Dune (2021) Review

REVIEW

I saw the movie the night of October 21st. It was the most opportune time. It turned out to be a unique experience: the first time in my life I've seen a movie before its official release date. The theater was full and the audience attentive--and the movie is nearly 3 hours long!--but then I suppose fans are already committed. A good reason to go when I did! 

Below is my list of what I hoped to see alongside commentary: 

*Spoilers*

 

1. The movie focuses on Paul immediately in the opening scenes and doesn't get bogged down by its own mysticism/mythology.

 

The movie doesn't begin with Paul. It begins on Arrakis, Chani narrating. My initial reaction was disappointment--except that in a very brief sequence, the narrator lays out the Atreides versus Harkonnen struggle. Bang! External conflict instantly established!

The movie never loses this focus. The emperor's minions are brought into the story but never the emperor. I was highly impressed.  

After the brief opening, the movie immediately moves to Caladan. It is exactly how I always imagined it--if a tad more Scottish (seriously, there are bagpipes). Settings and dream sequences emphasize Caladan's abundance of water versus the lack of water on Arrakis. Finally! Someone gets the point!

2. The movie gives Jessica due credit as a fully rounded character. She is neither diminished nor dropped on a pedestal.  

Played by Rebecca Ferguson, Jessica is an impassioned powerhouse. She is not as complexly presented as in the book, but I can allow for the difference. As mentioned elsewhere, movies are by the dictates of their medium tethered to the images they choose to present. The 1984 movie tried to do too much. The Dune miniseries tried to narrow its focus at odd moments, giving the series a haphazard feel. 

Dune (2021) keeps the focus on Paul, where it should be kept. I agree with this choice.

3. Paul as potential prophet is established early on. He is portrayed as neither a yuppie nor a war leader. 

Paul is our perspective into the story. Paul being played by Timothee Chalamet makes a difference. 

He is, for one, how I imagine Paul. If he reached adulthood on Caladan, he would become a friendly, relaxed, thoughtful, charismatic, yet somewhat removed and enigmatic leader. Send him to Arrakis: he becomes something else. But the elements are there already. 

Early on in the movie, Paul endures the test of the Gom Jabbar. Thankfully (since I always thought it was kind of tacky), we don't see his hand burning. All we see is his face as he reacts to the test. Chalamet may not yet have Freeman's extraordinary range of subtle facial movements; he is rapidly getting there. 

4. The Harkonnens are intelligent rivals, neither too awful (if memorable) nor too "everybody has a dark side!" token symbols. 

I still don't get how the Harkonnens could be in charge of anything. One thing these movies fail to realize is that evil men like Stalin had supporters--among intellectuals and among leaders drawn to a supposed adherence to their own philosophical wishes. 

The Britishers in Star Wars are at least amusingly dry.

Bad guys in drab cities sitting around bare metal rooms without furniture and then sinking into sludgy, oily baths are kind of...blah.

Frank Herbert gives the Harkonnens an Ancient Roman Caligula vibe, which is at least somewhat explanatory (bread & circuses). The movie doesn't.

The Baron is darkly intelligent. But still, I would think he would have multiple uprisings and riots on his own planet to worry about--not much time to deal with Arrakis. Oh, look, his people would say, it's a bad guy! He hangs around rooms with no chairs!

In justice, the movie isn't about the Harkonnens but about Paul. I have to commend that decision again. 

6. The movie is intelligently paced--the last two-thirds of the story has a decent flow.

I likely would have realized the following if I had watched previews and read up on the movie beforehand. I didn't. 

The movie is Book 1. 

About 1-1/2 hours (I presume) into the movie, I thought, "What is with these Dune scriptwriters? They aren't leaving enough time for the last 2/3rds. It's going to be a mishmash (again)."

Then, about two minutes later, I thought, "You dummy, Kate. It's Book 1."

I was impressed.

It's still a problem.  

6. Complicated Dune politics are explored, or at least referenced, through characters like Liet-Keynes. Other characters are combined.

Liet is massively underused. The exigencies of the script may have left the writers no choice.

I mention above: only the emperor's minions show up. The emperor doesn't make an appearance in Dune (2021). Nor does Princess Irulan. They don't need to! The political problem plays out intelligently without throwing every character in the book at the screen. I was extremely impressed. 

7. The movie isn't preachy. Not sure how it can be but everything seems to be these days. So--the Fremen are complex, not irritatingly self-righteous as The Victims. 

The movie isn't preachy. In fact, it adheres closely to the book's notable action sequences. These sequences carry the political/religious context. 

 

The problem is that unlike LOTR--which was, granted, split into 3 books by its publisher, not its author--Book 1 of Dune doesn't have a natural conclusion/wrap-up. By focusing on Paul (let me say again: awesome script choice!), the movie was able to end not on an upbeat note (the book doesn't have many of those) but on Paul's acceptance of his fate on Arrakis--or at least, on as much of that fate as he can foresee. 

 

Still, it's not exactly the same ending as Frodo parting from the Fellowship or the rescue of Helm's Deep or, even, Bilbo et al. escaping the Misty Mountains. I'm not saying Dune (2021) fails. I'm saying...

 

See below.

I don't think anyone in the audience was disappointed. I did hear one young man say to his friend, "The 'original' [his word] was half the time and covered the whole story." To which, someone in his group mentioned something about Book 1. I muttered it to myself. 

He wasn't complaining, however! His voice was one of wonderment. As my theater companion said, "I guess...2022." (The sequel, which will cover Books II and III, might not come out until 2023.) Various audience members paused outside the theater to  exchange thoughts. I don't know if they all approved of the movie, but nobody was saying, "Wow, what a waste of my entire Thursday night!" 

It is nice to go to an opening night with people who already care.

IN SUM

I was completely engaged by Dune (2021). The movie is well-worth seeing on a big screen. The focus on Paul (and through him) is one of the smartest script choices for a book-to-movie I've experienced. 

It is a problematic book to bring to screen. 

Here's why: 

There is a strong shift in tone at Leto's death. As soon as Paul and Jessica escape into the desert, the story veers in a new direction.

In the book, to a huge extent, the reader is prepared for the shift by the opening chapter blurbs, delivered (mostly) in the voice of Princess Irulan. The fatalistic essence of Paul's life's course is established. 

In the 1984 version, this tone is established early on, which I commend. It is not the scriptwriters' fault that Kyle MacLachlan is the least fatalistic-looking person in the universe. 

Not exactly Keir Dullea.

The miniseries didn't attempt to establish the fatalistic tone. The writers relied on the break in episodes, which was smart and the best approach overall. 

The 2021 movie establishes Paul's unique personality and fate, but the new tone after Leto's death is glaring. The movie should have ended with the escape from the palace, possibly with the descent into the storm. 

But it then would have become the most depressing mystical sci-fi movie since Hal started killing people off out there on a lonely space station. 

COVID could be to blame here. The sequel is still in pre-production. If the movie had come out as originally scheduled, the sequel may have been more of a certainty. The studio could have afforded a cliffhanger. 

As it is, the film editors gave the movie a resolution of sorts. 

(I have to wonder, how many fans based on previews, not fans of the book or prior movies, are rushing home this weekend to check out the book/prior movies?)

It is an odd circumstance since in a way the editors/studio had to opt for some kind of resolution as opposed to an aesthetically coherent film. I don't fault them for the choice--but--

It is a difficult book to render on film. 

Hmmm, how soon will a director's cut come out?

PRIOR REVIEWS:

Dune (1984)

Miniseries, Part 1

Miniseries, Part II 

Miniseries, Part III

 

Howl's Moving Castle

When: 2004, Bale's 27th film

Genre: Animation, Fantasy

Mike says as a Geek through and through, anime definitely has a place in my heart.  That place may not be as big as in other people with a similar range of interests, but it's there. So it was with a lot of excitement that I sat down to watch Howl for the first time.  I've always intended to see it; however, I just never had the opportunity.  After watching the film, I can offer only one real solid piece of advice:  Don't ever, Ever, EVER watch an anime through the first time with a four-year-old kid.  Seriously.

I didn't know it was possible for the human mouth and brain, no matter the age, to produce that many questions within a 5-second time frame.  Stretch that through a admittedly very weird 2-hour movie (with a kid raised on Pixar and Dreamworks), and it has to be a really good film for both Father and Son to make it through.

Luckily, Howl's Moving Castle is a pretty good movie.

IS it weird?  Hell, yes.  Is the plot easy to follow?  Uh, not really, no.  Add in some particularly odd imagery, character interactions that feel a little out of continuity, and subdued voice acting, and you have something that feels like it was made by an entirely different culture . . . which, luckily, is the entire point of watching anime.

The film's visuals are absolutely stunning.  My only real complaint at first was the inconstancy of how Sophie is presented . . . her height varies, as does the severity of her hunch, as well as her nose size.  This bugged me-- that is, until I realized what was happening.  One of the nice things about Japanese films is how much credit they give the audience: No, we're not going to explain this.  YOU figure it out.  My son noticed Sophie's state of flux almost at once . . . and admittedly, answering three or four dozen questions about it through the course of the film definitely helped me pay attention and work out what was happening to her.

The entire movie works this way: each odd detail is a clue in understanding the extra bits of the story.  While some details are simplified, others are worked out exhaustively. Howl's castle, for example, is amazing in the way it shifts and bounces and grooves as it travels.  How often in animation have we been presented with  miraculous moving buildings that seem to float completely solid and intact from place to place?  Not Howl's Castle.  Every brick seems to balance miraculously and precariously on top of each other, each one rocks to and fro by the castle's legs.  It's instantly understandable: this thing should not, could not exist without magic. Something my son worked out after about ten minutes of rapid fire questions.

Despite it's apparent strangeness to us Americans, the story is quite entertaining, especially in its refusal to follow stereotypes: The wicked witch becomes a friend, the heroine spends most of the film as an old lady, the handsome hero is a bi-polar demon, and the girl doesn't even consider pairing up with her destined "true love" (who has a whopping 5 lines in the film).

Perhaps the only thing I'm still not sold on, and this is an anime thing, NOT a particular complaint about this film, is the often subdued voice acting.  The English dubbing in anime often tries (though not always) to emulate the tone of the original versions . . . the problem is that to my American-English trained ears, the characters all sound calm and monotone in their native language.

To his credit, Bale do a great job capturing this . . . however it can sometimes be a bit disorienting, especially when Howl is grinning and speaking calmly about how scared and upset he is during a suspenseful scene.

Bale's entire performance of Howl is very subdued, though he is able to capture the character's humor (as out of place as it might seam in such serious surroundings).  The biggest surprise in his performance, however, was when Batman's voice began coming from Howl's feathered monster form.  "Ah ha!" I thought. "So that's where he learned to talk like that!"

Overall, Howl's Moving Castle is a beautiful and odd film.  My son seemed to enjoy it too, despite having no real understanding of what transpired.  While I definitely recommend the movie, you might want to watch it without the "preschooler commentary track" activated.

Kate says simply put, this is a gorgeous film. It is one of those films that is so visually stunning, it almost doesn't need a story.

But it has one--a charming romance. I'm using the term here in the medieval sense: a story that involves love, fantasy, and war. Plus well-wrought, captivating characters. The capricious, tortured yet charming and insouciant Howl alongside the shy, witty, industrious and intrinsically tough Sophie are not only unusual and well-rounded personalities, they pull the viewer into the story. They are also such perfect manga characters, I doubt anyone BUT Miyazaki could have brought Diane Wynne Jones's book to the screen.

The English dub is exceptional (thanks to Pixar's involvement). I confess, I didn't recognize Bale as the voice of Howl when I first saw the movie. I saw it about the same time as Batman Begins, though it was made before, and I assumed (mistakenly!) that Bale was too big to be involved in what, at that time, amounted to an art film.

If this list has taught me anything it is to beware those kinds of assumptions.

Bale does a good job, naturally, but I have to admit my favorite voice casting is the endearing Jean Simmons. In fact, this is one of the few films where the switch from young to old doesn't cause a disconcerting disconnect. The shifts between voice (Mortimer to Simmons) and appearance are natural and flawless: thematically correct.

Billy Crystal fits right in, by the way.

Back to Bale--this role suits the tone of Bale's work overall. And there's a lot to be said for a voice that can make you see deadpan ("That can't be good for the table."). By the way, Howl is, as Mike describes him, a bi-polar demon--a disturbed, intellectually stressed, high-maintenance action hero; there seems to be definite trend in Bale's choice of roles in the last decade!

Last but not least, the film's animation is nothing to yawn at--it isn't just the heartrendingly beautiful scenery or the character's expressions. Although not as manically particular as Disney's animation, Miyazaki does show a loving (and humorous) interest in details: the toilet seat being up in Howl's bathroom, Calcifer eating the log, the dropped towel. The dog.

A not-sticky sweet tone runs through the film, pulling it all together. The scene at the lake stands out as encapsulating so much of Miyazaki's vision, specifically what Sophie wants for Howl. It is a surprisingly simple story with surprisingly complicated ramifications, but the story never seems overwhelmed by the "politics". By keeping his eye on Sophie, Miyazaki delivers a powerful piece of animation that illustrates that good animation can be dramatic, funny, clever, sweeping, localized, and romantic all at the same time.

Change of tone coming next: Prestige!

Highlander

Release Date: March 8, 1986

Time Kate wanted to see it: This wasn't so much an "I want to see" as an "I guess I should." Highlander seems to be one of those films--one of those cult films that I had to see to fully appreciate my media culture.

Reason Kate procrastinated: Is this a guy flick or what!?

Category: Film, Fantasy, Cult Classic

Kate says I'd heard a great deal about Highlander over the years, but I'd never seen the movie, and I think I'd seen exactly one half of one episode of the television series. I think my lack of interest always came down to one thing:

Isn't this a guy flick?

I don't think a female friend has ever mentioned Highlander to me. Female friends have mentioned Star Trek and Star Wars and even Lord of the Rings. But never Highlander.

However, the real reason I never got around to seeing this movie may be that it is too surreal to be believed; it starts off with Sean Connery's voice, Queen, and professional wrestling, and then . . .

It gets freakier.

This has to be one of the most random movies I've ever seen. It's Batman meets The Terminator meets Star Wars meets 80's rock video.

There are moments that stand out. The Scotland 1500s scenes are surprisingly sharp and believable, and I was impressed by MacLeod staying with Heather until the end of her life. I also loved the "duel" on Boston Commons. I agree with Mike that the shift between present and past makes the film far more engaging than if the story was told chronologically. Many times, the "we won't tell you the secret until the end" gambit back-fires (especially when the secret is pretty tame). But here, it works.

As for the characters: I thought the cops were underused (as always). I considered Brenda Wyatt rather pointless--not all that endearing, and she and MacLeod gave me zero reason to believe in their relationship long-term.

I found Kurgan seriously disturbing. One of the best scenes in the movie is between MacLeod and Kurgan--in the church. The scene delivers real meat. Back on the streets, however, Kurgan is just a Joker-like character: random badness is uncomfortable to watch and, really, who cares?

I did like MacLeod although his modern personality is lightly skimmed over. And I really liked that the swords are wielded as truly heavy weapons. It makes the final scene much more exciting.

That all said, now that I've seen it . . . I can't say whether I like the movie or not. The entire viewing experience was similar to undergoing a freak of nature. Does one hate thunderstorms? Actually, I love thunderstorms. Uh, does one hate solar flares? Well, yes, if one is stuck in one, but they are just there, ya know. What more can one say?

Though I may check out the series.

(I should mention that the excellent James Cosmo shows up for two seconds and immediately becomes the best actor in the film. I adore actors like James Cosmo who have long, steady, working careers--that is real success!)

Mike says Highlander is one of those must see movies that every Geek has to see at least once. But woe be unto the Geek who watches it twice, for he shall see something like unto an acid trip set to 80's rock ballads. To say that Highlander is bizarre is akin to saying that Richard Simmons seems a little effeminate.

What makes it even weirder is the franchise it spawned: 5 sequels (more if you count every version of Highlander II) and two TV series. Pretty impressive, if not inconsistent, for a film that pretty conclusively brings its premise to a complete end. It appears that there can be only one immortal, until you need to cash in on a sequel, then a few more will randomly crop up.

As Kate says, the movie starts weird, and just keeps going from there. When I first saw the film, I was pretty blown away by it. I don't know if it was youth, being a few years closer to the 80's, or a combination of the two. Watching it now, the film really does come across as the quintessential "Cult Favorite," that being a film the broad public avoids but a enthusiastic few adore beyond all reason. It's with some shock that I now find myself categorized with the broad public.

The film is disturbing, odd, and creative in alternating states, making it a definite mixed experiance when it comes to watching . . . the movie wavers between amazing and horrendous, almost as if sections of it were filmed by different directors.

There were many things I liked, however. Lambert is just odd enough an actor to take this role in stride, with his enigmatic accent and unexpected humor making him believable as McLeod. The sword fights and imagery of Gods fighting on Big City streets is also very cool, and I think the film really caught this sense of there being an hidden layer under everyday life, where strange and amazing things happen.

I also love the pace and structure of the movie--I think the flashbacks are well done, often outshining the modern scenes. Jumping back and forth, gradually filling us in on who and what McLeod is as he goes about his business is fascinating.

On the other hand, there was plenty I didn't like. I agree with Kate on the romance; it was obviously thrown in to meet the standards of 80's movies: Nudity, Gore, and random violent acts by psychotic punk rockers. The Kurgen just makes me plain uncomfortable (though I did like how he is savvy to the current era). And despite the abssolute awesomeness of the concept of the movie, there are holes in the story and plot wide enough to drive a truck through (can someone explain why Sean Connery is so willing to help McLeod?). I think the second movie was an attempt to fill in some of these holes . . . and ended up making them worse.

The 80's rock imagery just took it over the top, making some scenes nightmarish and painful to watch. The Kurgen's neck safety pins alone are enough to inspire nausea.

Despite this, it is easy to see why it was hard for filmmakers and fans to let the concept go, as there are some pretty cool ideas and intriguing phrases peppered throughout the movie. Terms like "The Gathering," "The Quickening," really inspire interest and give a sense of myth to the idea of the film. And with a catchphrase like "There Can Be Only One," producers are probably still salivating at the idea of cashing in on these ideas.

Now, I have had a chance to see some of the series (though not much), and it's pretty entertaining; once you get over the fact that none of it should exist. As for the sequels  . . . well, I think the filmmakers should have followed the advice given in the catchphrase.

I can't help thinking the film might have worked a little bit better like this:

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Release Date: May 20, 2011

Time Mike wanted to see it: That's the problem... I never really wanted to see it. But, for approximately 8 months.

Reason Mike procrastinated: Well, I expected to see it in the theater, but... I didn't. Then I expected to rent it.... and I didn't. I think I realized that Disney was going for the extra buck, and with no "normal" characters to relate to, I expected to endure the movie rather than enjoy it.

Category: Sequel

Mike says that after Disney's Haunted Mansion with Eddie Murphy, I really didn't expect much from the first Pirates movie, Curse of the Black Pearl. Which may be one of the reasons I was so blown away by it. The first movie is absolutely enjoyable, on several levels. The following movies, well... let's say At World's End makes a compelling argument for Pirate-themed fantasy epics, if not fully succeeding, and leave it at that.

Regardless, I was at the midnight premieres of both 2 and 3, so when On Stranger Tides (which, I just have to say, sounds totally like a dirty movie) was announced, with only the pirate characters returning, I was skeptical but still expected to see it. But I didn't.

As stated above, I just knew what was coming, and didn't have the heart to prove myself right. Thanks to this list, I've now done that. Sadly, the movie was pretty much what I suspected. There are good points, however, so I'll cover those first, and then, well, we'll cover the rest soon.

Depp as Jack Sparrow is always entertaining, and after a trilogy of seeing him be a roguish hero, it's nice that he hasn't descended into Jim Carey territory and basically become a parody of himself (Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls, I mean you). The other returning cast is equally fun and entertaining, although there seems to only be the three altogether.

Some of the action sequences are very nice, and my Blu-ray copy looked beautiful. There are some funny jokes, fun music (as Kate points out) and some cool fantasy ideas (ships in a bottle, Blackbeard controlling his ship). And, well, that's about it.

The story is blessedly direct, if surprisingly long, with far too many convenient plot twists with no prior set up (Kate mentions a couple of these below). We know where we're going, and we know what's probably gonna happen when we get there, and who exactly is going to make it.

Another thing that really bothers me is when certain payoffs/outcomes are unclear or undeserved. Jack saves his girlfriend, and she hates him for it, and he doesn't really care... even though he spends the entire movie obsessing about her.

The missionary saves the mermaid, and in turn she "saves" him... by sucking him down to the bottom of the ocean exactly like what the more evil mermaids did... presumably to mate with him, drown him, and eat him.

The Spaniards show up, create a little bit of suspense, and then disappear again into the night.

In the end, it's just sloppy writing that really should have been resolved before the movie began filming. Thankfully, we have action scene after action scene to break up one kind of tedium for another. The actions scenes are fun, but, well, predictable.

Perhaps the biggest flaw the movie suffers from is in trying to make the film work with the pirates alone. Unfortunately, pirates out-pirating other pirates isn't really all that interesting, especially when there's no character with a likable goal. There is no "Audience Surrogate," like Will and Elizabeth, for the pirates to argue with, shock and disgust, or threaten.

Really, aside for the very small sub-plot of the missionary and the mermaid (which ends pretty horrifically, as far as I can tell), there is not one character really worth caring about or worrying about in the entire movie. Even Jack was more of the "odd thing we're dealing with" in the previous flicks. The promotion to lead protagonist just doesn't suit him, committing him to pushing the story forward despite having a very weak reason to do so. We need a Jack free to dance between the subplots, bend the rules, and be free to make a surprising choice. By making him the key hero, he's too important to be truly entertaining.

Now, I should clarify: I didn't hate this movie. But I was right about one thing: it was more a practice in endurance rather than entertainment. I'm sure that there are several people who loved this movie to pieces. Me? I'd rather watch Black Pearl again.

Kate says I saw the first movie of this franchise and really enjoyed it. In fact, I've seen it multiple times.

I then tried to watch the second movie and got so bored, I gave up. I actually removed the movie from the DVD player before I finished! This NEVER happens since I can always go do something else and then come back to catch a few minutes here or there.

But the second movie just seemed a collection of silly events: oh, look, Jack Sparrow gets caught by cannibals; oh, look . . .

Nope, that's all I remember.

On Stranger Tides is far more watchable; I quite enjoyed it although it could have been 1/2 hour shorter (more on this later). It has, for one thing, a clear quest: find the Fountain of Youth. For another, it has some clever subplots; I especially liked the Cary Elwes look-a-like cleric and his mermaid girlfriend. I missed the dry-as-bones Norrington (Jack Davenport), but Sam Claflin (Philip the Cleric) is a good replacement, and the movie could actually have used more of him and Sparrow together (the dialog between them is very funny although, hey, don't you remember the days when Disney was so afraid of innuendo, they created Touchstone Pictures?)

The flaw is what I will here call the "Disney Syndrome" although it applies to all studios everywhere: Disney makes a film; the film is a hit; the writers/producers/etc. say, "That was great! Let's do it again, only MORE!"

So instead of one duel, there are six. Instead of one quest having three parts and one subplot, there is one quest having twelves parts and four subplots.

Ugh.

The downside of all the MORE is that way too many things have to be paid off at the end. In On Stranger Tides, the Spaniards are used in an interesting way, but do they really need to be there? And why have them kill off Groves who, just standing around, is far more interesting than the Spaniards?

And what does Jack Sparrow actually do for the mermaid for her to bring him the chalices? He isn't around her long enough for them to establish a relationship because he's off, you know, doing one of the twelve parts/four subplots.

The mermaid and her boyfriend subplot is nicely paid-off but far too quickly. I think this subplot may have pushed its way more to forefront than the writers anticipated or wanted; they had Depp and Rush and McShane to worry about, not a relatively unknown Englishman. I regret this decision but understand it; if you pay people tons of money, I suppose you should write lines for them.

I did absolutely adore the Judi Dench cameo.

Still it's a pity the writers didn't try harder. Often with movies like this, I just shrug and say, "Eh, sequel," but On Stranger Tides isn't Die Hard 2 which fails because it isn't, well, Die Hard. This is a movie that could have been a respectable, tight story but instead is a . . . shaggy dog story with some good bits.

I do love the music!

The Neverending Story (1984)

Kate says it's confession time! I saw this movie when I was a young teen and thought it very boring. (I also thought the movie was much longer than it actually is.) However, the young boy I saw it with was enraptured. I wanted to see the movie again, mostly to see how much of my reaction was teen-angst and how much of it was, well, the movie.

Here's my most recent experience:

The opening is classic with a clearly defined problem (considering the movies on this particular list, all I can say for their writers is "Thank goodness for bullies.").

The "book" story itself is radically less impressive. A few Muppet-like creatures go a very long way, and I got my surfeit with Labyrinth.

But my reaction to the Muppet-like creatures did help pinpoint my problem with the movie when I was a teen (and, unfortunately, now). I'm just not that interested in non-human antagonists (the Muppets being a notable exception since they are so very funny, humanoid, and play opposite humans).

I've also never been all that interested in the adventures of children. Even as a kid. Keep in mind, at age 6, I was smitten with 26-year-old Mark Hamill playing Luke. (Granted, he looks about 17 in Star Wars IV, but at least he wasn't some cutesy, mop-haired kiddie bragging about his stupid robots.) After all, the Pevensie kids (Chronicles of Narnia, my standard) act like adults (thank goodness the movies increased their ages!).

Plus screaming children make me want to slap them. Atreyu screams a lot. (So do mop-haired kiddies--see above.) Bastian, the reader of the "book," is far more interesting. The ending with him and the empress, she of the adorably quirky smile, is quite memorable.

The strength of Bastian's arc has made me wonder if the extraordinarily bad dialog and acting in the "book" is on purpose--that the film is supposed to be a story as told, understood, and experienced by the young boy.

This possibility does bring up the theme of the movie, which is rather cool: stories--"mere words," as Jose Chung would say--are enough to carry us through all the extremities of emotion and experience. I am currently reading a 2-book series about time traveling in World War II. Each book is about 500 pages. I've measured out my reading simply because I know I can't finish the books in 1-2 sittings (I do have to work!). This means that for over a week now, I've been living in this author's world. "Escapist" is the last word on my mind. Escape? I can't escape from the freaking books!

C.S. Lewis once wrote, "But in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself . . . Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do." The power of fiction is a magnificent power indeed!

And I can see how this movie--which floods us with images and tests and trials and emotions--could captivate viewers while proving the power of being caught up in story.

It just doesn't work so much for me.

Mike says I'm not entirely sure when I first saw this movie. All I really know is that for as long as I can remember, this was one of the family's favorite movies. The actor who played Bastian was also a staple from my childhood...he was in at least half a dozen movies we re-watched often.

As a kid, I think I enjoyed the movie because it was full of magic and adventure. I also loved Bastian's story. I've always loved to read, and as a kid, this was the one movie that really seemed to capture that feeling of being lost in a story, to the extent to where you almost feel a part of it.

Watching it now, the movie doesn't really feel old or dated. Instead, the magic has worn off a bit. While I was enthralled with the landscape and the scope of the story and quest as a kid, watching it now as a cynical jaded adult makes me question the basic premise in a rather silly way. "They want him to go on a quest with no idea of what to do?" "Bastian can hide in the school attic with no one noticing? really?" And so on.

But the film does explore a really cool idea. That there exists a place where all things of the imagination live is a very cool idea, and that books are our link to that world is something I can totally get behind. The film itself is also fairly well-made, and the scope of it is actually quite impressive. A giant turtle that doesn't look fake? A full size dragon puppet? WOW! My favorite touch is the murals showing Atreyu's quest.

Overall, I think the film is a great bit of magic for kids and families. And I own it for that very reason. But watching it alone as an adult leaves me a little bored and disappointed. But I don't think it's the film. This time, it's probably just the viewer. But I am curious to see what my sons think of it.

Labyrinth (1986)

Kate says what about that 80's fantasy rock music! Who started that? Andrew Lloyd Weber? (There is a Cats' poster in Sarah's bedroom.)

This is a delightful movie. It is the quintessential quest narrative--Alice in Wonderful only, surprisingly, less disturbing. The problem is presented almost immediately (unlike, as Mike points out, the problem in the slow-moving E.T.). The teenage heroine crosses the threshold into the fairy king's world (I know Jareth is technically the King of the Goblins, but he meets all the requirements for the fairy king, being random, untamed, and having wild hair--see Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell). Sarah's complaints, which start the quest, are eye-rollingly extreme and totally normal for her age.

After crossing the threshold, Sarah proceeds to collect followers/mentors and undergo trials. And through it all she is clever and resourceful and even amusing (I remembered the line "C'mon feet!" from my teen years).

And threaded through it all is the mysterious, handsome, extraordinarily British, and downright amusing Jareth. ("Well," he says with irritation to his goblin companions: "Laugh!") I love his Regency English clothes which are surprisingly not as dated as one would think since although we've left the punk 80's behind, Regency England is totally here to stay.

Plus he has many of the film's best lines. This exchange between him and Sarah appears to be a precursor to Princess Bride:

Sarah: That's not fair.
Jareth: You say that so often. I wonder what your basis of comparison is.

Inigo from The Princess Bride: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Back to the quest motif, there is a final confrontation, and the heroine returns a changed person. The message (what the heroine has learned) is a little heavy-handed but clever and effective since it is mostly visual.

The movie is just gosh-darn-cute. I love Hoggle spraying the flower fairies, the "False Alarms," Sir Didymus (who reminds me of Reepicheep). I love the classic fantasy motifs: animal helpers; fairy food that causes forgetfulness/sleep; riddles; things that are bigger inside than they look outside . . .

The crew seems to have really cared about giving the movie visual and auditory ambiance. There's one arial shot where we see Hobble and Sarah in the labyrinth. As they pass a hedge, a funny-looking knight gallops past. They never meet up with the knight. He was just thrown in for fun. That is very cool.

Interesting enough, out of all the movies we've watched for this list so far, Labyrinth is one of the most likely to be reviewed/mentioned by one of my wasn't-born-at-the-time Freshmen students when I do literary review essays. (It is usually brought up by young women.) Step aside Edward. David Bowie so got there first.

Mike says "Smack that Baby, make him pee!"

I LOVED this film as a kid. And as a teenager. And as a young adult in college. And I realize, watching it now, that I STILL love it. It's wonderfully wacky, slightly irreverent, and unrelentingly imaginative. But, upon watching it and seeing some of the downright creepy and disturbing imagery featured in some scenes, I wonder how in the world I wasn't scared out of my mind!

The movie begins quickly with little set up and explanation, but enough to get the point across. Within fifteen minutes, Sarah is running through the labyrinth! The funny thing is just how coherent all of this is, despite no introduction or background for Jareth (Bowie's character) or on his relationship with Sarah.

The film has the pacing, structure and randomness of a dream (which the film may or may not be!), but without too much of that meta-physical stream of consciousness art film stuff, and it still manages to be very easy to follow. The world, the villain, even the plot is so easy to accept, despite not much explanation for any of it, that it almost defies logic.

Part of the magic has to be the actors themselves. By creating such a feeling of familiarity with the world, and each other, they implied a larger back story that made everything work. The film really does function like the second film in a franchise, yet everything is still so clear... well, except for the trippy ballroom scene; what the hell was THAT about!?!?!

As a kid, and even now, I find something incredibly refreshing and even a little scandalous about the subtle naughtiness of the film (which, upon educated reflection, reveals the British nature of the production). The occasional rude remarks, potty jokes, and the absurdly serious comical characters (all trademarks of British humor) are all just a little rare in the fantasy genre, especially then! Not only does the film seem to fit in with the like of The Princess Bride, but it might also compare currently to Shrek.

Labyrinth is a wonderfully odd and fun film that seems to grow with its audience. Cute and fun companions of childhood become slightly terrifying symbols in adulthood. Bowie, years from the height of his popularity, still sells a convincingly deep and evocative villain (extraordinary because of the sheer lack of any real character development in the script).

Despite all this, one has to wonder just how many nightmares that toddler had from hanging out in a room of scary goblin puppets for hours on end repeatedly over the course of several days.

Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire et al.

Book: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, plus others

Gap between first publication and film release: 5 years--2000 to 2005 (the first Harry Potter came out 2001, four years after the first Harry Potter book was published)

Closeness to original characters: 95% (Kate)
First three movies: 99% Final five movies: 90% (Where'd the real Dumbledore go?) (Mike)

Closeness to original story: 70% for the series, 60% for Goblet. (Mike)

Kate says to prepare, I reread most of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. However, I didn't get a chance to reread Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, so I've provided a percentage for "closeness to original characters" but not one for "closeness to original story" (since I don't remember the fourth book that well).

In terms of the look of the characters, the casting is inspired. The only person who doesn't look completely like her book persona is Emma Watson as Hermione, and she does such a fantastic job capturing the personality of Hermione that it doesn't matter.

But Hagrid, Snape, Neville, Professor McGonagall, Harry . . . are all so much how the book describes them, it's hard for me to recapture my first pre-movie-franchise impressions!

I do remember that pre-movie-franchise, the rules of Rowlings' world mattered to me . . . well, not at all. One problem with series (and with series that become extremely popular) is that (1) the growth of the universe involves more and more connections that need to be tied into prior connections and since most fantasy writers don't spend years creating a complex history of several thousand years like Tolkien (who only produced his popular work as something of an after-thought), there are bound to be snags; (2) with popularity come growing expectations and criticisms. A writer who attempts to satisfy both expectations and criticisms will embroil herself in more problems and complications.

Inevitably, one begins to wonder about the nature of Voldemort's original war (before Harry's birth), why Dumbledore is so impossibly bad at keeping evil people out of Hogwarts, why Hogwarts even has a Slytherin House, why--if Dumbledore can prevent the Weasley twins entering the contest--he can't just say, "Harry can't compete." Why Barty Crouch Jr. doesn't just kill Harry . . .

If one ignores these problems (and Rowlings' continual efforts to solve them rather than just ignore them), the stories are enormously entertaining.

And this is where the first four movies have an edge (the fifth movie was a bust, and I haven't seen the last three) because the rules matter less. The nature of film is to promote image and plot over literary continuity. With Goblet of Fire, this is most effective. Image-wise, the settings are gorgeous--mysterious, vivid, intricate, eerie. All those towers and rugged terrain, gorgeous magical ships, dragons. Truly alluring. Plot-wise, the story focuses on the contest and, through the contest, on the vagaries and fears and anxieties of growing up.

The latter is one thing the movie does absolutely right. The teenage joking, angst, jealousy, friendships, awkward apologies, uncomfortable dating, etc. etc. etc. are all entirely appropriate/dead-on. The director did a remarkable job pulling natural reactions/tones/moods out of a whole parcel of child actors. And Daniel Radcliffe's acting skills have definitely expanded.

I'm not sure, however, that I would have watched Goblet initially if I hadn't seen the previous films. The beginning scenes demand some prior knowledge. On the other hand, like with Two Towers, the director may have decided to assume an "educated" viewership rather than try to engage new viewers.

And maybe I would have watched Goblet even if I hadn't seen the previous three! Goblet has guest actors that I simply adore: Robert Hardy, David Tennant, Shirley Henderson, and Roger Lloyd-Park. No, I'm afraid Robert Pattinson doesn't make my list although it is rather disconcerting to see him pre-Edward. I've only seen one of the Twilight movies, but Pattinson's image as Mr. 21st Century Vampire is SO omnipresent, it is hard not to start looking for fangs.

Maybe, Daniel Radcliffe and Robert Pattinson should get together and discuss what it is like to BE an icon for a large portion of one's life (although Radcliffe has been one longer).

Mike says the Harry Potter books and movies have been a huge phenomenon for years, and it's kinda of sad that it's all over... for now at least.

I always felt the films did a great job of capturing the spirit of the books, and the characters. While things had to inevitably be cut from the adaptations (the books are HUGE, after all), overall you got a good idea of what the overall story was.

I will absolutely agree, however, with those who complain that some vital plot lines and explanation were cut because it's absolutely true. With different screen writers and directors over eight movies, there was no unifying vision, other than Rowlings', to tie the movies together.

Perhaps the one movie that was most viciously cut was Goblet of Fire. There was simply SO much to cover, the Tri-wizard events were basically all that fit into the movie. But this is forgivable, as the movie moves fairly quickly and is rather enjoyable....that is, until it makes the biggest mistake it could: Dumbledore.

As Kate mentions, the casting was inspired, and each character is absolutely true to the book. While not every character moment makes it to screen, the characters themselves act and speak as they should, with a slight tint of reality that doesn't exist in the books. At least, this is 100% true for the first three movies.

When Michael Gambon first took over the role of Dumbledore after Richard Harris' death, he managed to give a rather subtle performance in Prisoner that didn't distract too much from the casting change. But in Goblet of Fire, Gambon's Dumbledore makes a serious deviation from both the books and Harris' version. In the movie, after Harry's name is called as a participant in the tournament, he retreats to a side room with the other contestants. Now in the book, Dumbledore handled the entire matter calmly and without surprise, allowing the thought that perhaps he was the one behind it.

Dumbledore was constantly like that in the books--his happy mood and goofy manner could rarely be ruffled by whatever was happening.

Gambon's Dumbledore, however, enters the side room, arguing loudly with the other teachers, rushes Harry, grabs him by the shirt, and slams him into the nearest wall, demanding that Harry tell him who broke the rules.

When I first saw this scene in the theater, it so effectively broke my suspension of disbelief that I cursed in shock, and spent the rest of the film wondering what the hell had just happened. I looked around, and while there were a few others slightly confused, no one seemed as upset as I was--that character wasn't Dumbledore! I didn't know who he was, but he was an imposter, and my brain would not, could not accept who he was supposed to be.

As a result, I've never really enjoyed the following movies as much as I probably should have. Sure, I loved the two part finale, and I agree the last few films are very good. But every time Dumbledore enters the scene, I get grumpy, and my attention wavers, which made Half Blood Prince especially frustrating.

In the end, the Harry Potter movies will never be as good as they could have been, for me at least. What I learned from this, however, is that casting and consistent acting is important, but solid and consistent writing is just as crucial to making characters work, especially in adaptations. When you change one of the most important characters from a sweet, kindly, bumbling, and brilliant old man into a rash, angry and violent man, you betray the source material and its fans.

I do enjoy the Harry Potter movies, but I'll always wonder how much more I would have liked them if the wonderful Richard Harris had lived to complete the series.

Princess Bride

Book: The Princess Bride by William Goldman (yes, he did write it; the introduction is a joke)

Gap between first publication and film release: 14 years (1973/1987)

Closeness to original characters: 100% (Mike)

Closeness to original story: 99% (Mike)
Mike says when I was younger, we could count on two things when we were home sick: The Princess Bride, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Years later in college, I had the wonderful opportunity to read the The Princess Bride, and it has remained a favorite ever since!

That the writer is also the screen writer is all that must really be said. While some things have been altered from page to screen for dramatic effect (the screeching eels were originally sharks), in truth, everything is there; or at least, the essential bits are.

The characters are all exactly as they were in the book, as are their relationships. In reality, the only real advantage of the book over the movie is the sheer volume of back story and commentary on each character, which the writer continually has fun with. He's even able to blame the long winded parts on the fictional S. Morgenstern, whose original manuscript William Goldman "abridged." The characters of the book were transferred lovingly and completely to the screen, with no personality or origin changes.

There are even little nuggets hidden in the movie for the fans of the novel. In the novel, Goldman goes into great detail about Fezzick's one great talent: His arms. Fezzick's arms are tireless, hence his ability to drag three people up the cliff by a rope. And so, when Fezzick looks down at the climbing Wesley in the film, his comment "he has good arms!" always brings an extra big grin to my face.

Instead of summaries that the characters deliver (with great timing) during the movie, Goldman actually describes the back story in detail in the novel. It's very fun! And the truly great part is that because of this, the book and movie don't feel repetitive. While Goldman's novel claims to be "only the good parts" of a larger volume, the movie is truly only the best parts of the book. Another wonderful aspect of this is that the events in the novel that were cut are not precluded by the movie-- they could have still easily happened off screen.

Like Kate, I too have little objectivity when it comes to this movie. I love it, and the characters. Each are unique, alive, driven, and, as Kate says, full of heart. This is one of the few films that I love just as much now as when I was a kid.

Oh, and Kate? "I don't think that word means what you think it means." HA!

Kate says in High School, The Princess Bride was for me what Monty-Python was for people just a few years my senior: the film that everyone had seen, that everyone could quote from.

And what awesome quotes! "I'm not saying I would want to build a summer-home here, but the trees are actually quite lovely."

"Is this a kissing book?"

". . . a pleasure cruise through eel-infested waters."

"Drop Your Sword."

And I could keep going . . .

But I will refrain.

I have read the book, but I don't remember it very well (it was a number of years ago), so I've left that part of the analysis to Mike. I remember not being greatly surprised or disappointed by the differences between the film and the book; it may help that the book's author also wrote the script!

In terms of the characters: I can't think of any two young actors better suited for their parts than Robin Wright and Cary Elwes were at that time. Robin Wright is simply lovely with that unrelenting aura of innocence (so much so that it is actually difficult for me to see her any other way). Cary Elwes, of course, has that whimsical-twinkle-in-the-eye that makes his youthful beauty bearable.

It is also rather nice to see actors I am fans of--Mandy Patinkin and the awesome Peter Falk--in atypical roles although I think Peter Falk is just playing himself (being utterly adorable).

Not that I can forget the hilarious Wallace Shawn! Or the slimy Chris Sarandon! Or the wry and exceedingly dry Christopher Guest!

Carol Kane!

Billy Crystal!

Even the minor parts are well-played: Malcolm Storry as Yellin! ("Oh, you mean this gate-key.")

Okay, I'll stop . . .

*Sigh.*

In case you haven't figured it out, there's zero objectivity involved in this review.

All the actors do a remarkable job delivering drop-dead hilarious lines with panache and sincerity. The characters are unique, yet stable and consistent. They have heart. I think it is notable that many of the actors have mentioned The Princess Bride as their favorite film to make.

I think "heart" is really want makes this film stand out from other fantasy films that combine fantasy/ mythological motifs or that insert modern commentary into medieval settings or that otherwise spoof the fantasy genre. The humor is there but so is love and compassion and kindliness. Although Westley and Buttercup's reunion is the core of the film, Fezzik and Inigo's reunion is more than little touching while Inigo's justice over Count Rugen is more than a little satisfying. And these reunions/confrontations are done without becoming syrupy and mawkish.

It isn't just the humor that staves off the sap. It is the way each character remains true to him or herself. Westley's remains Westley even with Buttercup: "Well, now, that was an adventure." (Turning the hero into a milksop the moment the heroine shows up is a mistake made by many television writers; that problem is avoided here. Westley loves Buttercup; he also "gets" her.) Buttercup remains Buttercup; she doesn't, thankfully, turn into Xena. Inigo's revenge is accomplished in Inigo's way: "I want my father back, you son of a bitch." The slimy prince earns the ending/humiliation he deserves.

I think the characters are so strong because in The Princess Bride, story reigns supreme! That is, a good story with lots of substance and good themes is told correctly with excellent thematic pay-offs: the right people do and say the right things. No matter how improbable an event, it doesn't just occur because it was stuck into the film. It occurs because it makes sense for its context.

The result is one of the best movies ever made.

Me: I'd take it to a desert island even over Monty-Python!

Supernatural Pilot

Kate says I ought to LOVE this show. It has it all: X-Files-type premise, folklore, individual "hunting" episodes, brothers. Not to mention that the pilot is actually quite good. It is well-plotted, delivering an enormous amount of information without losing rhythm. The "mystery" is interesting (even if the boys are a little slow to figure it out; sorry, but any folklorist knows about dangerous female hitchhiking ghosts, and they've presumably been brought up on this stuff--one of the snags of writers being less used to material than their characters), and the pay-off is frankly cool.

Not to mention, the pilot does an excellent job establishing the arc of the show (hunt for Dad, find out who killed Mom and girlfriend) while allowing for non-arc episodes. And the brothers have good tension with strong differing personalities. I'm a little too old to be awed by how CUUUUUUTTTTEEE they are, but, as mentioned earlier, I like brother dramas, and Ackles amuses me.

So the question is, why, when I tried this show out a year ago, couldn't I get into it?

I think there were two problems: one, the two episodes following the pilot are dull--the boys run around after creepy things. With other people. Everybody is running around. Yawn. There are less interesting things to watch--such as watching fern grow--but not much.

The second is that the brother tension works, but it needs a third person. Numb3rs, for instance, has Peter MacNicol to run interference. Do Sam and Dean get a third person later on?

I'm not really sure why this is necessary. Mulder-Scully didn't need anyone else. But while Scully was more likely to humor Mulder's off-kilter obnoxiousness, Sam would probably just hit Dean. Also, Mulder-Scully had dialog, not to mention sexual tension. Granted, I think many brother shows are just homoeroticism in disguise (though not Numb3rs, oddly enough), but the reality of brothers is that introductory/let-me-explain-myself dialog is a tad less necessary. Even in Numb3rs, the brothers have to go to therapy to "get it all out." We tend to assume that family members already knows us. A third party allows the brothers to explain themselves through that third party. (So in Numb3rs, Alimi Ballard's character can say, "I've never known two brother so different and so much the same," a reflection that the audience needs to hear but would never hear from the brothers themselves.)

Of course, part of the issue could be the actors who play the brothers seem to spend a little too much time being coooool.

I have reminded myself that X-Files had some real duds in the first season (that computer episode!), and I kept going. So I am going to give Supernatural another try beyond the first three episodes. Hopefully, the boys stop running around and start investigating more--like they do in the pilot!

Lanae says oooooh, scary! Again, this episode is out of my area of interest a bit (I enjoy police procedural and psychology oriented shows), but I did like the mystery of the episode, and the idea that the mental trauma of murdering her kids caused the "Lady in White" to kill, and fear going home.

What I'm finding out is that it really takes a few episodes for me to get into a series. If I came to love the characters and their goal, I could really enjoy any show. But I don't usually get a feeling for that in the first episode.

Also, this episode didn't really have my full attention. While I was interested and trying to watch, we were watching our 8-years-old niece, who was sitting, terrified, just a few feet from us. We finally had to turn off the show and move into the bedroom, leaving her to watch Bolt. I saw what happened and didn't miss any scenes, but I was unable to focus on enjoying the show, as I was on constant alert in case anything was too scary for her. It was an okay episode though, and if Mike decided to watch it, I would probably stick my head in to see what was happening every so often.

Mike says to Supernatural, "I DON'T CARE HOW GOOD YOU ARE! YOU TOOK ANGEL'S TIME SLOT, SO I HATE HATE HATE HATE YOU FOREVER AND EVER! *Rasberry*"

That being said, I reluctantly liked the episode a lot more than I expected, or even wanted to. While the paranormal investigation has happened a million times, I'm intrigued by the idea of actually hunting the paranormal. Having the boys raised with the experience to do it is also a great time saver.

Unfortunately, I've seen just too much TV--from the moment I saw Sam's cute, blond girlfriend with the cheesy lines, I knew she was going to die. I mean, com'n, REALLY? We're going to unite these two brothers to find their dad, and one of them really expects to go home? The funniest part was when she did die, the other brother ran in conveniently! I'm sorry, but if I was Sam, I'd be wondering if my big bro had more than a little to do with my hot girlfriend's death. ANYONE who's EVER seen a pilot before this one knew that the girlfriend was toast. But, predictability aside, I suppose we had to see Sam's unwillingness to join, then give him a reason (surely the death of the dad would have done this?).

The only real thing keeping me from automatically continuing watching the show is the fact I can only get one DVD at a time from Netflix, and I'm scared of wasting my time. Meaning, I guess, that I really feel that in a show like this, stand alone episodes are a waste of time. In Buffy, I could tolerate them because of reference to the ongoing story and ongoing continuity from episode to episode. What happened mattered, even if it was the monster of the week. When Buffy's mom dated a robot (undoubtedly a stand alone monster of the week episode and a GREAT one), that was referenced for YEARS.

But for Supernatural, I can't help but think of Smallville, where the monster of the week episodes are nothing more than filler--they have little to nothing to do with the over arcing story, and anything that happened in the episode will have almost ZERO lasting impact! I guess that I feel a larger mythology and over arcing storyline is what gives a show purpose. Even House, which is largely standalone cases, has character progression and interaction that is over arcing through the entire season (and series) and affects the future actions and interactions of the characters.

Wow, I seem to be a little rage filled this week, sorry. Anyhow, I'm probably going to give Supernatural a shot. But if I don't get a sense of an ongoing story, larger story arc, and lasting consequences of actions, I'm going to be really mad (they replaced ANGEL with THIS!?!?!?!).

Buffy Pilot: "Welcome to the Hellmouth" and "The Harvest"

Here we go! Go ahead and comment on your personal reactions to the episodes or respond to anything we have said. Remember to keep all comments civil (even in disagreement)! Spoilers (what happens in later seasons) are allowed, so those of you who are getting to know Buffy for the first time, be warned. And we hope you enjoy her as much as we have!

Kate says the pilot holds up remarkably well. The personalities, except for Angel, are well-established. Willow is adorable and smart. Xander is impassioned and funny. (I love his line, while holding Buffy's stake: "The only thing I can think is that you're building a really little fence.") Giles is already dry, baffled by and concerned for Buffy. Not to mention Buffy is already exhibiting both her glib wittiness and future potential angst.

The only personality who doesn't seem "set" is Angel. He comes across as too Mr. Cool-ish. Granted, Angel could be deliberately mocking himself, so Buffy doesn't see how enamored he is (in Angel, we learn that he saw her and felt a desire to help her before they officially met). Still, although Whedon & Company may have known he was going to be a vampire (and there are a number of hints to that end), I don't get the impression they knew exactly what personality Angel would have. Rather, David B. seems to have grown into the part (and man, does he look young!).

Finally, the pilot is remarkably comprehensive. It is a good introduction to the slayer and Hellmouth mythologies without an unwieldy amount of exposition (it helps that Buffy, as a newbie to Sunnydale, has to be introduced to the Hellmouth alongside the viewer). Also, the pilot already introduces the themes of Buffy's loneliness: her desire to be a normal girl versus her calling.

Makes me want to start watching the show from the beginning all over again!

Mike says WOW! For a show nearly 15 years old, this pilot was a breath of fresh air. I kept some notes while watching this through with my wife, Lanae, and a friend of ours (yes, I said notes: Don't judge me!), and I was blown away by how much all three of us actively enjoyed watching the pilot episodes. And my notes, I believe, explain why. While I did write down a couple things about characters, plot devices (example: the dreams! used sparingly, but to great effect through the show), I kept coming back again and again to the dialog. Whedon's dialog is KILLER. Whether Xander is tripping up over talking to Buffy ("Is it just me, or are you becoming a blithering idiot?" Xander: "No, it's not just you...") or Buffy dispensing advice to Willow ("Seize the moment, cause tomorrow you might be dead!"), I had forgotten how sharp the dialog and jokes are throughout the show.

And it was refreshing. This was light, but meaningful, banter between four individuals that would become the closest of friends. And the writing team NAILED it. And then, the actors nailed it. And despite a couple of dated phrases (what's the "sitch"?), it felt as new and original as it did then.

After a glorious hour and a half, the pilot ended, and I was surprised at what I felt: I was happy! Electrified. And nostalgic. I realized that I had missed Buffy and the gang. Hell, I was as homesick for Sunnydale as I am for Maine. And I didn't know how much I had missed them until I finished the pilot. I wanted to pull out the next episode and start watching again from the beginning. Now, the pilot wasn't perfect (I am, of course, guessing here; I noticed almost no imperfections, but I'm sure they're there as sure as I know I'm biased), but watching the pilot was a lot like coming home after a long time away. Sure the house is old, the decorations a little dated, and the plot a little holey, but you're so happy to be back in the place you learned to love and laugh in, along with the people that taught you how, that you honestly don't notice.

Lanae says that even though Buffy really isn't my preferred type of show, the dialogue--such as "What is your childhood trauma?!?!?!?!"--really pulled me in. The jokes and script was really witty and fun.

I also really liked the opening which played on what you thought would happen. Other movies have you ready for the girl to get killed, but then she turns out to be the monster. Very cool twist. I also liked the themes of the show, like how Buffy wanted to be a normal kid; it was good drama and really made the character feel real. There was no cheese or silliness, as opposed to if Buffy wanted to be a hero. She was real, not dancing around and posing like a superhero. And I liked the jokes a lot!!!! There was a lot of really good character development. Buffy reaches out to Willow and inspires her friends.

I really liked Willow as a character, I thought it was great how she started shy and became more confident through the show. I just wish they didn't take her as far as they did (dark witchcraft, lesbianism). But maybe Joss was trying to show how the innocent get corrupted? The show is really interesting and fun despite being out of my normal area of interest. The humor really helps, though, to draw me in and help me become more interested in what's going on. But, the humor and silliness does dispel the reality of the situation a bit, even though there isn't too much reality in vampires! (Note from Mike: Lanae's opinion has been transcribed from a conversation held after we watched the pilot together. While she did want to share her thoughts, she asked me to write it up.)

Two Weeks and Counting: Finding "Buffy: Welcome to the Hellmouth" Online

There is crime against humanity and morality being committed every day in this country. Somehow, despite all the evidence given, all the testimonies shared, and all the vampires slain, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer: the Complete Series" is still not in every home in the U.S. Even worse- It is not in all video stores!

My friends, this is a travesty, especially considering that so many of you are deprived in this way (or, heaven forbid, participating in this tragedy)!

So, in discussing what we can do to prepare for the Video Club, and in an effort make the material accessible to as many people as possible, Kate and I thought it would nice to research and provide as many online options as we could for each title. While I don't yet have the timing worked out, I'll try to get these posted 1-2 weeks before every "Due Date."

As I mentioned, Buffy is not in every home (yet!). Despite this, there are a couple of ways to watch it online currently:

iTunes- currently, iTunes has seasons 1-5 online for purchase and download. Episodes 1x01, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" and 1x02 "The Harvest," which constitute the two parts of the Buffy pilot are $1.99 apiece.

Amazon- The two episodes are also available for purchase here, for online viewing or download. Also $1.99 apiece.

Netflix: Watch Instantly- All seven seasons of Buffy are available to watch instantly to anyone with a Netflix account and a computer on the Netflix website. Alternately, you can also just request the disc. If you have a current generation game console (PS3, Xbox 360, or a Wii), you can watch movies instantly as long as you have a Netflix account. This may require going online and adding it to your "instant" queue manually.

Scripts- in looking for online episodes, I found "BuffyWorld," which features full episodes guides, and scripts! While not the episode, it's still pretty cool.

Hulu- You CAN NOT, I repeat, CAN NOT currently watch the Buffy Pilot on Hulu. While it has most certainly been there in the past, currently Hulu is hosting season three, and it only hosts one season at a time. According to the site, season 1 of Buffy will return on July first. A little late for our needs, but still, pretty nice if come July you really want to finish season one (if for some reason you haven't done it already).

Okay, folks! That's it! Kate and I are both really excited for this, and we look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on June 4th!

First List: Pilot Episodes for Science-Fiction/Fantasy Shows

The list below includes mostly science-fiction and fantasy shows. There is one exception—Bones—which, although not a science-fiction show, fits thematically with X-Files. The order of the episodes does follow a thematic arrangement (Whedon's shows together; space opera shows together; British shows together), but the arrangement is somewhat loose.

1. Buffy, the Vampire Slayer: "Welcome to the Hellmouth" and "The Harvest," June 4th
2. Firefly: "Serenity" (the REAL pilot, not the aired pilot), June 11th
3. X-Files: "Pilot," June 18th
4. Bones: "Pilot," June 25th
5. Roswell: "Pilot," July 2nd
6. Supernatural: "Pilot," July 9th
7. Star Trek: Next Generation: "Encounter at Farpoint," July 16th
8. Sarah Jane Adventures: Episodes 0-2, July 23rd
9. Red Dwarf: "The End," July 30th
10. New Doctor Who: "Rose," August 6th

Feel free to watch ahead, but please save comments about a pilot for that pilot's "due date." The "due date" indicates when a post will appear for that video. Spoilers are accepted (i.e., you can mention future episodes of Buffy in the Buffy commentary). Bad language and asinine comments ("You're stupid if you don't agree with me") are not; such comments will be removed.

Welcome!