At the Movies: Prince of Persia

The makers of “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” want you to think it’s the new “Pirates of the Caribbean.”

It’s not.

Which is not to say it’s a bad movie. There’s a handsome, buff prince and a beautiful, spunky princess; a magical object of great desire; sweeping images; exciting action scenes; and lots of jibber-jabber about destiny. It’s just lacking that spark and heart (and Johnny Depp) that made the first “Pirates” movie special.

Hey, they brought up the comparison.

Based on a video game and about as deep, “Prince of Persia” is the story of Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal), the adopted son of King Sharaman (Ronald Pickup) of Persia. The king’s two biological sons Tus (Richard Coyle) and Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) are considering attacking the city of Alamut because the king’s brother Nizam (Ben Kingsley) believes there are weapons of mass destruction (or at least weapons deadly to Persia) hidden there.

Turns out there are no weapons, other than a dagger that contains magic sand that can turn back time. Dastan comes into possession of the dagger and spends the rest of the movie keeping it away from the villain. I won’t tell you who the villain is, but you should be able to figure it out long before Dastan does.

Dastan is assisted in his adventure by the Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton), an ostrich racing entrepreneur (Alfred Molina in the comic relief role) and blade throwing Seso (Steve Toussaint).

“Prince of Persia” is hardly original. It’s yet another story where there would be no story if the hero would just destroy the object that the bad guy is after, but no one seems to think of that.

On the plus side — many swashes are buckled, Dastan is impressive as the parkour champion of Persia and it’s a sharp-looking film. If you’re in the market for a standard popcorn adventure it does the job. Gyllenhaal may not be Persian, but he proves to be perfectly adequate as an action hero.

Did it work for me? Yeah — it’s a formula action epic but it does everything it sets out to do well.

At the Movies: Sex and the City 2

There is only one thing on Earth that could drag me to “Sex and the City 2.”

Cales.

Cales loves “Sex and the City.” I love Cales. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned from “Sex and the City,” it is that your girlfriends are the Most Important People in Your World. More important than your husband, your children, your parents, your job and your god. So when Cales said she wanted to go see “Sex and the City 2,” what was I to do?

But I’ll say this: If there’s a “Sex and the City 3,” our friendship is over.

For the record, I don’t hate “Sex and the City.” I’ve watched probably more episodes of the series than most men and I thought the first movie was decent. Like many, I find Carrie-Samantha-Miranda-Charlotte to be shallow, self-centered, materialistic and narcissistic — but there was still something likable about them.

Not this go-around.

It’s been two years since Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) married shallow, self-centered, materialistic and narcissistic Mr. Big (Chris Noth). Turns out there’s trouble in their high-rise Manhattan paradise. Carrie — who doesn’t cook, naturally — wants to eat out every night. Big wants to order in. Carrie wants to go out on the town every night. Big wants to stay home and watch television. The one thing they agree on is they don’t want to have children. A blessing to unborn fictional children everywhere.

Now, many a married couple have gone through these issues, but few are as self-centered as Carrie and Big, so Carrie just browbeats Big until he comes up with a novel solution: 2 days a week away from each other. Carrie doesn’t like the idea, despite the fact that it’s her constant harping that’s driven him to this suggestion.

Meanwhile, Charlotte (Kristin Davis) is being driven crazy by her two small children and worried that her husband may run off with her hot, braless nanny; Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) isn’t getting the proper respect from her boss, so she just up and quits her job; And Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is fighting off the affects of aging with advice from Suzanne Somers.

When Samantha gets an all-expenses-paid trip to Abu Dhabi, she wrangles invites for her best buds and soon the quartet have left their pesky families and responsibilities behind for a week of wallowing in excess in the “new” Middle East.

And that’s all they do — for almost 2-and-a-half hours. Oh, and Carrie has a brief run-in with old beau Aidan (John Corbett). I suppose if you enjoy shows like “Lifestyles of the Filthy Rich,  Famous, Shallow, Self-Centered and Narcissistic” you would enjoy it. 

In television they have a term called “Jumping the Shark.” It relates to an episode of “Happy Days” where Fonzie, literally, jumped over a shark tank on his motorcycle. It’s come to mean the moment when a television show has so run out of ideas that it would resort to something that silly. I suppose it is to “Sex and the City’s” credit that they made it this far before shark jumping.

But holy crap, does this movie jump sharks. It’s hard to tell the exact moment — is it the Big Gay Wedding that opens the film? Or when the ladies are singing “I Am Woman”  in a karaoke bar in Abu Dhabi? Or when the gang is saved from irate Muslim men (they’ve been offended by Samantha — who’d have expected it?) from a group of women who reveal they’re wearing the latest fashions under their burkas? Or is it the sight of Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda riding camels across the sand dunes?

It is “Sex and the City” right? Not “Sex and the Desert.”

Did it work for me? Well, I certainly enjoyed spending time with Cales. And I enjoyed the Everlasting Gobstoppers she snuck into the theater. And the mini-cupcakes they were giving out before the screening were tasty.

But Lord, did that movie suck.

mini-LawyerCon and Me

So, The Wife comes to me and she says, “I’m going to Lake of the Ozarks this week for our annual court conference. Do you want to come along?”

“You’ve never invited me to court conference before.”

“You used to work on Thursday and Friday.”

“Fair point. Sure, I’ll go. What do we do with The Son?”

“He can come with us. He’ll just miss the last two days of school. I doubt it will hurt his grades.”

ASIDE: Wednesday afternoon I went out to go to the comic book store and fill up the gas tank for the trip and I discovered I had a flat tire. I rolled the car into the driveway and called AAA. Because if I’m paying good money for AAA, I’m not changing any tires. Someone arrived within 15 minutes and I was on the road a few minutes later.

I bring this up only because you may recall we had a horrible experience with AAA a couple years back on Thanksgiving, and I felt that it was only fair that I give them props when they do good. END ASIDE.

And so it was that we packed up the car Wednesday night and drove to the Lake of the Ozarks. It was a long drive as it was dark, rainy and I was on unfamiliar roads. The forecast was for rain the entire time we were there, which didn’t matter much to me as they had an indoor pool which was where The Son and I would be the entire time we were there. I had packed up a multitude of comics from the stash my brother-in-law got at the charity auction, as well as my haul of new comics from earlier in the day, so I was ready to be stuck poolside.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Lake of the Ozarks — the Lake of the Ozarks is like Branson, Mo., but with a lake where all the country music shows are. There’s plenty of hillbilly themed entertainment, miniature golf and tattoo parlors. It’s also well known for its outlet mall — which is like Plaza Frontenac for thrift shoppers. Since we didn’t bring our boat along, we were in for a long stretch at the indoor pool (Note: We don’t actually own a boat).

We made our way to the Country Club Hotel and Spa where they set us up in a huge room with a king-size bed and a couch that opens out into a bed for The Son and a kitchen area and a television in the bathroom. It was probably the biggest hotel room we’d ever been in. But as we all know, I do not judge a hotel on the size of its rooms. I judge it on (a) the number and quality of free movie channels it offers; (b) how many pools it has; and (c) do I get a free newspaper in the morning.

We’ve already established it met criteria B, but sadly it fell short on A and C. The Country Club Hotel and Spa offered a record-breaking 77 channels — but no premium movie channels (Fox Movie Channel and AMC do not count). Why would you even put a television in the bathroom if you don’t offer free HBO? And while they were selling USA Today in the lobby for a dollar, there was no freebies. Why would a hotel charge for USA Today? Who buys USA Today? Doesn’t USA Today make all its money off whatever sweetheart deal it made with the hotel industry? The only time I read USA Today is when I’m on vacation and it’s sitting outside my hotel room door. I’m sure I’m not alone.

It didn’t much matter, though, because for the first time I had brought along our laptop and was able to enjoy the wonders of free wifi. It took a while to figure out how to connect, but eventually the computer figured it out without our help. Since I only watch television now as background noise for web surfing, it was OK that I had no free HBO.

Thursday morning The Wife got up early and made her way to class. The Son and I got up eventually and went for a walk. There are some impressive views of the lake from the grounds — none from our hotel window. We saw three deer while on walkabout. It’s always nice to see deer up close that doesn’t involved shattered windshields.

As you can see, it didn’t rain at all during the day while we were there. Turns out weathermen in Lake of the Ozarks are as incompetent as weathermen in St. Louis. After our walk it was time for lunch so The Son and I ordered a couple of burgers at the hotel restaurant. Some 20 minutes later they arrived. The waitress was very apologetic, but I had nothing to look forward to that afternoon but a day at the pool, so I didn’t mind the wait. The burger was very good, as were the curly fries.

We went up to the room and I told The Son that we were going to the pool and before I could sit down he had emerged from the bathroom, naked and ready to go. I gave him his swimsuit and a few seconds later he re-emerged, with a slightly troubled look on his face. It turns out the swimsuit I had grabbed for the trip — the only one I could find, in my defense — was suffering from a complete breakdown in its elastic. He kept pulling them up, they kept falling down. This was not good. I toyed with safety clipping the suit to where it would fit, but that didn’t work. I couldn’t disappoint him, and figured he could just wear his shorts that he had been wearing all day to the pool. Thankfully, we were the only people at the pool other than a couple of old men.

The Wife was due to finish up at 3 p.m., so we spent a couple of hours at the pool and a half-hour at the hot tub and then went back to the room. The wife was amused and appalled at the swimsuit story. But it gave her an excuse to drag us to Outlet Mall Country to buy him a new swimsuit.

Outlet Mall Country hadn’t changed much since we were last there many years ago. Sadly, the record store was gone which meant there were now ZERO places of interest to me. Fortunately, we only had a couple hours before The Wife had to get back for dinner. We picked up a swimsuit and I got a couple of shirts at the Nautica store, and then we stopped at Coldwater Creek, where we spent the next 27 hours.

Now, I know what you’re saying: “You couldn’t possibly have spent 27 hours in Coldwater Creek.” Think again. It turns out there is a wormhole in Coldwater Creek where in real time you may only be inside for an hour but in actual time you are there 27 hours. Fortunately they have some lovely benches, and on one bench there was — I kid you not — a copy of USA Today.

We returned to the hotel just in time for The Wife to make it to happy hour before her dinner. I was too tired to go back out, but I didn’t feel like paying the high prices for dinner at the hotel, and in our room’s booklet of hotel amenities it listed Papa John’s as a local pizza joint that delivered. I called them and was told that they do not, in fact, deliver to the Country Club Hotel but the guy would meet us at Denny’s. Now, if I wanted to go out and drive all the way to Denny’s, I would eat at Denny’s. So we drove to McDonald’s.

After dinner The Son put on his new swimsuit and we returned to the pool. Shortly thereafter, the rain finally began. And with it, the lightning. Now, I know it’s not safe to swim in an outdoor pool when there’s lightning, but an indoor pool? I probably would have blown it off, but the pool was in a glass enclosure and you could see all the lightning flashes and I figured it would be my luck that the lightning would go through the glass and strike the pool, so we didn’t stick around long.

The next morning The Wife had meetings until noon. The Son and I slept late, packed up the car and took a short walk before The Wife finished up. As we were preparing to leave, she looked at me sheepishly and said, “Can I ask for a favor?”

Now, the number of times I have denied The Wife anything currently stands at zero, so I asked her what the favor was even though I had a good idea what it would be.

“Can we go back to the Outlet Mall? I want to go to the cosmetics store.”

The number still stands at zero.

Just barely.

At the Movies: Shrek Forever After

When I found out they were making a fourth and final “Shrek” movie my initial reaction was: There was a third “Shrek” movie?

In a weird case of selective amnesia, I have no memory of “Shrek the Third.” I remember the first one — Ogre and annoying donkey rescue princess who turns out to be a she-ogre; and I remember the second one — Fiona takes Ogre home to meet the parents, Fairy Godmother is upset; but the third one — I have no idea what that one was about. I’m sure I saw it. I even went online and read a plot synopsis and I don’t remember it. The only thing I can think of is I think the third one had all the princesses in it and they were locked in a tower or something and in the end they get out and beat up people just like the boys do — ’cause that’s what princesses do these days. (see “Robin Hood”).

Anyway, it turns out you don’t need to remember the third Shrek to appreciate the fourth one. “Shrek Forever After” is basically: What if Shrek had a mid-life crisis? Everybody’s favorite Ogre seems to have a pretty good life: three adoring children, a loving wife, a loyal if tiresome friend, the respect of the community. But domestic bliss doesn’t sit well with Shrek (Mike Myers) and soon he’s longing for the days when people feared him, instead of asking him to perform for them.

Enter Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn). The little man offers him one day like the bad old days in return for an unspecified day from Shrek’s childhood. Shrek agrees and is transported to another world where he’s once again a feared and wanted monster. All is going well until he discovers that Fiona (Cameron Diaz) is also a wanted ogre, his children don’t exist. his home is gone and best friend Donkey (Eddie Murphy) doesn’t know him.

Of course, Shrek failed to read the fine print in the contract he signed with Rumpy, so now he has 24 hours to set things right or he will cease to exist and the reformed world will become permanent reality.

I thought “Shrek Forever After” was pretty decent and a nice ending for the franchise — if indeed that’s what this is. If this makes a ton of money like the others I’ll be surprised if they don’t find a way to come up with another “happily ever after.”

This is the first “Shrek” in 3-D and I have to say, it’s pretty good 3-D. I haven’t been to impressed with the latest 3-D offerings (“Clash of the Titans,” “Alice in Wonderland”) but “Shrek 4” makes good use of the tech and uses it to enhance the experience — which is as it should be. It’s one of the rare occasions where I think it’s worth the extra dollars.

Did it work for me? I will probably have forgotten what it was about a year from now, but right now I thought it was fun. By now you should know if you like the Shrek movies or not. If you’ve stuck with them this long, it’s worth it to check out the finale.

Random TV Ramblings

The TV season is almost over. Let’s get it out of the way now and avoid the rush.

* Sunday afternoon I was watching “The Story of US” on The History Channel. It’s your typical History Channel documentary — lame re-enactments of events interspersed with talking heads from this university or that and then… there’s Sheryl Crowe, talking about the pre-slavery days.

What? Why is Sheryl Crowe a talking head on a historical documentary? This isn’t a documentary of pop music. This isn’t one of those “I love the ’70s” pop culture shows on VH-1. This is the History of the United States of America. Important stuff. Why is there a pop star talking? And then, there’s John Legend. And a few minutes later some “former NFL great” whose name  I don’t remember.

Is this what documentaries have come to? I don’t mind celebrities doing narration, or reading historical letters during the voiceover, but really — we’re turning to them for commentary? Why do I care what Lady GaGa thinks about Reconstruction? Was Shelby Foote unavailable? I have a degree in Social Studies Ed. I’m available.

Well, at least it’s better than The History Channel running “Planet of the Apes.”

* Why won’t the CW put me out of my misery and cancel “Smallville?”

* If you’ve ever watched “24” and enjoyed it,  you owe it to yourself and Jack Bauer to watch the season finale next week. I was so bored by this season in the beginning that I almost quit watching it — that’s happened in the past — but then the word came down that this was the last season and it’s like a switch went off at “24” Central. These last 5 or 6 episodes have been glorious as Jack goes on a revenge-fueled rampage. His path of destruction is incredible and he’s going to bring down two U.S. presidents and the head of the Russian government before he’s done. Unless Chloe can stop him, and what are the odds?

I guarantee you the season ender of “24” will be more satisfying than the end of “Lost.”

* Speaking of “Lost,” I should probably wait until it’s over to weigh in, but I can’t be bothered. I knew this would happen. They’re not going to come close to answering all the questions they’ve raised. This is why I resisted watching it in the first place. Stupid Disney, sending me the DVDs and getting me hooked. And I love how all the characters we’ve been invested in these past 5 years are now either dead or moved into supporting roles while we learn that it’s really all been about two loser brothers that were first introduced at the end of last season. Nice.

* Nice that they didn’t waste much time breaking up Leonard and Penny. Now let’s keep it that way.

* Finally watched the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of “Hamlet” that aired on Masterpiece last week (Now on DVD). I sat through all 3 hours despite The Wife only being in the room for a small part of it. I’ll never “get” Shakespeare, but “Hamlet” is one of his easier works to digest — the cast isn’t too large and the plot is somewhat easy to follow (or maybe I’ve just seen enough versions of the story that I’ve got it memorized). But most importantly, “Hamlet” probably has the most recognizable dialogue bits and soliloquies of any of The Bard’s works, and it’s always fun to sit there with glazed eyes and then go — “Hey, I recognize that speech!”

* Stevie convinced me to check out “Pawn Stars,” a reality show about guys who work at a pawn shop. It’s like a really low-rent version of “Antiques Road Show.” There’s your typical reality show cast of eccentrics and larger-than-life types. It’s a strangely unsatisfying show. Someone brings something in, they haggle, sometimes an expert is brought in, the item is either sold to the shop or it isn’t. The problem is — once the shop buys an item you never know what happens next. Are they able to sell it? What price do they resell it for? Do they make a big profit or no profit? I need closure.

* What would Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert do without Glenn Beck?

* I’m already losing interest in “Glee,” although my new favorite is the dumb blonde girl, who always manages to say something both incredibly stupid and funny.

*”Deadliest Warrior” is a great idea, but I’ve only watched it once so I guess it’s not really that great.

At the Movies: Robin Hood

Perhaps a better title for the latest “Robin Hood” adventure would have been “Robin Hood Begins.”

All the trappings you expect in a Robin Hood story — Robin and his men traipsing about Sherwood Forest, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor while bedeviling the Sheriff of Notthingham — aren’t here. That’s because Ridley Scott’s version focuses on all the events that lead up to that scenario. I guess they’re saving the traditional tale for the sequel.

In this account, Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is an archer in the service of King Richard the Lionheart. When Richard falls in battle, Robin and his crew decide it’s time to head back to England. Along the way they encounter a dying Robert Loxley, who asks Robin to return his sword to his father in Nottingham.

Robin returns the sword to Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow), who asks Robin to stay on a while and pretend to be Robert in an attempt to protect the family estate. This doesn’t sit well with the now widowed Marion (Cate Blanchett) but she goes along with it. Amazingly, no one in Nottingham notices that Robin neither looks nor sounds like Robert.

Meanwhile the new king (Oscar Isaac), under the advice of his good friend Godfrey (Mark Strong), has decided to heavily tax his subjects to fill His Majesty’s depleted coffers. Unknown to King John, Godfrey is working for the French king in attempt to divide the English people so to better conquer them.

Doesn’t sound like “Robin Hood” to you? Well, it’s all legend anyway.

I rather liked the film, although it felt more like a remake of “Braveheart” than a Robin Hood picture (the scene where the French forces arrive on the beaches of England plays out like a medieval version of D-Day). It boasts an A-list cast and everyone does decent work, although the familiar secondary characters — Little John, Friar Tuck and the Sheriff — aren’t given much to do. There’s some beautiful cinematography and the battle scenes are impressive. The 2-hour, 20-minute run time flew by for me, and that’s something I rarely say about long movies nowadays.

Did it work for me? If you’re looking for swashbuckling merry men and a lighthearted touch, this probably won’t work for you. But I found it enjoyable as a 13th century action film featuring familiar characters in a different light.

At the Movies: The Square

Raymond Yale (David Roberts) is the supervisor at a construction site. He’s cheating on his wife with young Carla (Claire van der Boom). He may be taking kickbacks from subcontractors. Raymond is not a model citizen, but he’s not an evil man.

That may not be true of Carla’s husband Smithy (Anthony Hayes). One day Carla catches Smithy hiding a satchel in the attic. She investigates later and finds the satchel is stuffed with money. More than enough money for her and Ray to run away with and start a new life together. The couple agree to do the deed, but first they must come up with a way to take the cash without arousing Smithy’s suspicions.

And that’s all you need to know about “The Square,” a tension-filled and clever noir thriller from Australia by director Nash Edgerton based on an original story by Joel Edgerton. It opens this week in St. Louis and I recommend you check it out.

“The Square” goes to familiar territory — a man makes a bad decision that spirals out of control — and constantly ratchets up the tension as Raymond goes from one twist and turn to another. It’s complex but not too complicated to follow. And unlike so many films that go off the rails by the end or wind up not making any sense, every twist has been expertly plotted.

As a bonus, opening for “The Square” is Edgerton’s disturbing and darkly humorous short film “Spider.”  I enjoyed this 9-minute tale of a practical joke gone wrong as much or more than the feature. It will definitely give you a jolt. Or two.

If you can’t make it to the Tivoli, you can catch “Spider” online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdj9vMH4BfQ

Did it work for me? Yep. So often thrillers fall apart but “The Square” comes together brilliantly.

The Vatican has Many Splendored Things

“Vatican Splendors: A Journey through Faith and Art” opens Friday for a limited, exclusive engagement at the Missouri History Museum. It’s one of the largest collections of art, documents and artifacts from the Vatican to tour North America.

Now personally, I’m not all that interested in religious art, documents and artifacts. Michelangelo’s a talented artist but he’s no Alex Ross.

But The Wife loves this kind of stuff. She dragged — I mean escorted — me to every large church in England when we were there. It’s No. 347 on the list of Things We Don’t Have In Common.

So, since pleasing your spouse is 95 percent of what marriage is all about (pleasing your children takes up the other 5 percent), we made our way to Forest Park to check out the exhibit. Turns out it’s a very impressive collection of around 170 items, running the gamut of church history from bone fragments of Saint Peter and Saint Paul to a bronze cast of Pope John Paul II’s hands.

As you enter the hall you’re greeted by a pair of Swiss Guard uniforms and a video. From there it’s on to Peter’s tomb and the great basilicas. The highlight of this section is the area spotlighting the works of  Michelangelo, including a copy of his famed statue “Pieta” and a section that reproduces the conditions of working on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

We wandered through the hall for an hour, came out and returned our badges and were on our way out the door when we noticed another hall on the other side. Julie told me the day before she thought we could walk through the whole thing in 45 minutes — but then Julie didn’t count on The Wife’s methodical method of museum walking, which consists of reading every single line of copy and examining each item in detail.

We went into the second hall which had more paintings and more of the ceremonial objects of the church — but sadly no Popemobile. The exhibit wraps up with the Hall of Popes — paintings and busts and whatnot. It offered a very thorough history lesson and I’ve already forgotten most of what I learned. Fortunately there was not an exam.

The last stop as you exit the exhibit is, of course, the gift shop. While I wanted a Vatican Splendors shot glass and a Lord’s Prayer Bear, The Wife settled on the standard souvenir book.

“Vatican Splendors: A Journey through Faith and Art” will be in St. Louis through September 12.

www.mohistory.org

www.vaticansplendors.com

On Stage: Young Frankenstein

Anne Horak and Roger Bart star in the First National Tour of "Young Frankenstein," now playing at the Fox Theatre. Photo © Paul Kolnik

Expectations are a funny thing.

I wasn’t expecting much from “Young Frankenstein,” Mel Brooks’ second movie-turned-Broadway-musical. After all, it didn’t win 12 Tony Awards like “The Producers” (it didn’t win any); and it didn’t draw the absurdly over-the-top praise from critics that “The Producers” did.

Still, I always liked the movie version, and I wasn’t that impressed by “The Producers,” so I figured I should give it a chance. I’m glad I did. I found “Young Frankenstein” to be a fun romp — or roll in the hay, if you will — and a fine reworking of the classic comedy.

For those unfamiliar with the 1974 movie — and really, if you haven’t seen it you should — it’s the story of Frederick Frankenstein (Roger Bart), the grandson of the infamous scientist who brought the dead to life with monstrous results. Fred is teaching at a medical school in New York when he receives word that his grandfather is dead and he needs to go to Transylvania and put his estate in order.

Young Mr. Frankenstein has no intention of going into the family business, but is eventually drawn into it with assistance from buxom Inga (Anne Horak), the stern Frau Blucher  (Joanna Glushak) and Igor (Cory English, played by understudy James Gray on opening night), the humpback with the movable hump.

“Young Frankenstein” the musical is pretty much the same as “Young Frankenstein” the movie, but with songs. The songs are generally clever but not memorable. You won’t be humming “The Brain” or “He Vas My Boyfriend” as you leave the theater, but they’re still fun tunes. The most memorable musical moment — in both versions — is The Monster’s (Rye Mullis) performance of the Irving Berlin classic “Puttin’ on the Ritz.”

Roger Bart, who originated the title role on Broadway, gives the standout performance of the show. The rest of the cast do nice work. The show also boasts flashing lights and some nice set designs. The dance numbers weren’t particularly impressive. There were some sound problems early in the show last night, but they were worked out quickly.

Overall, “Young Frankenstein” won’t rank among the great modern musicals, but it exceeded my expectations. If you enjoyed the film you would probably enjoy this.

“Young Frankenstein” plays through May 23 at the Fox Theatre. www.fabulousfox.com

Gone: Frank Frazetta 1928-2010

A sad day for fans of sci-fi and fantasy art, as well as heavy metal album covers.