The evolution of Comic-Con

Since this past Wednesday night, the night of Comic-Con's four-hour preview before officially starting on Thursday, I have barely been able to tear myself away from my computer. I've been following entertainment sites like Entertainment Weekly and First Showing religiously, both on their actual sites and via Twitter. I've been watching video footage and looking through all the photos. I'm even watching G4's live coverage of the convention as I type this.

Over the years, Comic-Con has evolved from just another comic book convention to the ultimate destination for fans of not only comic books but video games, animation, sci-fi, fantasy, horror, collectibles, film and television.

Particularly in recent years, this convention has exploded in popularity. Entertainment reporters and bloggers cover the event extensively. Some filmmakers are now relying on Comic-Con to give their movies an extra boost by offering exclusive panel discussions and screening early footage.

Jon Favreau has stated he thinks Comic-Con is part of what made the first "Iron Man" film such a success. If a genre film garners strong buzz at Comic-Con, it's almost guaranteed to be a hit.

The first Comic-Con took place in 1970 and drew 300 attendees. This year's convention is expected to attract 125,000. So what caused this convention to evolve into such a juggernaut?

As Comic-Con expanded its offerings, it certainly also expanded its audience. But genre films have flourished since 2000, soaring in popularity and gaining hardcore fan followings. Comic book adaptations have become box office gold. "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings" have generated even more interest in fantasy while the "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" fan bases are just as strong today as they were in the franchises' early days.

Sci-fi-infused programs like "Lost" and "Chuck" have huge cult followings, and "The Twilight Saga" is attracting more young women to the convention. In the age of Youtube, Comic-Con is also getting exposed to a wider audience. Panel discussions are filmed and streamed on Youtube for fans at home to see, and some screenings are even bootlegged and uploaded to the video sharing site.

Whatever the reason, it's clear that this year's Comic-Con is going to be just as explosive as last year's. Fans who made the trek to San Diego had the chance to sink their teeth into sneak peeks from "Lost," "True Blood," "Chuck," "Dollhouse," "The Hobbit," "District 9," "Avatar," "Iron Man 2," Disney/Pixar, "New Moon," "Jennifer's Body," "Alice in Wonderland," "Tron Legacy," Lucasfilm's "Star Wars" spectacular, Kevin Smith and "Where the Wild Things Are," just to name a few.

Check out these awesome photos from the Wednesday night floor show courtesy of SlashFilm, and this photo gallery of fans and panels from the Chicago Tribune.

Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Though all of the “Harry Potter” movies have been entertaining, “Prisoner of Azkaban” stood out above the rest as a critical favorite. Enter David Yates’ masterful adaptation of “Half-Blood Prince,” which with its strong character development and eye-popping visuals has quickly become the best “Potter” film yet.

In the sixth and penultimate installment in the series, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) has three mysteries to face. First, after Voldemort’s return at the end of the fifth film, the magical world is on the brink of war. With Voldemort’s death eaters attacking wizards and muggles alike, there is a feeling of impending destruction.

Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) tasks Harry with looking into Voldemort’s past to piece together the tools to destroy him. Part of this exploration includes retrieving a memory from potions professor Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent) that may be the key to Voldemort’s defeat. Harry also suspects that Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) is somehow involved in Voldemort’s plans.

Second, Harry obtains a potions book with the mysterious inscription “property of the Half-Blood Prince.” Filled with notes scribbled in the margins, the Prince’s advice steers Harry to the top of the class. But some of the book’s notes are more than just helpful homework hints, and Harry has no idea about the Prince’s true identity.

Finally Harry and his friends deal with the mysteries of the opposite sex. Now 16 years old, Harry finds himself growing closer to Ginny (Bonnie Wright), who suddenly seems like more than just Ron’s (Rupert Grint) little sister. Meanwhile, Hermione (Emma Watson) comes to terms with her feelings for Ron, but may face competition from the outgoing Lavender Brown (Jessie Cave).

“Half-Blood Prince” serves mainly as a bridge between Voldemort’s return and the final battle. This story is more driven by the characters than action, but Yates still manages to keep things interesting. He creates a dark atmosphere that emphasizes the urgency of impending war but balances it out with some light-hearted romantic humor.

For the most part, the film’s romantic subplot works well. It emphasizes the fact that Harry and his friends are still adolescents and have to continue growing up even with a war coming. Ron and Hermione’s relationship plays a key role in the seventh book and is established well here, though Lavender’s over-the-top romantic gestures prove a bit overwhelming.

This film is by far the most visually stunning of the series with its top-notch special effects and cinematography. The quidditch scenes and the film’s climax are particularly impressive, and a dark look is maintained throughout the film even in its lighter moments.

The performances are also better than they’ve ever been. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson are all very comfortable in their roles now. They have all matured as actors, especially Radcliffe, who shines in both comedic and dramatic ways in this film.

Gambon, whose portrayal of Dumbledore has been divisive in this past, is spot-on here. At times he is warm while other times he is devastating. Felton also gives a particularly nuanced performance. While he was only a bully and a coward in previous films, here he is determined yet genuinely fearful of the task Voldemort has given him.

The film leaves out some parts of the book and adds others, which will likely disappoint some fans, but Yates still creates a cohesive story. What makes a great book doesn’t necessarily make a great film. This is a great film, and fans who want it to be 100 percent faithful to the book should just read the book.

Yates has a clear understanding of the world J.K. Rowling created, and he has made a beautiful film with “Half-Blood Prince.” If this movie is any indication, his “Deathly Hallows” will be the truly epic conclusion this series deserves. A-

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince(Trailer) - The funniest videos are a click away

The Infectious Indie

A friend of mine recently sent me this video, "Ode to the Indie," from Current TV. Check it out:



When I first watched this I had a good laugh at all the indie film stereotypes the video pokes fun at: people with weird names, bearded intellectuals, sped-up or slow motion, bragging about favorite bands, "melancholy ecstasy," hand-drawn fonts, etc. Then I realized I've seen almost every movie that's featured in the video.

I'll admit it. I'm an indie film junkie. Every time I see a preview for a film with any of the characteristics mentioned in that video, I'm just itching to see it. I can even think of a few films that fit some of the stereotypes the video mentions that were left out of the montage. I realize, as the video so astutely points out, a lot of indie films share many of the same qualities. Yet even if the trailer for an indie seems similar to one I've already seen, I still feel a little ping of curiosity, like I might be missing something if I don't check out this latest indie too. This genre is infectious to me.

So what is it about the indie film that draws me in? For one, in a good indie film, I feel very drawn to the characters. My favorite indies are character-driven pieces that examine, in their own offbeat way, the complexities of human relationships. The stories and characters of indie films are quirky enough to seem a little different and intriguing, but at the same time the emotions those characters experience are very easy to relate to.

I think this is done particularly well in my personal trifecta of indie favorites: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," "Garden State" and "Once." There's something a little unconventional about each of the core couples in these films, but the way they open up to each other and grow together is a journey I enjoy watching. "Adventureland" is a recent film that I think captures the nuances of the emotion behind friendships and relationships beautifully.

And while I concede to the video's point that people in indies often feel the need to make non-chalant references to their favorite bands (Natalie Portman's insistance in "Garden State" that The Shins "will change your life, I swear" springs to mind), I think the music in many of these films does add something to their emotional impact.

Zach Braff is someone who I think really understands how good music can capture the mood of a scene for the audience and move the emotion of that scene forward. "Garden State" wouldn't be as great of a film if it weren't for the soundtrack Braff hand-picked to supplement his storytelling. "Once" and "Juno" use this tactic to their advantage as well. And if the early reviews for "500 Days of Summer" are any indication, that film will likely join the ranks of indie soundtrack greatness.

This isn't to say that I'm charmed by all indies. "Margot at the Wedding" is one that I certainly don't have any desire to see again. In that film, the characters are so filled with misery, so narcissistic, so devoid of any redeeming qualities that they are impossible to relate to. One leaves that movie feeling the same misery those characters feel, without one single shred of happiness. A film like "Rachel Getting Married," on the other hand, captures the misery that can emcompass a family affected by addiction yet still shows that no matter how many problems a family has, love is still there whether you want it to be or not. This single difference makes the film infinitely more relatable.

I recently came across a quote from Jessamyne West, "Fiction reveals truths that reality obscures." To me, a good indie film, through its unique brand of storytelling, makes me think about elements of my own life. Certainly not every indie film has the ability to do this. But the ones that do have a certain charm that I can't stay away from, no matter how much they fit the stereotypical indie mold.

Review: Public Enemies

"Public Enemies," the first major film of July, opened last week to mixed reviews, and after seeing the film this past weekend I'd have to say I agree. It certainly wasn't a bad film. It was a good portrait of an interesting true story and it featured some really strong performances, but it was nothing exceptional. It's worth watching, but it wasn't exactly a masterpiece.

For those unfamiliar with the Michael Mann-directed film, "Public Enemies" tells the story of notorious criminal John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), who robbed banks during the crime wave of the 1930s alongside the likes of Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd. Dillinger was admired by the American public, who found him to be charming and charismatic and thought his robberies and jail breaks were exciting in light of their dissatisfaction with the banks.

This image drove J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) to view Dillinger as public enemy number one. His Bureau of Investigation, led by Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), was charged with capturing Dillinger at any cost, along with all of his accomplices.

The film also examines Dillinger's relationship with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard), who became enamored with Dillinger after meeting him in Chicago and spent two years in federal prison for harboring a criminal when she refused to give up his whereabouts.

Overall, "Public Enemies" is a decent film. It tells an interesting story, but it likely wouldn't have been as strong without the amazing actors Mann was able to recruit. Depp and Bale, who consistently turn in top-notch performances, shine again here, but I wish Bale's character had been developed more. The audience doesn't get to know him as well as I would have liked. So much of the film was robbery after robberty and prison escape after prison escape. It would have been nice to balance that out with some more backstory.

In spite of having powerhouse leads like Depp and Bale, the movie belongs to the supporting players. Crudup plays against type in his small but significant role as J. Edgar Hoover, and Cotillard exercises her Oscar-winning chops and adds depth to the "girlfriend" role that is usually so one-note.

The look of the film is another strong point. The scenic design, costumes, hair and make-up capture the Depression well and create a visually appealing atmosphere for the film.

My biggest compalint is that the film was too long. At two hours and 20 minutes, the film is actually shorter than blockbusters like "X2: X-Men United," "Titanic" and the "Harry Potter" films, but "Public Enemies" suffers because it felt long. The action sequences were great, but if Mann had cut those down and added just a little more backstory, the film would have felt fuller without being unnecessarily long. I'm happy to sit through a long film as long as it's worth my while. Here, I found myself wondering when Dillinger would finally be captured so I could stand up.

Universal Pictures made a smart decision in releasing the film during the summer rather than holding it until awards season. The film is not quite up to par to receive any major Oscar nominations, but during the summer it's an option for moviegoers looking for a film that's still action-packed but more intelligent than "Transformers."

"Public Enemies" is an entertaining look at an intriguing true story with some great action sequences and outstanding performances, but overall Mann's look at the life of one of America's most notorious gangsters falls short of spectacular. B-