“It was a town of red brick, or of brick that would have been red if the smoke and ashes had allowed it; but as matters stood it was a town of unnatural red and black like the painted face of a savage … It contained several large streets all very like one another, inhabited by people equally like one another, who all went in and out at the same hours, with the same sound upon the same pavements, to do the same work, and to whom every day was the same as yesterday and to-morrow, and every year the counterpart of the last and the next.”

(Good Pictures/Bad Camera is a regular feature on IFB.)

Reviewing any film like Red Lights presents a bit of a Catch-22.

Much like The Others, The Sixth Sense, or even April Fool’s Day, Red Lights is a film that relies heavily upon classic misdirection to keep the audience engaged.

Let that cat out of the bag, and you’ve already taken a critical element away from the storyline. Do your best to write around it, and you leave the reader feeling more confused than informed.

In the end, it defeats the whole purpose of reviewing a film like Red Lights in the first place.

Having said that, it’s definitely worth your while to go see this film. It’s both highly entertaining and well directed, to be sure. And it’s driven by Robert De Niro, who most recently kicked ass in Being Flynn, much the same way he does here, and subsequently promises to continue doing with no less than 10 projects already slated for release by the end of 2013.

Otherwise, Sigourney Weaver plays a cynic, Cillian Murphy plays her protege, and Elizabeth Olsen adds the awesome. But, like usual, it’s De Niro who pulls the whole thing together. Everything else about Red Lights rests squarely upon his shoulders.

(Red Lights arrives in New York and L.A. this coming Friday, July 13, with a national rollout to follow.)

“Professor Carroll Quigley’s second lasting insight concerned the key to the greatness of Western civilization, and its continuing capacity for reform and renewal. He said our civilization’s success is rooted in unique religious and philosophical convictions: that man is basically good; that there is truth, but no finite mortal has it; that we can get closer to the truth only by working together; and that through faith and good works, we can have a better life in this world and a reward in the next. According to Quigley, these ideas gave our civilization our optimistic, pragmatic character and an unwavering belief in the possibility of positive change. He summed up our ideology with the term ‘future preference,’ the belief that ‘the future can be better than the past, and each individual has a personal, moral obligation to make it so.’ From the 1992 campaign through my two terms in office, I quoted Professor Quigley’s line often, hoping it would spur my fellow Americans, and me, to practice what he preached.”  

IFB’s Quotations Page, General Index

Oh, my. Has it been another year already?

Why, no … it sure hasn’t. In fact, it’s only been a month since The Season Finale of Moving On (A non-fiction web series about Wildwood, Childhood, and Life After Drinking).

But, alas, it’s time to gear up again, and get on with Season Two. Twelve more installments. Lots of sex, drugs and rock n roll. Who could ask for anything more?

Look forward to seeing you all back here next week, as we dive head-on into the Summer of 1993. Tell a friend. Tell your neighbor. Tell someone, for Pete’s sake.

(Good Pictures/Bad Camera is a regular feature on IFB.)

“Guilt was the existential edge of sex. Without guilt, sex was meaningless. One advanced into sex against one’s sense of guilt, and each time guilt was successfully defied, one had learned a little more about the contractual relation of one’s own existence to the unheard thunders of the deep. Each time guilt herded one back with its authority, some primitive awe – hence some creative clue to the rages of the deep – was left to brood about.”

The new superhero trilogy model breaks down something like this:

1. Origin story: Establish main character, main conflict … explore protagonist’s motivation, flaws, strengths, weaknesses and values. Insert average villain for good measure. If the franchise tag is bankable enough, name recognition alone should prove more than enough to carry the box office.
2. Introduce arch-nemesis: Stakes are heightened, a marquee villain arrives on the scene. An epic battle between good and evil ensues. Somewhere in the midst of all this, a major love interest gets compromised (This is the more viable reverse of the original franchise model which reigned supreme from 1980-2005).
3. Final Resolution: What the final film loses in terms of relying on a lesser-known adversary, it more than compensates for via the freedom to take more chances, resolve ongoing plot points, and wrap the whole thing up in a multi-million-dollar bow.

This newer model is one of several reasons why The Dark Knight franchise has continued to gain momentum throughout the course of its seven-year run. This model is also the reason why Superman Returns is widely considered such a disappointing failure.

The Amazing Spider-Man somehow manages to straddle the awkward balance between those two. On one hand, it feels like the slightly-adjusted retelling of a story we’ve already heard. On the other, it veers just enough from that story to keep the entire franchise afloat.

In terms of casting, Andrew Garfield proves himself more than equal to the task, Emma Stone‘s character benefits from strong chemistry with him (both on-screen and off), and Martin Sheen approaches the role of Uncle Ben as if he was simply reprising Cliff Robertson’s dramatic turn from the original.

The most welcome surprise of this reboot – by far – is the casting of Denis Leary as Gwen Stacy’s Police Captain father. The biggest letdown, meanwhile, is how horribly out of place Sally Field seems playing Peter Parker’s venerable Aunt May.

Otherwise, the dialogue is subpar (often times even bordering on hackneyed), the plot relies far too heavily on rote gimmicks (rather than deft storytelling), and the climax works itself into such a 3D lather that you simply cannot help but roll your eyes.

Final verdict: While The Amazing Spider-Man certainly does provide a feast for the eyes, it also fails to live up to the worthwhile precedent set by Sam Raimi’s original. For something on that level, we may very well have to wait until the already-anticipated sequel, which is – of course – exactly what Columbia execs have been banking on all along.

(The Amazing Spider-Man opens in theaters today.)

(Good Pictures/Bad Camera is a regular feature on IFB.)

“Essentially, the fun factor had gone out of Rolling Stone. It was an outlaw magazine [when it was based] in California. In New York it became an establishment magazine, and I have never worked well with people like that. Today at Rolling Stone there are rows and rows of white cubicles, each with its own computer. That’s how I began to hate computers. They represented all that was wrong with Rolling Stone. It became like an insurance office with people communicating cubicle to cubicle. But my relationship ended with [them firing me]. The attempt was enough.”