300, a few responses to the "possibilities," and on a personal note ...

Sorry for my brief absence -- duties abound.

To start, a congrats to our friends Tim and Revan. Tim survived meeting Revan's dad and, in the resulting insanity, apparently asked our dear sister to marry him. May they enjoy their days.

On to business --
"300". The great epic tale of Thermopylae; I'm surprised W didn't try to turn it into a rally against Iran. In all seriousness, though, a truly fantastic interpretation of Frank Miller's spectacular graphic novel.

For those who have been in a cave for the last year, Leonidas is the king of Sparta. Xerxes, the "god-king" emperor of Persia, is invading Greece but asks Sparta to be "rewarded" by surrendering. When traitors in his homeland betray the king, he leads a valiant force against the combined army of Persia, for a last stand against tyranny, while a battle goes on at home in support of him.

The graphic novel itself is a glorious work of art, told in that wonderful chiaroscuro fashion, while able to combine history and legacy into a form that might inspire some to read further, to actually learn about our past. As a film, it carries this forward well, as a beautiful work of images, as well as with the theme of ultimate sacrifice for what one believes to be noble and worthy. The cinematography should at the least be nominated, if not win, where "Sin City" was cheated (though R. Rodriguez did the earlier work, and Larry Fong the work here).

Gerard Butler does a fantastic job creating a very 3-D king, not just the screaming beast the ads and previews would lead you to believe. Lena Headey, beautiful in her steely queenship, does well with the character as well, though not as well filled out in this bastion of male glory. The other Spartans carry out their roles with equal adroitness, and Rodrigo Santoro does well as the giant Xerxes, though so totally well morphed that it would be hard to see Paolo from "Lost" buried within (thanks, IMDb).

That being said, one critique. The beauty of a graphic novel is, like static art, you can stare at the images for as long as you'd like and revisit them, appreciate them to the hilt without feeling a weight of time. When you try to make the audience feel the same appreciation by using slo-mo to stretch one part or another of a battle scene, it's glorious on the first scene, appreciated in the second, regarded in the third, and abused by the tenth. Yes, it is cool for some of us to see a leg being cut off in midair and flying independently of its owner, but there are only so many variations on that theme. There is some good monologue run over these scenes, so the fast-forward button for the DVD should not be used there, but just be patient.
All in all, a worthy film (though I might wait for a combo novel/DVD for a purchase).


Moving on, some quick remarks on the Cracked list
1) Rendezvous with Rama - announced, with a script, and Morgan Freeman reportedly attached (perhaps worth waiting a couple years yet, to get away from "Sunshine").

2) Ghostbusters in Hell --- Bill Murray has one of the better track records for avoiding bad flicks (though not pristine -- "Larger than Life" and "Garfield" ?!?). The franchise lost steam in the 2nd flick anyway.

3) Fletch -- Jason Lee, hmm? Fletch is such an iconic character for so many of us, that it's hard for me to see "Earl" as the star center of the LA Lakers. But, Tobey Maguire certainly surprised us as Spidey. Definitely better than Chris Rock could have done (the only character Rock can play is himself, period). And, I'm sorry, I love "Scrubs" and "Garden State," but Braff?

4) Coppola -- what has he done recently, other than stomp some grapes? John, you think DeNiro is a one-role guy, what about this paisano? "Jack", "The Rainmaker"?

The rest -- I agree with John and Cracked, or don't care enough to be vocal about it.


Superbad --- Johnny, I'm working this weekend, so I'll let you take first crack at it. I think I'm gonna start calling you McLovin.