For the love of all that is holy, get off 'Speed Racer''s back. Please and thank you.

I have been wanting to start writing again for oh, about the amount of time that it's been since my last blog post. And the unfounded criticisms that have made 'Speed Racer' a "eh, maybe when it comes out on DVD" movie to the general public have gotten me riled up so much that I had to post about it.

(Richie, this is not in response to the conversation that we had. Promise. I just should not read rotten tomatoes).

I saw the movie twice and was completely absorbed both times. The movie is funny, sweet and exciting. The visual effects are as good as in any movie, ever. Just different (and INNOVATIVE). And it's the best cinematography and film editing I've ever seen.

I went to Rotten Tomatoes to find out exactly what 'the experts' had complained about. Here are my responses to the first ones I found:

Diabetics need to be wary of Andy and Larry Wachowski's adaptation of the cult anime series Speed Racer. The big-screen version contains so much eye candy, you're liable to slip into a coma.
I'm sorry, is the complaint here that the visual effects were too colorful? They were very much so, but ... what did he expect?


This is not family time, it's boredom time. Whizz, whizz, whizz, yet another car zooms past and it's less exciting than building one from Meccano. Speed Racer is a snore.
Um... no. Did we not pick up on the race-fixing plotline? Speed's fight to keep racing a sport and not a business? His journey of self-discovery?

The ultimate problem is that this is a film based on a lousy cartoon from the '60s that can only be properly called a "classic" through the muddied lens of Boomer nostalgia.
Wow. Someone has a heart of stone.

At 134 minutes, Speed Racer throws so much color on the screen for so long, younger viewers (and even some not-so-young ones) will get worn out and want this ride to stop.
Wow, better make sure your kids don't see Willy Wonka, either. They might not like all the fun!

Provides all the hallucinogenic benefits of an LSD trip without any of the nasty side-effects
Still confused as to why sweet-ass special effects have to be in earth tones to be appreciated. This just isn't a valid complaint.


There's no thrill of victory and no agony of defeat here -- just more cars flying through the air...and cartwheeling before bursting into flames.
Again. Did we miss the plot?

------------------

Seriously. What kind of complaints are these? "The special effects are too much?" What the hell did you expect from a futuristic movie about racing cars in exotic locations on impossible tracks? 'Speed Racer' made no secret about that.

The movie more than captured the spirit of the hilarious '60s cartoon. It took it to a whole new level. I think if the creators could have made it this way the first time around, they wouldn't have thought twice about it.

So, go see the movie. And remember, it's supposed to be fun.

A beef with Rotten Tomatoes

Today, huge nerd that I am, I wandered on to rottentomatoes.com and browsed their list of best reviewed sci-fi films ever. Their countdowns are unfortunately structured so that the user must go through the entire list backwards, one movie at a time. The quickest way to browse the list is to go by tens towards the front. Opposite of user-friendly.

Finally I got to the top ten. Wondering why Star Wars: A New Hope was so far down on the list (#9, behind Minority Report and Children of Men), I went to read the reviews. You have to be a pretty big cynic to give Star Wars a bad review, especially when in 1977 it was the coolest thing that had ever happened in a movie theater.

What I found was terribly disappointing. The reviews cited on Rotten Tomatoes do not include any from the original release! Instead, they are all prolific comments like "Classic!" There are bad reviews that claim triteness and shallowness... all from 1997.

I find a "Top Reviewed ________" list extremely less credible when it omits any period reviews from older movies and relies solely on jaded analysis of the DVD re-releases. Thoughts?

Save the cheerleader...

Despite the infamous tagline, Heroes is worth your time if you haven't already checked it out. It's hard to say anything without spoiling, so let me say this: some characters are lovable, others are scary, others can't decide which they are. I still don't know whose side some people are on.

I think I set a new record of general ridiculousness yesterday when I watched the (intense!) finale of Season One about 50 minutes before watching the premiere of Season Two live. It's going to be a complicated season, but that's part of what makes this show fun.

All I'm saying is, wtf happened to Peter?

I am officially the lamest blogger ever.

HOWEVER, I'm getting back on the horse, first of all by posting an arbitrary Office picture. John Krasinski with an iPod... it doesn't get any sexier than this.

It's been a long summer, and a long first month or so of school. I'm tired of movies not being a part of my life. So, a few short points of interest:

1) This is a convenient website: http://videoeta.com/ Damn you, Simpsons Movie, for not being released sooner.

2) Important forthcoming dates: Office Season 4 starts Thursday. Heroes Season 2 starts Monday. Those actually weren't so much dates but days. Oops.

3) I recently gained one tiny, tiny, tiny granule of respect for Grey's Anatomy, and that is because they name all of the episodes after songs. The two part episode called "The End of the World" and "As We Know It" is my favorite. So, think about a grain of sugar, and you now know the exact size of my respect for that show, which is bigger than it used to be, but very small indeed.

4) Today I rented "The Tiger and the Snow", one of Roberto Benigni's latest projects, naturally starring him and his wife and directed by him, also with an appearance by Jean Reno, whom we all know is a badass. It has a 6.9 on imdb, and since it's not a cult film I tend to be a little more trusting of their rating system. So although I am excited, I'm also a shade worried.

5) I'm writing this last one to keep myself honest. I need to post about Hairspray, which was hilarious, Heroes, which kicks ass, and Arrested Development, which might be the greatest thing to ever happen to Planet Earth, and I don't mean Prince's new album.

Kubrick

I've long been a fan of Kubrick and am always frustrated when Speilberg is mentioned ahead of him in terms of great directors. How many directors have the courage to take on really controversial material. Kubrick made film versions of TWO of the most controversial novels of the 20th century: Lolita and A Clockwork Orange.

His IMDb stats are stagering and unparalleled. Dismissing the handful of short films and documentaries he did prior to 1956, Kubrik directed just eleven movies over 43 years. Here they are in ascending order based on IMDb rating:

Eyes Wide Shut (1999) - 7.0
Lolita (1962) - 7.6
Barry Lyndon (1975) - 8.0
Spartacus (1960) - 8.0 #188
The Killing (1956) - 8.2 #135
Full Metal Jacket (1987) - 8.3 #94
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - 8.3 #78
The Shining (1980) - 8.4 #60
A Clockwork Orange (1971) - 8.4 #50
Paths of Glory (1957) - 8.5 #42
Dr. Strangelove (1964) - 8.7 #21

Blood Diamond

Great, great movie. What could have easily been turned into a standard, unimportant action movie was handled with great care by Edward Zwick (Glory). The acting was spot-on. DiCaprio is like a real life Han Solo. The Oscar nominations were well deserved, in fact, there are probably a few nominees that owe Blood Diamond an apology for taking a spot it deserved in the Best Picture category (sorry, The Queen, get out).

Children of Men

Dark, raw, disturbing, and visually stunning. I wouldn't have thought this would be a movie I'd regret not having seen in the theater. I don't know if this movie should be #122 on IMDb, but it certain needs to be watched by everyone as an unfortunately accurate insight into the human condition.