Unbound (The Havoc Chronicles Book 2)

Unbound (The Havoc Chronicles Book 2)
by
Brant Williams

The first book ends rather abruptly, but fortunately this book picks up the action a couple of hours later. Not only does Unbound pick up the action where Williams left off with book 1, but his writing style as well. On the whole this book is much better written than the first one, with the end of it being even better written in my opinion than the beginning.
The first half of the book falls prey to one of the major problems of the first book though, and that is Williams does not know what it's like to be a 16 year old girl, and so the narrator who happens to be just that, often seems to not be that girl. The first half of the book is also as I described it to my friend today, the I-didn't-save-the-drama-for-my-mama section. First, because it's all about Madison (the narrator) being head-over-heals-in-love with which ever boy/man is standing nearest to her and second, because on nearly a dozen occasions, Williams pulls the move of using the extended-hyphenated-descriptor-clause. That's unfortunate, but he does stop doing that in the second half of the book.
I have nothing against romance or melodrama in a book. If it advances the story or develops a character, then go for it. But if it's there because you're trying to appeal to a certain market and not dong one of the two above mentioned things at the same time, don't do it. Actually, I know what it's like to get off on a tangent when writing a novel, so I just want to know what the editor was (not) doing?
I'm kind of harshing on Williams, because when he's writing well, it's quite good. Parts of this book are quite good in my opinion. He is just not very consistent yet. But, I will say that just like book 1, give Unbound a chance and you'll find out it's worth it.
Williams continues to do some new and exciting stuff, though not as much this time out. In it's place he adds in a political element and exposes us to more of the Berzerker and Binder world, both of which are good things and add another layer of interesting. As opposed to the first book where I felt Williams always took the safe route with the characters, contextually speaking of course, he didn't do that this time out. Some things need to happen for the story to work, and it turns out that Mr. Williams is willing to do them. I'm impressed that he did them.
This book is a quick read. I'm the slowest reader your are ever going to meet and the book took me about 9 hours to read. I'm quessing most people would be able to read this in about half to a third of the time that I did. That doesn't seem like a bad time risk.
I do think that this book is more the second half of the first book than it is the second book of the chronicles. But that could be just because the ending of the first book was so abrupt and because I'm used to reading Robert Jordan, George R. R. Martin and J. K. Rowling.
There is no official word on just how many books there will be in the Havoc Chronicles, but in the acknowledgements at the end of the book, Williams gives the title of the third book, which will be out in a year and a half if there is as much time between 2 & 3 as there was between 1 & 2.

Unbound at Amazon.com

The Question of God

The Question of God:
C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud debate God, love, sex, and the meaning of life
by
Dr. Armand M. Nicholi Jr
read by
Robert Whitfield

This sounded like it was going to be an amazing listen. I knew that Freud and Lewis overlapped their time in London by a year or more, and hoped that they had been introduced and then had some awesome type of meeting and perhaps an exchange of correspondence, as both men liked to do. But in reality there is no record of the two men ever meeting, even though when Freud moved to London, he lived then a mile away from Oxford while Lewis was a lecturer there.
Nicholi then proposes that he will use the written works of the two men to create a debate that may have occurred had the two met. As a student of classical philosophy I am quite familiar with the concept of constructing conversation to put a point of view across. This could be great.
Could be. But it wasn't.
It becomes evident quite quickly that Nicholi is a fan of C. S. Lewis, as one would expect. I mean why would you teach a class comparing Lewis and Freud if you didn't like Lewis? What also becomes clear just as quickly is that Nicholi is not a Freudian Analyst and in all likelihood thinks that most of Freud's work is of minimal use at best. Nearly as quickly you come to realize that Nicholi strongly dislikes the figure of Sigmund Freud. How weird to teach a class about someone you dislike.
But then it became clear to me. There is no debate. This is an indictment of Freud the Psychoanalyst and Freud the man. This book (and the course he teaches based on it, or likely vice versa) is also praising Lewis nearly to the point of Sainthood.
By the middle of the book, Nicholi is talking about the filthy atheists, all of whom want to to fuck their mother and then kill themselves. I'm not kidding. Sure, he's not quite as vulgar towards the atheist's mothers as I am, but he goes on at length about how all the horrible atheists will eventually turn to suicide because their life is not worth living.
On the flip-side, Nicholi explains how Lewis was starting down the great and terrible path of atheism, but then found Christianity and because he [Lewis] came to it through intellectualism that not only was Lewis transformed into a saint that walked among us, but that he also "proved" that Christianity is the only viable option through rigorous scientific means, by which Nicholi means that a) Lewis was an intellectual and b) Lewis became a Christian and c) Lewis said it was through the use of his intellect. Ergo. Christianity is scientifically proven.
Okay, now I'm just feeling nasty and grumpy and mean, but I picture Nicholi staring at the poster of Lewis above his desk while he writes and then takes a little break to jack-off to the thought of C.S. Lewis before writing about him some more. Nothing wrong with this, just don't call it rigorous and objective examination. Well, maybe you could call it rigorous.
This book really pissed me off. I urge that no one who reads this read or listen to the book by Dr. Nicholi. I just feel sorry for the Harvard Medical students who take this class thinking they're going to get some insight into Freud or Lewis.

The Wedding Crashers (2005)

What is up with me and Christopher Walken movies lately? I can't seem to get away from the guy. How many more can there be? I should have pretty much run out of them by now. But, in all due fairness to Mr. Walken, He was only like the fourth most annoying person in this movie, right behind Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson and  Will Farrell. That kind of makes it worth, because each of these three guys I've seen in plenty of things that I like, though admittedly not together. There is one Walken movie that I like, but I can't remember what it's called, I think it has Eric Stoltz in it though and Walken is either an angel or the devil. Hmm. If I can find that on DVD or online, I'll watch that, because even if it turns out that it totally sucked (it probably did, but that's okay I like plenty of sucky movies), it still has to be better than this film.
I know what you're thinking, "Eric, how could you not know what you were getting yourself into?" Point well taken. I just wanted to watch something funny. It was sitting there looking at me. I was in the mood to watch something that I hadn't seen before, and voila! Crap happened.
It's not just this movie that throws me off, it's this whole genre of comedies - the ones where the guys are lovable assholes that are always fucking people over until one day, they accidentally fall in love with the girl they were just leading along. Awkward and stupid scenes follow until the girl admits that she really feels the same and wants to be with the asshole. Not only do I realize that this set-up is actually quite depressing now that I write it down, it's more that the guy is shameless in a particular way. He is shameless in how horrible he is to anyone that is not him. The other kind of shameless, the guy who will do anything for the laugh, I often find them quite funny and often respect their artistic decisions (think Ken Jeong here in every movie he has ever been in, or as Chang on Community). That's my lame epiphany for the day - assholes being mean to people is not comedy.
There were a couple of okay bits in the movie, like how Dwight Yoakam and Rebecca De Mornay make a great couple in the opening scene. Or, when the credits start to roll. I would have to say that those were my two favorite parts.

The Wedding Crashers on IMDb

Threads That Bind (The Havoc Chronicles Book 1)

Threads That Bind (The Havoc Chronicles Book 1)
by
Brant Williams

This is not Mr. Williams first book, but it's the first one available (his web site states that he wrote two books for middle grades and the acknowledgements at the end of the book state this is his first publicly available novel), but it reads like a first book. Full of exposition that an editor should have cut. Full of redundancies that don't forward the plot or develop the characters. There are also at least three spelling mistakes and twice again as many grammar issues, but these are things the editor (and the spellchecker) should have caught.
This story starts out slow. Really slow. And then it adds in high school drama of a level that would bore a high school student. But, along the way things do start to happen, and what things they are. The magic in this book, or perhaps the magical is a better word, are very fresh and not like anything I've seen in a novel. There are some aspects that remind me of a RPG I played and some that remind me of a Japanese movie, but they are only similar in some respects. The baddies in this book are not like anything I've read in a fantasy or sf novel. This alone is reason to push through the slow beginning and finish the book.
The good news is that it does pick up and by the end of the book Williams seems to have hit his stride. You do find yourself thinking, "just one more chapter", which for me is a huge deal since I am such a slow reader - a chapter is a much bigger time commitment than it is for your average bear.
This book is intended to be "YA". No problem, I think some of the best books being written now are Young Adult. This book does commit the cardinal sin that all YA stories should avoid - it talks down to the reader. Now, I'm an adult male so it might seem like any YA book would do this, but that's not the case. I never felt that any of the Harry Potter books, or the His Dark Materials books, or the Hunger Games, or Little Brother to name my favorites, talked down to me. Not even the more popular, which I mean in the pop culture sense of the word, Percy Jackson books do this. I think part of it might be that a man in his 30s or 40s is trying write from the first person perspective of a 16 year old girl. I think that is something certainly beyond my capability.
Williams is just starting out as a published author and hopefully has many more books ahead of him. He currently still works a "day job" but I hope in the future his books allow him to write full time. I think with more words written under his belt, his books are going to improve. And if they continue to be as imaginative and original as this one, Williams could be a force to be reckoned with and his characters household names.
I hope so at least, since I broke one of my rules by starting a series that is not yet finished and which hasn't even stated how many books are in it. I hope that doesn't mean open-ended. Or it it does, he needs to write more and put these out faster than every several years.

Threads that Bind on Amazon.com

Total Recall (2012)

I hate it when I can't remember if I'm with Kate Beckinsale or if I'm with Jessica Biel. Kate'll be all like, "we're such a happy little married couple" and then there'll be a knock on the door and it's Jessica and she's all like, "you ain't married to that bitch!" And then you have to go and fight some androids. I hate those days.
I was just reading a little about this film in preparation for viewing iit. I read, what I thought was a credible source, an article stating that they didn't try and base this as much on the Schwarzenegger movie as they did off of the CBC series, "Total Recall 2099". I think perhaps someone was pulling my leg. There are homages to the original film throughout. Yet, it does have much the same aesthetic as the television show and does take place on Earth after a war like the series. And yes, I am the only United States citizen who watched the Canadian sci-fi mystery procedural. Because it was there, okay? Because there is not enough good sci-fi programming available and you end up watching what you can get. And to be honest, the show wasn't that bad.
This actually followed the major story points of the first movie pretty closely for the first 75% of the film. The last quarter is still roughly inline, minus that whole 'we're on Mars' bit and the aliens, and making the inhospitable livable again. I kind of thought they might go that route in this, like at the end it turns out that devices have been built to clean the air of the "No Zone".
Most everything about this movie I was able to buy, except the whole bit about the Fall. I sincerely doubt that the most feasible way to get from Sydney to London will ever be through the Earth's core in a giant elevator. And they totally fucked up the whole gravity bit at the core. There would be no one to two minute zero g experience. It made for some cool cinematics, and offered a reason for our star to seem to be all but captured, when really the very Earth itself if pulling for him. Sorry. I can't help myself with the puns here.
The people I know who have seen this film and the original all lament, groan even, that they were remaking this movie. I did to at first, but for a different reason. The person I talked with today said that the Schwarzenegger flick was so great, that you couldn't compete with Farrell. Whereas, I didn't want a remake because I thought the original was so bad. It's an Arnold Schwarzenegger film for christ's sake! Throw in a few future doodads, a hooker with 3 boobs and set it on Mars and everyone is talking like it's the best envisioning of a Dick story since Blade Runner and maybe even better than that. Really? That older movie was action packed, but poorly acted. The Guvanator has never been known for his great great acting ability. Never. Now I do buy the nostalgia angle. I myself have fond memories of this movie because of who I saw it with and that evening. But I saw it as part of a double feature with the other film being Jean-Claude Van Damme's "Universal Soldier" and I thought that film was the stronger of the two. I am fond of lot's of things that are not great, but are special none-the-less. That is the only reason I can think of why people are so fond of the original.
This movie has some great actors. I've already mentioned Beckinsale and Biel and of course it stars Colin Farrell, who may from all reports be a prick, but he can still act and quite decently. We also get to see Bryan Cranston, as a genuine, mother fucking, action star. He kicks some ass and looks good doing it. He had a pretty big year last year, with both this film and Argo coming out. Yay Brian. In my opinion, not enough good things can happen for this man. Oh, and there's some guy, an older British bloke, who does a fairly decent, as always, job - Mr. Bill Nighy. Rounding out the major players is Bokeem Woodbine, whom the last time I saw him was playing a police officer partnered with a vampire played by Adrian Paul (of Highlander the television series fame) and the lover of another vampire played by Bai Ling. He could only have come up from that and still been on my radar, so nice to see that he hasn't just disappeared.
The special effects and visual effects were the reason I wanted to watch this film, as I fully expected it to be total crap. The FX did not let me down, and I was very pleasantly surprised to find that I liked the film, because even though the story was just as ludicrous as the first film's, it was executed very well by a more than pasable cast.
The one thing that bothered me about this story, okay maybe main would be a better word than one, is present in both films. At the beginning when Quaid/Hauser is first going into Recall, the whole shit-storm happens just after he's been injected. Okay, confessional time, I haven't read the Philip K. Dick story in so long, that it is feasible to me that I never read it at all. But, if I were writing the story, I would run them as the movies did, and that right at the very end, after the credits have already started rolling go back in and show it all to be a recall session, and you could go with either successful or perhaps more appropriately a failure in which he can't wake up from the session. I've always felt that's the way Dick did it, or would have done it. Ugh, I am so lame for not knowing what he did, but I will fix that. You will have to take my word for it that I have.
For the record, nothing happens during the credits, other than the statement, and I quote, "Based on the motion picture "Total Recall"" which comes right before they list the Second Unit and Visual Effects credits. At the top of the credits we get, "Inspired by the short story "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" by Philip K. Dick". I think that pretty much puts to rest what this film was actually based on.

Total Recall on IMDb

Robot and Frank (2012)

I've been waiting all of these years for Cyclops to team-up with Dr. Betsy Braddock! Somehow I thought more mutants and super villains would be involved. This story of a new kind of Sentinel had a lot less of things blowing up than I thought it would and virtually no enslavement of the mutant or any other population. I would have loved to have on camera just one shot of Frank posing and screaming, "Hulk smash!"
This is a cute and touching film. You already knew that from the trailer, I suspect. It certainly won't disappoint you in that respect. And just like that I'm implying that it'll let you down in another way. This is not a cutting edge film - sci-fi as a laser lense on society. This is a small film that tells a small story without any surprises. But, and that is a big but - even a wide-ass but if you will - this is a good film. There's some social commentary, but it's mostly human interest. Frank Langella is charming, almost adorable as Frank, a retired cat burglar. James Marsden plays Frank's son, Hunter and Liv Tyler plays Frank's daughter, Madison. They love their dad, but aren't close to him. As he's getting older and starting to have some problems living on his own, they both step up to try and take care of him in the way they think is best. Add in Susan Sarandon as Frank's librarian, Jennifer and you have a lovely ensemble.
The movie is really made by the robot, voiced by Peter Sarsgaard. If I had any complaints about his performance, and I don't, it would be that at times I found myself thinking, "is he trying to sound like Kevin Spacey sounding like a robot, or is that just me?" The robot has no face to read the expressions on, so all lines are deadpan - some straight and some humorous.
This film is as titled, all about Frank and his robot companion who comes to be his friend. While this film never calls into contention what it is to be human on the human's side, it does ask what helps us lead a fulfilling life. As humans do we need interaction with other humans, or will interaction with human facsimiles, whether they be robot or the internet or whatever, prove as fulfilling, and if not will they prove at least ot be adequate. I think about this a lot. I have several people I count as dear friends that I have never met - we only know each other through the internet. Chatting or emailing with them is not the same as with a 'face-to-face' friend. Even the most casual ftf friend leaves behind images and imporessions that I can access whenever I want, especially when communicating online. I can remember what she looks like, the time he through in my bathroom, etc. and it makes the emails and chat more real. But what about the friends whom I've never met or even seen a "real" picture of? I certainly can't augment my interactions with them in quite the same way, but they don't seem less human, nor does the interaction seem less genuine or less fulfilling. What if I found out my friend Jane, who I have only seen as her zombie fae avatar, were really a sophisticated AI? Would I feel ripped off? Would I stop emailing or chatting with her? What if I did stop the interaction and then she kept emailing me asking what was wrong? To be honest that's more than I get from most of my ftf friends. Yet, I think I would somehow feel dirty and misused. At first. Then, I would try out the AI - test it to see how it would respond to anything I could think of. In all likelihood, I would probably eventually go back to the interaction, because I find it worthwhile, but maybe not in quite the same way any longer. When I think of how many hours, likely thousands, I've spent playing solitaire on the computer just because I can, because it's interactive, because it's low impact, I think maybe I already have a robot companion.
If you want your heart strings tugged at gently, watch this film. It will make you smile. It will make you a little sad at place. It will remind you that good movies do not need an action hero or explosions or gratuitous t & a.

Robot & Frank on IMDb

Seven Psychopaths (2012)

I wanted to not like this movie. The last several movies recommended to me by the recommender of this film have totally sucked. And a couple of them, he admitted when I reported to him how much I disliked them, that he told me to watch them to confirm if they were as bad as he thought they were. What the fuck is up with that? It's one thing to recommend a movie to another and they end up disliking it. You might even offer a suggestion with a caveat of, "this might not be for you" or some such. You could even suggest a film with the warning of, "this movie sucked, but you might get a chuckle at a couple of the scenes." But to give a bad movie recommendation knowing it was bad and not give a warning...that's just wrong. I guess I'm spoiled by having one friend that is a good movie recommender.
I don't like Christopher Walken in most movies. The films where he has bit parts, they're okay as he's not on screen enough to bother me. I've mentioned before, but I'll say it again because I like the imagery - I think Walken would loose an "act off" against William Shatner. With that said, he was tolerable in this film. Not good. But tolerable.
Colin Farrel is one of those actors that I think is genuinely talented, but who I also think is a big enough wanker in real life that it sometimes bleeds through into his characters. *cough* *cough* Bullseye in the Daredevil film *cough* *cough* This is not one of those films. He plays a script writer who almost consciously fills the stereotype of writers and of the Irish, just so in the later half of the film he can have the break through of finally believing something and breaking the stereotype of the movie. I mean that he does, not that the movie breaks the stereotype.
Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell complete the cast of mains and are two of the seven psychopaths, well actually three, but I won't get into that. They both play quirky killers with aplumb. Harrelson plays the cold-hearted mob boss who will do anything for his dog, whom he loves dearly. Rockwell decides to become a killer to help his friend get ideas for a screen play. These are another two that toy with stereotypism so they can exploit later in the movie, though in ways that fit with how you think the movie will go, which is a bit of stereotype.
This film is very meta. It's about a man writing a screen play called Seven Psychopaths. The movie is the story of seven psychopaths, and some of the tales are made up while some are related to the writer as true while some are occurring both in his life and as stories related to him. They take the time to deconstruct several of the stories in depth. They talk about stereotypical roles in movies about killers and especially the stereotypes of women in these kinds of movies. There aren't a lot of women in the film and those that are there get very little air time, the one with the most on-screen time is the topless hooker. It's a bit of a slap in the face to spend so much time talking about how women are so much more than a victim or a bitch as they are portrayed in these movies, only to have all the female characters match the stereotypes that they say women are type-cast into.
The look of this film is a bit of a hodge-podge. It runs with one style for the first half an hour or so, and then changes, slowing way down for act II, and then picking back for an action-packed ending that is stylistically different from the beginning. We get started off with a Quentin Tarentino feel of fast cuts and graphics overlays, move into a Wes Anderson-like discussion of the higher morals of humans and end with a Sam Raimi goofy action flick, with all the predictable twists. Oh, and it's explosively violent, which means out of nowhere the film becomes graphically violent for a couple of moments and then goes back to it's mostly non-violent state.
This is a movie that you borrow, not buy. It has it's moments amd almost achieves some of it's own self-listed goals of stereotypes to break. Almost.

Seven Psychopaths on IMDb

The Master (2012)

I didn't know anything about this movie before today, other than it was nominated for an Academy award. When I found out that it starred Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman, I was not surprised to hear that they both had been nominated for awards. I was also told that it was about a character similar to L. Ron Hubbard. If I hadn't known any of this going in, I would have known coming out. This is one of those movies that doesn't have a hero, but a cast of anti-heroes. The film is called The Master, referring to Hoffman's character, Lancaster Todd, whom is called the Master by his followers. He calls himself a scientist, a writer, a nuclear physicist and theoretical philosopher. It's really his charisma and ideology that people are drawn to, however. I did spend the whole movie what the hell a theoretical philosopher was, since it implies that there are applied philosophers, and I wondered what they do as well. Isn't all philosophy theoretical? Now I know that there are going to be some who are quick to say that isn't Logic, especially Symbolic Logic applied philosophy? I would like to argue that Logicians and Symbolic Logicians especially are more akin to mathematicians and psyhcologists than to philosophers. But this is just really a semantical game (on their part and mine). I suspect that Todd was as much a theoretical philosopher as he was nuclear physicist. For all the importance the Master has to the movie, the film is really about Freddy Quell, played by Phoenix. Quell is the poster child for anti-heroes. He's a liar, a cheat, a thief and a killer. He's a hardcore alcoholic. He's amoral at the best of times. And he's crazy, but not in a good or zany way. Nothing about this movie is zany. Remember Joe Pesci's character in Goodfellas? That's what Freddy Quell is like, but a little more unstable.
I spent nearly the whole movie on edge wondering who was going to crack first, Quell, Todd or me. It was none of us, yet in a way it was Quell, but it also was Todd. i stuck it out, so I win.
Todd adores Quell from the beginning and nearly everyone around Todd hates Quell. Quell brins this upon himself, but when other bad things occur when he's around or involved in a group or situation, Quell usually is the one making it worse.
I was happy when the movie was over, not because it's a bad movie, but because the character are so unsettling. I wanted the story to end before the cluster fuck their life was came to a head and truly bad things began to happen. I got my wish. Maybe the bad stuff happening will be the sequel? Just kidding, as this isn't the type of film to generate a sequel.
Joaquin Phoenix is Freddy Quell. He so utterly becomes him, that I didn't once think of him as himself until the credits rolled. I have heard that Phoenix is a method actor, that takes it very seriously and never breaks character (I read this after he was done with Walk the Line), and if that's the case, I wouldn't have wanted to hang out with him while this was filming. Way too intense for me.
This movie was more serious than I usually go in for, and was also more pessimistic, or is that realistic, than I usually go in for as well. But it was so well executed and true to itself, I understand why Phoenix and Hoffman were up for multiple awards and why everyone is talking about this film. It also left me with a desire to look into L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, not as an option for my life of course, but to see how this movie stacks up with real life. I think when a movie does that, it can only be counted as a success - when you take it with you out of the viewing and wrestle with it in your head.

The Master on IMDb

The Fall (2006)

This was not a very accurate adaptation of the book. I don't remember Camus having anything about a little girl int he hospital. Or about a Hollywood stuntman. Wait, what? This isn't based on Albert Camus' classic work of Existential literature?
This movie is odd. I don't mean so much about the story, but the way that it was told, particularly the pacing. It comes in at 117 minutes, and to be honest by about minutes 62 or 63 (yes I did check the running time at this point) you're thinking to yourself, "come on, get to the point, or at least show me some direction." This film is a classic story-within-a-story. They devote just about half the time to watching Alexandria, the little girl, and how she interacts with her world, particularly with Roy, the aforementioned Hollywood stuntman, and the other half of the time in the story that Roy is telling Alexandria. You figure out pretty quickly, even though Alexandria doesn't, that Roy has ulterior motives. And they ain't good motives, but nothing towards Alexandria, but manipulating her into stealing morphine for him so he can commit suicide. Ya. Not a happy movie.
The film is set during the silent movie era in Los Angeles. I'm not too familiar with this time period, but it looked authentic to my eye. The movie touches on classism and bigotry between the white Americans and the immigrant farm laborers but in a very oblique manner. I thought this element should have been stronger or removed entirely. It could have been very interesting, but wasn't given a chance.
This movie is too long. It spends too much time with each element. I think this should have been a movie about a depressed man and the little girl that touches his life. The tale that he tells her should have been cut in half timewise. Or alternatively, they should have made the story Roy tells longer and cut out most of the stuff in L.A. Maybe they should have just made two movies?
This isn't a bad movie, but neither is it a good movie. There is so much potential. Both premises are interesting. All the acting is top notch. The problem is the lack of focus, and that is a pretty big problem.

The Fall on IMDb

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2011)

It's pretty much a law of (my) nature that I will watch any movie based on a comic book. It doesn't matter if it's a comic book I've read or am even familiar with. I almost didn't watch the first Ghost Rider movie (this one being number 2), because I always thought that the character of Ghost Rider was really incongruous with the rest of the Marvel universe, plus I always thought that it was essentially a Western just with the main character on a metaphorical horse. Plus, I think one of the comics I read as a kid had GR in front of a circus which may or may not have been aflame, and I don't much go in for the idea of circuses due to their harboring of clowns and their ilk. Throw in that the film stars Nicolas Cage and it was an almost definite pass. But sometimes all the good movies have been watched or at least are on loan to other library patrons and I cave and watch something like Ghost Rider, lured into the creepy old man's house by the promise of special effects candy. And then it turned out to not even be my least favorite Marvel comic-made-into-a-movie. When I found out a sequel had been made, I realized that it was already out on video and here we are a couple of days later and you're reading this.
Even if this hadn't been part of some comic book fetish that I have, I would have watched this. Why? The premise is that the devil walks the earth in human form and has sired a son. On the Winter solstice of the boy's thirteenth year, the devil may perform a ritual to transfer his essence to the boy, gaining a new body, and bringing a new dark age to the earth. But the boy's mother with the help of wine guzzling holy man and a man possessed by the spirit of an insane fallen angel are going to try to rescue the boy and save humanity.
I have a soft spot for stories about angels, devils, fallen angels, etc. I think it comes from a desire to believe in them. Since I was a kid I've been intrigued by the notion of heaven and hell and was always at least a little bit envious of other people who went to the kinds of churches that talked about such things or at least believed in them. It seemed like the Catholics had the most going on, and through syncretism religions like Santeria and Voodoo are closely related. It's kind of like the first literary super heroes and super villains. But, if I delve a bit deeper, it's about my wanting to have faith in something larger than humanity. If I could only believe in angels and miracles performed by saints or conversely devils and their spawn, then maybe, just maybe, I could believe in God. I think I've known since I was six that there was no Santa Claus. Kids who have to spend the holidays between two households who are not on good terms come to these realizations faster I think. I also recall right around this time, maybe a couple of years later, but certainly in the middle of my grade school experience, that God was just Santa Claus for adults, and how come they couldn't see that he was a sham? In my mind then, as now, was the relational analogy that God is to adults as Santa is to kids. It left me not believing in either, nor wanting very much to be an adult. All these decades later, I've gotten past my secret hopes of finding faith in religion, but still hold on to the stories. They are interesting.
Cage does not suck in this movie. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, I know. But the whole Ghost Rider as fallen, insane, angel angle is an interesting twist and Cage played Johnny Blaze likely as good as anyone could have. There is only so much you can do with this kind of character. Violante Placido was as lovely as ever, and I think this is the first English speaking role I've seen her in. At least her character didn't die a horrible death this time out. The supporting cast was good as well, surprising me.
I think it's very interesting that this film was produced by Avi Arad and Stan Lee, and yet only barely shows the word Marvel at the beginning and then again at the end. Clearly not a Marvel Studios/Disney film.
The coolest thing about this movie, aside from nice fire SF/X were the ancient and super secret order of holy men headed by Methodius played by Christopher Lambert, who's character was completely covered with tattoos of sacred scriptures. There are aspects of a story being believed in giving it power in this film that I find interesting and reminiscent of a series like Unwritten. They go hand in hand with the Blaze character believing that Ghost Rider is a demon and then how his life changes when he believes Ghost Rider is a fallen, if insane, angel. Too bad the movie wasn't more about this aspect than about chasing things and blowing things up.
The worst part of this movie was that in this incarnation GR is totally ripping off Spawn. He's pretty much an immortal badass that does bad things to bad people and has these cool looking chains that shoot out following his every whim and desire. The problem is that they didn't just do a Spawn movie. Spawn can basically do what he wants to humans, but the creatures from the underworld and from heaven are a different story. Plus Al Simmons has a family that he still cares about even though he can't be with them. They are a great strength and a great liability to him. GR has no body to equal his power, well he an enemy in Decay (Johnny Whitworth) for a while, but they are not that evenly matched to be interesting. Not to mention that GR doesn't have anything keeping him in check, except for the attempts of his human host, Johnny Blaze. Hmm, Spawn and GR even both have the motorcycle thing going on.
That's what I would really like to see, is a reboot of Spawn. Don't get me wrong, I like the 90s version with Martin Sheen Michael Jai White, but they could relaunch the series with a new actor and over the course of several films really bring the heavenly characters into it as well as the devilish ones. Then, they could make a decent live action version of Witchblade. And then we can start having movies about WildC.A.T.S. or at the very least Grifter and Zealot. Hmm, maybe we could try Spawn as an HBO series? With the current wave of super hero films not yet peaked, it would be nice to have something a little meatier, a little less black and white to watch.
So, bottom line is you want ot know if you should watch this movie. Am I right? Fair enough. It's better than the Blade movies and Punisher movies and pretty much on par with Daredevil and Elektra. That leaves the whole Spider-man and X-men franchises, the Avengers and the related solo effort movies better than it and the Fantastic Four films slightly better than it. Did I leave out any of the Marvel movies?

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance on IMDb

Argo (2012)

This is one of those rare films, not counting sequels, where I go into it knowing almost everything about it. I'd heard reviews, plot descriptions and at least two interviews with Ben Affleck. I knew how the movie ended. Usually when this happens, I am watching the film because either I am a fan of the franchise (see the comment above about sequels) or I'm in it for the eye candy, i.e. the special effects, and more than a few times, both. I tend to stay away from films in this situation, because I feel that you can only be disappointed. Well, I am happy to stand corrected. As mentioned, I knew what was going to happen the whole way through and yet there I was worried that someone might crack under pressure or that someone else wouldn't get to the phone in time. I can understand why this film won the best picture Oscar. I hoped I would like this film, because every time I heard Affleck talk about it, he was so...I don't know, humble. He seemed like a nice guy who worked hard to make what he thought was a great movie, but not great because he did it, but because of the story and the people involved.
Affleck pulled double duty as star and director. To pull either one of those off well is commendable, but to pull them both off well, that's just impressive. And while I'm at least a little bit biased, I want to say on the record that Ben was rocking that beard. I'm guessing the nice thing about being director is deciding to have a full beard instead of one of those big ridiculous looking mustaches.
Affleck didn't pull this off alone. He had Bryan Cranston playing his boss, John Goodman playing his Hollywood connection and Alan Arkin playing the producer who puts the fake movie together. I think I might have mentioned before that I am a big fan of Cranston and everything I've ever seen him in. He puts it all out there in every performance, and I for one appreciate it. John Goodman is another one of my all-time favorites. I fucking watched Roseanne because he was in it. That is fan loyalty. While I don't go out looking for Alan Arkin flicks, I certainly take notice when I hear that he's in a film, as I always enjoy his work.
Watching this film, I was convinced that I was in 1980. Affleck did a great job of mixing actual news footage from the time alongside some well made re-enactments of memorable scenes along with the main body of the film which looked like 1980. There were lots of great scenes in this film, but one that sticks out in my mind is right after Mendez (Ben Affleck) picks up the VW bus in Tehran and drives passed a Kentucky Fried Chicken that's as busy as ever and there are old women sitting out front in their black hijabs eating fried chicken.
And kudos for getting President Carter to do the voice over at the end of the movie. I don't know if I think he was a good President or not, but I think he is the greatest ex-President this country has ever seen. That was a really nice touch.
Seeing Argo, and not only enjoying it but respecting the job that Affleck did goes a little ways towards forgiving Jennifer Garner for marrying him instead of waiting for me. A little ways.

Argo on IMDb

Stand Up Guys (2012)

This movie was recommended to me. I was assured that it was a great film, even though I made it abundantly clear to the recommender that I am not a fan of Christopher Walken. He assured me that Walken was at his best in this film and that I would like it or something was wrong with me. Apparently, something is wrong with me.
Walken at his best is still Walken. I mostly just thought of how similar his speech patterns are to William Shatner's. I think somebody that could do a good impersonation of one could probably do the other with little extra effort. But you know what? Walken is far less annoying in this film than Al Pacino's character is. Was it wrong of me to hope that Walken would "whack" Pacino? That is the premise of the movie, a crime boss played by Alan Arkin promises not to kill Walken if Walken kills Pacino (of course I mean their characters - don't think I would wish any harm to the fine and august gentlemen). Walken figures out that he can't even if it means his own life because Pacino is his only friend in the whole world. Except he loves his granddaughter.
Blargh. Don't mind me. Even writing this up leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I guess they can't all be winners, 'cause this one definitely ain't.

Stand Up Guys on IMDb

Skyfall (2012)

Is it just me, or is Daniel Craig just a little bit more handsome in each film he does? I'm glad that Sony got over their issues got this movie to us. I think of the three Craig Bond films, this is the most accessible to Bond fans (I mean pre-Craig Bond). Not only was Skyfall packed with allusions to the classic Bond films, but stylistically it was more like them then Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. In no small part this is due to the way Bond is being portrayed. In the first two films, he's shown to be a stonecold killer who is the best of the best. In Skyfall, he's a little off his game for most of the film but more than makes up for it by his patriotism. Bond does what he does, because he's doing the right thing, and he knows it's the right thing because M tells him to do it. He trusts her completely, not only because she is a substitute for his mother, but because he believes she has the welfare of Great Britain at heart.
Ralph Fiennes and Naomi Harris were nice additions to the cast, especially since they were replaying recurring characters. Speaking of which, where as the first two Craig films had the feeling that  they were "the" Bond story, where Skyfall very clearly sets up more adventures at the end.
I think this was the best acted Bond film yet. And numbers two and three are the first two starring Craig. Part of that is due to the fact that this movie takes itself seriously, but I think a larger part is due to the fine actors: Dame Judi Dench, the aforementioned Fiennes and Harris, Daniel Craig of course and the wonderful portrayal of the villain Silva, played by Javier Bardon.
I would remiss if I didn't mention the Oscar winning theme song, written and sung by Adelle. I'm biased because I am a fan of Adelle but I think this is one of the better, say top three at least, James Bond theme songs. I am excited that she got recognized for her work.

Skyfall on IMDb

21 Jump Street (2012)

I loved 21 Jump Street as a kid. Almost as much as I mom did. I thought Johnny Depp was the coolest dude ever and Peter DeLouise was a great role model for larger boys. Holly Robinson was hot. And then came Richard Grieco with his pretty boy ways and both ears pierced. This show was instrumental in my childhood development. I am about 98% certain that I've seen every episode at least once. Then along came this movie. Until checking it out, all I knew was that Ice Cube was in it and that Depp was a bit role. I thought this could super serious like the Mod Squad remake, or totally dumb-ass like the Dukes of Hazzard remake. I hoped for the former and prepared for the latter. Good thing I was prepared.
Honestly, if I would have known that this film starred Jonah Hill, I would have passed. Everyone else in it, I'm okay with.
So, they went the stupid route counting on getting laughs by making dick jokes. They chose the role reversal option - the cool guy plays nerd, while the nerd is forced into the cool guy role, while at the same time being at a high school where those roles are reversed. It seems that should have been funnier with always going to the sophomoric jokes. But what the hell do I know.
The only thing good about this movie are the bit part, almost cameos by Depp and DeLouise, as their characters from Jumpstreet, all grown up (so to speak) and undercover for the DEA. That's it. If you think this film is a good idea, do us both a favor and hunt down an episode of the original series and watch that instead.

21 Jump Street on IMDb

Public Enemies (2009)

I have never been the biggest fan of gangster movies. Some are decent enough, I guess it's just that I'm not that interested in the criminal thug being the hero. Those movies that I do like, the gangsters are portrayed as people who are like anybody else, just killier. I thin a lot of them probably were horrible people, and I think a lot of the enforcement who chased them and fought them were probably just as bad. Goodfellas is a great example of a good gangster movie, because while you might like some of the badguys, they never try and make them seem like something they're not.
I don't know that much about John Dillinger or Melvin Purvis, but I do know that I like watching Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. And knowing these two and the look of the film, I'm guessing that it's based more than a little in the true events of these two men. But, it's still a bit time Hollywood movie. I suspect that while Dillinger was living it large in '33, that the city of Chicago was a lot grimier place than portrayed. I also suspect that the men involved on both sides were as well. This movie is far too clean and crisp. And while I expect and accept the stars of a movie to be attractive even if the person they're portraying isn't, I would be very surprised if everyone in the Chicago mob scene was as attractive as portrayed in this flick.
Ultimately it comes down to caring about the characters, and that was hard to do in this film. Even when the whole mess goes tits up for Dillinger, I found myself not caring. There are some scenes were Depp is on fire, but mostly he's just some guy who looks and sounds like Johnny Depp but is otherwise uninspiring. From this cast I expected a better film.

Public Enemies on IMDb

Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon (2011)

Okay, two things, Rosie Huntington Whitley was not a step up from Megan Fox in either the acting or looks department, and how awesome is it that Buzz Aldrin is played by Buzz freakin' Aldrin? So I guess that makes casting kind of hit and miss on this one. Well, actually more hit than miss. John Malkovich and Frances McDormand are great in everything they do, whether or not it itself is great. Alan Tudyk and Ken Jeong are two great comedic character actors who are not afraid too like total idiots to get the job done, and they both do some of that in this movie, especially Jeong. Plus, you've got all the returning characters, whom aside from LaBeouf have a smaller role this time out, but deliver none the less.
I want to not like this movie. I want to be pissed at Michael Bay for being such a prick and ruining my childhood memories of the Transformers. But, I keep finding that I do like this movie, and regardless of how I feel about Bay and his style of movie-making, that it is perfect for the Transformers. Let's face it, the first time out of the gate, I was into the movie for the story as much as the giant robots. Second time out, not so much. Third time out, as long as they have something I can follow, it's all good. And that's pretty much how I feel about the cartoons as well. They do all these ridiculous things in the movies that are nowhere near as outlandish as the cartoon. Thank god they haven't resorted to using energon cubes yet.
I was one of those kids who was a comic book nerd and read Transformers from that first four issue limited series up at least until the mid-60s. There were lots of great stories, and things were never as easy for the Autobots as they were in the cartoon. Characters died. Story arcs were working over the course of a half year or more. And then, just like with the cartoon, it seemed that each new episode was all about featuring whatever new toy was coming out that month and even I, with my encyclopedic knowledge of the Transformers and excellent memory for names and (comic book) faces could not keep up or keep it straight. But, in this movie that is not so much of an issue. There are only a couple of new Autobots, and really only a couple of new Decepticons that get named, but tons whom we never learn the name of, nor do we see transform.
I wonder what they are doing in the fourth movie? What are some of the things from comics/cartoon that we haven't seen yet? Well, we've got the whole dinobots thing. I hope that's not it. We have Unicron and a whole slew of new 'soldiers' on both side which replace the old characters. We've not yet seen the Headmasters or Powermasters and I hope it remains that way. We haave the Transformers vs. G. I. Joe. With Cybertron now destroyed, we're unlikely to see another wave of baddies (or goodies) coming from there to reinforce their earthbound comrades. I don't know if the whole Unicron thing happened in the comic or just in the cartoon. Maybe there is some awesome key story element that I am unable to remember, that will come into play? Maybe they will fight the GoBots - to the death!
Whatever happens next I'm onboard with. The only thing that I really hope for is that Sam gets a new girlfiend.
Oh god, I am such a huge dork.

T3: Dark of the Moon on IMDb

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

It's been a while since I've read the book this movie is based on, which I think happened in the summer of '94. A whole group of us were on a kick of reading the same books so that we could pepper our conversations with allusions to them and try out new ideas, bouncing them off of others who were, for that moment at least, sharing our context. We read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, the Tropic of Cancer, and at least one more as the group. I was such a voracious reader at that point. I was full into devouring authors. I read the other works by Hunter S. Thompson that I could get my hands on through the library, same with Henry Miller. I think this might have been the summer that I first started reading Charles Bukowski, as I was certainly trying to expand my repertoire of the Beat authors, even though up until his death, Bukowski refused any allegiance or even similarity to the movement. We drank a lot, smoked a lot of pot and cigarettes - all of us - and each had her or his own twists on it. My buddy got really into the whole Gonzo journalism thing and did everything to excess, more than the rest of us that is and did whatever he could get his hands on if he wasn't buying. His gal wasn't so much into the whole pot scene and went more literary indulging in Billie Holiday and Tom Waits, the real hipster of the group and my best friend at the time.. Another buddy went the whole coke and speed route and was twitchy all the time. Another pal and his gal got really into pot, growing their own. I was happy being a crazy bikkhu with my jug of wine and as much acid as I could get and consume. There were others not part of our core group that showed up once a week or so to party, but they never got our head trip. Another group of friends who were in on the pot scene, but not the expand-your-mind-aspect had a house together across town where some of us would often end up. That summer and the next couple of years, it was hard to find a night where anyone I knew was sober, but only that summer was there a head clique. I ended up with the pot heads, the more time I spent with them, the less I wanted to smoke pot. Not that I stopped, but I cut my consumption. By this point I had stopped thinking I would be part of a new movement in anything and focused on the solitary attainment of my goal. I would over indulge, and then write until I couldn't stay awake. I never had the urge to pull a Kerouac and take speed so that I would be up for five days straight to write a book. I guess I lacked that artistic drive. But, I would find myself up for a couple of days in a row, head too full of ideas to turn off or even dim. That was the most prolific writing time of my life. When I think back on what was going on, I always think of Doc Thompson and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas because that got the ball rolling. There was also the aspect the musical scene in the Pacific Northwest at the time. From Eugene to Seattle, all along I-5 you could find something going on. How many crazy drives North or South did we make invoking the spirit of Doc Thompson and his faithful sidekick attorney?
I know that Johnny Depp was a personal friend of Hunter S. Thompson and based his portrayal of Thompson on personal observation as well as stories from Thompson. I also know that almost everyone in the movie had ties to Thompson who liked to flirt with both the Hollywood and Rock and Roll crowds.
My recollections of the book had the attorney being much less of a major player in what transpired, still present and the one behind the cluster fuck that was bringing Lucy to their hotel, but I had no memory of him being such a large asshole all the time. Movies are almost necessarily different from the books they are based on, but I think going this route with Dr. Gonzo was too much.
I remember a lot more recollection and wool-gathering by Thompson. This was mixed with his shrewd observations of American culture during that period. This really made the book for me. The whole drug binge in Vegas was just a vehicle to discuss the socio-economic issues of America, to discuss the politics of patriotism and the philosophy of responsibility to one's self and one's community.
I'd put off watching this movie for so long, that I knew that I couldn't help but be let down. It wasn't that bad, actually a movie I would recommend to anyone wanting to know about Hunter S. Thompson, though I think most people will find themselves saying, "what the fuck?"

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas on IMDb

The Man with the Iron Fists (2012)

I don't know how I let myself get talked into watching these kinds of films. It's probably something like, "Self you should watch it. It'll be kung-fu-tastic. It'll be like all those movies you loved as a kid, except bigger and better and more, more, more. Come on Self, you know you want to." Damned if I don't submit to peer pressure every time. Double damned if I don't get especially suckered by the Tarentino films. And I'm thrice damned by that temptress Lucy Liu. I'll watch her in anything, even if I know it's going to be crap.
Watching these films, by which I mean this genre of the super-exaggerated kung fu movies is almost a guilty pleasure. In fact I would say that it is a guilty pleasure, but as I started that sentence I decided to go with an almost tossed in because for some reason while I feel silly admitting to watching these films, I'll gladly openly discuss The Avengers, or X-Men: First Class. Really, what's the difference? Super hero flicks with predictable plots mitigated by intense fight scenes and big special effects budgets. Which am I talking about here? The Hong Kong style super hero movie or the American style? Exactly.
What I should not admit to (speaking of guilty pleasures) is that as soon as the villain Bronze Body came on the screen, I was all like, "Oh snap! That's Bautista!" Though, in my mind's dialogue I always misspell his name - leaving out the "u". If you don't know who I"m talking about, just skip to the next paragraph, no need to see me admit to watching professional wrestling. Okay, there. I said it. Actually I'm a recovered addict, since I don't have a television. Well, that's not entirely true, there is one in the other room, but I never watch anything on it as it is not connected to anything that allows me to watch anything, i.e. cable or disk player. But really, pro wrestling is like the bastard child of comic books and soap operas. You get hooked into story lines that are no more or less ridiculous than any soap opera, being acted out by people who are no more or less ridiculous looking than any comic book characters (or from what I've seen of certain programs, I might as easily have said "reality shows").
The surprise for me in this film was the character of Jack Knife. For the first couple of minutes he was on screen, I was asking myself where they found an actor who was an older, fatter version of Russell Crowe. And then I saw Lucy Liu and had the epiphany that I was most likely actually looking at the real Russell Crowe. Ouch. I probably would have figured it out sooner if I recognized RZA on sight and not just by name. Hey, I recognized Ms. Liu and that's all that matters, pro wrestlers aside.

The Man with the Iron Firsts at IMDb

Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)

I'm a sucker for time travel movies. When I see one offered up as a romantic comedy, well, I enjoy romantic comedies. I just prepare myself for extra goofiness and extra schmaltz. I didn't prepare myself for this film, however. And you know what? That's pretty cool, too. This film is not one of those formulaic, Hollywood genre films. Thank god. I knew going in that this film would be a at least a little off from the standard fare, as it's from the producers of Little Miss Sunshine, which did prepare me for a more 'quirky' character driven type of film.
This film offered me a whole group of really vulnerable characters, each in her or his own way. in one way or another, all of the main characters are socially on the fringe, whether they realize it or not. We start off, almost with cardboard cut-outs of people, but over the course of the film they reveal themselves to be real and interesting. Real is my nice way of saying, "fucked up like me and everyone I know". The course of the film presents some standard situations that arise in romantic comedies, and then reaches different conclusions, but not for the sake of being different, for the sake of being true to the story and the characters. It's great to watch a film where you see the characters develop into someone who cares for and is cared about by those around them. I think the actors really did a splendid job with pulling that off. They accomplish it by being genuine. They could have pulled this off campy like The Goonies, but instead keep it true to the reality of the film like Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind.
And nice use of Star Wars references. I love when Kenneth asks Darius if she has heard of the Star Wars movies and she just rolls her eyes, but has second thoughts and answers that she has, knowing that Kenneth is not trying to take a poke at her by the question, but that he really doesn't know which he illustrates in the following moments. Plus the debate about stormtroopers. Ah, my nerdcore is replenished.

Safety Not Guaranteed on IMDb

Riverworld (2010)

I loved the first book. I really liked the second book. I thought the third book was really good. Sometime while reading the fourth book, I decided to find out how many there were and saw the number to be around a dozen. Okay. I could do a dozen. While still reading the fourth book, I found that my list had been incomplete, or at least told thus by a reputable source and gave up. I had been enjoying the books, but they were getting slower, as each new book introduced a bunch of new characters and pushed the goals farther and farther away. Farmer never really resolved any story arcs in those first books, because after all, the characters are immortal. But, I stand by my initial reaction, and still think this is a brilliant idea for a series. Someday, when it's complete and I'm caught up on m reading list, I may dive back in. Someday.
I watched the 2003 movie and was greatly disappointed. What I didn't know at the time was that it was a pilot for a television series that never got picked up by Sci-Fi (remember Syfy didn't show wrestling?). It makes sense that you would only show a little of the story if you were going for 13 or 22 episodes or more. But the earlier movie glossed over some of what I thought was crucial stuff in the first book. Now, I knew going in that this was a reboot and a mini-series by the same folks who brought us Tin Man and Alice, both quite enjoyable re-imaginings of the Oz stories and the Wonderlands stories, respectively. I've got to say that all in all, they were more faithful to the concept of Riverworld, even if choosing a different main character.
This movie did leave a lot to be desired, but I don't blame them for it. A large part of the series that I thoroughly enjoyed would be considered worldbuilding and backstory. I liked reading how Sam Clemens gathered people together to build the riverboat. I also liked that each time they were born anew, they were naked back where they started. I liked that people from similar times and places came back together, and i especially liked that they all spoke their native languages. I liked that there some neanderthals that were part of the mix. I loved reading how science was being rediscovered in a fast forward fashion as various learned people gathered together. I do understand why this would be good television. I had half hoped that since this was being called a reboot, that they would start at the very beginning and show the rise of Clemens, but at the same time, since I knew that Syfy did not pick it up as a series, I hoped that they at least got through that first major story arc with out giving up too much. I guess I kind of got this second bit.
The two complaints about the way this mini-series was handled are minor, more nit-picks. First, if you are going to have a Japanese character, pick a Japanese actress. Jeananne was good as Tomoe Gozen, but it was distracting. Second, and this is bigger now that I think about it, if you are trying to back in a dozen books, do not spend precious seconds here and there showing scenery. You can show the beauty and the majesty of the environment while moving the story along. There was at least enough time wasted on panoramic and pastoral shots for one more it not two more scenes that could have been spent filling in details.
I am glad I watched it, though, even if it is left a bit open at the end. There was just the right mix of a complete story for the mini-series, with enough hint of what could come if they got picked up by the network. If only the execs had found this as appealing as I did and had taken their eyes off of the pro wrestlers for a bit.

Riverworld on IMDb

Alice (2009)

I don't remember the first time that I read Alice in Wonderland, but I do recall a long semester spent with it in college in a philosophy class. Spending hours arguing about what the White Knight was really saying and what Carroll's meta-message was by giving the White Knight such speech was interesting and aggravating. That's kind of how I feel about the work of Lewis Carroll in general. Ironically,, I don't remember anything that the White Knight says, the only quote from Carroll, indeed from practically all of literature, is from 'Through the Looking Glass' - "The time has come," the walrus said, "to talk of many things. Of shoes and ships and sealing wax and whether pigs have wings."
This movie (as I watched it) was originally a mini series on Syfy and her sister cable company in Canada. That turns out to be a really good thing. The folks that produced this movie were the same ones who did Tin Man - the re-interpretation of the Wizard of Oz in 2007. In my opinion, they did better with interpreting and re-imagining Carroll's work than they did with Baum, but I enjoyed Tin Man very much, too. Though called 'Alice' this project really brings in elements of both books. Thematically, it also borrows a bit from the Narnia books, not to mention stylistically from the recent Narnia movies. Speaking of style, you can tell that this is not made by an U.S. production company. The first give-away is one of many mad romp chases where figures go up on one foot, arms wheeling as they turn corners. A nice nod to the BBC and it's action/adventure/comedy programs. You know, maybe that's a Canadian thing, too. I should look into that - the only Canadian program that I follow is The Murdoch Mysteries, while lacking the Keystone-Copesque chases, do share in a certain lack of grittiness, while maintaining the serious elements, which is the second hint that this was not from the U.S. Serious conversations were had, very dramatic scenes with no blood, profanity or nudity - not that there is anything with those things as I quite enjoy all three in the correct context - it's quite a different tone.
I liked this movie from top to bottom, beginning to end. Very little time is spent in the "real" world but what is in a setting that looks like New York City, though perhaps cleaner (I've heard Toronto described as NYC, but cleaner with nicer people). Most of the movie takes place in Wonderland as is appropriate to the story. Stylistically, this movie has got it going on. There is a great city that reminds me at times of Brazil (the movie, not the country) and of Coruscant from the Star Wars universe, because the 'ground' level is many stories above the actual ground - hundreds of feet. The city is seemingly deserted because no one much likes going outside and looks appropriately fecund. It is counterposted with the Queen of Heart's palace which is portrayed as a casino in a style cum the remake of the Prisoner series (the visually interesting series starring Sir Ian McKellen). Both places are set in a pristine setting of lakes, forested hills and snowcapped mountains. The third population centers only houses one individual, the White Knight, and it is the destroyed city once ruled over by the Red King before the Queen of Hearts waged war on it killing all but the aforementioned knight. It is this latter city that pulls from the Narnia movies, and looks like a nice setting for a fantasy movie in it's own right. So why doesn't anyone live outside of the city or the casino? That would be for fear of being eaten by the jabberwock, which is more CGI dragon-crossed-with-velociraptor than the horror that I always imagined which oculd only be killed by the vorpal blade (this bit is not party of the movie at all).
I really like the cast for this film. I am not familiar with the two leads, Caterina Scorsone and Andrew-Lee Potts who play Alice and Hatter, respectively. They do a good job and I found the romance between the two to not only be believable but a nice use of screen time. There are a couple of real pros that really hold the production together, though. Kathy Bates plays the Queen of Hearts and Colm Meany plays her husband, Winston. These two are fantastic actors and hit the mark every time in their roles. The third leg of the tripod that makes this movie work is Matt Frewer as the very eccentric White Knight. Frewer is one of those actors that can really pull of daffy without it seeming inappropriate.
There are other performers in much smaller roles generally, all of which do a good job. Notably, Tim Curry plays Dodo - when did he become so creepy? The last thing I saw Curry in before this was Criminal Minds where he plays a seriously skeezy serial killer. Actually, now that I think about it, he must have filmed these right around the same time. It's something about being a large man, who has put on some weight and lost all semblance of a chin, but still retains the ability to move like he did when he was younger, surprising the viewer, or at least this viewer, with his spryness. I'm guessing this is due to his years of theatre training and work. It's also, maybe even more so, the unshaven look and dark eye liner - both in Alice and in Criminal Minds.
I quite liked the political elements added to the story in the 're-imagining' of the Lewis Carroll books. It's not a story about a little girl trying to get home, it's a story about a woman trying to find herself and to find  something to stand up for. It's also about running, chasing and verbal jousting. And did I mention the pink flamingo homage to Return of the Jedi? You'll just to have to find that for yourself.

Alice on IMDb
Alice on Wikipedia

ParaNorman (2012)

I know that I'm supposed to like this movie because it's animated and it's all about people accepting others for who they are, blah, blah, blah. It's very well produced. I'll give them that. But, the story was pretty mediocre and predictable. I really don't like this style of animation, but it was done well. I am always confused by this type of animated movie - the characters and scenery are caricatures and fairly unrealistic, but the effort put into the physics of the hair is extremely realistic where applicable. It probably goes back to the Incredibles. That movie was amazing, I think we can all agree on that. So, these mediocre films come along and copy it's style and hope that is enough to parlay into box office and DVD gold.
The one thing about this movie that I really did like, and this seems like a good time to mention that I didn't hate any of it I just didn't see much in this film to recommend it, was the special effects when Norman is confronting Agatha. That green lightning-ectoplasm-plasma stuff was pretty cool. Stylistically, it didn't really match with the rest of the film, almost as if done by a different animation studio.

ParaNorman at IMDb

Hemlock Grove

Hemlock Grove
by
Brian McGreevy
read by
Sean Runnette

This book came into my hot little hands thanks to the internet. Apparently, they're making a television show based on it. You know who 'they' are. A site that I regularly read pointed out the fact and got me thinking about the book. It also got my friend thinking about and she, luckily for me, knew that I could get the audio version.
Taking a break from one long book and ready to dive into another long one, I thought it might be nice for a break - something I could listen to in a day or two. Reading that McGreevy was attempting to redefine what is considered a Gothic novel piques my curiosity and I got about listening.
I almost didn't make it. Several times throughout the first disk I kept telling myself, "must give it at least one full disk". But even at the end of the first disk, I almost didn't put in the second. This is one of those times that doing the audiobook came and bit me in the butt. The book turns out to be great, and in fact was very good from the beginning. What I was having a hard time with was the presentation by Mr. Runnette. The narrator should have been voiced by a younger sounding voice. The main characters are high school aged boys, and Runnette's voice sounds like what you would expect their father's older brother to sound like. That in and of itself is not a turn-off, I mean just think of the absolutely wonderful job Jim Dale does with the Harry Potter books, but that was not the only detraction in the presentation. Runnette sounded so very tired and was lacking in both energy and enthusiasm. Many of the main characters are young and a couple are down-right spunky, but the reading was plodding and it really took until probably the fourth disk to get the hand of it and accept that sometimes the story is worth it to deal with a lousy presentation.
I don't want to make it sound like Runnette is horrible, he's not. His enunciation is clear and he is consistent. He just wasn't the right reader for this book.
McGreevy actually makes his approach to Gothic and the supernatural seem fresh. He does this by letting our understanding of what is happening grow organically and you often find yourself suspecting something long before you know it. I say suspect because not everything is how it seems to be. Personally, I tend to love world-building books that put as much time into developing the background as they do the story. This is not one of those books. At times, especially in the beginning of the story, it was hard to tell just how supernatural the book was versus how gullible or naive the young characters are. Eventually you come to realize that the vast majority of people, especially adults, do not believe in supernatural creatures and for a while you flirt with the idea that some of it or maybe even all of it is in the head of a couple of the characters, feeding off of each other's imagination.
There are some nice touches in this tale. One of the more obvious jokes is the name of the younger sister of one of the main characters - Shelly happens to be a seven foot tall behemoth of dead flesh made living by a scientific process. The joke, or perhaps it's commentary, that is made several times throughout the book is that werewolves and the undead may be bad, but this one is an actress! I also liked that McGreevy wrote about Pennsylvania. He gives Hemlock Grove a real sense of place, which is especially important considering the lineage of one of the main characters being descended from Gypsies.
Add this book to your list of genre books to read, but forget about the audiobook. I see from the cover of the audiobook that McGreevy is involved with the adaptation of this story to the small screen and I hope that goes well for him, but that he comes back to writing novels. I look forward to seeing more from him.

Hemlock Grove available at Amazon
Hemlock Grove Audiobook available at Amazon

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

It's interesting that the Bourne Legacy doesn't have Bourne in it. Sure, there's that one still shot of Bourne on a news program. And they do talk about him a lot. But this movie was very definitely made in spite of Matt Damon's absence. You know those films you see where the actor has died part way through filming and instead of abandoning the project, they hobble something together to release anyway? This is not one of those. Which is good, not only because it would be a terrible, horrible tragedy if we lost Matt Damon, but they don't try to use any footage of him, or body doubles. Instead, the filmmakers went the route that I've seen some television series take, like CSI Crime Scene Investigation, for example - when Grissom is gone for the first season but everyone still talks about him because that is what real people would do, not just pretend that he had never been there. This is one of those films, though it might be more appropriate to consider this a film set in the "Bourne Universe" than an actual Bourne film, though there are a few things that happen in the auxillary storylines that are applicable to Bourne (if Damon ever reprises the role - which he said he would love to do in an interview on NPR).
So, Bourne is part of Treadwell along with a bunch of other guys. Then there is Blackbriar which gets activated or at least brought into the spotlight to help clean up the Treadwell mess. Then there is Alcon (or Alcom) that Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) is part of which is a program built off the legacy of Treadwell and Blackbriar. And then there is a new off-the-books program called ARX which builds on Alcon but the agents lack empathy and are even more morally lacking. On the flipside of the equation, we have the CIA running Treadwell and involved in Blackbriar, but not the other two. This is where Admiral Turso (Stacy Keach) and Colonel Byer (Edward Norton) come in. At one point I think there group is called National Security Research something-or-other. I guess on the face of things it doesn't matter - we have good guys who are doing their patriotic duty and we have the spymasters who manipulate them and periodically decide to kill them all off to keep from getting in trouble for the illegal things they are doing. I might need to actually get into the Ludlum books that all fo these films are based on just so that I can figure out who is who. Of course, the conspiracy part of it is appealing to me. I have heard from a number of varied sources that the Bourne books are a good read.
Cross is not Bourne. Renner is not Damon. Renner doesn't try to be Damon, and the director and writer didn't try and make Cross be a Bourne-knock-off. They're just a couple of blokes in the same line of work who get the short shrift and just want to be left alone. They'll kill if they have to, but only so they can get away. That's pretty much where the similarity ends, but that's enough to get the audience on their side. Cross knows who he is, and more importantly knows who he was before he became an agent and he doesn't want to be that guy again, nor does he want to die. The good doctor, Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz) is a loose end that the CIA and/or Byer's people want wrapped up, but also the person that Cross thinks can help him. She's a very smart lady who doesn't have a clue what is going on. Fortunately for her, she listens to Cross and helps him, which in turn keeps her alive.
One of the things that I like about the Bourne films (all four of them) is that the good guys get hurt and are actually slowed down because of it. I also like how much grey area there is to play in, nearly all of the immediate threats to the protagonists are just people following orders without knowing why they're doing what they're doing. Even the main heavies are doing what they do because they think it serves a greater good, namely being the defense of the U.S.
Renner is the hot action guy of the moment. Coming off a stron performance in the Avengers, he hits the mark with the Bourne Legacy even as he awaits Hansel and Gretel dropping into theatres. I like the guy. He can act and pull off some good action sequences in a believable manner. I hope to see many more films from him, of which I hope at least several he's playing Hawkeye.

The Bourne Legacy on IMDb