First, I should say that the act of condensing the (god, I feel stupid using this word) epic comic series into a three-hour movie must have been a daunting one.  Nevertheless, Zack Snyder managed it admirably.  The action scenes are masterfully done.  The acting, with a few exceptions, was great.  The attention to detail helped bring the world to life.

The movie hits all the key points of the comic.  In fact, it treats the source material with extreme reverence.  Now many, if not all, of the reviews that I have seen and heard have treated this as a negative thing.  Let me be clear, they are not wrong.  For the uninitiated, this rigidity must seem odd.  For one thing, the comic was set in a fictional 1985.  This is understandable, as it was published in an actual 1986.  The movie might have attempted to create an alternate 2009, in order to make it more accessible.  There is a real danger in making a movie set more than twenty years ago that is further influenced by events another decade earlier.  For many people, especially younger viewers, the references and jokes might be lost.  Furthermore, the film cut many of the scenes that help set the stage for much of the later action.  This is understandable, as the prospect of an eighteen hour Watchmen might have been a bit intimidating.  

Sorry for the slight ruse, Rocky Horror Fans (of which I am one), but this post will not be about a young Susan Sarandon getting it six ways from Sunday by everyone except the dude in the wheel chair. That post may be coming soon though.

No, this post is about that great American institution known far and wide as the Drive-In. These bastions of celluloid hearken back to days-gone-by, when teens would pile into a car, have an orgy during a B-rated horror film, and then go to a malt shoppe - all for under a nickel! Drive-Ins took a big hit in the '80s and '90s with the advent of VCRs and DVD players, but they are making a come back; partly because of the kitsch factor and cheap prices and partly because if you wanna see someone going at it, by themselves or with a partner live,  chat roulette is a pale comparison to the Americana that is the drive-in theater.

It’s almost here!  Thor opens this Friday, May 6th (Pacific Standard Time) and we, here at Sam’s Wednesday Slog Corporation International, couldn’t be more excited.  Over the past two weeks, we’ve looked at Thor, his family, and his enemies, and now it’s time to learn about his Asgardian warrior pals, The Warriors Three!  After all, what would a Norse thunder god be without a little bromance in his life?  These colorful gents fight alongside Thor and are willing to die in the name of Thor and Asgard!  They have journeyed with him to the furthest realms dispatching foes and bravely facing evil for their friend and master!!  They are even there for him when he needs to just vent about work or whatever!!!

Fandral, played by Josh Dallas

Fandral the Dashing, as he persistently refers to himself, is a brave swordsman who accompanies Thor on many of his adventures and is one third of the trifecta that is The Warriors Three!  Based on the persona of Errol Flynn’s Robin Hood, Fandral’s bravery and nobility are matched only by his relentless optimism, whimsy, and super sweet facial hair.  No matter what the odds or how many foes Fandral faces, he unfailingly fights fearlessly and never flees (this sentence was brought to you by the letter “F”).  His skills with edged weapons are unmatched even when compared to other Asgardians, and Thor refers to him as “the best of us with a blade,” thus explaining the killer facial hair.

So, I am sitting down to write a review of Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, and I don't know where to begin. I could start with the script (fairly strong, but not very Doyle-ish) or the acting (almost universally great), but I think I will begin with Ritchie's direction.

From the beginning, the direction was impressive. Ritchie managed to show Holmes' intellect and keen faculties of observation in a unique and economical manner. The audience is occasionally allowed to see Holmes' thought process in the moment, but generally, as with Doyle's stories, the explanation comes later.

One of the things that Ritchie is known for is his too-cool-for-school camera work and flashy editing. Both of these were toned down a lot. In fact, the direction never seemed to upstage the story or characters, which, as far as I can tell, is a first for Ritchie. I should confess that I have only seen Lock Stock, Snatch, and the horrible Revolver. In this movie Ritchie adapting himself admirably to the story he is telling, rather than adapting the story to his style. So overall, high marks for direction.