In conjunction with the release of World War Z, I’m re-posting this interview with zombie expert Doug Winter from October 14th, 2010. No one knows zombies like Doug, and now is a good time to brush up on some knowledge. With so much disagreement among fans regarding zombies’ speed, awareness, etc., it’s important to know your facts. And besides, reading is great exercise for your braaaaainssss…

I’ve known Doug Winter for over 20 years. When I first met him, he had just released what became known as the first-ever zombie mash up, “Less Than Zombie” which appeared in the horror anthology Book of the Dead (1989). He followed that up with “Bright Lights Big Zombie” (Still Dead: Book of the Dead 2, 1992), and “The Zombies of Madison County” (Dark of the Night, 1997), which won the International Horror Award. In the introduction to his best-selling anthology Prime Evil (1988), Doug wrote that zombies were the monsters most symbolic of our era. When I started considering the growing fascination and acceptance of zombies in all aspects of pop culture in the last few years, I went to him to get his thoughts on the subject. I got schooled in zombies in a big way, and I think those of you who are full on experts will be too. READ ON!

LC: That quote in Prime Evil…where were you coming from with that? That’s way more than just a good guess. Granted the societal interest in zombies only really took off in the nineties, but there have certainly been plenty of zombie stories out there throughout the years, yet you predicted the recent explosion of interest…

DEW: George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead represented a paradigm shift in the perception of zombies. Before Night, film and fiction aligned the zombie with voodoo. The horrific impulses involved exploitation and slavery, often with class and racial undertones; consider the classic Bela Lugosi vehicle White Zombie (1932) or John Gillings’ The Plague of the Zombies (1966), which equated zombiedom with slave labor and looked to the masters, not the zombies, as the icons of evil. Romero changed all that by liberating the zombie from voodoo mythology and, of course, by introducing the element of cannibalism. Mindlessness was supplanted with single-mindedness; to quote the poster for Lucio Fulci’s Zombie (1980): We are going to eat you.

By the 1980s, the zombie mirrored the fear of dehumanization – the individual’s disconnect from everyday reality and the social fabric – and most important, symbolized relentless conformity. The best creators, Romero included, use the zombie to reflect the individual’s inability to control his or her own destiny, the massive removal of citizens from the process of socialization, and the deep, abiding fear of conformity on a grand, sociopolitical scale.

LC: When you talk about the removal of citizens from the process of socialization, are you talking about cocooning? The increased dependence on the web for interaction?

DW: Disengagement. Collecting “friends” by finding out how many people you can link to your place on the web rather than finding true friendship. Avoiding conversation and interaction in favor of unilateral communications – the ones you control. Why talk to someone on the phone or visit with a neighbor when you can send a one-way message?

But there’s another important metaphor at work when it comes to zombies – the flip side of that fear of conformity: xenophobia. Although our Statue of Liberty invites “the huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,” the zombie film plays on the fear that those huddled masses are going to eat us. It wrestles with illegal immigration, the homeless. homophobia, racism, sexism: the fear of anyone and everyone who looks like us, but we don’t want to believe is us.

LC: Having recently read a fair amount about the history of zombies in pop culture, it seemed like each decade has had a specific metaphor at work (70s and consumerism in Dawn of the Dead-zombies and environmental disasters in the 90s etc)–would you say that’s true?

DEW: Yes and no. Popular entertainment is about leaders and followers – mostly followers. And in horror film, there are cultural forces at play that most Americans, being America-centric, don’t acknowledge or even realize. So Americans may talk about the Revenge of the Living Dead films as being environmental zombie films, but don’t realize that Jorge Grau’s Let Sleeping Corpses Lie (1974) – or Breakfast at Manchester Morgue, one of the best film titles ever – embraced that theme years earlier, as did even Bruno Mattei’s crazed Night of the Zombies (1981) with its anti-nuclear and anti-imperialism underpinnings. And yes to consumerism in Dawn of the Dead (1978), but again, that was a one-off. Most zombie films, regardless of the decade, have precious little in the way of subtext – and generate their relevance, if any, through re-inventing the way in which zombies are created. The leaders, like Romero, break through, and the followers…follow.

LC: It’s interesting that the zombie controversy over speed–should they be ravenous infected speedsters we can’t run fast enough to get away from, or should they be slow insidious and in such huge numbers we can’t get far enough away that the sheer masses of them won’t get us…The fast zombies as in Resident Evil and 28 Days Later…

DEW: The fast ones aren’t really zombies. The point of the zombie is a creature that’s slow, shambling, implacable – to quote Night of the Living Dead, “They’re dead… they’re all messed up” – they’re human and yet they’re reduced. The raptor zombies of 28 Days Later are conceits, like vampires who don’t drink human blood and serial killers who kill only bad people – which makes them, to my mind, something else. Not that it matters – I love both of the 28 films. And by the way, fast zombies are nothing new – Umberto Lenzi may have been the first to use running zombies, in Nightmare City (1980).

LC: The apocalyptic aspect of the story–the fact that the whole world has fallen prey to the infection and only a few survive–that seems to be a major aspect of the newest zombie craze. To me that seems to be all the more about the inevitability of dehumanization and isolation–and of loss of individuality.

DEW: In part, that’s the follower phenomenon. Romero’s Dead trilogy – in fact, all of his zombie films – are post-apocalyptic: the zombie onslaught is no different from a nuclear holocaust, it’s swept the planet clean of most humans, and the difference is the kind of others that the survivors must face to survive. Replace the low-lifes in The Road with zombies and the story is more or less the same.

Just about every zombie film plays to that template. That’s a shame, because zombies offer so much room for invention. Lucio Fulci’s The Beyond (1982) uses zombies as purveyors of a personal, rather than a global, apocalypse; its ending remains one of the most beguiling in the genre. Possibly the best zombie novel of the eighties, Thomas Tessier’s Finishing Touches, isn’t about Romero-type zombies at all. My zombie trilogy isn’t about survival, but how people try to lead normal lives despite the zombies, how society changes in the wake of things like zombies. They Came Back (2004) wrestles with that most difficult of questions: what if the zombies weren’t cannibals, but simply our dead relatives and loved ones, returned to life … what do we do then?

LC: I was thinking that the recent interest is about the global economy and the perception that big business is more and more in control of our destinies — whether financial or environmental–and in control of our well-being, all of which leads to a feeling we are required to work and live in ways where we lose who we are, what we want means nothing, and how we live is up to them…the cubicle life of an office worker fearful of losing his job but hating it–(and of course fear of losing it to outsourcing would lead to xenophobia…)

DEW: That, I would say, is giving popular entertainment too much credence as a mirror of anxieties. Most of what we’re experiencing is about commerce. Again, it’s about leaders and followers, and we’re deep into the followers.

American popular culture likes to consume itself. The subject that once had meaning as a social/psychological/political metaphor – or perhaps simply as a shocking roller-coaster-ride of an experience – becomes a product. Packaging takes priority over content. What once was transgressive or fear-inducing becomes a cozy and comfortable product meant for mass consumption. The question now isn’t whether the filmmaker has something to say, some reason to pursue the question of zombies, but whether the masses are entertained. Zombies sell… so we have endless books, graphic novels, movies. The television show The Walking Dead probably would not debut this Halloween without the network’s perception of a pre-packaged market of viewers, all taught that zombies are entertainment. Even now, someone is sitting around trying to figure out how to create a reality zombie show. (I have.)

Perhaps the most significant development in the zombie sell-out is the loss of any pretense of metaphor – and the loss of the metaphysical, which was crucial to much of pre-Twenty-First Century horror. Night of the Living Dead opened in a graveyard for a reason, and it delivered a dire religious message: The dead would return to life, but not in a Biblical way. The zombie stripped the person of humanity, including, it would seem, any possibility of a soul. More than a few people saw an uncomfortable comparison between the finale of The Passion of the Christ and any number of zombie films. But the essential impulse of zombie films – to pit death against life – seems to leave little room for metaphysical argument. The question why is reduced to an explicable cause – an environmental disaster, a drug gone out of control. It’s that Hollywood desire to recycle anything commercial to death – coming soon, “Saw XII”. To imitate, rather than innovate.

LC: Well, that was one reason i kept going back and forth about having the “Hollywood is Dead” show. We’ve had Disney animation and film art for years in the gallery, but it has never really been seen as real art. The animation has gotten to the point where people will put it with what they perceive to be “real art”, and as with anything there are those who really see the art differently and respect it, but it still struggles for acceptability, along with film art. And yet, i have always felt it says something important about our childhoods, about our society, and may or may not make us feel safe depending on what we memories they bring up… So, zombie art, especially zombie art inspired by classic movie posters…it’s like walking the line of social statement and the “product” that much of accepted art becomes.

DEW: I mentioned Fulci’s The Beyond – his films, like many of the Italian zombie films, took inspiration from … and thus, some might say, copied … Romero’s visions. But to me, THE BEYOND is art. So for some, zombie art – the kind you can place on the walls of your house – will be art, because it is aesthetically pleasing or because it moves them, touches them, in the right way. Other people will find the art amusing, entertaining, as homage or perhaps as parody. The real question is … will people be willing to have zombies on the walls of their house? Of course, I’ve had zombies on my walls for 30 years, but I’m not normal, am I? Or am I…?

Humor helps. Parody helps. It’s easier to accept some things, particularly the outrageous, if you can laugh at it … or with it.

LC: Apart from the parody to some degree validating the original art from which it is derived, my hope is the art be also taken for it’s own sake–because it’s quite lovely. and that’s where the question of the sophistication of the art collector, or their understanding of the metaphors comes in. Or maybe just their senses of humor and fun…Whatever happens i’m glad i went with it–The origin of the art is the Star Wars parodies created to promote a new zombie Star Wars novel “Death Troopers”. The art was on the official Star Wars website, was extremely well received but was then pulled without explanation. Clearly less product and more social statement than LucasFilm was after…So we’ll see the reaction here in the gallery.

DEW: The reason I wrote zombie mash-ups seems lost on the folks who rewrite Jane Eyre into zombie novels: My aesthetic was cannibalism. I used to say that Less Than Zero was one of the great zombie novels of the eighties. So when John Skipp and Craig Spector asked me to write a story for Book of the Dead, I thought: What would happen if zombies really populated Less Than Zero? The result was “Less Than Zombie,” which cannibalized Ellis’ style, turning it on the tropes of zombie films to see how that style could help me say something about ourselves. It was like trying on a different skin, adopting another narrator’s voice. And I think that’s what this artwork is all about: using the zombie as a vehicle that allows the artist to try out many different artistic styles…and to entertain us big-time along the way.

We all knew it was coming. Earlier this week, trailers for the next Hobbit film, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug have been showing in theatres. Check it out, here.

The second film of the trilogy, Bilbo and the Dwarves will continue on their journey to the Lonely Mountain, the dwarvish fortress of Erebor, which was taken by the dragon Smaug. Will we get to see the dragon?

In addition, Gandalf will continue his investigation into the Necromancer in Mirkwood, who was mentioned in the first film (remember Radagast the Brown (the weird guy with the rabbit-sled?) telling Gandalf that there was “something evil in the forest”?).

People have wondered how Peter Jackson can extend the Hobbit story to fill up three films. Likely, the confrontation with the Necromancer (who is actually Sauron) will become a sub-plot for the films. “But, that was never in the book!” That’s right, dear reader. But the events regarding the Necromancer do take place during the Hobbit story. Remember all those times in the book (and the first film) where Gandalf mysteriously leaves or disappears? People are likely to ask where he goes when he just vanishes. So, the investigation of the Necromancer explains why.

And before you say anything about spoilers, the story is over 60 years old and you likely were told to read it in high school. Plus, if you’re reading this, you likely already read “The Hobbit”. So, no complaining.

The Desolation of Smaug will premiere December 14, 2013. Make sure to catch it.

Jonathan writing for ArtInsights

Superman is celebrating being a whopping 75 years in June, because while dates are argued about his birth, comic experts agree he was found and adopted by the Kents on June 18th*. Fans of his have waited a long time for a balanced, well crafted, worthy interpretation on the big screen.

In recent years, Tom Welling has brought some popularity to the character on TV’s Smallville.

In film, actors from George Reeves (1951′s Superman and the Mole Men) to Christopher Reeve (Superman 1-4) and Brandon Routh (Superman Returns) have donned the red cape, to varying degrees of box office success. With Man of Steel, starring Henry Cavill, the character development and motivations are such that they create arguably the most satisfying, complex, and entertaining feature film ever created featuring the superhero. Overall, MoS will prove itself an exciting, engrossing, and thoroughly well acted reboot worth seeing. Though it stumbles a bit from an excess of explosions and fight scenes, (it is, after all, directed by Zack Snyder) it will satisfy longterm comic aficionados and create a new generation of fans who will revel in its tempered optimism and visual flamboyance.

Let’s get one thing out of the way. When Cinema Siren says Henry Cavill is distractingly good looking, this is no hyperbole. Half the audience will be drooling, the other half will wonder what sort of work out and diet got him looking believably like an alien superhero. He reveals it took a diet of 5000 calories a day and 2 1/2 hour workouts to start, followed by something with which anyone who has ever slimmed down can relate. Cavill told Glamour, “The leaning down phase is the hardest because although you’re looking great, you’re always in a bad mood because you’re so hungry.” Girls all over the world can relate, and I speak for them when I say the end results are appreciated…Likely some fans will attend more than one screening just to see Cavill’s transformed body again.

The story follows the origins of Superman, beginning with eye popping opening scenes in Krypton and his childhood with the Kents, and showing his challenges dealing with identity and struggles with adversaries determined to lay Earth to waste. That’s all that can really be revealed so as not to spoil. The script has chronologies switching back and forth from past to present, which works with great effect. There is also a poignancy and depth to the story many viewers will connect to and appreciate.

What ultimately makes this reboot so successful in this critic’s estimation, is the embrace of Superman’s optimism and morality, while showing his inner struggles and demons. No one can really get behind a superhero who is indestructible and has no weaknesses or experiences no real adversity. Kudos to writer David Goyer for creating a screenplay that elicits empathy from the too-human audience, and congratulations to Henry Cavill for finding Kal-El’s sympathetic yet tortured moral center. Cavill has finally entered the arena of A-listers, after over 10 years of repeatedly losing out to other actors, most notably in Superman Returns and the recasting of James Bond. Cinema Siren, for one, is pleased, having pegged him for stardom way back in 2002′s The Count of Monte Cristo. (ask Siren Spouse. He’ll tell you!) He is now replacing Tom Cruise as Napoleon Solo in The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

In Man of Steel, supporting cast members shine as well. Amy Adams makes Lois Lane a hard as nails reporter who shows a femininity without compromising a willingness to fight for herself and what matters to her. Diane Lane and Kevin Costner are perfectly cast as Martha and Jonathan Kent, making indelible characterizations, and in their every scene, erasing all who have come before them. Russell Crowe as Jor-El gets to bathe himself in the gorgeousness of the opening scenes in Krypton, where visual sumptuousness in the inventive otherworldly environment hook the viewer. He also creates a heroic father figure that speaks extensively of hope, a pervasive and powerful theme throughout the film. Michael Shannon’s General Zod is a fully developed and complicated character who may represent Superman’s opposing force, but has his reasons for his supposed villainy. He continues the recent bonanza of strong, memorable, and well played villains in blockbusters.

As to the aforementioned overabundance of extensive action sequences involving explosions and fighting, for better and worse, Zack Snyder has a reputation for battle porn. It was perfect for 300, and in some respects, it’s necessary to the ultimate conclusion of Man of Steel. Some editing could have helped however, as the cacophany and visual freneticism of the special effects become too much of a good thing. There is a bit of sacrificing three dimensionality of character for action as well, especially in Lois Lane. One hopes this will be rectified in the expected sequel.

Zack Snyder and his cast should be pleased that naysayers are having little effect on sales for this weekend’s US release. Some media outlets, it seems, would have been impossible to impress or please. No matter. My readers know I don’t steer them wrong. I am, after all, guiding film lovers through a sea of celluloid! If you’re a fan, leap whatever tall buildings you must to get the the multiplex, and enjoy this well crafted reboot that reinvigorates a hero we all love. Because it’s super. Yeah, I said it.

*The art gallery owned by Cinema Siren’s alter ego, Leslie Combemale, has a new exhibit at ArtInsights that will be of interest to Superman fans, “Marvel vs. DC: The art of the superhero”, which runs through July 7th, and is having an open house on Saturday from 12-6, called “Dad of Steel”, where families can come see the art and enter their fathers in a contest where they write why they have a “super dad”. The winner will get a limited edition piece of art featuring Superman and his heroic friends. For more information go to www.artinsights.com.

Director Louis Leterrier (French director of The Incredible Hulk, Clash of the Titans and The Transporter) brings his unique flashy, big budget, art-house sensibility to this new release about a supergroup of illusionists called “The Four Horsemen” pulling off multiple heists as they get tracked by the FBI.

While his hyper-colorized frenetic visual style demands and largely keeps the audiences’ attention, it is the chemistry of the cast delivering the level of magnetism that creates such entertainment for the duration, making the audience feel every moment in the dark is well spent.

While there are several flaws in Now You See Me, it is entertainment unique enough to suit anyone looking for something fresh and fun at the multiplex.

Each character is a modern magician who specializes in a different talent.

Jesse Eisenberg is Atlas, a charismatic expert in sleight of hand, and Woody Harrelson is Merritt Osbourne, who is a mentalist with a waning career he is looking to reinvigorate. The two actors are back after working together on the crowd pleaser Zombieland, and clearly work exceedingly well with each other.

Isla Fisher plays Henley, an escape artist extraordinaire. Her role was originally written for a man, but Fisher finds ways to develop her as a strong and fearless woman. She said she imagined a mix of Katharine Hepburn and Lisbeth Salander from Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

Dave Franco rounds out the Four Horsemen team as an expert pickpocket, and is the impressionable junior member looking to impress. It is how these four actors as these characters feed off each other and how they interact with Mark Ruffalo and French star Melanie Laurent (as the team of FBI agent Dylan Hobbs and Alma, the Interpol operative helping him), that makes the movie really worth seeing.

It is risky, genius casting. No one actor here would usually be thought of for a lead, but almost all have been, and three of them (Ruffalo, Harrelson and Eisenberg) have Oscar noms to their credit. They work so well together, they genuinely create an ensemble where all seem essential and of vital interest to the story’s movement. That kind of generosity makes for great moments, and there are plenty to be had here.

Now You See It also has two legends in juicy supporting roles. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman and the characters they play make the proceedings all the more compelling, especially since Caine starred in several movies that inspired the writers for this one.

As to this sort of caper/magic mashup, it is a very interesting twist on a classic heist film, recalling movies like The Sting, Sleuth, Deathtrap and Oceans Eleven, as well as that great ’70s TV cult favorite, Banacek.

Since in Now You See Me there are multiple heists the audience is witness to, we get to puzzle out how each is done, while we experience a suspense building as to whether they will ultimately succeed. The audience grows to love the characters, even with all their quirks and weaknesses, and root for the Four Horsemen to get away with everything they are doing, right or wrong.

The filmmakers’ idea to use two cinematographers, Mitchell Amundsen for the action sequences, and Larry Fong for the illusions, was a choice that proved to be one of the film’s two big weaknesses. While they each, in their way, create eye-popping sequences that the audience will hold in their memory far after the end titles roll, these two distinct designs seamed together feel disjointed and incongruous. Either one would have been great on their own, but the two become an embarrassment of riches that climbs over the top, challenging the visual continuity.

The other weakness is the plot, which, to be sure, has many twists and turns that are very enjoyable and unpredictable. It leaves, however, a few holes so big it requires the power of the cast’s chemistry and the visual bombast to keep folks distracted, like a magician’s sleight of hand.

It is accomplished, but when the smoke clears and the audience is walking away, a few unanswerable questions might be raised. No matter, the plot takes you to such fun and exciting places, and the cast carries you so nimbly and with such verve, you are happy to go wherever they lead you.

Ta-da! Hollywood has dropped a great summer flick full of magic and excitement. Poof! That’s the sound of your boredom disappearing into thin air.

To be fair, director Chris Wedge (of Ice Age and Rio) has created a nature-based fantasy engaging enough that it will find an audience, but when one changes the name of a movie from Leaf Men to Epic, one better come with one’s A+ game, no?

Epic qualifies for a solid C, which is still a passing grade, but if you brought that home to mom, she would be displeased. This over-plotted muddle with under-drawn characters is saved by a handful of characters’ well-defined personalities and the beautifully rendered environments in which they interact.

It doesn’t help that director Wedge was comparing his newest with the grandiosity of Star Wars and Avatar. While both those incredibly successful action-ers demonstrated numerous breakthroughs in film technology, Epic fails to bring much advancements, and even brings distracting notice to the continued limitations of animating human characters with the complexity viewers are coming to anticipate or even perhaps expect.

The story is of teenager Mary Katherine (or M.K., played by Amanda Seyfried of Les Miserables) who is sent to live with her absent-minded professor of a dad who obsesses about a world of little forest creatures and humanoids that keep the positive forces of nature in sync. MK magically shrinks down to their size and becomes embroiled in the fight by the good side to save their forest from the evil forces who make all life wither and die.

M.K. and her teen counterpart Nod (Josh Hutcherson of Hunger Games) are very nicely developed characters with backstories that help connect them to the audience, making us care about the story’s outcome. The forest baddies are led by Mandrake, played by the spectacular Christoph Waltz. Many other movies have been named as influences or blueprints of Epic.

While there are elements reminiscent of FernGully, Avatar and Honey I Shrunk the Kids, there is enough new story and enough character development to allow Epic to stand on its own. However, there are weaknesses that are hard to overlook here.

Great editing in Rio, which created the impressively tight pacing, is missing. The story sequences often seem disjointed, and the timing is all over the place, sometimes appropriately fast-paced, sometimes lagging enough to make moments awkward when they shouldn’t be. Some characters’ relationships are not built enough for us to really grab hold and get behind their motivations.

And as to that, the character animating and voicing is where the biggest problems lie. While the various flora and fauna of the forest are delightful, clever and at times, inventive, the human characters, both from real life (M.K and her father) and from forest life (Ronin, Nod, Queen Tara) are way too under-drawn, almost to the level of video game avatars.

<

Their speech is not well synched to their animation. This is made all the more noticable by the decided lack of inspired voice acting, though that’s not pervasively true. Christopher Waltz creates another inspired villain, playing with his voice throughout, and further showing his range. Colin Farrell, Aziz Ansari and Chris O’Dowd are also inventive with their vocal choices.

With these notable exceptions, the voiceovers are merely passable to actively weak. Beyonce is particularly bland and non-descript. Since she plays the character who keeps the magic of the forest safe, that’s a bit tragic. Steven Tyler as Nim Galuu is no doubt supposed to be trick casting, but just comes off sounding like an exhausted “Wavy Gravy” after a weekend at Woodstock.

In both these cases, why not have hired one of the award-winning voice actors building their names creating books on CD?

All this is particularly unfortunate since animation has always been the place where the most talented voice actors could exhibit their best work. Even with Beyonce, Steven Tyler, Colin Farrell and Amanda Seyfried as stars, the filmmakers don’t list them at the beginning of the film.

In animation, that has always been the case. The artistry of animation takes center stage, and the vocal artistry is celebrated at the end, in the credits. So many incredibly talented voice actors out there at the top of their craft would have been able to build a bridge from the weak storyline and character animation, raising the quality of Epic significantly.

In this case in particular, hiring big names was not in the best interest of the film. It also continues a precedent that may be to the detriment of future animation features….Perhaps a bit more auditioning is in order? The studios would do well to remember not every live actor can be as good vocally as John Goodman.

Will Epic be something movie fans number among their favorites and rush out to buy when it arrives on Blu-ray? Not likely. Knowing the state of the animation industry, and how artists and animators put their hearts and souls into their craft, hoping to create something truly special, makes this end result very disappointing indeed.

Will Epic be that lovely family matinee for a rainy Saturday, so missing from area multiplexes of late? It is certainly diverting enough and has enough bright spots to fit that bill.

When Star Wars: The Clone Wars was officially canceled, many fans cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. But fear not, balance will be returned to the Force in the form of a new animated series in the Star Wars universe, Star Wars Rebels.

The series is set to debut on Fall 2014 on the Disney Channel (remember that Disney purchased Lucasfilms). Similar to how The Clone Wars was set between Episode II and III, Star Wars Rebels is going to be set between Episode III and Episode VI. Details are scarce beyond the basic plot: We’ll be able to watch the consolidation of the Empire’s power, the hunt for the remaining Jedi, the rise of Darth Vader, and the beginnings of the Rebel Alliance. Who knows? We might even get to see a young Han Solo actually smuggling something, Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia growing up, or how Han meet Chewie! We’re going to have to watch the series to find out.

There’s a lot of solid talent that’s going to be affiliated with the project. Producers Simon Kinberg (X-Men: First Class, Sherlock Holmes), Dave Filoni (Star Wars: The Clone Wars) and Greg Weisman (Young Justice, The Spectacular Spider- Man, Gargoyles) will take part in the project. And, of course, the series will be animated by Lucasfilm animation by many of the talent of Star Wars: The Clone Wars.

Bright, the future looks for Star Wars.

-Jonathan Hwang writing for Artinsights Magazine

Boy, this is going to be one short review. This movie has more spoilers than the 1967 Enterprise had Tribbles…and in the interest of full disclosure, this is written by the Cinema Siren who owns chairs from the Voyager show, can list the original episodes in order of appearance, has a T-shirt with a quote in Klingon, and a model of the Enterprise signed by all the original cast members.

That is to say, fandom lives here. Any experience of watching the new release by director J. J. Abrams would naturally be filtered through a brain steeped in Star Trek knowledge and lore. That being said, there is, unlike some long-term fans, no automatic hate for anything new. To my mind, the cast, theme, and story lines of the reboot are very much in keeping with and inspired by the history of the franchise.

I hope even non-trekkers ambivalent about sci-fi in general will agree in enthusiastically recommending this extremely exciting expansion on the story of the lives of the Enterprise family. For fans, it is truly a Qapla’ majQa’. (Klingon for “success well done”). Abrams and his fleet of writers have managed to create a sequel that is all action, but still gives weight and import to character defining interactions between the captain and his crew.

The actors playing the mains, from Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Zoe Saldana, to newcomer villain Benedict Cumberbatch, all stay true to their roles, and those we’ve seen before continue to make them their own. As Kirk, Pine seems challenged to fill the shiny black captain boots of scenery chewing Bill Shatner, while staying believable and engaging.

Quinto has had to expand significantly on the original Spock’s emotional spectrum and will no doubt continue to do so, not least evidence by the relationship they have created between Spock and Uhura. Zoe Saldana as the iron-willed communications officer brings Gene Roddenberry’s appreciation of strong women into the newest Star Trek incarnation beautifully.

Doctor McCoy, however, has not fared as well. As Bones, the delicious Karl Urban does little more than grouse and warn gravely about various goings on. In the process, he does show himself to be a great friend to Kirk, but I would have liked to have seen more nuance in his role this go around. John Cho and Simon Pegg as Sulu and Scotty, are given pivotal moments in the script in which to shine, and they make their moments onscreen count.

Benedict Cumberbatch plays this film’s villain as a complicated, enigmatic, and tortured soul. His voice is so mellifluous, I kept asking Siren Spouse if he thought there were special effects on it to make it so thick and silky. No wonder he is already a sex symbol in the UK. There is both a tenderness and a ferocity in how he designs his John Harrison. The audience is drawn in and has no idea what to think of him, which is as it should be…

It is interesting to note that at various times during the 132 minutes, circumstances are such that all the major characters cry. Why? I’ll never tell. Don’t worry, there are moments of laughter in store for the audience as well.

What I can tell is there are many long standing classic stories of the franchise that get turned on their head. For those who have been watching Star Trek movies and TV shows their whole lives, there are parts both big and tiny that will amuse, confound, surprise, and shock. The movie is often going at such hyper speed, though, even newbies will enjoy the ride.

How can you get through the whole review without mentioning any plot points, you ask?

There’s a bad guy, banter, danger, excitement and lots of explosions. There’s the Enterprise. She and her crew are Boldly Going. At warp factor 10. For about 132 minutes. Isn’t that all you need to know? Go explore this strange new world.

That’s right. The next entry of the popular DC Universe animated films is going to be based on the Flashpoint storyline, from the popular, continuity-shattering graphic novel by Geoff Johns and Andy Kubert. Entitled “Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox”, the film will be produced by DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. Animation.

What is Flashpoint? To put it simply, Flashpoint was the storyline that led to DC Comics – The New 52, the reboot of the DC universe.

Comic book publishing giants, DC Comics and Marvel Comics, tend to reboot their respective universes every so often. In doing so, they can “fix” various “problems”, retconning stories and characters to suit the writers and the fans. One of the most notable DC reboots occurred in “Crisis on Infinite Earth” when Superboy-Prime punched reality so hard that it shatters, creating the multiverse and effectively restarting the DC universe. Yes. That actually happened. One retcon that occurred from Superboy punching reality was the unexpected revival of Jason Todd, the second Robin, who was definitively killed in the 1980s.

So, what happened in Flashpoint? Basically, Barry Allen, the Flash, finds himself in an altered timeline than the one he knows. In this world, some villains are heroes, some heroes are villains, and the Flash, Superman and the Justice League are nowhere to be found. Oh, and the Amazons of Themyscira led by Wonder Woman have declared war on the Atlanteans led by Aquaman, which is devastating the world. Basically everything is topsy-turvy. Knowing that all of this is wrong, Barry sets out to fix things. How? First, he needs to get his powers back then he can use them to travel through time (because the Flash can do that) and restore the timeline. What follows is an insane (and incredibly dark) story where some of the DC Universe’s greatest heroes show how bad they can be and the entire world begins to fall apart before the Flash can fix things. Oh, and Batman? You need to see it to believe it.

“The Flashpoint Paradox” is set to release on July 30, 2013. Are you excited? I’m excited.

-Jonathan Hwang writing for Artinsights Magazine

No question whatsoever, director Baz Luhrmann is someone who elicits strong opinions with his every movie. Moulin Rouge draws forth a swoony sigh from its biggest fans and an eye roll from its detractors. In an industry that often plays it safe, creating movies like Fast and Furious 6 to keep the easy money flowing, it is always refreshing that someone is taking chances, and certainly Luhrmann has built his career subscribing to the “go big or go home” school of filmmaking.

His new film The Great Gatsby is no exception. Not only does he create the sort of visually over-saturated and extravagant fantasy he is known for, he does it with the cherished American classic novel written in 1925 by F. Scott Fitzgerald that has already been brought to film numerous times. …Gutsy move, Baz.

So, will this risk pay off? Movie fans must be curious because Cinema Siren has had more people asking about Gatsby than anything released in the last six months. Unfortunately, it seems a fair number of critics walked into the screenings with their minds already made up. “Too loud, too shallow, too over the top,” they say. Cinema Siren says “phooey to that!”

A tragic undercurrent

The Great Gatsby is a gorgeously filmed, exquisitely designed, bombastic ode to excess, with a melancholy undertone that leaves you confused and a bit sad, but sated and satisfied. In that way it succeeds in expressing Fitzgerald’s conflicted feelings about the crowd he himself ran with in the gin-soaked high society of 1920s New York.

In this new Gatsby, even during the most lavish party scenes, there is a tragic undercurrent, as if everyone from the maids to the performers to the bejeweled socialites are all temporarily trying to forget something awful they know will still be there in the morning. It all seems so beautiful, but the fun is forced and manic.

That manic attempt to find a bit of joy is most articulated by Cary Mulligan’s competent performance as Daisy Buchanan, the fragile flower and object of romantic obsession who collects admirers like fancy frocks she drops in a pile by her bed. Mulligan nails Daisy’s mix of ennui and dwindling optimism, but seems to lack the inner spark that would explain why men fall so hopelessly for her. Perhaps that was an acting choice.

The ultra rich 1 percent?
She looks so lovely, lit as she is, the filmmakers make her fairly glow. Her costumes are some of the most beautiful I’ve ever seen. She has several little silk numbers that are all a-sparkle with crystal beads, giving the impression the Buchanans are spending more on one dress than most middle-class folk make with a month’s wages.

Luhrmann is no stranger to political statements about haves and have nots in his movies. This brings us to my first reservation going into the screening. Many have heard the music is not the appropriate jazz of the age, but rather a mix of today’s music, including dance, hip hop and other cacophonous pop. The choice was a brilliant way of connecting the careless conspicuous consumers of the early 20th century with today’s society.

Luhrmann is making an obvious but arguably accurate statement that with the widening gap between the ultra rich 1 percent and the ever-increasing number of people living in poverty, we are living out the doom of repeated history. Costumes aside, the party scenes could be the rave that happened last night around any corner in the meat-packing district.

Costume designer and production designer
The aforementioned costumes are courtesy of colossally talented Catherine Martin, wife and partner of the director. What a partnership it is, as she has won Oscars in both costuming and art direction for Moulin Rouge and has been nominated for Romeo + Juliet and Australia. Baz Luhrmann’s movies would not have the consistent design aesthetic they are known for without her.

Beyond being his muse, she is the single best and most essential member of his filmmaking team. She is costume designer and production designer for The Great Gatsby, and one person being both on the same film is not that common. The color palette for Daisy is limited to peaches and off-whites, while those for the more déclassé Myrtle (Isla Fisher vibrates as the deliciously trampy sexpot) and her posse of “fun loving” trashy gal pals are a clash-tastic melange of bright reds, greens, yellows and many other garish colors thrown together and complimented with emerald eyeshadows or half inch-long false lashes.

There is one scene of debauchery with her and other members of the cast that is reason enough to see the film. Her hideaway, where they spend an evening doing god knows what-all, is so flamboyantly appointed, it is as if Colette and Oscar Wilde had gone into interior design together.

An ever-present sadness
As to the acting, anyone who has read the novel should know these characters are not meant to be liked. Every character is fatally flawed. It is the nature of the novel, and Luhrmann doesn’t shy away from staying true to that. Baz hit the jackpot having Leonardo DiCaprio sign on to play Jay Gatsby. He too is someone movie fans love or hate, but no one can say Leo can’t act. His Gatsby is beyond acting.

He inhabits him completely. From his first smile, he is dazzlingly winning. He makes the desire of protagonist and narrator Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) to live under the considerable spread of his personal sunshine real and believable. He has his reasons for his grandiosity and studied charm. Beneath it lies a sadness that is ever-present and readable in his every nuanced expression. DiCaprio incorporates a conflicted quality into his portrayal so well it makes you unknowingly squirm in your seat.

As to Tobey Maguire, his casting could have been problematic, and was my second concern. Reservations stemmed from him seeming altogether too young and fresh-faced to pull off the character’s arc. I needn’t have worried. By the end of the story, Maguire made Carraway completely his own, and carries us with him every step on his long emotional journey. Good for you, Tobey.

Look for great supporting work by Jason Clarke as the ruined working class workhorse George Wilson, Joel Edgerton as the swarthy cash cad Tom Buchanan, and newcomer Elizabeth Debicki as mysterious Jordan Baker, whom Luhrmann discovered for this film.

Love it or hate it, but see it
I didn’t expect to have to make a case for my audience to commit to seeing the film. The bad reviews from a mix of the jaded literati who stumbled into movie criticism having yet to finish their own Great American Novel, and a few genuine movie-loving writers who can (however misguidedly) concretely back up the reasons for their hate, left me no choice but to stand in Baz’s corner, declare its worthiness for viewing, and fight for your right as film fans to decide for yourselves.

The director took a classic story and fearlessly made the film his own. It is every bit the flamboyant train wreck he believed it should be. Does his unique vision add something that over time will become a cult classic and sparkle like one of Daisy’s dresses? To hazard an opinion, you’ll have to see it. Love it or hate it, but see it.