cloudsurfer

When racing pilot Cliff Secord discovers a jet-pack hidden in his hangar, he straps it on to become the Rocketeer, a super knight fighting the forces of evil to save the damsel in distress. Since "The Rocketeer" first launched in 1991, it has proved itself to be a timeless adventure that continues to entertain to this day. Yet as high-flying and fun as the story is, it should have taken us much higher.

"The Rocketeer" was meant to be an "Indiana Jones" franchise for Disney. So why didn't it ever take off? It wasn't the acting. Paul Sorvino is the perfect gangster in any film. Alan Arkin makes a great sidekick. Jennifer Connelly is the girl-next-door love interest any guy would want to rescue. And let's not forget Timothy Dalton, who plays the Errol-Flynn-turned-villain with such sinister charm you can't imagine anyone else in the role. (Bonus: Look for a quick appearance by Jan from "The Office" as the singer in the club scene.)

Sometimes the subplots get too much priority, the special effects don't blend well, and the score is definitely not as memorable as Indiana's. But these things can be overlooked if the storytelling is good, and "The Rocketeer" keeps things flying. It's an adventure, it's a caper, it's a romance, it's a period piece, it's patriotic, it's suspenseful -- so much more all packaged in a single film. It just about makes it as a super hero movie, too. The Rocketeer as a character has that unique and iconic look that makes kids want to dress up and fly around the living room. Even if you barely remember the movie, you still recognize the Rocketeer as a standout character all these years later.

So why didn't this film do better than it did? The biggest weakness is the movie's lead. Billy Campbell was not the actor to carry a film like this. It really needed a Harrison-Ford-as-Indiana-Jones swashbuckler type, and Campbell didn't fit the bill. I know that director Joe Johnston fought for Campbell to be his lead, but I don't get what he saw in him. Campbell makes a good side character in "Star Trek" or "Frasier" (shows in which he appeared). God bless him, he's just not a marquee guy.

The Rocketeer just didn't take us to heights it could have. If interest in the character remains high, maybe "The Rocketeer" will become more than a by-gone film of yester-year. He seems like the perfect vehicle (rocket?) for the new Disney Plus platform. Either way, it's still a fun movie to come back to. You won't be disappointed. But you won't be wow'd either.

Force awakens, what's with all the hate on this film? I thought it was an outstanding movie and I can't wait to see it again. "The Last Jedi" was an improvement on Abrams' hole-filled new chapter, and an exceptional episode to what has been -- less face it -- a less-than-stellar movie franchise.

The story takes off with fantastic action, the right touch of humor, deeper-than-usual characters, a few throw-back references, and a fair share of twists. The sequence of events is confusing, and too many things happen out of convenience to the plot. This is mostly due to lazy writing, and Abrams' episode was guilty of it as well.

Otherwise, I'm not real sure why people are dumping on this movie. Most of the reactions are various colors of "Bad! Awful! What a joke!" But let me venture a guess that's a little more probing. This was a chapter about preservation, not confrontation. It pulled away instead of pushed forward. And maybe that's what has everyone so upset.

Almost the entire plot of "The Last Jedi" doesn't make much of a dent in the current story-arc. Don't get me wrong: all of the action and humor and character elements are there, as I said. But outside of one or two events, you could skip Episode VIII and not lose anything. But that's actually the point. Rey says, "Help me find my place in all this." Her place is in less-than-epic events that still make a difference in people's lives. Those events still touch hearts and frustrate enemies.

The things she discovers in her quest to find answers are not amazing. Her backstory is disappointing, even to her. A vision she had of the future was manipulated by someone else. She has talents and abilities she has no idea what to do with, and the one person that can help her won't. At the end of the movie, this nobody from no where is still nobody from no where.

Nonetheless, she makes the most of what she has. That's not just true for Rey. It's the case with everyone in the movie. It's the case for you and me. One of the best lines in the film is delivered by a new and loveable yet largely forgettable character. More is lost than acquired by the end of this film. No one really gains anything. But that's not because the point was dropped. It was the point to be made.

When you take your Star Wars glasses off, you have to admit: the series has not been great. The prequels were all terrible, Rogue was flat, and Return was a pathetic conclusion to the original trilogy. There's only one exceptional Star Wars film, and that's Empire: an incredible story, effects ahead of its time, contains one of the most iconic moments in cinema history, and quite possibly has the best score ever composed. Nothing will ever beat Empire.

But dare I say it, "The Last Jedi" was up there. "The Force Awakens" was a safe movie, a high-budget fan-film, and I thought it was a little over-applauded. "The Last Jedi" was much more daring. It dared to retreat. And that was perfect.

With how well Netflix executed their reboot of Voltron, I could not have been more excited for this show. Castlevania?! YES!! ...And I was severely disappointed within the first, oh, five minutes or so. Dracula, a man of science who just wanted to help people until his wife was burned at the stake for presumably being a witch? Puh-lease. (Not a spoiler -- that's how the show starts.)

Why can't vampires be evil supernatural villains anymore? Why do they have to be tragic misunderstood romantics? It is possible to create a villain who is evil for the sake of being evil, yet still be a compelling villain. Christopher Nolan did it with his iteration of the Joker. Dracula is the Prince of Darkness -- he wants the world to burn! But there is no subtlety, no mystery with this character. His motivation and backstory are laid out for us right from the get-go.

When playing the Castlevania video games, Dracula is not a character given to the players right at the very beginning. You have to work to get to him, and they are painstaking (pun), difficult adventures. This makes Dracula's appearance all the more rewarding. Had the introduction to the show been eliminated, it would have established immediate anticipation. Viewers would have been anxious to see Dracula! The motivation for these writers must have been, "No guts, no gory... er, glory."

Trevor Belmont, the story's protagonist, is even less interesting than Dracula. He just kind of stumbles into the murder and the mayhem and is more drunken-frat-boy than hero (as with Dracula, it is possible to create a hero who is good for the sake of being good). One wonders why Trevor even bothers, or any character for that matter. The direction of the show itself is confusing. The writers start out pushing science, so it doesn't make sense when everything goes all magic and demons.

The most interesting part of the series for me was when Trevor was interviewing villagers, a scene reminiscent of Castlevania II: Simon's Quest from thirty years ago. Players complained when it was discovered that you couldn't trust any of the answers given by villagers in the game. It turned out that in an effort to add realism, the game-makers programmed the villagers to lie. While the show had that feel in the villager scene, it was under-developed. And that's a pretty good summary of the short series (with more episodes to come).

This show could have been much better with plenty of material to draw from (that catchy Castlevania soundtrack is strangely absent, too). Ever played the N64 rendition of Castlevania? Not only a great game, it's a great story, creepy as heck with plenty of monsters and twists. I've heard it argued that TV and movie adaptations of videos games are actually a step backward, and with Castlevania this is definitely the case. In the games you control the outcome of the characters and the story. With this show, we just have to watch as the characters go... no where.