Watchmen Review

Like any comic book junkie past or present, I had to see "Watchmen" on opening night. As a bonus, I was able to watch it in IMAX, thanks to my wife's forethought. There has been a lot of hype surrounding the movie, not least because of the huge marketing push, or the "visionary" label bestowed upon the film's director, Zack Snyder.

For this reason, "Watchmen" quickly became a target of many film critics. However, the film was probably a target long before the hype and the marketing campaign due to Snyder's second film,"300," which drew a great deal of controversy. Not only critics, but Iranian politicians halfway across the world condemned the movie on the basis that it negatively represented the Persian hordes as merciless invading monsters. I chronicled some of the controversy here.

As for "Watchmen," I have little doubt many critics were salivating at the prospect of tearing Snyder's third film to shreds. "300" offended their politically correct sensibilities, so "Watchmen" was condemned from the start. Critics have incessantly jabbed the film, arguing the movie was too faithful to the graphic novel.  Never mind the perennial refrain we hear from film aficionados that films are completely unfaithful to the book.

Now the offense is just the opposite.

We hear that there were too many "flashbacks," and there were no allusions to 9/11 and terrorism (?). Malin Akerman was either Jar Jar Binks, or gave a solid performance, depending upon whether you read Newsweek or the New York Times.

Most puzzling of all, NPR's Kenneth Turan boldly declared that "Watchmen" would not make much money at the box office. The film grossed $55 million dollars its opening weekend. Based on this prediction, I question the efficacy of an egregious proclamation in place of sober reflection.

Leaving the critics aside - and their agenda, there are plenty of things to love about "Watchmen," and there are things the film could have done without. Visually, few could argue the cinematic heights achieved by Snyder; the costumes were impeccably crafted, the landscape was grand but beautiful, and there were no awkward, convoluted camera angles. Furthermore, one could argue the film produced some of the finest acting performances of any superhero movie to date. Jackie Earle Haley effortlessly depicted Rorschach's brooding condemnation of humanity's vices, and his own fatalism. Patrick Wilson was utterly believable as the meek Nite Owl II; unsure of himself, but trying to break out of his shell. Billy Crudup's aloof monotone leaves the viewer piteous for Dr. Manhattan's inability to feel, but convinced of his seeming omniscience. Similarly, Matthew Goode's stoic, geeky idealism reflects Ozymandias' ethos - misguided as it may be.

I am no impartial observer, but a long time fan of the graphic novel. Then again, so are most of reviewers, self-proclaimed as they are. There is much more to like about this film than to dislike, but not everything worked. Dr. Manhattan's full-frontal nudity was just unnecessary, and in no way contributed to the plot. Neither did the sex scene between Nite Owl and Silk Spectre. Adding a bit of intimacy and romanticism to a film may add depth and complexity, but the sexual yearning and frustration was present without the gratuitous depiction aboard "Archie," 5,000 feet above the city.

The brutal and choreographed fight scenes were similarly representative of Snyder's excess. Despite the fast-paced brutality, each second of hand to hand combat seemed like an eternity drained from the more important goal of establishing a complicated story line.

Lastly, I cannot comprehend the need to change the denouement. The reason to replace alien corpses with Dr. Manhattan as the cause for the worldwide holocaust escapes me. As a movie goer, I'm un-phased, as a "Watchmen" fan, I'm annoyed. Knowing that the final act is essentially unchanged, what is the point of swearing such fealty for the entire film, only to change its ending? That, perhaps, might be Synder's biggest sin.

So who watches the Watchmen? Apparently, a lot more people than critics would have you believe.

Reviews for 'Redacted'

Nothing spectacular, says Variety and Time Out Magazine.

From Time Out:

“The look of seemingly fly-on-the-wall footage can sometimes give a story a gritty immediacy — surely what De Palma is seeking — but it can also create an air of improvisation, playfulness and even comedy, and that’s what happens too often here — which isn’t very helpful when you’re trying to convey the real horror of a street-kidnapping or a decapitation. The greatest flaw is that the actors generally aren’t up to the task and so don’t convince as US soldiers — they play like actors playing US soldiers. Much of the film — bar a compelling episode at a reconstructed US army checkpoint where suspicious cars are checked or, too often, fired upon — has a rushed, unrehearsed air to it. One suspects that De Palma has mistook a lack of preparation with his actors for the path to convincing realism.”

Don't worry, I won't be seeing it.

Alive Day Memories - Stories Missed By The Press

the tank posts on James Gandolfini's Home from Iraq.

This HBO documentary should be seen.

But the interview (and Gandolfini) make a good point. We're at war.

Yet, not only do we hardly ever hear from Iraq war veterans (except for self-aggrandizing blowhards like Jon Soltz), but neither are many tales of bravery and courage told by the media. The Battle of Donkey Island is but one example, but there are many others. What of the Iraqi martyr who grasped a suicide bomber in a bear hug, to avoid the killer's bomb murdering his friends and family? Michael Yon also wrote of one Marine who valiantly crawled into a pipe beneath a road to check for explosives.

And for every IED that goes off, how many have been defused by our military's engineers working under unbelievable stress?

The press hardly recounts stories of soldierly camaraderie and brotherly affection. Rather, they elicit sound bites and platitudes from politicians and pundits who side-step the selfless efforts by our service members in favor of their own agendas.

Update: More from the Kansas City Star:

When one veteran falls silent for several seconds, he asks her matter-of-factly, “What were you just thinking about?” She tells him, and it’s one of the most poignant moments in the hour, prompted by Gandolfini’s curiosity.

Israeli Nazi... Porn?

Strange, but true, I guess... The New York Times Jerusalem Journal by Isabel Kershner:

Israel’s Unexpected Spinoff From a Holocaust Trial

JERUSALEM, Sept. 5 — It was one of Israel’s dirty little secrets. In the early 1960s, as Israelis were being exposed for the first time to the shocking testimonies of Holocaust survivors at the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a series of pornographic pocket books called Stalags, based on Nazi themes, became best sellers throughout the land.

Perverse Tales

The books told perverse tales of captured American or British pilots being abused by sadistic female SS officers outfitted with whips and boots. The plot usually ended with the male protagonists taking revenge, by raping and killing their tormentors.

This strangely dovetails with how Arab states are viewing Israeli pornography websites today:

The most popular movie on the site is "Code Name: Deep Investigation," an X-rated parody of the arrest of dissident Israeli nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu, who spilled the beans on Israel's secret nuclear weapons program in the 1980s. He was eventually caught by Mossad agents, who sent a beautiful female agent to trap him.

Life imitaties art, imitates life... through a world of vengeful, sadistic porn. Very weird, but can you blame the Israelis after what they went through? However, these publications should be of no surprise to anyone familiar with men's Pulp adventure magazines from the 1950's and '60s here in America. It's A Man's World, published in 2003, documents the post-war fad, with commentary and a number of color photographs. A review on Amazon:

Alternately called "adventure magazines" and "armpit slicks," publications like True West, American Manhood and Challenge for Men enjoyed their heyday from the early 1950s through the early '70s. With their campy cover paintings of men at war, hunks on horseback and buxom women, these magazines gave blue collar workers "warnings, how-to's, and comforting memories of wartime." For Parfrey, they're worth looking at today because "they tell us so much about American working-class fears, desires and wet dreams." Parfrey intersperses this collection of full-color reproductions with essays by contributors on subjects ranging from exotica and "the sadistic burlesque" to the Cold War. The essays will be helpful to readers trying to make sense out of such images as UFOs closing their clamp-like hands around fretting females with their shirts unbuttoned (from Peril: The All Man's Magazine), and a burly, shirtless man straddling a flagpole flying a torn American flag (from Climax: Exciting Stories for Men).

Question for Brian DePalma

From Pat Dollard:

if the film shows “the reality of the war in Iraq” and is “pro troop” as its producer Mark Cuban has said on this website it is, then why didn’t you premiere it to Iraq vets instead of rich Europeans at a rareified film festival?

Say hello to his little friend...

Mark Cuban.

How Not To Show Your Love For The Troops

From the "we support the troops" crowd.

"Redacted" stuns Venice, reported Reuters:

VENICE (Reuters) - A new film about the real-life rape and killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl by U.S. soldiers who also murdered her family stunned the Venice festival, with shocking images that left some viewers in tears.

This is no brooding art house drama. DePalma turned his filmmaking skills to exploit a misdeed by American troops for purely political purposes. In other words, he hopes to change American foreign policy and coerce public sentiment on the backs of the convicted soldiers who committed the crime, in the mean time shamelessly dragging the U.S. military through the mud.

Pat Dollard, for one, is pissed. To illustrate one example of celebrity ignorance, he cites a Weekly Standard article that quoted Tim Robbins saying U.S. troops have killed over 400,000 Iraqis. That's 300 a day.

Dollard also writes of Mark Cuban, the film's financier:

Cuban has a full producer credit on the film, and DePalma shot it on HiDef video at Cuban’s request, in order for it to qualify as fodder for Cuban’s hi-def cable channel. So far neither he or DePalma have explained how they can be “bringing the truth of the Iraq war to the American people”, as Louie DePalma has said, when neither of them have ever been to Iraq, filmed any of “Redacted” in Iraq, or spent one minute with any soldier in Iraq. Clearly they are only bringing you their imagined propagandists’ reality of Iraq. Both had the opportunity to go, both declined.

Dollard continues. Nauseating:

DePalma said that going in it was his intention to make a film that would nauseate the American people, and thereby lead to a US withdrawal from Iraq. Well the only way for him to pull that off is if his film makes the case that the anomalous rape it fictionalizes is not actually an anomaly, but a “typical” snapshot of the US military’s behavior. In short, he would have to make his “troops-as-monsters” conceit appear to be typical of the troops, not atypical. This reveals a desire to create something that is nothing short of a willful and intentional smear built upon a lie. It also means that he decided not to look at Iraq for what it was, but to find something - anything - in it that would allow him to advance his propaganda campaign. Well Louie DePalma gave the game away when he confessed his excitement at his initial discovery of the rape story: “I knew I had a story!”. Now if that doesn’t mean “A story to suit my propaganda interests!”, then what does it mean?

Meanwhile, Ace looks at Movies De Palma Should Have Made. Where's the outrage???

Instapundit links to "war movies then and now," and asks what changed.

John Podhoretz rightly calls it "Anti-War Porn" over at the corner.

Needless to say, it's infinitely ironic that a man such as Brian DePalma, who has made a career of creating brutally violent films for public consumption, has now proclaimed himself the standard-bearer for all things righteously peaceful.

How can DePalma, Cuban, or any other supporters on the left look a sober person in the eye, and say that they support the troops. They'll do it with a wink and a nod, and if backed in the corner probably claim that by trying to end the war, they are supporting the troops," as a frothy anti-war blogger once said to me.

Yeah, right.

Batman: The Dark Knight

PerezHilton issues a "Spoiler" for Batman: The Dark Knight

Someone big dies in Batman…..but who??

eh.

Cool pic, though.

Hollywood's Wars

Victor Davis Hanson: The truth about 40 years in the movies.

This distortion of historical truth has come to dominate American popular culture, which has made the leftist libretto its default narrative, one immune to the repeated demonstrations of its falseness and bloody failure. Warren Beatty’s Reds, a ludicrous valentine to John Reed, one of Lenin’s most useful idiots, used the same technique of papering over historical lies with cinematic glamour and wide-screen flair. Just about every Vietnam movie made is pretty much a lie, depicting brave Americans as psychopathic killers or drug-addled victims drafted into an unjust war to serve the capitalist Evil Empire. In fact, if I needed ten good men I’d take any ten Vietnam vets picked at random over any ten college professors or reporters or movie directors. The same lying narrative is at work today in the depiction of the war in Iraq, where America’s best are killing our enemies and giving Iraqis a chance at freedom. I bet that in most of the movies about Iraq coming out this fall, these brave soldiers will be portrayed as pathetic dupes of the evil Man and his “illegal” war, their heroism ignored, their beliefs condescended to, and their suffering sentimentalized.

"Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well."

Old but good:

"Appy-polly-loggies. I had something of a pain in my gulliver so I had to sleep. I was not awakened when I gave orders for awakening."

A reader commented on my earlier post about Harry Potter and the politics of Denial that:

PM Brown should be made to watch this movie daily, if only for its message that refusing to name something doesn't make it go away...

I agree. However, sitting Prime Minister Gordown Brown in a chair to watch Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, a 2 and a half hour film which exemplifies/mirrors/parallels his stubborn myopic political correct attitude regarding the Islamic terrorist threat may require some creativity...


Ominous portentous quote:

"Initiative comes to thems that wait."

~ A Clockwork Orange

I don't know J.K. Rowling's Politics

...but after watching Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix this afternoon, I could not help but draw a number of parallels between a few exchanges in the movie, and the present political climate surrounding the war on terror.

It should be stipulated that anything written here is entirely speculative and most likely coincidental. The purpose is not to imply any overt or even subtle intention by Rowling, rather to point out how an idea can be turned on its head when juxtaposed.

About 45 minutes into the film, Harry and his classmates are subject to their new 'Defense Against the Dark Arts' instructor, Dolores Umbridge. Umbridge was recently appointed by the pusillanimous Minister of Magic (Cornelius Fudge). Her role at Hogwart's is to not only teach a watered-down version of the class, but likewise to play down the fears of Lord Voldemort's return (which the ministry denies) and act as a shill for the Ministry of Magic, helping to whitewash the perceived threat.

The wonderfully sardonic, condescending and controlling Umbridge, played by Imelda Staunton, embodies every shameful ounce of Democratic obfuscation and denial when it comes to the war on terror. She contains elements of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, and John Edwards in her persistent and eager desire to reduce any hint of danger to mere misunderstanding or hyperbole, seeking to silence dissenters (Through the implementation of torturous quills, if necessary).



Here is the exchange:

Dolores Umbridge: Your previous instruction in this subject has been disturbingly uneven. But you will be pleased to know from now on, you will be following a carefully structured, Ministry-approved course of defensive magic. Yes?

Hermione Granger: There's nothing in here about using defensive spells.

Dolores Umbridge: Using spells? Ha ha! Well I can't imagine why you would need to use spells in my classroom.

Ron Weasley: We're not gonna use magic?

Dolores Umbridge: You will be learning about defensive spells in a secure, risk-free way.

Harry Potter: Well, what use is that? If we're gonna be attacked it won't be risk-free.

Dolores Umbridge: Students will raise their hands when they speak in my class.[pauses]

Dolores Umbridge: It is the view of the Ministry that a theoretical knowledge will be sufficient to get you through your examinations, which after all, is what school is all about.

Harry Potter: And how is theory supposed to prepare us for what's out there?

Dolores Umbridge: There is nothing out there, dear! Who do you imagine would want to attack children like yourself?

Harry Potter: I don't know, maybe, Lord Voldemort!

What of this dialogue? Simply - the language immediately drew me to similar comments, attitudes and positions taken up by war opponents. From the initial denial of al Qaeda's presence in Iraq, to the nonchalant denial and even apathy for the consequences of an American pull out.

For proof, here is a quote from the liberal DailyKos:

"With the Keystone Cops of Al-Qaeda embarrassing themselves in the UK and President Bush's commutation of Scooter's sentence embarrassing us all, this was a revealing week in the "War on Terror". This combination of operational incompetence and administrative injustice demonstrated the limited physical menace presented by terrorists and the very real corrosive threat to our way of life engendered by the specter of "terror" and effected by those who claim to protect us."

In short: we are a greater danger to ourselves than they are.

That certainly rings of ignorance-loving bliss, no?

Now this shorter exchange between Harry and Umbridge is perhaps more telling:

Dolores Umbridge: You have been told that a certain dark wizard is at large. This is a lie!

Harry Potter: It's not a lie! I saw him!

The telltale sermonizing is present; reinforcing the party line and attempting to re-direct reality toward specious faux existence.

Again, it is far too easy, but sufficient to turn to Daily Kos for the parallel:

The Pentagon has lost the Iraq War but it seems they are fighting a focused PR War. It is Iran and Al Qaeda now at almost every turn. Our soldiers are blown up by Iranian weapons and the killers are almost exclusively Al Qaeda. The BBC reports on one helicopters attack in recent Operation Arrowhead Ripper ( how scary!) where the US claimed a victory over Al Qaeda. It tested the truth of the US report.

Or perhaps more aptly, John Edwards' denial of a 'War on Terror':

"By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set — that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

Now, Julia Turner of Slate wrote in 2005:

But close reading of the book suggests that Rowling's motives are more authorial than political. She's not using Harry to make points about terrorism. She's using terrorism to make points about Harry. Rowling culls the scariest elements of modern life and uses them as a kind of shorthand, a quick way to instill fear.

Ms. Turner's analysis was bent toward the use of terrorism to reflect government's harsh and heavy-handed reaction. This may have been true of Rowling's earlier works (or maybe not). Regardless, I have found this latest screen adaptation of her work to be less argumentative. The message is clear: The enemy is gathering strength and waiting for the moment to strike. We can either stick our heads in the sand, or take action to defeat the dark, violent ideology of the malcontents.

As Turner wrote:

"Reading the Half-Blood Prince today, Rowling's references to terrorism don't feel cheap. They feel terrifying. But how will they read in 50 years?"

Update: NRO's the corner says Gordon Brown is Cornelius Fudge.

Update: Dr. Sanity gets the picture with the Harry Potter connection and talks appeasement:

Update: Instapundit posts a review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

Update: Whims Rhyme says

Dolores Umbridge is an overperforming character and the conflict focus isn't prioritised carefully, resulting in some mayhem in the viewer's chronological walk through the film - it gives people the 'is it Voldemort or Umbridge being the bad ass?' kind of feeling.

and

The only few wonders here are, was how did Rowling able to come up with so much information and imagination that could create a whole new separate world of England altogether, where soccer was replaced by quidditch, education was made into magic education(fun), politics were revised into Ministry of Magic and institutions with leaders of tremendous power, a whole new save-the-world concept and a big-bang kind of war to end the entire story.It's stupefying. After all, Rowling is one of the richest ladies in the world.

Update: A viewer's MySpace page gets it... sort of:

It is fun yet it presents to us the themes at work in today's politics. Rather thanaccept a truth that will change your entire reality, Minister Fudge prefers to deny this truth and instead conspires to besmirch and demonize those who insist on the truth until it is almost too late.

That Harry and his fellow students cling to this truth is admirable. Their love of truth made them prepare themselves for Lord V's onslaught.

Who has not met the tame but catty Ms. Umbridge? That studgents' rights are taken away decree by decree are very scary given our own Patriots' Act, warrentless wiretapping and Guantanamo prisoners. Shall we send them to Azkaban?

Great books are those whose themes are timeless. Truth vs. denial, sacrifice for the common good, and an inner struggle to not become what you battle. All in a kid's book. Harry, how will it end?

Update: Pajamas Media asks What's wrong with Harry Potter? and links to Harry Potter and the Death of Reading in the Washington Post.

Update: Blogger QueerVisalia totally, ahem, misses the mark:

The manipulation and politics of the Ministry of Magic clearly frustrated me because it's so obvious that people in power or positions of authority can too easily turn blind eyes to the truth for the sake of their own personal goals and agendas. Ahem. Bush. Ahem!

Update: James P. Pinkerton writes in Detroit News:

"When kids see "Harry Potter," they should be thinking first about defending their country, and their civilization, against evildoers wielding weapons of mass destruction. After that's taken care of, they can then worry more about carbon dioxide"

...and he compares Cornelius Fudge to Neville Chamberlain.

Transformers Shows Off Military Hardware

The Weekly Standard Blog highlights the showcasing of American Military Weaponry in Transformers.

The Transformers is a strange movie. By any normal standards it should be a mess, but it has a lot of things going for it--not least of which is its awesome depiction of military hardware. The movie includes a bunch of cheesecake shots of the F-22, a satisfying exhibition of the A-10's 30mm cannon (tearing up a scorpion-like Decepticon), and a Holy Toledo! money shot of the AC-130 Spectre Gunship in action.

A Detailed Analysis Of The Final Sopranos

The most convincing I've seen yet:

Tony Soprano didn’t just get whacked; he practically got a funeral

But, eh... who knows?

A Star Wars History Lesson

"They wish, in their lives, and after their lives, to destroy respect for human life. We... must restore that respect. We must in a great act of world justice, punish and trample upon this evil. I say that after having seen the worst horrors with my own eyes - because I have seen them with my own eyes."

World War II. Star Wars. Tanks. Bombs. Music. 'Nuff said.

Courtesy, The Belmont Club.

Magua Speaks

The 1992 film The Last of the Mohicans, based on James Fenimore Cooper's classic novel, and directed by Michael Mann, is one of my favorite movies of all time.

It has basically every essential element a thrilling, touching, powerful movie needs: Romance, combat, sacrifice -and even a vaguely distilled conflict between good and evil.

The primary villain of the tale is a Huron warrior named Magua; a ruthless, ambitious individual bent on gaining revenge on the British Colonel Munro, who violently slaughtered a number of Magua's Huron people many years prior. And so, the devilish Huron Magua, twisted by the tortured memories of his slain brethren, has become a vessel of limitless hatred and murder.

In the final epic scene of Mohicans, Magua murders Uncas (the second to last Mohican), who tried in vain to rescue Alice Munro, one of Colonel Munro's two daughters, from certain slavery, rape, and death. Moments after slicing Uncas' throat and releasing his body over the precipice of a steep cliff, Magua turns his head to the distraught Alice Munro, who is shivering with fear.

Magua extends his arm to Alice, and gestures with his fingers toward his body. Trying to assuage her fears, he slowly lowers the knife in his hand, still dripping with the blood of Uncas.

And thus, the murderer attempted one last conciliatory act in order to ensnare his prey.

Magua's act, which proved to be his last, was a crock of sh_t.

This, in turn, brings us to recent statements issued by al Qaeda's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, which Raymond Ibrahim recounts:

Speaking to the many “under-privileged” of the world in his most recent interview, al Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri declares: “That’s why I want blacks in America, people of color, American Indians, Hispanics, and all the weak and oppressed in North and South America, in Africa and Asia, and all over the world, to know that when we wage jihad in Allah’s path, we aren’t waging jihad to lift oppression from Muslims only; we are waging jihad to lift oppression from all mankind, because Allah has ordered us never to accept oppression, whatever it may be…This is why I want every oppressed one on the face of the earth to know that our victory over America and the Crusading West — with Allah’s permission — is a victory for them, because they shall be freed from the most powerful tyrannical force in the history of mankind.”

Zawahiri's words, too, are a crock of sh_t. His thinly veiled attempt to coerce those he perceives to be the weak, underprivileged citizens of the free world, should be seen as nothing less than the false hand of a charlatan, one outstretched hand proffered in peaceful gesture, while the other remains hidden behind his back, clasping a violent instrument of death.

The goal of Zawahiri and al Qaeda, with this recent conciliatory rhetoric, is to coax and placate the vast majority of us, those whom Bill Whittle calls sheep (in the nice sense).

No reasonable person should take this man at his word, but it would not take very many to give him and his sycophants shelter, and allow him a position to strike here at home.

He should not be believed.

With luck, Zawahiri and his "tribe" will meet the same fate as Magua.

Does every movie have to be about race?

If you ask Manohla Dargis from the New York Times, then yes.

The big selling point in “Spider-Man 3” is that Spider-Man or Peter or some combination of the two discovers his so-called dark side when an inky extraterrestrial glob (a symbiote in Marvel-speak) spreads its gooey tentacles over his body, turning his suit and soul black. Though there’s something dubious about the idea that black still conveys evil in our culture, pop or otherwise (tell it to Batman and Barack Obama, for starters), the idea of messing with Spider-Man’s squeaky-clean profile, smearing it with dirt, a touch of naughtiness, seems too good to resist.

Dargis unsurprisingly echoes her colleague A.O. Scott, in his review of 300. Maybe it's simply a form of comic book bias. However it is not even an American phenomenon. British critics of Spiderman 3 have cited the flashy patriotism (because Spidey is shown swinging past the American flag), and decried the 'Sunday School Morality' of the film. Perhaps the film should have been darker and more sadistically violent, such as Lock, Stock & 2 Smoking barrels, or Snatch, or Layer Cake. Those are some quality films which needn't trifle with such mundane issues as right and wrong, or good and evil. Why bother, when you can choreograph myriad gun-wielding action sequences over and over ad nauseum?

It's a comic book movie! What do you expect but hokey Sunday School Morality? And is that not ironic, that one critic decries the racial aspect, while the other emphasizes the good-natured morality?

On a side (but geekier) note... If I had to critique the film (based on the trailers I've seen), it would not relate to the perceived racial overtones (or undertones).

Rather, I would question the casting of Topher Grace, who stands in flaccid, pale comparison the the Eddie Brock of Spiderman Comic Book fame. Undoubtedly, Grace was selected for his youthful appeal, but the older, muscular, darkly brooding Eddie Brock in the Comic Book series suited the sinister idea and appearance of Venom much more appropriately.

Speaking of Venom - all the shots I've seen have been short, but one thing seems certain: Venom is a skinnier, slimier, more alien looking version of the Comic Book villain. That is unfortunate. It's bad enough they discarded Spiderman's black costume, opting for his red & white to be bathed in the black symbiote. Would it have killed them to let the black costume be shown as it appeared in the Comic Book? Doesn't it look way cooler than the traditional costume, which they simply painted over with a metallic black paint brush?

That's it, I've said my piece... until tomorrow afternoon, when I'll have seen the afternoon matinee.

Mark Steyn on Spiderman 1 & 2

Mark Steyn talks Spiderman:

From 2002:

Adapting Spider-Man isn't like adapting Jane Austen, where you can chop characters and stick in lesbian scenes to your heart's content. Mess with a comic-book superhero and the purists will leave you for roadkill.

Steyn on Spiderman 2:

...sketching the tensions in Peter Parker’s double-life, are Raimi’s triple valentine to comics, youth and New York. The director has an instinctive grasp of the material – notice, for example, how Marvelised a version of the city it is, the streets and stores brought to life with a heightened quality that evokes Steve Ditko and John Romita’s comic-book backgrounds.

No word yet on Spiderman 3...

Harry Reid's Rallying Cry to al Qaeda

Predator. Schwarzenegger. Sorry, no Harry Reid.

Ludicrous Iranian Star Wars Propaganda

Hot Air posted this today.

How deranged is the Iranian government and its state media?

Once the hard-core Star Wars fans get a hold of this blasphemy, an army of repressed, sexually frustrated, plastic light saber-wielding geeks will mount an assault on the Iranian regime which seeks to repress and sexually frustrate its own Koran-wielding populace.

_

Update: With help from a friend, I found this Chrenkoff post about George Lucas and Star Wars:

Yes, we were very wrong indeed - to you, the Empire was the United States of America, and if that's the case, then the brave rebels could only be all those people around the world fighting the American Empire - the Castros, Che Guevaras, Ho Chi Minhs, Pol Pots, and by extension, the Brezhnevs and the Mao Tse Tungs of this world. You, of course, live in the Free World, and as such you have the right to believe that your country is the most powerful force for evil operating in the world. But just for the sake of completeness and historical accuracy, can I just mention that whatever the sins of the United States - and I certainly understand well enough that no country is perfect - your rebels, both when fighting for power and when finally in power, ended up being responsible for the death of tens of millions and enslavement of hundreds of millions; the Luke Skywalkers and Han Solos of the last century gave us gulags and re-education camps, terror famines and political prisons; they institutionalized cults of personality, stifled every human freedom and impoverished whole nations.

May I also add that whatever your thoughts about the United States and its supposed descent from a democracy into empire, had the Rebels won, you would have never had a chance to film a critical allegory on your own government. At best, your artistic output would have consisted of short features about the 150% increase in the wheat harvest, and at worst - if you had stayed true to your conscience - you would be dreaming your "Star Wars" trilogy from behind bars.

Over the course of the last three years, the United States and her allies have managed to depose two truly despicable regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq and today are trying to bring the gift of freedom and democracy - things that you enjoy every day probably without giving them much thought - to tens of millions of people who have never known them before. You might well think that Anakin Skywalker's painful transformation into Darth Vader is somehow a perfect analogy for the political journey of George W Bush, but I have a sneaking suspicion that movie fans in Baghdad will have already recognized Darth Vader as one of their own - with a moustache rather than a black helmet. He, too, had two children, although they didn't turn up quite as cute as Luke and Leia. They names were Uday and Qusay.

British Movie Critic Slams Comic Book Patriotism

Newsbusters reported on a Times Online review of the upcoming Spiderman movie. The British film critic found issue with Sam Raimi's inclusion gratuitous juxtaposition of Spiderman and the American flag in the upcoming 'Spiderman 3.'

Also disappointing is the inability of the director, Sam Raimi, to end the romp without a fleeting shot of the American flag. The Stars and Stripes just happens to be fluttering behind Spidey as he makes his triumphal return to honour, probity and good honest fist-fighting.

This reminds me of all the critics that whined and complained about the unapologetic high powered testosterone in 300. As if it is somehow rude, or immoral for a film to display a flag in a patriotic manner. Just like it was racist for the creators of 300 to show the Persians as dark-skinned.

_

What about the comic book character Captain American? Captain America! I wonder what his thoughts are on a character whose whole costume is a flag! The heights of political correctness know no bounds.

300: The Monkey on Iran's Back

Iran cannot seem to get that monkey off its back. Iranian news agencies continue their media defense of Persian civilization, as if a nation must routinely come to the defense of its ancient, poly-theistic, tribal, Before Christian Era ancestors.

Iran's Press TV proclaims "300" unable to tarnish Persian civilization. Congratulations, it shouldn't. Were fervent cries of anger and concern echoed from Egyptian critics when Egyptian slave-masters whipped pyramid worker after pyramid worker in any countless number of Hollywood films of the 60's and 70's?

Did the English cry foul when Braveheart depicted the utter brutality and subjugation Scotland endured?

No. However, Iran's U.N. Mission Outraged at '300', the Washington Post reports.

Iran's U.N. Mission expressed outrage Thursday at the "deliberate distortions" of ancient Persia in the blockbuster movie "300" and said it was part of Western efforts to demonize Iran.

The movie is based on a comic-book fantasy version of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. in which a force of 300 Spartans held off a massive Persian army at a mountain pass in Greece for three days. It has been No. 1 in the U.S. for the past two weeks and raked in more than $100 million after just one week in theaters.

Comic-book fantasy. Get over yourselves. Ancient battle film sparks outrage as Iran calls it 'effort to demonise nation'? Before Iran talks about 'the west' demonizing Iranians, the ubiquitous graffiti that can be found all over Iranian cities demonizing the "Great Satan," should remind Iran of its hypocrisy. This propaganda is state-sponsored and supported, much like in North Korea, where the state commissions such work. Such trash is nowhere to be found on American streets. This latest outcry by Iran only does three things: Inflames emotions, calls more attention to the movie, and reveals the regime's insecurity.