played Gandalf and Saruman but Ian McKellen and Christopher Lee, and Jackson nailed the other characters just as well.

· The battle with the Balrog at Khazad-dum. Could it have been done more perfectly? I don't think so. Of all the scenes in the movie, this one was probably the most true to the vision I had in my head.

· Gollum. Without a doubt, the most incredible CG character of all time. The viewer has no trouble at all believing that he's 100 percent real.

In the end, the movies have been much truer to the books than I expected. I do feel a twinge of sadness that Middle Earth no longer belongs to me alone. Even though millions of people have read the books, before the movies, they were a much more personal experience. Now everyone shares the same vision - but at least it's a good one.

Now if we can just convince Peter Jackson to take on "The Hobbit." I know it's going to be done now, and I really don't want to see anyone else at the helm.

Movie review: "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines"

I'll admit it. I'm a sucker for a Schwarzenegger action flick. I have been ever since I saw his portrayal of Conan the Barbarian in the early 1980s.

Whether Ah-nuld's swinging a sword at a giant snake that used to be James Earl Jones, tracking down the baddies who kidnapped his daughter or unloading a machine gun on an invisible alien, I've probably seen them all and enjoyed quite a few of them them in a mindless sort of way. (His attempts at comedy are another story altogether.)

That being said, I was still a little leery of a James Cameron-less Terminator movie. But relatively unknown director Jonathan Mostow has done a good job with the third installment.

Ah-nuld is back as the character that turned him into a major action star, and he's been sent through time once again to save John Connor (Nick Stahl) from a new Terminator model that's here to kill him. Sound familiar? If you've seen 1991's "T2: Judgment Day," it should. Still, it's deftly handled, and there's also a nice twist at the end that I won't give away here.

John Connor is now an adult. Judgment Day has been averted thanks to the efforts of Ah-nuld, John and Sarah Connor in "T2," but John's still not convinced that the battle is over. He has no ties to anything that can mark him. He's invisible. Of course, that doesn't stop the new T-X, played to the hilt by Kristanna Loken, from tracking him down. The T-X is actually after his future wife and first lieutenant in the coming war, Kate Brewster (Claire Danes), but she stumbles onto both of them after Kate catches John breaking into the veterinary clinic where she works.

As usual, Ah-nuld arrives right on schedule to whisk the pair out of danger. They then lead the T-X on a merry chase to find Brewster's father - who is in charge of the revamped Skynet program which will bring about Judgment Day - and keep him from sending the system online to fight a virus that seems to be taking over all the computer systems in the world.

As with most action movies, you have to leave logic and reason at the door when you go into the theater. You can't wonder about how the T-X gets buried in the rubble of a wall early in the movie and emerges not only unscathed but without even getting her clothes dirty, but then later in the movie gets buried and emerges without skin or legs. If you stop to consider things like how Kate, John and Ah-nuld get into a top secret government building without being noticed, you'll drive yourself crazy. If you forget about it, shovel some more popcorn into your mouth and enjoy the ride, it's a great summertime movie.

That's another way this movie reflects "T2." It's pure special effects and action fun. While the original "Terminator" was a dark, brooding movie. This one's an excuse for chases, explosions, cool effects and rapid-fire one-liners from Ah-nuld. In fact, I'd venture to say that at least half the fun of a "Terminator" movie is seeing Schwarzenegger deadpan lines as a robot, erm, I mean cybernetic organism. Think of how many have entered the pop culture lexicon - "Hasta la vista, baby," "I'll be back."

You expect the special effects to be great in "T3," and for the most part, they're impressive. Perhaps not as groundbreaking as "T2," but certainly more polished due to advancements in the technology. The T-X character is also an interesting development. The robot skeleton gets a new look and this time, it's covered with a morphing metal that allows it to change into anything it touches. Then there's the handy dandy arm attachment that turns into whatever tool or weapon it needs.

Loken does a remarkable imitation of Schwarzenegger's original character as she stalks across the screen showing no trace of emotion or humanity. It's also kind of fun to watch a 100-pound woman tossing Ah-nuld around like a rag doll.

Outside of one chase scene that goes on far longer than it probably should, and the "I'll be back" jokes that get a little stale by the end of the movie, "T3" is a well-done and entertaining joyride. It's just what you expect from a summer movie, and exactly what you hope for (but don't always get) from a Schwarzenegger flick.

Movie review: "The Two Towers"

Being a huge fan of J.R.R. Tolkien's books, it was with more than a little apprehension that I entered the theater this time last year to see the first installment of Peter Jackson's silver screen version of "The Lord of the Rings." But "The Fellowship of the Ring" was so impressive that when I lined up for the opening of "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" on Wednesday, I had nothing but excitement and anticipation.


Apparently I wasn't the only one. After what seemed an interminable wait for the lights to go down, the packed house broke into applause as the trailers began to play. After that, it was off to Tolkien's magical land of Middle-Earth.

For those worried that this one can't live up to the hype, forget about it. If anything, "The Two Towers" outshines its predecessor. It has all of the amazing effects and gorgeous settings, but it injects a healthy dose of action into the mix. The most hardcore Tolkien purists may be disappointed a bit by the trumped-up battle scenes, but no one else will. They're fantastic eye candy and make for some compelling dramatic moments.

Jackson does take a few liberties with the story, but the changes are primarily cosmetic - a slight tweaking of the timing, a few minor scenes removed, a brief continuation of the Arwen/Aragorn thread and the delay of a couple of scenes for the third film due next Christmas. All in all, there was nothing that I really missed, and I'm pretty picky about that sort of thing.

If you haven't read the books or seen the first movie, you might want to check it out before going. Like the books, the film version of "The Two Towers" dives right into the action without any backstory, and there's a good chance you could be lost if you're not familiar with the tale.

The movie opens by telling the story of Gandalf's fall from the bridge over Khazad-dum and his ensuing battle with the Balrog. The effects are stunning as the wizard and the computer-generated demon battle while plummeting through the center of the mountain. It also prepares viewers for one of the key twists in the movie, (the wizard's transformation into Gandalf the White.)

From there, the story continues its march to the final showdown with Mordor. With Gollum as guide, Frodo and Sam move along on their journey to Mount Doom with the one ring becoming a greater burden, while battle is joined in the rest of the world. Saruman's forces move against the kingdom of Rohan, while Sauron's armies converge on Gondor in an attempt to crush the human lands between them. The elves are boarding the ships that will take them to the Grey Havens and the dwarves are locked in their mountain halls. It's a bleak picture for the world of Middle-Earth, but despite that there are strong threads of hope and determination running through the movie.

Overall, "The Two Towers" is a very intense film, but Jackson also knows where to provide viewers with a laugh from the dwarf Gimli or one of the hobbits to break the tension.

Jackson's casting continues to be picture perfect, with the choice of Bernard Hill as Theoden, Miranda Otto as Eowyn and Brad Dourif as Grima Wormtongue. Despite the excellent casting, it's a computer-generated character that really steals the show.

Viewers became acquainted with Gollum briefly in "The Fellowship of the Ring," but he takes a larger role in "The Two Towers." We learn that he was once named Smeagol, and there's a particularly impressive sequence as the two distinct personalities emerge and battle for control over the creature. Gollum/Smeagol is the most fully-realized and believable computer-generated character that I've seen, and he was able to draw a wide range of emotions from the packed house in the theater - laughter, pity, disgust and even perhaps a bit of fear.

Of course, there's always a character or creature to look forward to. In "The Fellowship of the Ring," it was the Balrog. In "The Two Towers," it's Treebeard and the Ents. I had nightmares of the great tree-herders looking like the talking trees from "The Wizard of Oz," but Jackson has done a magnificent job of bringing them to life. They're not exactly what I imagined while reading the books, but they're still very impressive.

In truth, there are times in the movie when the viewer knows everything on the screen is computer generated, but it hardly seems to matter. You get caught up in the swirl of the story, and everything is completely believable.

With his version of the second installment of Tolkien's trilogy, Jackson ratchets up the drama and excitement for the conclusion, "Return of the King," which promises to be the best of the three films. The only downside I can see in "The Two Towers" is that we have to wait another year to see the conclusion.

Hollywood rarely does justice to favorite stories

There are some movies that just shouldn't be made.


Everyone has that special thing they want to keep just the way it is. For me, it's usually a book. But I suppose it could also be a television show from the past or a classic movie - anything you have special memories of. Whatever the case, Hollywood's vision never seems to equal your personal vision.

Hollywood seems to be picking on my memories lately. Most notably, filming has begun on the first installment of my all-time favorite, J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings." I've watched the developments on the Internet with mingled interest and reluctance. So far, it looks promising. Director Peter Jackson has sworn to stick close to the original, but already he's deviated from it in a couple of ways. Such is the way in Hollywood.

The job of producers and directors is to put people in theater seats. In the process, they generally weaken good stories with cheap sensationalism. For some perfect examples, let's take a look at some of the movies derived - and I use the term very loosely - from the works of my other favorite author, Edgar Allan Poe.

I don't recall ever seeing a film based on Poe's work that stuck closely to the original. As much as I like Vincent Price, his Poe films are the key offenders.

Poe's tale of a prisoner of the Inquisition wasn't good enough for a screenplay of "The Pit and the Pendulum." Instead, Hollywood had to turn it into the story of a jealous husband seeking revenge on his adulterous wife and her lover. Where did that come from? And how about "The Masque of the Red Death?" It's an already eerie tale that could have been transformed into a wonderful film. Instead, some genius decided it would be that much better if he injected some satanism into it. Huh?

But the Price films aren't the only ones to butcher Poe. I won't even get started on the Hollywood version of "Morella," which bordered on pornography. I honestly can't remember any sex scenes in the Poe story.

Recently there have been remakes of Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House" and Washington Irving's "Legend of Sleepy Hollow" that had very little to do with the originals. I enjoyed "Sleepy Hollow," but I've read Irving's story at least a half-dozen times and don't remember most of the things that happened in the movie.

At least in those films you can see a resemblance to the original. Sometimes really strange things happen in Hollywood. A few years ago, there was a movie called "The Lawnmower Man," which bore absolutely no resemblance to the Stephen King tale of the same name. That didn't stop them from plastering his name all over it - at least until he sued them.

All that being said, I took a stroll down memory lane on the silver screen over the weekend that surprised me a little.

Up until a few years ago, I was an avid comic collector. While my collection is not nearly as impressive as some others I've seen, it's certainly not one to snort at, either. If you delve into the boxes, I'd guess that 65-70 percent of those comics are "X-Men" or "X-Men"-related titles.

Given my past experience with Hollywood, it's understandable that I was a little apprehensive when I settled into the seat to see my favorite comic brought to life.

I'd heard very good reviews of the film from other comics fans, but my expectations were colored by memories of past comic flops. Too often movie versions of comics appeal only to readers of comics. Or if they try to broaden their audience, they end up ruining things for the comic fans and appealing to neither audience.

"X-Men" managed to strike a balance that few other comic movies have attained. While there were plenty of in-jokes and allusions for the comic fans, a viewer doesn't need prior knowledge of the comic to enjoy the movie.

As far as Hollywood's vision of my favorite band of crime fighters goes, I was pleasantly surprised. I knew Patrick Stewart would make a fantastic Professor X. There was really no one else for the role. And I was fairly certain that Sir Ian McKellan would be great as the X-Men's archrival Magneto. But the real surprise of the movie for me was a newcomer in the role of my favorite quick-healing, razor-clawed, bad attitude Canuck.

When unknown Hugh Jackman was announced as Wolverine, my initial reaction was "who?" Much to my surprise, Jackman was really able to capture the essence of the character that I've come to know so well over the years. I was impressed.

Likewise, wrestler-turned-actor Tyler Mane was perfect as his old nemesis Sabretooth. In fact, most of the characters were cast well.

The script itself was written to resemble a comic book plot. First the characters are introduced, followed by a lot of action. At the end, most things are resolved, but there's still plenty of fuel for the next issue, or in this case, the sequel.

The effects also gave the movie the feel of the comic. One particular scene sticks out in my mind. Near the end, Storm rises from an elevator shaft, lifted by the winds, with lightning burning in her eyes and gathering around her. In that moment, I wasn't in the theater anymore. I was inside the comic, and Halle Berry had become Storm.

Of course, there were the typical disappointments that go along with movie versions, but they were relatively minor. One was the decision to meld the characters of Rogue and Jubilee into the Rogue of the movie. I missed the fiery-haired, fiery-tempered Southern belle of the comic. I also missed her banter with another of my favorite characters, the Cajun X-Man Gambit.

On the other hand, I can likely look forward to seeing Gambit, Psylocke, Beast, Nightcrawler and other favorites in the sequels. If they are as well-made as this one, I hope the franchise lasts quite a while.

For now, "X-Men" gives me some hope for the upcoming "Lord of the Rings" movies. It proved to me that Hollywood can occasionally get it right. Well, almost.