The Golden Compass

The Golden Compass - Film Version.

We're going to take a break from Project Runway, because this last week was just a little bothersome. I'll talk about it later, but the fact is the challenge bothered me. So instead I'll talk about the movies I went to see this weekend, starting with The Golden Compass.

Now, I'm interested in how many people are griping about the title. But honestly I like it because it fits better with the idea of "His Dark Materials." Also, it being a noun describing a thing that is very important to the plot of this particular story, I think it fits better.

What interests me is how everyone seems to be making comparisons between this film adaptation and Lord of the Rings. The reviewers keep saying it was made to cash in on Lord of the Rings, it's like LotR, etc.

It isn't. In the slightest, please don't go into it believing you'll have a similar experience at all. This film is made with almost the exact same formula as the Harry Potter films.

I walked out of the Harry Potter movies saying, "You know, that felt like a mash-up of the best scenes in the book, rather than a true adaptation of it." While I never got past the second chapter of The Golden Compass, I felt the same at the end of this movie. Like I had seen a bunch of random bits, strung together as loosely as they could, so that you could cram in as much of the story as possible.

In the case of Harry Potter, it's a forgivable strategy. There's no way you could actually adapt any of those books (or indeed this one) into a single film. But the difference here that even Lord of the Rings couldn't rely on is that most of the people going to see Harry Potter HAVE read the books.

Most people, myself included, have not read The Golden Compass. So the screenwriter desperately needed to take a page from Peter Jackson and make a story that is deeply rooted in the original, faithful to the feeling of the book, but actually a film adaptation. It needed to be it's own entity, and I don't know that the director alone was capable of that feat. He certainly didn't manage it, I'm sorry to say. His heart was in the right place, and you could tell he did love the books very much. But even Peter Jackson had massive amounts of help, a whole team of people working to make it perfect. He had people who had devoted their lives to these books helping him envision this world. While I'm sure His Dark Materials are good books, they don't inspire that sort of devotion.

It wasn't a bad film. The problem was it had the potential to be a great film, it could have been so amazing. But the truly fascinating characters had these great actors to portray them and they had nothing to do. They were there for a split second and given very little motivation or story. Lee Scoresby and Serafina Pekkala could have carried the movie, if they hadn't had to redub all of Eva Green's dialogue in ADR, making her voice and her face just so slightly off that it bothered me and I couldn't watch her talk. That's a personal pet peeve though.

Lee Scoresby introduction was brilliant, I looked forward to seeing more of him and I saw so little. His interaction with his daemon Hester was comical, and hinted of a calculated casualness. I hope that in the books he is explored in much more detail.

I'm happy that Iorek Byrnison got his due, and had his story told. But couldn't we have discovered anything more about Mrs. Coulter's dual-faced character? Couldn't we have gotten into the fact that even though I only read two chapters of the book, I got the distinct feeling that Lord Asriel wasn't a very nice man?

I suppose the problem really lies in the fact that I just didn't identify with or enjoy Lyra very much. Is it the character? The original writing? The adaptation? The acting? I don't know. But I didn't care what she did from one moment to the next, except that it allowed me to see the gyptians, or get to see one of Pan's many adorable forms. She seemed to exist only as a catalyst for everything else, not so much as a well-developed character.

While lesser movies have had their sequels, I don't know that The Subtle Knife will be made at this point. Sure, there was religious controversy surrounding the film, but I don't think that was what killed it. I think the type of people that would avoid a film because they see some persecution in it wouldn't have seen it anyway, and wouldn't have amounted to much of a box office difference. I think the movie itself just isn't that good, and that's the real shame of it all. It seems like the story only gets more interesting as the books progress, they should get their day in the cinema.

A final note: this is not a children's film, or I think so much a family film, and that is part of what will hurt it's repeat business. The fact is it's violent, and I don't make that claim often. In fact, while I called Pan's Labyrinth a violent movie I also heartily recommend it and say people should look past the necessary violence into the great fable that it is. In this film, it isn't so necessary for the battles to be so full of death. While there isn't a lot of blood, there is a very distinctive moment when anyone dies that shows without a doubt that they are completely gone. I don't think death should be thrown around so flippantly, even of the bad guys. It stops having an impact when you just chuck it out there left and right.

I think in the end it's a movie that might be worth renting, especially if you liked the books and can view it as an adaptation and not expect it to be perfect. If you liked the Harry Potter books AND movies, then maybe this is for you. But I won't be watching it again.

Three...Extremes (and Netflix Watch Instantly)

3 Extremes

I decided over the weekend to finally use up some of my Netflix Watch it Now credits. In my plan, I get plenty of movies over their system but I've never sat down to watch any of it.

I decided to pick a film I only had a vague interest in, in case it was bad quality. So I chose to watch 3 Extremes, a film that features three short "horror" films from three different Asian directors.

Before I get to the film, I will say that the Watch Instantly feature is near perfect. I had no problems with my connection speed, the wait for it to download/start, or the controls. I wish that it worked in my primary browser (Firefox) but I keep Internet Explorer on hand for this kind of thing anyway. The only thing I could say about it is that I wish it had a better fast-forward/rewind feature. Once in a while I would get distracted while watching and I wouldn't be able to go back to exactly where I left. Instead it's a little cumbersome. But for online video viewing, it's still very good. That complaint only comes into consideration if I think about the difference between watching a DVD and using their online service.

The reason I was intrigued by 3 Extremes was because of all the talk about a particular short, Dumplings. I also was vaguely interested in the work of Takashi Miike, who directed the third short, Box.

Dumplings has basically one main draw, and that was what brought me to it in the first place. Everybody online talked about it saying "You won't believe what's in the dumplings!" and similar things, but nobody would say what the ingredient was that was so scandalous. So I wanted to know, and that was what made me hit play, I'll be honest.

The movie itself is not really even about what's in the dumplings, that was what confused me about it. You are given enough clues in the first five minutes to figure out what it is, and you're told outright about halfway through. The shock, the real power of the story, is in what happens after you know the filling.

This film is not for the squeamish in the slightest. And no, despite the fact that I desperatly wanted somebody to tell me, I won't reveal more of the plot here. But if you really want to know just check out the Wikipedia entry for the full length film.

It's a powerful film, the point it makes is very real, but I can't say I'll ever watch it again or that I even enjoyed it.

Cut is the second film, and it features a film director who is held hostage (along with his wife) by a madman, who threatens to cut off her fingers one by one if the director doesn't do as he says.

Now, I like movies that are open to interpretation. Pan's Labyrinth is one of my favorite films of recent years. But I think there's a difference between suggesting that the surface isn't all there is to the story, and just being outright unintelligible.

The short is done very well. The lighting, the design, the acting, all of it is excellent. I can't find many flaws with the technical aspects at all. But the story itself, in the last few minutes, just stops making sense. There are dozens of threads dissecting it in the IMDB boards, so if you'd like you can read about it there. But I'll just basically say that no one theory really seems to stand up and make sense across the board. And that bothers me, I think it's sloppy storytelling to be honest. If there were just two or three things that made a little more sense at the end of the film, I would have thought it was fantastic. Again, not for the squeamish, but good. Instead I'm left scratching my head and wondering if the director even knew what he was trying to say.

This brings us to the last short, Box. This was absolutely the best of the three. I think it was a marvelous piece of filmmaking, and an example of what I was saying about how you can be open to interpretation without being that confusing. There aren't any straight answers at the end of Box, but you don't need them. You're left to think about what you think the film meant, and each interpretation seems equally valid.

Box has little to no dialogue, it is about the visual interplay of dreams. It is a beautiful film, the scenes in the snow are simply gorgeous. The plot is deceptively simple, a woman starts dreaming about being trapped in a small box. Then she starts remembering her sister, and her dreams start to slowly make more sense. But the film itself is about so much more.

I recommend Box, and while I think if you like Asian horror you will enjoy the other two shorts, I don't think fans of American horror will like them at all. They are not "horror" so much as they are thought provoking and sometimes plain gross.

A Dog's Breakfast

A Dog's Breakfast

Okay, I have to admit I was almost worried about this movie. It seemed too good to be true. Two actors I love from Stargate Atlantis make a dark comedy? With David Hewlett directing?

When you add in Kate Hewlett, who I loved in her Atlantis appearance, Christopher Judge, and a chance to see Rachel Luttrell play a different character, I knew I had to see this movie.

I also knew that there was a chance I would be disappointed. Sometimes, when something gets built up in your mind, you're almost afraid to experience it because it might not live up to your expectations.

A Dog's Breakfast is not that kind of movie. It is everything it said it would be, it is a dark comedy, it is hilarious, and really shows off the acting skills of all involved. While Luttrell plays an alien princess, her character is part of a fantastic "Space Soap Opera" spoof that had us all laughing as we watched. I would watch Star Crossed any day of the week.

While Hewlett's character, Patrick, has some mannerisms related to Dr. McKay, in the end he is his own neurotic crazy person. Paul McGillion steals the show, playing Ryan in a way that is absolutely nothing like Dr. Carson Beckett.

The plot is very over the top, and it could have been too much. Patrick doesn't like his sister's fiance, Ryan. So he contemplates killing the man to get him out of the way. His attempts at murder are so inept they usually leave Patrick injured instead of his intended victim.

But in one moment the movie suddenly starts to become so bizarre that you're not sure where it could be going. It's saving grace is that almost at the second where you look at your television and say, "No way" the movie suddenly starts to make a twisted kind of sense.

The group I watched it with was almost constantly laughing and talking to the screen. I know I am going to put it on my list of films to buy and own.

As an added bonus, the DVD actually contains special features. I expected it to be a nearly bare disc, with the movie and perhaps some subtitling options. Instead there are featurettes, commentary, and a few deleted and extended scenes. The deleted scenes, like almost every set I've seen, aren't really worth inclusion if it wasn't for clearer versions of the scenes from Star Crossed. But the featurettes are actually revealing and interesting. You see behind-the-scenes moments and interviews with everyone involved. David Hewlett still has a great sarcastic sense of humor as a person.

This movie is absolutely worth renting, and if you already like the actors at all then go ahead and buy it. It is well worth it.

RKO 281

RKO 281 - The Battle Over Citizen Kane

Last night I watched RKO 281, and to be honest with you I had no idea watching it that it was an HBO made-for-tv movie.

It was very well done, and very well made. Production values were very high. Honestly, I couldn't really offer more about the plot and writing than has been said in numerous reviews. It glosses over things, it changes history around. It's "historical fiction" and "based on a true story" at it's best.

One thing I disagree with: several people have disparaged the portrayal of Marion Davies. I thought Melanie Griffith did a fantastic job, and I loved the character. I thought she had a lot of strength, and I can't see it as a negative portrayal at all. I think people went into watching it and expected, because it was based on Citizen Kane, for her to be portrayed unfairly.

I think that the acting is what is so phenomenal in this film. It is full of powerhouse actors, huge names, and they all earn their reputations here. I noticed it was nominated for a lot of awards for casting, and that makes perfect sense.

Liev Schreiber really embodies Orson Welles. One thing that I was amazed by when I watched Citizen Kane in my first film class so many years ago was that Orson Welles was an extremely handsome man. If People magazine had been around, he would have been the sexiest man alive at least once.

Schreiber has that appeal, and that dashing handsomeness. But he also has the ego, and the enigmatic nature. If he hadn't been up against Jack Lemmon, he could have easily gotten an Emmy from the role. And if the film had been released theatrically, he would have deserved an Oscar nomination.

Early horror films in book form.

The Stepford Wives by Ira Levin

I've never actually seen the movie based on this book, and I have to admit that I didn't actually read the whole book.

I was too bored. I flipped through it, and caught the highlights, but I just couldn't really get involved in any of the characters, and since I knew what happened to them I just didn't bother.

Now, I was just saying the other night about how often I'll flip to the end of a book to make sure it works out the way I want it to. With most books, this doesn't affect my enjoyment because I still like the journey even if I know where it ends. Otherwise, I'd never reread a book, would I?

But this book, once I knew how it ended, I couldn't muster up the effort to care about how it got there. I'll probably watch the older version of the movie eventually, but I'm not really doing it out of any big desire to, it's more because I think I "should."

Rosemary's Baby by Ira Levin

I can sum this book up very simply: watch the movie. Actually, between the two the book is probably slightly better because it's easier to put your own creepiness into it and imagine the people the way you want. But the movie is EXACTLY almost word for word a filming of the book. That's probably a good thing, it's a decent story. It gets a little creepy, and I think if it wasn't such a classic that I already knew the ending then I would be much more intrigued by it. But again, knowing the ending makes the ride less fun.

The Exorcist by William Peter Blatty

I feel I should link to this one because I got it from the library at the same time as the other two, and I got it because I wanted to see if it was better than the movie.

But I just couldn't get into it, especially when I thought about the fact that I'm one of the fifty people in the world who didn't like the movie. I guess I've been horribly desensitized. But because the movie didn't really make me want to go out and learn more, the book didn't inspire me enough to get past the first three chapters.

Bride and Prejudice

Bride and Prejudice

I rented Bride and Prejudice for two reasons. First because I loved Bend it Like Beckham, the director's biggest hit, and two because I've got this new love of Bollywood and Bhangra music.

I wouldn't say that it was a waste of time, but I would say it's a time waster. You would think that pulling from such a classic as Pride and Prejudice, that the story would be one of the best out there, but it really is almost boring. You can see very early on how most of it will work out (and without the benefit of knowing the story, since I wasn't familiar with it beforehand).

I do think that this was the only way to modernize Pride and Prejudice, because the mother's character is completely unbelievable. She got almost painful to watch, but that's because I'm like that, I hate to watch people embarrass themselves constantly.

I think that part of the problem is that the movie seems really inconsistent about when and where the characters break out into song. While some of the musical pieces were interesting, others were odd and seemed out of place. At one point we suddenly have a large choir on risers...on the beach.

It's a decent movie, but I can't really say I loved it or would recommend it. It's more like if you have a chance to watch it, go for it. But don't go out of your way.

Rent Bend it Like Beckham instead, that is a phenomenal film.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Warddrobe

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Warddrobe

This is a DUAL REVIEW, yay! Why? Because I went to see the movie last week, and then got home and pulled out my copy of the book. Only I'm posting it in two peices.

The film first:
I really, really hate to say this, but I was almost a little dissapointed. You see, my problem with films that are either based on books, or have been made before, is that they need to give me something NEW or I'll just feel like if you see the same play thirty times, with the same sets and director but different actors.

It's just not that compelling, and when you want so badly for it to be amazing, then that causes a little pang. That's what happened here. I know it's not their FAULT entirely that I've been obssessed with this story for years. It's not their problem that I've read the book too many times, and that I've seen the BBC Miniseries several times.

So really, here's a list of pros and cons. First, the pros were obviously, and wholeheartedly, the CGI. It was really brilliant, as advertised, and only a few times did I say "Eeeh, that really needed something better."

There's a story going around that Lewis didn't want the story adapted to a movie because he thought the animals would look ridiculous. In the BBC version, he was really right. The beavers were terrible, as were most of the "animated" things. But this new shiney version? Spot on. All the way down to the way the cats and wolves moved (yes, I know some where real).

The biggest plus was Aslan himself. You see, I said from the beginning that the crucial point for me was going to be Aslan, as I'm a bit of a crazy lion aficianado. The reason that, despite it's shortcomings, I like the old miniseries is because their animatronic Aslan was actually pretty darn good, and made me want to scritch behind his ears.

This Aslan though, went beyond the idea of a "cartoon lion" and was practically a real lion. He very much fit the phrase "not a tame lion." The thing I have to suck up and realize is that lions will never look "right" talking in human speech. Their faces aren't made for it. What Disney did, in both The Lion King and this installment of Narnia, worked out well, but still felt off once in a while.

But there's one moment that for me really sealed the fact that this film felt like it really happened: as they're going to the Stone Table at night, Lucy reaches up to Aslan's mane and his ear, ever so quickly, flicks back. Why does this little movement really blow me away? Because it's the kind of tiny little detail that reminds me of my cat, or of the nature documentaries.

So the movie was beautiful. The film also did a very good job with Edmund, who could have come off much, much worse. But in the end, you really felt his remorse and redemtion. I also really liked Mr. Tumnus. The Witch scared the wits out of me, and really did look ethereal, unhuman, and really wicked. Especially in the final battle.

Which brings me to the cons, and it's a big con. The film was violent, massively so. There were so many things that should not have been in a PG movie, let alone didn't need to be in THIS story itself. The bombings in the beginning? I'm fine with that, because most children these days won't understand the context of the kids being shipped off.

But one of the things I remembered most about the book and the story was that people were turned into stone by the witch, and later revived by Aslan. In the battle, most of the people fell by being turned to stone, and many of the wounded were treated by Lucy. You see, I'm a sucker, I don't think there needs to be massive death on both sides for me to find a battle effective or dramatic.

Lots of the moments in battle, I had no problems with. But there were many, many things that I thought just didn't need to be there, and that fault I lie directly at the feet of a director who openly said that he felt Lewis glossed over too many things. If you want to make a children's film, make a children's film. If you want to make an action movie, do it, but don't try to mix the two.

Aslan's death was done well. The Witch's was not. All we needed was the lion flying through the air at her and knocking her off the screen, and if we get her body lying there later, fine. But instead she's knocked barely off screen and we see Aslan rear back, teeth bared, and lung at what would be the area of her throat, though she's just not quite visable enough to be sure.

I for one never really wanted to think about Aslan as the type of lion who rips people's throats out. It wasn't neccesary, and that's the gist of it. About half the violence in the film was needed for the message, the other half wasn't. This movie was for children, this story has always been for children, and having smaller animals brutally killed by minotaurs doesn't really fit in. While on the one hand, you could argue with me that I'm being too prudish, I think that the telling aspect was that I personally was uncomfortable with it, when I have no history of caring about the violence in many films. I watched Serenity and cheered and cried and never once said it went too far, despite the fact that it did have much worse in it than Narnia ever could.

So in the end, I was and am very much on the fence when it comes to the film. I think the actors and animators all did wonderful jobs, I think the entire thing was gorgeous. I think Liam Neeson was a great Aslan, though I always imagined his voice deeper. I think the parts of the story they didn't include weren't vital, and the ones they did were the ones that needed to be there.

And yet I still can't muster myself up to be gung-ho excited about it, because there wasn't anything there that wasn't already there, except technology. And the opening sequence about the bombings of London, which in fact were the only part that made me cry.

Posting about the book next.

A Knight's Tale

A Knight's Tale

When movies start with Queen's "We Will Rock You" there's a good chance they're not going to be high cinema. When that is accompanied by medeival peasants stomping and clapping to the beat, there's a good bet you're not in for Orson Welles, or even The History Channel.

I'll admit up front that I absolutly hate intentional anachronism.

Dictionary.com:
anachronism
n 1: something located at a time when it could not have existed or occurred [syn: mistiming, misdating]

Almost always, when people do this kind of thing on purpose, it's played for laughs. Filmmakers usually try to make the things fit, by quaintly changing them to make them more accurate but still pointing at the modern concept.

There are also those cutesy little moments that are put in films where people go talk about something in their time period, and since they aren't the viewer, they don't know that what they're saying is ironic or amusing. That's like a scene I've been told is in Titanic where somebody says Picasso or Van Gogh won't amount to anything. Oh, teehee, we as the audience know that Picasso and Van Gogh are way famous! That means it's funny! This phenomena is exactly why I don't bother every watching Shanghai Knights even though I loved Shanghai Noon.

All that being said, my outlook towards A Knight's Tale was rather absymal. I thought it might be amusing, and my best friend liked it so I thought, why not? So I rented it.

Two things happened in the opening credits that proved that I would at least enjoy the film: the names Alan Tudyk and Paul Bettany. Tudyk could make faces to the camera and I'd be amused, he's great. Bettany actually made me like a romance movie like Wimbeldon, the likes of which I usually get bored with.

And really, Heath Ledger is quite a looker. Not to mention that jousting is neat.

So let's say I went in with low expectations. I was served them back with only a small return on the investment in the end. Tudyk was fantastic, and as usual every time he opened his mouth he said something funny.

Bettany was a little different, as he was the only real "known" player, taking on the role of Geoffrey Chaucer, affectionatly called Geoff. He was the source of most of those "teehee" moments I mentioned. He tells some men who threatened him that he will "eviserate [them] in fiction." And I'm sure if I could remember much of the Chaucer I read in high school, I would have gone, "Oh, that's funny because in Cantebury Tales..."

But I forgave him, as I did most of the things that usually bug me. In the end the only fault that still bothers me is that well, it was kind of boring. That doesn't make sense even as I type it, since it was a movie full of grown men bashing each other with sticks...but still, I was bored.

Maybe it was that the characters were all so one-dimensional that they could have put up cardboard cut outs and animated moving mouths and it would have worked just as well. No, not the acting. The acting was fine, it was the script that I'm talking about. You have William, the stalwart young man determined to change his lot in life. His father, the man who didn't get a chance but is determined his son will have one. Wat, the funny one with the bad temper. Roland, the wiser, happy guy (who can sew!). We can't forget Kate, the girl-blacksmith who is just as good as the boys, even better because she invents better armor.

Along with our merry band is Jocelyn, the beautiful woman who hates that she's so beatiful people don't respect her, so sad. There's also the eeeeeevil Count Adamar, a man so sinister he needed a handlebar mustache. He's there to poke men with big sticks, knock them off their horses, take the woman as his prize, and sneer at anyone who isn't him.

Of course, overall this was really just a sports movie. As a sports movie, it did really well. There were plenty of heartbreaking moments where you wondered if the hero would win or fall off his horse. He even does the last tilt without armor so you can see his pretty face.

I'm making more critcisms than I meant to. In the end, it wasn't a wasted evening. I had fun, watching it with my friends. We wanted to fast forward a few times, but the urge wasn't as strong as say, Dragonfly, which I didn't fast forward through because I was cleaning my living room and couldn't find the remote.

It's not a bad Saturday afternoon rental movie. But I wouldn't put off mowing the lawn to watch it either.

Oh no, I just discovered that Alan Tudyk is in Dodgeball: A True Underdog story. I might have to watch a Ben Stiller movie...whatever am I going to do?

Dragonfly

Dragonfly

I just finished watching an older film, Dragonfly, with Kevin Costner and Kathy Bates and a lot of other people I can't remember right now.

I have this slight problem when reviewing films, I tend not to want to outright bash the people involved. I want to make excuses for them and such. But I just can't with this one.

It began kinda promising, and I almost actually cared about the characters. When the first "supernatural" event happens, I was actually getting into it. There's a kid that's flatlined, and suddenly he wakes up again. Spooky stuff.

Then the "too much, too fast, too small" syndrome starts. The point is to give the main character, whose name is Joe by the way, Emily's Joe, a mystery to unravel. He's got to follow the clues to figure out what his wife is trying to tell him.

But we get each clue hard and fast, and smaller characters run on and off the screen so quickly you're not sure they were even there. Some mystery, we don't even get a chance to try to figure it out because he's already got one thing down and is moving to the next.

Several reviewers compared it to The Mothman Prophecies. I wouldn't be that kind, because the Mothman Prophecies actually spooked me out a little. Of course, it could be because I live close enough to where that all happened.

Not to mention that the END of that movie is not really an up or down ending, it just is. It really felt like it was telling a true story, which the author felt it was. I'm sidetracked.

Dragonfly would have been a decent enough movie if the mystery unveiled something interesting, something neat or unexpected. I don't need a real twist really, but something.

Instead I get the most sentimental peice of crap I've ever seen put on my television. This is yet another one of those cases where I sat at the beginning of the movie going "I wonder if...nah, that would be too stupid!" and then it happened. This hasn't occurred since Urban Legend.

The ending is wretched, absolutly wretched. And Kevin Costner's reaction to said ending made me laugh so loud I scared my cat. People don't fall to their knees in real life, very rarely anyway. It's gotta be something dang good to make you fall to your knees, and while this revelation probably was pretty dang good for that character, he waited until about five minutes AFTER to fall over.

You think his brain couldn't keep up the pace, or did the editing just chop in a few too many seconds before they panned out? Because as it is, it's more like "*COMPLETLY SHOCKING ANNOUNCEMENT!*"
"My wife really did have something to say..."
*dramatic pause*
*more dramatic pausing*
*uncomfortable shifting from the extras*
"I SHALL FALL TO MY KNEES WITH A PAINED LOOK ON MY FACE!" *boom*

Then after all that junk, as if that wasn't enough to make your brain slowly start to leak out your ears, then we get a voiceover.

Note to directors of the world: voiceovers often equal the death of your respectability as a film. Esp. when said voiceovers only occur once. If you have a narrator, sure. If one character's thoughts play an important role in the film, sure.

But if you start the movie with a vo, or end it with one, you're just spoonfeeding the audience what you didn't have the time or skill as a storyteller to show them before your producers said "That's it, no more budget for you!"

To top it all off the VO was so ultimatly sappy that I had to brush my teeth afterwards. Guh.

You know, I let movies get by with an awful lot of things that probably couldn't happen. Heck, one of my favorite action flicks is Independance Day and we all know that it's completly unbelievable.

But our stunning and shocking finale in Dragonfly? That's just too far out even for me. It's so completly impossible that it makes me want to remind the writers that since they're getting paid, they probably should actually write something that doesn't sound like a fifth grader chanting "And they all lived happily ever after."

Bad movie. Only rent it if you've got time on your hands, and a friend to mock it with.

The Directors: Wes Craven

The Directors: Wes Craven

I've been watching this series created by the American Film Institute, where they profile various directors that have made a big impact on Hollywood. So far I've checked out Steven Spielberg (of course), Rob Reiner, Ron Howard, and a couple others.

What probably drives my enjoyment of these short documentaries is my love of the director themselves, or the actors that are interviewed. But at the same time, when I watched the one for a guy that was in Monty Python, I had seen next to none of the films mentioned but I still found it a really fascinating documentary.

Now, with Rob Reiner and Steven Spielberg my intense love for their movies really helped. But even Ron Howard had a lot of things to say about the way he worked, and the actors interviewed gave me great insights into what makes a director they want to work with again.

I can't say that about the Wes Craven volume I just watched. In the end, I had seen next to none of his movies. After a bad experience watching Nightmare on Elm Street as a six year old, I never watched any of the Freddy Kreuger movies. I saw The Serpent and the Rainbow and found it pretty darn boring. The only movies that they discussed that I really cared about were Scream and Scream 2. Both of them only got a really cursory examination.

It was pretty interesting to learn about Craven's background in academics, but in the end I didn't really learn anything. The actors didn't have much to actually contribute much besides a neat talk about how Robert England tried to protray Freddy as a "dark trickster" I think it was.

On the whole, I would only tell really big fans of Craven to pick it up. Even if you just like directors or the Hollywood process, there are others out there.

Dawn of the Dead

Dawn of the Dead

Last night Cyn, Shoka, and I got together to watch Dawn of the Dead, one of THE zombie movies. Also a movie that along with Night of the Living Dead changed the genre of horror in America.

I would like to formally hit George Romero with a tennis racket for that. He changed us from a society that got the proper heebie jeebies from Vincent Price's creepy laugh, to a bunch of teenagers begging for the next bloody corpse. Yay, bloody violence!

Sure, violent movies have their place. I for one really enjoyed Resident Evil and it's sequel. But the thing is, I wasn't scared by them. I liked the action, not the blood and intensines. I think Shaun of the Dead is one of the best movies I've seen in ages, but that's despite the gross disembowling, now because of it.

Now that I've got that out of the way, I'll just say Dawn of the Dead does not equal frightening or scary in the least. Guess I'll have to go and get kicked myself for saying it.

Romero did have a vision, and it was an interesting one. The parallels between consumer culture and zombies were a very nice touch. But we were also beaten in the head with them until even the most inattentive moviegoer would get it. Okay, shoppers = zombies. Got it, please please move on.

The idea of building your own little hiding place inside a mall was brilliant and well executed. But when it started to get interesting and we realize that these three people are going to go nuts by themselves, random raiders show up and spoil the character development by having a pie fight with the zombies.

Sure, it was really funny to see that some people had figured out how to deal with zombies, by just moving faster than them. I think that's one thing most zombie movies never really think of, that we've got several distinct advantages over the undead.

Oh, and to quote Randy in Scream, a movie that found a good balance between story and gore, "They got the blood wrong. It's too red!"

Maybe it's just the jaded eyes of a later generation, but while I felt Dawn of the Dead is worth watching for it's cinematic contribution, as a story and a film on it's own it's not really the best. Yes, you have to remember that it was one of the first and that many films rely on the stage set by Romero's trilogy. But you also have to realize that one of the brilliant things about movies and art is that those that come later often take a formula and improve on it, honing it into something even better.

I'm glad I sat and watched Dawn of the Dead, but I don't think I'll ever watch it again. I would reccomend it to anybody that likes to poke fun and laugh at movies, as we had a great time imitating the characters as they got stupider and stupider.

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I read a review before I went to the movie that said "Great acting, great effects, no discernable plot."

I thought that sounded perfect, and it pretty much was. Except for one part that I felt Zaphod's third arm could have been done better, the effects were great. I loved the design of dang near everything. I think they hit all the high points of the book and really captured the spirit of it.

The only thing I felt that this changed at all was that in the books, I loved Zaphod, but in the movie he kinda grated on me. But you know, that's the type of character that would be like that.

The only thing that got left out that should have made it: Mostly Harmless. And Gin and Tonics.

Otherwise, I think it was an amazing recreation of a great book. To say thumbs up would be too cheesy though.

Various

Sure, this blog isn't actually visible yet, but I'm working on it. I just don't have a ton of time right now. I'm debating what this will be used for, and I think I'm going to go with randomly talking about what movies I'm watching and books I'm reading, along with the updates of the site. Maybe that'll work.

Tonight I'm working at the bookstore, which means I'll be taking back two books I checked out. The first was Juvenile Orion vol. 1. I liked it alright, but I was getting extremly confused. I know this sounds petty, but the binding on the book was annoying, because it was hard to hold it open and really see the art. I'm sure that means it won't fall apart, but I'd like to be able to read it too. I'll probably pick up the second volume, but it's not a priority.

Sin City vol. 1 was the other one, and I can't remember the title of this one. It's the middle story in the movie I think, with the woman named Goldie. I can't decide entirely what I think of it. The story was interesting, but the artwork actually was beyond not my style. Actually it really bugged me. But that was the story of the Sandman comics too, and I read all of those. Def. going to pick up the next volume of Sin City, because the writing really did have a lot of good stuff going on. Will likely rent the movie, but not spend the cash to go see it in the theatre because I'm flat broke.

Last thing I watched on my DVD player was the last of Season 2 of Friends. Man, I loved that show when it first came out. I'm going to try to make it past Ross and Rachel's "break" this time, which is when I stopped watching during the original airings. Ross got so annoying I just couldn't take it anymore. I wanted Rachel to dump him.

Before that it was Demon Under Glass, a good indie vampire flick about scientists who capture a vampire to study him. The big draw was of course that Jason Carter was the vampire. But the story was interesting too, and it really got me wanting to get back into filmmaking, because I could see a lot of the things they did while making it, and I really wanted to do my own movie again. I just wish I had the time.

Time to stop rambling since nobody can read this until I figure out how to insert it anyway!