Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (Movie Review)

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1 (2010)
Director: David Yates
Stars:  Daniel Radcliff, Ralph Fiennes, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson

Dumbledore has been murdered, and the wizarding world is collapsing.  Voldemort has taken control of the Ministry Of Magic, and very soon will be enacting his plans for the destruction and enslavement of mugglekind.  Harry, Ron and Hermione go on the run, searching for their one shot at ending Voldemort's reign;  Voldemort's Horcruxes, magically enchanted items which contain pieces of his fractured soul, thus rendering him immortal.  But if Harry can find them, and find a way to destroy them, the good guys may still have a chance.

I'm enough of a fan of the series that I've read every book and watched every movie released, but my fiancee had to practically drag me to this one.  Really, my interest waned considerably following the third book, and subsequent movie adaptation thereof.  Sometime before the release of the fourth book, JK Rowling became convinced that she was the reincarnation of Leo Tolstoy, so what started out as a cute "Scooby-Doo with magic" series ended up as a bloated mess filled with horcruxes, dramatically unsatisfying deaths, and characters named Nymphadora Tonks who are supposed to be taken seriously.  The Deathly Hallows (Rowlings favorite of the series!) is the nadir of this trend, bringing to bear the "exciting" climax, which is mostly 800 pages worth of camping.

The film producers have done their best to keep Rowling's mess contained to singular stories, but sadly, since we need to have two scenes in which Harry is drawn into a trap in someone's house, amongst other redundancies, this particular novel has been split in twine.

I'm really torn on this one.  On a technical level, this might be the best installment of the series.  Returning director David Yates spices up the requisite camping scenes with some of the most gorgeous nature photography outside of a Terrence Malick film, courtesy of DP Eduardo Serra.  I also admire the balls in the very deliberate pacing;  a scene in which the protagonists invade the Ministry Of Magic in disguise takes about three times longer than a similar scene in any other film.  Then again, since the book has a clear "halfway climax", they did need to pad it out at times so as not to run out of story.

On the downside, much like the novel it's based on, I found it pretty boring.  Harry Potter and crew are about as proactive as I am, sitting on their asses waiting for another Dumbledore Ex Machina to pull their fat out of the fryer.  I imagine the romantic tension between Harry, Ron and Hermione will be riveting for the hardcore fan, but I found myself dozing off at a lot of this.  Yes, wizards and Every Flavor Beans are fun, but if you want me to become emotionally invested in this world you've created, it ultimately has to make sense.  JRR Tolkien constructed a world; JK Rowling constructed a house of cards.  Why is every adult wizard so ineffectual?  Why don't wizards use magic to, say, cure cancer?  On that note, why are they hiding from Muggles in the first place?  Why hasn't Harry Potter been killed a thousand times over at this point, since he can't seem to do much more than levitate things and make a Bambi-themed laser light show?

If you're a fan of the series, it'll leave you salivating for the final chapter.  If you only have a casual interest, I would skip it;  this is for the converted.

FREDERICK OPINES: MIDDLING

Battlestar Galactica (2003-2009) (TV Series Review)

BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (2003 - 2009)
Creators: David Eick and Ronald D. Moore
Stars:  Edward James Olmos, Mary McDonnell, James Callis, Katee Sackhoff

Ok;  I get it now.

A few weeks back, I wrote a blog about my frustration with the 21st century remake of Battlestar Galactica, at which point I was about halfway through the second season.  And while I stand by my initial assessments, the series did get a whole lot better in the last two seasons.

To get you up to speed, the series, based on the short lived series of the same name from 1978, is about the far off world of Caprica, which is part of twelve unified colonies, and populated by humans.  Their world is not so different from ours, with a few sci-fi touches.  One such element, the Cylons, former robotic slaves of humanity, return from a forty year holiday in space and nuke all twelve of the colonies, essentially wiping the human race from existence.  Only the space battleship, the Battlestar Galactica, and a handful of other ships carry what's left;  about 50 thousand people.  In order to save the human race, they set off in search of the legendary lost 13th Colony. . . Earth.

While that was essentially the same premise as the original series, one of the main differences here is that the Cylons can now look like humans (In their original form, they look like giant metal monsters), and sometimes the Cylons themselves aren't even aware of their own nature;  sleeper agents, in essence.  While the concept of robots, or aliens, imitating humans is as old as sci-fi itself, it isn't often addressed in a long-form story such as this, particularly with such gravity.

This is a sci-fi show that I might recommend to people who don't generally watch sci-fi, since it's more character based and less conceptual than most sci-fi entertainment.  Instead of Patrick Stewart learning something from the alien civilization of the week, we learn more about the characters that we come to know and care about.  You have President Laura Roslin (Mary McDonnell), the former Secretary Of Education who is suddenly thrust into the position of leader of the survivors.  Commander Adama (Edward James Olmos), entrusted with the defense of the fleet, but carrying the guilt of his son's death, who joined the military to make his father proud.  Boomer (Grace Park), a pilot aboard Galactica, is slowly made aware that she is one of the sleeper agents, and has to figure out what to do with herself.  Lastly, you have Gaius Baltar (James Callis), who is a coward, a hero, a prophet. . .  and indirectly responsible for the Cylon invasion.

The first season and a half are a slow build, with a lot of silly dialogue and ridiculous plots.  Thankfully, by Season 2.5 they have a handle on what the show is all about, with some interesting moral conundrums thrown into the mix.  For example;  Abortion is outlawed on Galactica.  Why?  Not for religious reasons (Though those do factor in), but simply to ensure propagation, and thus the survival of humanity.  There is no single, moral voice on the show, so the writers leave it up to the audience to decide what is right or wrong.  Other episodes deal with the moral gray areas of things such as terrorist attacks;  are they wrong, if you're acting on the side of "good"?  Is it ok to kill innocent civilians for the greater good?  Are there innocent civilians, if they refuse to fight tyranny?  Add to this the fact that the humans are polytheists, and the Cylons worship a singular god who seems to greatly resemble the god of Abraham.

On the downside, for a show as progressive as this with it's female roles, they often come off as shrill, whiny or lovestruck (Even the Cylon women!).  The use of "Frak" instead of "Fuck", and "Gods" instead of "God" are cute. . .  once.  Then they get fucking annoying/laughable.  I don't even like the word "fuck" being used that much, since unless you're David Mamet it usually shows a lack of imagination on the writers part.

Continuity wise, after watching the entirety of Lost this was a godsend.  There's a beginning, middle, and end, and what isn't resolved at the conclusion is meant to be left slightly mysterious (Note:  A major subplot that I thought was left unresolved was apparently explained in a Webisode.  Oh, you modern shows with your multimedia!).  Worth a watch for sci-fi fans, obviously, but also for people who would enjoy an allegorical, character rich exploration of our post-9/11 world.

FREDERICK OPINES: GOOD

SEASON 1: MIDDLING
SEASON 2.0: BAD
SEASON 2.5: GOOD
SEASON 3: GREAT
SEASON 4.0: GOOD
SEASON 4.5: GOOD

Battlestar Galactica: The Complete Series
Battlestar Galactica: The Complete Series [Blu-ray]

Director Of The Week: Bill Condon

Bill Condon was born Oct 22, 1955 in New York, New York.  Early in his life, he developed a love of musical theater and philosophy.  He went to a Jesuit all-boys school before attending Columbia University, where he earned a philosophy degree.  After moving to Los Angeles in 1976, he wrote some freelance articles for various film magazines, before becoming noticed by a film producer.  He then began his career as a screenwriter.

He started by writing the horror movies Strange Behavior (Which is indeed quite strange!) and Strange Invaders, the first two parts of a loosely connected trilogy that died with the second film.  After that, he got his first opportunity to direct, and made the Southern Gothic thriller Sister Sister (1987), which he also co-wrote, starring Eric Stoltz and Jennifer Jason Leigh.  This ended up being a commercial and critical failure, so he spent the next few years carving out a successful career as a director of TV movies.  He was again given a chance to direct a feature film with Candyman 2: Farewell To The Flesh (1995), the sequel to the modest Clive Barker written Bloody Mary homage.  Again, this didn't light the world on fire, but it did lead to Condon and Barker's next collaboration;  Gods and Monsters.

Barker and Condon have two major things in common;  both are openly gay, and both are huge fans of horror.  So it was only natural that they would want to make a film together (Barker producing, Condon writing and directing) about the life of James Whale, the openly gay filmmaker who directed such masterworks as Frankenstein and The Invisible Man.  Gods and Monsters (1998), based on the novel Father Of Frankenstein by Christopher Bram, is the fictional story of James Whales relationship with his gardener in his final days.  The gardener, portrayed by Brendan Fraser, is fascinated by Whale's career and life, but uncomfortable with his sexuality.  Ian McKellen, also openly gay, is superb in the role of James Whale.  The movie ended up winning numerous awards, most notably Condon's win at the Academy Awards for Best Adapted Screenplay.

In between directing gigs, Condon wrote the script for the movie adaptation of Chicago (2002).  His next time in the directors chair was for Kinsey (2004), which told the life story of famous sex researcher Alfred Kinsey.  Liam Neeson took the lead role, and the film was as critically well received as it was controversial.  Condon made a very frank film, which directly addressed Kinsey's bisexuality, which is a sexual orientation that is often ignored or dismissed in both the straight and gay communities.  At it's heart, though, it's really a love story between Kinsey and his wife, played by Laura Linney.  With a score by Coen Bros regular Carter Burwell, and photography by Frederick Elmes, this was leaps and bounds a superior technical achievement to the rather modestly budgeted Gods and Monsters.

Next was Dreamgirls (2006), based on the 1981 Broadway musical, which tells the thinly-veiled story of The Supremes.  Jamie Foxx, Beyonce Knowles and Eddie Murphy were the big names in this 70 million dollar production, but first time actress Jennifer Hudson stole the movie, and won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.



His current project is the most highly anticipated of his career yet;  the two film adaptation of the final book in the teen vampire Twilight series, Breaking Dawn.  While his high society fan-base may scoff at this choice, I imagine that he'll be having the time of his life bringing a vampire story to the big screen, as they are creatures that combine his two most prominent obsessions;  fear and sex.  I, for one, am looking forward to it.

ESSENTIAL FILMS:  Kinsey, Dreamgirls, Gods and Monsters

YOU CAN SKIP:  Candyman 2: Farewell To The Flesh

Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers (Movie Review)

Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers (1988)
Director: Dwight H. Little
Stars:  Donald Pleasence, Danielle Harris, George P. Wilbur

He came, he saw, he croaked.  And so ended the rein of terror of one Michael Myers, aka The Shape, in Halloween II (1981), when Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence) nobly sacrificed himself by roasting the both of the alive.  "The Night HE Came Home" now over, the series became free to be an anthology, with every installment featuring a new story set around the holiday.

Then Halloween III: Season Of The Witch came out, and bombed hard.

So, here we are again, back with our old buddy Michael, who we discover is simply in a coma.  Ten years after his original rampage, he awakens, now pursuing his niece (Danielle Harris), because Jamie Lee Curtis couldn't be bothered to be in this one.  Old Dr. Loomis is still kicking as well, and sets off in dogged pursuit, offering the police such insights as "He was here, and now he's gone" as he examines a gore-encrusted multiple murder scene.

After Halloween III, series creators John Carpenter and Debra Hill wrote the series off, leaving creative control solely in the hands of the Akkad family.  Moustapha Akkad (and later, his sons) follow one simple formula; rinse and repeat.  Myers dies, comes back, kills, gets "killed", then returns again.  Standard slasher movie formula.

The problem here is that while the A Nightmare On Elm Street and Friday The 13th series "devolved" into near-parody and meta awareness, the Halloween franchise remains straight-faced throughout (With the possible exception of Myers battle with Busta Rhymes).  So, the more seriously I'm supposed to take this, the more absurd it seems, and it doesn't allow me much in the way of bloody, creative death.  It's just a bunch of characters that I don't really care about being picked off one-by-one in the most boring, sanitary way possible.

The photography is slick looking, and both Pleasence and Harris do a good job in the lead roles.  Great ending also, even if the fifth film ends up essentially ignoring it.  Fine for watching with friends while downing beers, but I found myself tuning out of this one pretty quick.

FREDERICK OPINES: BAD

Halloween 4 - The Return of Michael Myers (Divimax Edition)

Hogwarts (School Review)

Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry, located "somewhere" in Scotland (It's all very mysterious!  I was transported there via "magic train".  At the end of the ride, I was as disoriented as if I had been blindfolded and thrown in the trunk of a car.), is the only legitimate choice for magical schooling in the United Kingdom.  It's been a longstanding institution, dating back over a thousand years, with several notable wizards acting as teachers over it's history.  Not the least of which, Merlin himself briefly had tenure here in the school's first century, before succumbing to his morticaine habit.

Wandering the hallways was a bit confusing at first, given the ever-shifting and unreliable nature of magical stone.  Sometimes the Men's Room changes into the Women's Room without warning, or on occasion becomes a hellmouth.  One too many Butterbeers and you could end up damned for eternity instead of simply being able to relieve your bladder.

Yes, "Butterbeer"; because beer wasn't fattening enough without butter in it, and was going to waste being sold primarily to adults.  Drug abuse is common enough in the school, even amongst wizards as young as 11.  Wizards born of Muggle parents ("M_dbloods", in the parlance) in particular look for every means of escape possible, as the racism against their kind runs rampant and unchecked throughout the school.  The local proximity of Hogsmeade Village allows the students easy access to psychotropic drugs, such as beer and firewhisky.

Upon arrival, new students are sorted into "houses" by a talking hat:  Gryffindor for the good looking kids; Ravenclaw for the nerds; Slytherin for the Satanists; and Hufflepuff for the "special needs" children.  Each house is given their own specialized classes, such as Slytherin's "Magical Terrorism", "Magical Torture", and "Animal/Human Sacrifice To The Dark Lord".  Some studies have shown that there may be a direct link between classes that teach Magical Terrorism and Magical Terrorists, but the evidence so far is inconclusive.

Safety is not a strong priority at the school.  The woods are filled with giant spiders, the lake has merpeople, and the castle itself is filled with such horrors as basilisks and cerberi.  There is nowhere that one can feel at ease.  Whereas student transgressions were once simply resolved through corporal punishment, now students are often sent on menial tasks in the most dangerous areas of the grounds.

There is no separation of Church and State here, with the students allowed a clear dialectic choice between worshipping Yahweh or Satan.  More often than not, Yahweh wins out, with Christmas and Easter being the primary holidays celebrated.

Education seems shaky at best, since most of the graduating students that I talked to couldn't do much more than levitate a pen.  Educators often seem distant, moody, and unreliable, with very little concern for their students continuing education or safety.

All in all, for a school of such pedigree, I was expecting a bit more.  If I end up having magic using children, I will most certainly be sending them to The Salem Witches Institute in my dear old US of A.

FREDERICK OPINES: BAD

127 Hours (Movie Review)

127 HOURS (2010)
Director: Danny Boyle
Stars:  James Franco

It's the latest film from director Danny Boyle, which recounts the true life story of Aron Ralston, a hiker who ended up getting himself trapped in a canyon in Utah.  James Franco plays the lead, and essentially only, role.  Ralston does run into a couple of fellow hikers at the beginning (Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn), but if you've seen the trailers, you've seen most of their interaction;  this is the Franco show, through and through.  Once he gets himself stuck, it becomes an intimate journey into both the physical realities of his situation, as well as his flights of fancy.

I heard that Cillian Murphy, Boyle's star of 28 Days Later, was his first choice for the lead.  Franco was the better choice.  Murphy can pull off "sexy", but he's not so good at "charming", which is important when your protagonist is, frankly, kind of a dumbass.  Franco makes you really care about this guy who did just about everything wrong, but has so much passion for life and nature.  A good portion of the movie involves him either not talking or barely talking, but you always know what's going on in his head.

This isn't out of step with Boyle's previous work, and continues his use of "fly-on-the-wall" cameras, and exploration of the nature of fate.  The best comparison would be to Leo going nuts in the jungle in The Beach, or MacGregor's toilet diving in Trainspotting; this is a man gone mad, not the world at large, such as in 28 Days Later or A Life Less Ordinary.

He makes effective use of two DP's this time: Anthony Dod Mantle, his DP of choice since 28 Days Later, and Enrique Chediak, who did 28 Weeks Later, along with several other films.  They have similar styles, so it was difficult to tell who did what, but Enrique's stuff tends to be a bit more "slick", so I'm guessing that Mantle's focus may have been on the blatantly handheld shots.

The soundtrack, and sound, are the main reasons to see this in the theater.  Boyle is a master of utilizing pop music in scenes, and the original score by A.R. Rahman is just as infectious and haunting as his work on Slumdog Millionaire.  And, most importantly of all, it's the sound of fingers gently brushing stones, water being sucked down, and bones being stretched to their limit that really puts you in the moment.

So, all in all, a good time.  More or less.  A warning;  this is fairly intense, and bloody, at times, so I would warn the timid to either stay away, or come in prepared.  Otherwise, this is a movie that I would recommend to people in most of the demographics in my life (Parents, good friends, shady friends, employees at restaurants I frequent).  Despite the "one location" gimmick, Boyle does a good job of propelling the story forward, and there are lots of flashbacks in case anyone is in danger of falling asleep.

Any beefs?  Yeah;  I guess, ultimately, I didn't really care all that much.  It's a well made movie, but I didn't really find myself that interested in the story, and I don't feel compelled to ever watch it again.  Mary Tyler Moore got it right;  an elephant crushing a man dressed as a peanut is ultimately more humorous than sad.  So, a dude trained in mountain rescue who gets himself trapped. . .  Granted, the movie acknowledges the irony, thereby emphasizing the fatalism even more, but it wasn't quite enough for me.  I stand by my assertion that the movie won't be boring for most people, but I found myself getting twitchy from time to time.

FREDERICK OPINES: GOOD

Catching Fire (Book Review)

CATCHING FIRE (2009)
Author: Suzanne Collins

It's impossible to properly review this book without some spoilers, most especially spoilers for the previous book, The Hunger Games.  So, consider yourself warned.

Picking up immediately where we left off, the two survivors of the Hunger Games, Katniss and Peeta, are living in the lap of (relative) luxury.  They have nice new homes, and never want for food.  The closest that life comes to drama in little District 12 is the continuing romantic triangle between the victors and Gale, who is now forced to pretend to be Katniss' cousin, for the sake of everyone's safety.

As is customary, the victors are forced to go on a Victory Tour of all the districts.  On the trip, and via a not-so-thinly-veiled threat from sadistic President Snow, they learn that their victory may have sowed the seeds of rebellion amongst the districts, and that they may again be fighting for their lives.

Collins doesn't go any lighter with the material in this one, so we still have a large share of gruesome deaths, either described in detail or alluded to (Death by rabid squirrels?  Yikes!).  The book suffers from middle child syndrome, being sort of a wrap up of the previous book, and a build up to the final chapter. That said, there's a lot to enjoy here, and Collins doesn't forget to include some intense action towards the end.  The world building here is necessary, so I'm actually pleased that it was mostly relegated to the first half of the novel, but some of you may find it a chore to trudge through ("Come on!  Get with the beheadings!").

My main complaints are really just symptoms of this being a Young Adult novel, and are exactly the same problems I had with the previous book:  The romance feels forced, and the Deus Ex Machina allows the heroine to avoid having to make any really hard choices.  But like I said, it's YA and expected.

Overall, not as unique as the first book, and feel more like a build up to book three, but I enjoyed it.  The Hunger Games portion of the book was fairly illogical and thematically unnecessary; a true sequel, to be sure.  Character motivations in the game are also highly questionable.  What'evs. . .  It's fan service, and I was satisfied by it.  Looking forward to the final chapter.

WHO I WOULD HAVE DIRECT THE MOVIE: Steven Soderbergh, since he's dealt well with action, revolutionaries, and political intrigue well before.

FREDERICK OPINES:  GOOD

Catching Fire (The Second Book of the Hunger Games)

Director Of The Week: Charles Laughton

Born: July 1st, 1899, in Scarborough, Yorkshire, England.

Died: December 15th, 1962 in Hollywood, California

Some great directors are extremely prolific; John Ford directed over 140 films in the course of his career.  Others are a bit more sparse; Terrence Malick took a 20 year break between Days Of Heaven and The Thin Red Line.  And sometimes, as in the case of Charles Laughton, they just do one.

One movie!  Why have a Director Of The Week who's only done one movie?!  Well, I'm interested in directors of all types, so if you've done at least one film, you qualify for a week of remembrance.  Secondly, the one movie he directed just happens to be one of my favorite films of all time.

Charles Laughton had a long and distinguished career as an actor on both the stage and screen, having played such characters as Quasimodo, Henry the VIII, Captain Bligh, and Inspector Javert.  Not having the dashing good looks of someone like Cary Grant, he was often cast in either villainous or comedic roles, but he came to be known as a scene stealer.  His wife from nearly the beginning of his career to the end of his life was Elsa Lanchester, a well respected actress in her own right, who was immortalized when she played the Bride Of Frankenstein.

Robert Mitchum, lookin' creepy.

Laughton's one and only directorial effort, The Night Of The Hunter, was released in 1955, and tells the story of Reverend Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum), a sadistic murderer and self-appointed man of god, who seeks out a stash of stolen money that he learned about from his cellmate in prison.  Convinced that the cellmate revealed the location of the money to his family, Powell seeks them out; the man's wife (Shelley Winters), and two young children (Billy Chapin and Sally Jane Bruce).  At first he plays the kindly, loving preacher with them, but when they don't tell him what he wants to hear, he begins to get dangerous.

At times it feels like a lyrical children's tale, at other times an intense thriller, and always featuring the blackest of humor.  Predating Stanley Kubrick (Especially his eventual use of Shelley Winters as a haggard housewife), this satire of religious fervor in the south will leave you constantly on edge, never knowing whether to laugh or cringe, much like one must feel being around Reverend Powell.  He's funny, and charming. . .  but is he to be trusted?

It ultimately proved to be too unique for it's own good.  The Night Of The Hunter opened to bad business and reviews, and Laughton was never offered another chance to direct.  In recent years, it has come to be thought of as a masterpiece by both modern critics and filmmakers, and has been referenced in movies as diverse as Do The Right Thing, Raising Arizona and The Devil's Rejects.

Essential Film: The Night Of The Hunter

You Can Skip:  Nothing!  Watch this immediately!

The Night of the Hunter (Criterion Collection)
The Night of the Hunter (The Criterion Collection) [Blu-ray]

"Get along, little werewolf!": The World Of Weird Westerns

I recently watched the mediocre Jonah Hex movie on DVD, caught the trailer for the upcoming film Cowboys & Aliens (Looks good!), and have been blowing zombies in half with a, ahem, blunderbuss in Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare.  Put that all together, clearly I've got Weird Westerns on the mind.

What's a Weird Western?  In the most straightforward way possible, it's what you would typically think of as a western, but with an added supernatural or sci-fi element.  Being of mixed genre in origin, it often bleeds over into other subgenres, such as Southern Gothic and Steampunk.  While not being the most prolific of genres, there are several notable examples dating back to the original western stories.

So, without any more of my jabberjawin', here's a few Weird Westerns that I quite enjoy.

THE WORKS OF AMBROSE BIERCE

A former Union soldier in the American Civil War, and prolific author of stories set during that war, who would oft-times turn his macabre sensibilities to horror and the supernatural.  His highly influential short story "An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge" has been one of the most influential and adapted of all time.  It concerns a Confederate sympathizer who is sentenced to hang from the titular bridge, who manages to enact a spectacular escape.  Or does he?

Mr. Bierce

Several more of his stories contain either supernatural or horror elements.  One of particular note is "The Damned Thing", the story of an invisible, murderous monster;  think "Predator" circa 1894.  Bierce's death was as strange as his fiction;  In 1913 he was riding with Pancho Villa in Mexico, before mysteriously disappearing.  To this day, no one knows what happened to him.

THE WILD, WILD WEST (TV SHOW)

Yeah, the Will Smith movie sucked, but the tv show it was based on was balls out fun.  From 1965 to 1969, this crazy spy/western hybrid brought us the adventures of suave secret agent Jim West and his master of disguise partner Artemis Gordon.  The two heroes had an arch nemesis; the nefarious dwarf Dr. Loveless, who had an endless supply of secret gadgets and doomsday devices up his little sleeves.  Cyborgs, earthquake machines, and paintings-as-dimensional-portals all make an appearance.  The complete series is available on DVD, so do yourself a favor and check it out.

PREACHER

While the number of weird western comics are legion, this strange tale of Texas is the most successful in recent memory.  The story of a Preacher who teams up with an irish vampire and his ex-girlfriend to find God and make him pay for abandoning the human race, this is guaranteed to offend just about everyone, and that's the whole point.  There isn't one single story that won't leave you grossed out, creeped out, or just plain laughing your head off.  Longer than a mini-series, but it does have a definite beginning, middle, and end.

THE VALLEY OF GWANGI

This Ray Harryhausen produced oddity involves a rodeo that comes across the Forbidden Valley; a place filled with dinosaurs.  What perfect creatures to lasso for the entertainment of the masses!  A bit creaky at times, but the monster scenes are delightful.

THE STORIES OF JOE R. LANSDALE

No other writer better embodies the spirit of the Weird West than Lansdale.  He's written several short stories and novels that utilize Southern character, both good and bad, in mixture with terrifying tales.  He wrote what was probably the best series of Jonah Hex stories;  Jonah Hex: Two Gun Mojo and Jonah Hex: Riders Of The Worm And Such.

There are several more out there.  I found a great blog called The Encyclopedia Of Weird Westerns, which also has a book which I'll now have to track down.  Good huntin'!

Jonah Hex (Movie Review)

Jonah Hex (2010)
Director: Jimmy Hayward
Stars: Josh Brolin, John Malkovich, Megan Fox, Michael Fassbender


Jonah Hex, first introduced in the comic book All-Star Western back in 1972, is a unique character:  An anti-heroic, horribly disfigured bounty hunter, riding the trails of the old west in adventures that gravitate towards the strange.  He meets his share of standard cattle-rustlers and bank robbers, but occasionally he'll run into a zombie or Lovecraftian beast.  It's no wonder that soon after his first appearance, he dominated All-Star Western, which was retitled Weird Western Tales.  He's appeared in two separate series since, and in various other mini-series and DC Comics crossovers.  He's not an institution like Spider-Man, but he's developed his own little fan club over the years.  Makes sense that a movie might be made.

There are two main obstacles with a Jonah Hex movie.  One, he's uglier than sin.  They solved this problem by casting the uber-handsome Josh Brolin, and by slightly de-uglifying him (He keeps the jaw exposing wound on his mouth, but loses the bulging eye).  Two, he's a former Confederate soldier.  Now, there's a large portion of the population that would have NO problem with that (Even in the Yankee state that I live), but it's a contentious enough issue that it has to be addressed.  Problem solved;  Lance Reddick appears as the Q to Brolin's Bond, and has some obligatory "But you don't like slavery, Jonah!" dialogue.

This was a troubled production from the start.  After being hired to direct, writers Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor (of Crank fame) left due to creative differences, leading to Horton Hears A Who director Jimmy Hayward signing on.  After production was finished, WB sent Francis Lawrence in to do some massive reshoots.  The end result is a movie that's barely over an hour long, and has characters played by some impressive actors (Will Arnett, Michael Shannon) who vanish about as fast as they're introduced.  Clearly, this is a case of too many cooks sullying the stew.  But is it completely ruined?

There's some fun to be had here, I believe.  The plot revolves around Jonah Hex seeking revenge on the man who killed his family, former Confederate general Quentin Turnbull (John Malkovich).  Turnbull, meanwhile, has stolen a WMD that was designed by Eli Whitney, and plans on using it to rain terror down on the US government.  Jonah, being able to speak to the dead (If there's a precedent for that in the comics, I'm unaware of it), uses their knowledge to ascertain Turnbull's whereabouts.  Megan Fox is the hooker with the heart of gold.  Shit blows up.

One thing that I really enjoyed was seeing this incredible cast in an extremely goofy movie;  compare it to the experience of watching the John Huston directed Casino Royale, or Radioland Murders.  Arnett, Reddick, Shannon, Brolin, Malkovich, Aiden Quinn and Jeffrey Dean Morgan all give enjoyable performances (In Michael Shannon's case, it's for about half a second).  My boy Michael Fassbender easily steals the movie as the bowler-hatted mad Irish henchman of Turnbull.  He understands how ludicrous the film is, and gives a performance on par with Colin Farrell's energetic turn as Bullseye in the Daredevil movie.

The film looks pretty enough, shot by Transformers and GI Joe cinematographer Mitchell Amundsen.  And the score is agreeable;  a collaboration between Marco Beltrami and rock group Mastodon.  The main problems are the too fast, choppy editing;  the too epic villain, who seems more appropriate for a Wild Wild West movie; and the serious lack of character development, which causes you to be pretty detached from the proceedings.

An entertaining mess of a film, but as a narrative. . .  not so great.

Frederick Opines: MIDDLING

Animal Kingdom (Movie Review)

Animal Kingdom (2010)
Director: David Michod
Stars: James Frecheville, Jacki Weaver, Ben Mendelsohn, Luke Ford

Animal Kingdom revolves around a family of criminals living in Melbourne, Australia.  Eighteen year old Joshua (The charisma-deprived James Frecheville), following his mothers fatal overdose, is brought under the wing of this clan of hooligans, which include his Grandmother and a few Uncles.  They're a normal, loving, pig-headed family, except for all the bank-robbing and drug dealing that they've got going on.  Joshua isn't immediately brought into the family business, but he happens to be around when things hit the fan, and slowly but surely gets sucked further and further into their world.

I was excited to see this, based on the glowing reviews and the presence of Joel Edgerton (Who was great in The Square) and Guy Pearce (Who's just great).  Instead, I get very little of either J or G, and a fairly straight-forward crime story involving characters that are too dumb for me to care about.

Outside of the lead role, the performances are all fine.  Jacki Weaver is particularly effective as the bent Grandmother, and Ben Mendelsohn is excellently unhinged as the oldest Uncle.  There are a couple of effective kills, brutal and unexpected.  That's where I start to run out of compliments.  Um. . .  It's framed efficiently?

I think that if this had been an American film, no one would have batted an eye.  You would then be forced to compare it to other American made crime films, like The Godfather or Goodfellas.  As it is, being Australian, I guess it gets a pass for being mediocre, because those accents are just so darn charming.

Frederick Opines: MIDDLING

Director Of The Week: John McNaughton

Getting a shave from Henry star Michael Rooker

Born:  January 13th, 1950, in Chicago, Illinois

Studied sculpture and painting at the University of Illinois - Champaign-Urbana, and received a Major in Still Photography from Columbia College.  Following school, he worked in an ad agency; as a construction worker; as a silversmith; as a sailboat builder; and as a circus barker.  But it was as a bartender that he met Malik and Waleed Ali, two men determined to become movie producers.  They gave him $100,000 to make what would become the infamous Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer.


Henry, based loosely on the life of real life serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, revolves around a woman named Becky (Tracy Arnold), who has moved to Chicago to stay with her brother, Otis (Tom Towles).  Otis' roommate Henry (A then unknown Michael Rooker), who he met in prison, immediately develops a rapport with Becky.  Unfortunately, Henry is, as you may guess, slightly deranged, and pretty soon he's sucked Otis and Becky into his mad little world.

The movie was finished in 1986, but the Alis' didn't end up liking the finished product, so it took quite some time to find a willing distributor.  It also didn't help that after being submitted to the MPAA, it was slapped with an "X" rating.  Finally, in 1990, it was released unrated.  Polarizing due to its extreme violence and subject matter, but ultimately very well received in the film community.  Roger Ebert gave it a glowing review, and it has since become a classic of both the horror and independent film scenes.

McNaughton has yet to reach that level of praise since.  Mostly working in the margins, he's since made the "alien head-snatcher" movie The Borrower; underrated crime comedy Mad Dog and Glory, starring Robert DeNiro as a cop, and Bill Murray as a gangster (?!); and showed us Kevin's Bacon in the ridiculously awesome erotic thriller Wild Things.

McNaughton brings a cool, detached eye to the proceedings.  Henry is so effectively creepy because it seems to be told from Henry's point of view;  murder is his day to day business, and he doesn't see anything odd about it.  He also works really well with actors;  in Mad Dog, Robert DeNiro, who is usually great, gives one of his best, most natural performances, and Bill Murray is equally amazing in his against-type role.  McNaughton's use of violence is also so squirm inducing because he uses a lot of natural lighting to give you a strong sense of being grounded in reality.  You're enjoying your time with his collection of murders, but you're unsure if he's ever going to let you leave.

Essential Films: Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer, Mad Dog and Glory

You Can Skip: Firehouse

"Maltin'"

Note: Not my hands.

With film watching, as in the rest of life, often there's a path laid out for you.  If you're into horror, you'll seek out the best and worst of what the genre has to offer.  If you're a film snob, maybe you'll mostly stick to the works of French New Wave artists.  Or, if you just don't give a shit, you'll mostly watch whatever's new and stars someone you recognize.  Whichever way you slice it, we all get stuck in patterns.

That's why, just to break up the tedium, I sometimes enjoy "Maltin'";  taking a Leonard Maltin Movie & Video Guide from any year (The older, the better), and just skimming through the several thousand entries at random.  Without fail, my eyes will fall upon some bizarre, lost gem.  That movie may not even be available to watch on DVD, but my cinematic knowledge is enriched for even hearing about it.

Whether or not you agree with Maltin's reviews is beside the point.  From my perspective, the man is a treasure, and has a nearly unparalleled knowledge of classic cinema.  Sure, odds are good that he hates something you like.  Sometimes I get the impression that he wishes they'd stopped producing movies sometime around 1960.  He has a strong hatred of most modern horror, or anything with excessive violence in it.  He only gave Taxi Driver two out of four stars!  But the man knows his movies, modern or otherwise, and he would be one of the first people I would go to for a recommendation on a classic Hollywood film.

Here, let me just randomly flip through my 2004 edition right now. . .

Ok, how about this - Fools' Parade, from 1971.  Jimmy Stewart, George Kennedy and Kurt Russell.  Three ex-cons stalked by their former prison guard.  It doesn't get a great rating, but doesn't that sound like it's worth a watch?

Or - Day Of The Dolphin (1973): George C. Scott uses a trained, talking dolphin (Voiced by Buck Henry!) to foil an assassination plot.  Paul Sorvino co-stars.  Directed by Mike Nichols!  Good lord!

And then there's Static, Mark Romanek's first film from 1985 (?!), about a TV that can tune into heaven.

Again, all completely random, but I can usually find something strange or unheard of on every other page.  There are many ways that we can find our next cinematic treasures;  friend recommendations and film reviews being primary sources.  But, as video stores begin to fade away, I'm afraid of losing that sense of spontaneity that came from browsing the shelves with no certain agenda.

Throw caution to the wind.  Give Maltin' a try.  You might be surprised by what you find.

Veteran's Day Films (in several genres)

It's Veteran's Day, and in honor of our fallen soldiers you'd like to watch a film.  But which one?  Luckily, you have several options.  War Films are a genre unto themselves, to be sure, but much like Westerns they can be broken down into several sub-genres.  Here are a few of the best options, depending on your mood, divided into standard video store sections.  My only binding criteria is that they either have to be about soldiers, or ex-soldiers.

DRAMA!

All Quiet On The Western Front - Ok, it's about Germans, but I think all soldiers who've fought in the trenches could relate to this story of the brutality of battle, and the sense of isolation one can feel upon returning home.  Ever topical in that it's an indictment of war, but a realistic and sympathetic analysis of the hardships that soldiers face.  Available in the classic 1930 version directed by Lewis Milestone, or the 70's version containing 100% more Ernest Borgnine.

Patton - With a script written by Francis Ford Coppola, direction by Franklin J Schaffner, and a lead performance by George C Scott as one of the most outrageous figures in American history, you know you're in for a treat.  Even if you've never seen the film, you'll be familiar with the opening monologue in front of the giant American flag; it has to be one of the most parodied scenes in film history, in everything from Sesame Street to Jackass.  The real life Patton was a larger than life figure, and they pull no punches in both celebrating his victories and illuminating his anti-social behaviors.  The score by master composer Jerry Goldsmith will be stuck in your head for days.

COMEDY!

M.A.S.H - I've you're only familiar with the tv adaptation of this film, you're in for quite a shock.  This is filled to the brim with raunchy, irreverent humor, in which nothing is sacred (That theme music from the tv show?  Wait until you hear the lyrics!).  The movie that made Robert Altman an institution.

Three Kings - This movie could fit into several categories; it certainly has it's share of action and drama, as well.  But the things that will stick with you are exploding cows, Spike Jonze shooting Muppets like it's his job, and explosives strapped to a football.

ROMANCE!

From Here To Eternity - This is THE war romance film, and it's not just for chicks.  Again, you may be familiar with this vicariously, as "That old film where the couple makes out on the beach as the water washes over them".  Burt Lancanster and Deborah Kerr to ogle, depending on your preferences.  Sequelized in The Thin Red Line. . .  sort of.

Coming Home - Certainly not the most uplifting of films, but definitely powerful.  Jane Fonda plays a woman torn between two veterans;  physically crippled Jon Voight, and emotionally crippled Bruce Dern.  One of the few war films to directly address the realities facing veterans with disabilities.

ACTION!

Saving Private Ryan - An odd mixture of cheesy, emotional exploitation, and hard hitting, bloody-intense violence, this is a film for the whole family.  For better or worse, this movie gave birth to the "grim and gritty" action films of the aughts, and it gave us a whole new perspective on WWII veterans.  Some of the greatest action scenes of all time.

The Dirty Dozen - There are many great "Men On A Mission" films, but very few have a cast of this caliber:  Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Charles Bronson, Telly Savalas, Jim Brown, Donald Sutherland and John Cassevetes.  You could mop the floor with the testosterone.  Taking the concept of anti-heroes to it's utmost extreme, these are REAL bad dudes;  ones you most certainly wouldn't want to leave home with your daughters.

SUSPENSE!

Das Boot - The Citizen Kane of submarine films.  Despite the protagonists being Nazis in a U-Boat, you'll be biting your nails by the end of this.  Claustrophobic, dramatic, and totally thrilling.

The Hurt Locker - Director Of The Week Kathryn Bigelow took a lot of flack for being supposedly unpolitical with this war thriller, but she managed to succeed in her one, true goal;  to scare the living shit out of you.  Every second spent outside of the base is skin-crawlingly uncomfortable, and nowhere this film takes you is safe.  After awhile you start to love it, which is completely intentional as well.

CHILDREN'S FILMS!

Operation Dumbo Drop - Vietnam movies are several things, but often not family friendly.  If you want a movie to show your kids about the most divisive war of the last 50 years, how about this charming comedy starring Ray Liotta, Danny Glover, and a paratrooping elephant?

The General - Let me be clear; NOT the movie about Martin Cahill, but the Buster Keaton film about a railroad engineer trying to survive the Civil War.  Slapstick antics and romance ensue.  It is very pro-South, so take that as you will, but it's hardly political.


HORROR!


Uncle Sam - This might seem an odd choice, seeing as how the murderous zombie veteran is actually the villain.  But, if your leanings run conservative, the victims are all lilly-livered liberal caricatures, so everyone leaves happy.


Jacob's Ladder - Highly influential horror film about a Vietnam vet who comes home to a strange new world.  As much as this has been ripped off, some of the visuals and themes still leave an impact.


MUSICALS!


South Pacific - You know the songs. . .  "Bali Ha'i", "I'm Gonna Wash That Man Right Outta My Hair", but if you haven't seen the film, it's a treat.  The photography is gorgeous, and the tropical setting is one to enjoy before our long descent into winter (Depending on where you're reading this from, I suppose).

Carmen Jones - Featuring an entirely black cast, including such notables as Harry Belafonte and Dorothy Dandridge, this updated version of the tragic opera Carmen will both charm and horrify.  Great, classic songs.

KUBRICK!

Paths Of Glory - Stanley Kubrick's story of a group of soldiers who do the right thing, and are unjustly punished for it.  While Dr. Strangelove would probably be Kubrick's definitive statement on war, this and the following film are the ones that are truly about a soldier's struggles.

Full Metal Jacket - Loved by both pro and anti war film enthusiasts, you're sure to laugh at R Lee Ermey's inventive use of the english language, cringe at Pyle's growing madness, and embrace along with Joker the insanity of armed conflict.  Maybe he's just trying to say something about the duality of man?


Well, there are tons more options out there, but this'll be a good start, if you haven't seen one or two of the films listed above.  I would've done sci-fi and fantasy, but that seems a little too far removed from the reality of war for me to find it appropriate for the holiday.  Much love to the many fighters I've had in the long history of my family tree.

I Don't Get It: Battlestar Galactica

A brief history - As a child, Battlestar Galactica, the original series, was the shit.  It was essentially seen as Star Wars the TV show (Even by Star Wars distributor 20th Century Fox, who got downright litigious on Battlestar's ass), and it gave us a weekly dose of space battles, robot dogs, robot commies, robots named Lucifer, and the dulcet tones of Lorne Greene.  Plus, it had the best opening credits scene of any show ever.



That said, beyond the special fx, which were remarkable at the time, there's not much to write home about when you watch the show as an adult.  I've got the whole original series on my Netflix instant queue, and I'll watch an episode from time to time, but if you've seen any one episode you've seen the show. The formula is this - Galactica finds a planet.  It contains some valuable resource.  Commander Adama is convinced that it's a Cylon trap.  Dirk Benedict smokes a cigar, sexually harasses someone (This is set several millennia before Women's Lib), and then flies down to the planet with Boomer.  It's a Cylon trap.  Everyone escapes with their lives, but not before learning/imparting some special lesson from/to the native peoples of. . .  wherever.  A solid enough set-up, but it gets boring after awhile.  Probably why this show only last one season, and Star Trek The Next Generation, which had as many as three rotating storylines, managed to stick around the better part of a decade.

The main things that I love about the original show are Dirk Benedict, Lorne Greene, Jane Seymour, and the rest of the pretty solid cast (Keep your eyes open for Ed Begley Jr!); Baltar, because who doesn't love a slimy, cowardly fuck of a villain; the Cylons, who were a badass combination of Stormtroopers and Robby the Robot; and premise aside, the generally lighthearted, fun tone of the whole thing.  If the show had given me time to ruminate on the whole "Genocide of the Human Race", I would've been pretty bummed out;  or if I had put any thought into how the premise was playing off of the idea that human civilization was founded by aliens, I would have snorted my Count Chocula back into my bowl.  But it keeps it going at a quick pace, and keeps the laughs, aliens, and action coming.

Cut to 2004:  People in the nerd community are praising the new remake series of Battlestar Galactica.  I have my doubts;  chiefly, that it stars Edward James Olmos, and runs on the Sci-Fi Channel.  Not generally signs of a high quality product.  So I manage to hold out on watching it until Entertainment Weekly runs an article proclaiming it "the best show on television" in the wake of The Wire's recent departure.  Being a huge Wire nut, I'm instantly intrigued.  And that's probably the main stick in my craw.

In Good Will Hunting, Stellan Skarsgard laments that there are only a handful of people in the world that could tell the difference between himself, a gifted mathematician, and Will Hunting, who is a true, natural genius mathematician.  Sometimes I feel as if I've been cursed with the same ability in regards to filmed entertainment.  Ok, in comparison to say, Law and Order: SVU, or something, Battlestar Galactica might be amazing.  But, having seen two seasons of Battlestar, it's nowhere near the quality of The Wire, or most any other show on HBO for that matter.  In fact, I would argue that it's not even up to the quality of the original series.

It starts out strong;  in the mini-series/pilot, we see the destruction of Earth Caprica by nuclear fire.  We introduce a new Baltar (Yay!), who's just as slimy, and possibly more insane, than his previous incarnation.  And there are some hard moral choices made;  in order to save the fleet, several people, including the cutest little girl ever, are sacrificed to fiery robot death.  Damn!  The serious tone, complete with hand-held camerawork and grainy photography, actually works pretty well, initially.  They talk about finding the lost colony of Earth with a straight face, and I buy it.

By episode two, I've stopped buying it.  Characters either act in completely irrational ways, or in ways that seem to contradict from episode to episode.  Boomer has blackouts during terrorist bombings, but is incredulous when people accuse her of possibly being a sleeper agent.  Adama commissions an independent council to find the robot terrorists, who can look like anyone, and then gets pissed off when he is called upon to prove his humanity.  Baltar's motivations are. . .  questionable, and seem more convenient than anything else.  This show is silly to the extreme, and the more seriously it takes itself, the more I want to laugh.

There are ideas that I like.  The heroes are polytheists, and the Cylons worship "the one true God", who is heavily implied to be the God of Abraham.  If the humans and Cylons make it to Earth, does it then mean that the Cylon religion is the one that survives?  Starbuck and Boomer have become female, which might be directly inspired by an episode from the first series in which the women on board are trained to be Viper pilots.  And the fact that Cylons can look like humans in this version adds an extra level of tension, and potential philosophical discussion on "what it means to be human"; even if that isn't the most original concept of all time (I wildly point at any number of sci-fi books and movies).

But frankly, they fuck a lot of these ideas up.  So Starbuck is a chick now.  Cool!  Except why does she have to have a tortured past (Possibly involving incest?  It hasn't been fully explored yet.), and an inability to love, mixed in with lots of crying and insecurity?  What happened to Starbuck smoking cigars and taking names?  Is it too simplistic of me to just want her to sexually harass her shipmates and punch people in the face, without a convoluted explanation as to why she's such a badass (but not really a badass)?

And the worst thing by far;  the blonde.  Don't get me started on the blonde in the red dress.  Every time I think of this show, I'm going to hear her breathy voice saying "Gaius".  She's just not an interesting character, at all, and the show has been spending so much time dealing with her.  She feels like one of those characters from Lost, who supposedly is relaying important information, except you know that the writers are actually just playing with their dicks and have no idea where this story is going.

If they do have some idea where it's headed, they're certainly taking their sweet time with it.  The entirety of season one could have been condensed to five episodes.  I don't mind dragging things out as long as there's either character development or entertainment, but what this show has had to offer so far is people taking turns screaming "I'm not a Cylon!" for an hour.  Not exactly compelling or informative.

So, Battlestar fans (If you're still with me); is it worth continuing?  Will I be satisfied with the eventual outcome?  I'm nerd enough that I'll probably watch the rest of the series, regardless of how irritated I am with it.  I have seen worse, after all.

Looking forward to finishing The Walking Dead in a year.

You gotta hand it to zombies;  they're survivors.  With their current level of extreme media saturation, where they appear in everything from WWII themed video games to Jane Austen novels, you'd think the public would start to get burned out on them.  But, based on the ratings for the premiere episode of AMC's comic book adaptation The Walking Dead, it seems that America has yet to reach their fill of these brain-munching abominations.

I haven't owned cable in years.  Nothing philosophically against television; my rationale is that pretty much anything I want to see comes out on video.  And that's my preferred way of watching seasons anyone;  all in one short chunk of time.  Screw serialization.

Another medium in which I generally wait for collections is comic books.  The Walking Dead, which I've picked up from time to time at my local library, is a fairly hit or miss affair, with some clunky characters, awkward dialogue, and ridiculous scenarios.  All that aside, it fills a gap; despite the prevalence of zombie tales, very few of them are in long form.  It allows us to follow a group of survivors for a very long period of time (The comic's been running since 2003), and explore many facets of post-apocalypse that a film doesn't often have time to get around to.  Plus, it's gory, and often the artwork is boss.  And zombies are cool.  And I'm an easy mark.

So, when AMC's website decided to run the first episode online for free, I felt compelled to check it out. Here was an opportunity to have a potentially long running tv series that gets to play in George Romero's sandbox, and perhaps improve on some of the flaws of the comic book.  So I watched it, and like the title says, I'm looking forward to watching the Blu Ray.

Frank Darabont directs, having turned his career full circle around from writing horror movies, to writing/directing Oscar caliber prison dramas, then back around to horror movies.  His adaptation of Stephen King's The Mist was flawed, but is already kind of a mini-classic (I use the ending of that film as clarify my definition of "Stupid-Awesome").  The prospect of him producing, and partially directing, a zombie series left me salivating.  And he does not disappoint.

From the opening moments, it's clear that neither Darabont, nor AMC, have any intention of fucking around.  In a scene similar to one that made Lucio Fulci's The Beyond infamous, our hero drills a young zombie child through the skull with his handgun (While she's holding a teddy bear, mind you!).  The squibs in this seem mostly CG (Though not terrible looking), but the make-up fx are by modern monster maestro Greg Nicotero, and are far more horrifying than one would expect from basic cable.  It feels like AMC's message to HBO is, "Hey!  Not only are our shows better written than yours, but we can be just as hardcore as you guys.".

A kid getting killed is clearly meant to shock, but what really works is that it feels fluid to the story.  It's not a moment that's meant to be funny, or ironic;  it's in there to scare the shit out of you, and to horrify you.  Frank Darabont is one of the few directors left who can actually just tell a story, without it being metatextual or unnecessarily flashy.  This show has the balls to have an extended scene in which the "rules" of zombies are explained, as if no one had heard them before, and still make it one of the creepiest scenes in the show.  Darabont's style makes something immediately clear;  he's taking this seriously, and so should you.  There's no sign of even Romero's sense of satirical humor.  He's taking this back to Night Of The Living Dead in terms of apocalyptic bleakness.

David Tattersall did a good job with the photography.  He's kind of like the Caleb Deschanel of Green Screen movies, but does a fine job with practical locations as well, and there was a good combination of both in this (I'm sure the citizens of Atlanta wouldn't have been pleased with a several mile traffic backup and raging fires, so CG was the way to go).  Bear McCreary, who I anticipate has a successful film career ahead of him, makes good minimal use of the music to heighten the scares to the nth degree.  Just watch the hospital escape scene to know what I'm talking about.

There are hints of some of the cheesy elements from the comic book at play, but I'm curious to see how they work themselves out this time.  Not to give anything away, but it seems as if certain doomed characters from the comic will be given a slightly longer life span, which could make for some interesting drama.  I'm curious to see if this show will be a draw for other horror artists.  Will Stephen King end up writing an episode for his buddy Frank?  Will Joe Dante or John Landis want to direct an episode?  Only time will tell.

Until then;  enjoy the hell out of this, America!  I know we don't always see eye to eye when it comes to taste, but I whole-heartedly support your hand in making this show a massive success.

The Hunger Games (Book Review)

Man, Young Adult Lit got pretty hardcore since my childhood.  We had The Outsiders;  this is like a cross between Battle Royale and Saw!

Set in a dystopian future America (Now called Panem), 16-year old Katniss is a girl struggling to feed her family in an impoverished portion of the empire, the coal mining District 12, located in the Appalachian mountains.  Her father died in a mine explosion years ago, so all she has left are her younger sister Prim, and her somewhat mentally unstable mother.  To support the family, she has to go hunting in the nearby woods, an action strictly forbidden by the government, but overlooked by locals who can be bribed with fresh meat.

The Hunger Games, an annual event, involve a lottery system that picks one boy and one girl from each District (12 in total), ages twelve to eighteen, to take part in gladiatorial combat.  Apparently, years ago, the districts rose up against the Capitol, and the games are their way of reminding everyone who's boss.  So every year, 24 teens fight to the death, with only one possible survivor.  Young Prim is chosen, but Katniss offers herself up instead, to help save her sister from certain death.  Katniss knows that there's no way she can survive.  Or is there?  And even if she does survive, it would mean having to kill the boy gladiator Peeta, one of the few people she's know who has shown her great kindness.

If you're worried that this gets less bleak, let me assure you;  it does not.  For children or not, this story is about as dark and hopeless as they come.  Granted, the book does give Katniss some easy moral outs, but in the end you do have a bunch of kids running around the woods killing each other with sharp objects.

I'm not sure if this book was done as a response to Twilight, but it certainly feels that way sometimes.  Unlike the heroine of those teen vampire romance books, this girl is self-assured, self-reliant, and just generally badass.  She's human, in that she's not fearless, and doesn't take great pleasure in murder, but is going to do what it takes to survive.

This is a book that I would recommend to a wide range of readers, but mostly to those who enjoy your dystopian futures as bleak as possible.

Who would I have direct the movie?


The Artsy version:  Lynne Ramsay, who would accurately deliver an almost dialogue free story.


The Crafty version:  Kathryn Bigelow, who knows all about being a chick who doesn't fuck around.


The Fun version:  Sean S. Cunningham, reteaming with Tom Savini to drive arrows through throats.


Who's actually directing it:  Gary "Fucking" Ross

Frederick Opines: GREAT

Director Of The Week: Kathryn Bigelow

KATHRYN BIGELOW


Born:  November 27th, 1951 in San Carlos, California

An American filmmaker best known as a director of intense action/thrillers, who has recently been thrust into the limelight following her Best Director Oscar win for The Hurt Locker.  The Hurt Locker also won Best Picture over likely favorite Avatar, which was directed by her ex-husband James Cameron, who was also nominated in the director category.

Often accused of favoring style over substance, she truly embodies the spirit of pure cinema in that the style often IS the substance.  Throwing caution and logic to the side, the action scenes of "camp" classic Point Break are exhilarating and guaranteed to leave you breathless.  Though the story feels false, the presentation makes it seem completely true; a celebration of movement and action.  Likewise, in the critically acclaimed The Hurt Locker, she manages to maintain an almost constant, nearly unbearable, level of tension throughout, giving modern horror films like Paranormal Activity a run for their money.

Originally intending to be a painter, she ended up bringing a strong visual sense to her films; take a freeze-frame from any of her movies, and you could most likely hang it on a wall.  Even with the handheld work in The Hurt Locker, the editing and framing ends up giving it a sense of controlled chaos, particularly compared to similar work by Paul Greengrass in Green Zone.

Respected in genre circles for years due to her contributions to horror, sci-fi and action, she now is given the clout to play in the sandbox of her choosing.  Here's hoping that she doubles her output, while keeping the same level of quality she's brought to the game so far.

Essential Works:  The Hurt Locker, Near Dark, Point Break

You can skip:  K-19: The Widowmaker
  

Alright, I believe that a man can fly. Now what?

Ok, first off, let's stop calling Superhero films "Comic Book Movies".  Granted, the superhero concept was created and popularized in the comic book medium, and so far the majority of these films have been adaptations.  But do we call The Searchers a "Novel Movie"?  Or The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy a "Radio Movie"?  Sure, Prince Of Persia was often referred to as a "Video Game Movie",  but that shows a huge bias on the part of the reviewer.  What if I told you that Citizen Kane was adapted from some scribbles that a hobo left on a napkin?  Be aware of it's origins, yes, but judge a film on it's own merits.

Ok, now that I've had my little rant, let's get down to business;  the state of the Superhero film.  Up until the beginning of the 21st century, superhero movies were hardly taken very seriously.  They appeared often in low-budget serial films of the mid-20th century, and in the intentionally campy Batman tv series from the 60's (Which was itself adapted into a film).  And while Superman (1978) and Batman (1989) turned out to be two of the greatest superhero films ever made, they are also both very self-conscious about their origins. Batman has an extremely cartoonish look to it, and Superman opens with the image of a comic book being rifled through.  Films like Dick Tracy (1990). The Rocketeer (1991) and The Shadow (1994) took this cartoonish quality to an even greater extreme.

It was with the Blade (1998), X-Men (2000), and Spider-Man (2002) franchises that we first encountered superheroes in a more, well, Marvel sense;  the stories are set in the "real world", but a real world that happens to contain vampires and mutants.  Gone are the Lex Luthors and "Big Boy" Caprices;  we have heroes and villains with somewhat more complex motivations.  Sure, it's still all about lasers, explosions, and people in tight leather, but these are stories now taken on their merits, not simply as replications of comic book panels.

The popularity of the genre is such that it's become standard to expect a few big-budget superhero movies in any given year.  Iron Man, a character that most non-nerds had never even heard of, became the watercooler conversation piece of 2008.  That is, until The Dark Knight came out.

Clearly, superhero movies have taken a huge, flying leap forward over the last decade.  But they've also become a bit stagnant.  Over and over again we've been seeing origin stories, as if to mollycoddle an audience that would be completely lost without a thorough explanation as to why a human being would be able to fly without wings.

The genre has become familiar enough to the general populace.  We all know the basic "rules".  It's time to move forward.

And some already have.  There have been deconstructionist elements in the Superhero genre almost as long as the genre has existed, but in the last couple of years several movies have made the deconstruction the focus.  The Incredibles (2004), Sky High (2005), Watchmen (2009) and Kick-Ass (2010) are all examples of superhero films that take the genre apart to see what makes it tick, while also celebrating everything that makes superheroes so much fun.

So, after we've become a bit stale, and broken things down a bit, how do we rebuild?  I think the answer lies with a genre like the Western, which the superhero genre could trace a direct line of descent from.  The Western started out with the Black Hat vs White Hat, Tom Mix type of film, but once audiences became familiar with the conventions, the hats started to merge together into a shade of grey.  Classic films like Red River, the aforementioned The Searchers, High Plains Drifter and Unforgiven are all ostensibly "Westerns", but the execution of these is markedly different from, say, Stagecoach or Rio Bravo.  And if you wanted to go even further with it, you could say that Paint Your Wagon, Dances With Wolves, Billy the Kid vs Dracula and El Topo are all in the same genre as well.

Many are saying that the genre will burn itself out soon, including the director of the upcoming X-Men film.  I disagree.  I think the real fun is just beginning.

Best Onscreen Uses Of Vagina Inspired Weapondry

It's been said many times before by psychiatrists and critics alike;  the gun represents the penis.  And, clearly, stabbing weapons of many types are phallic symbols.  In Carol Clover's book on gender roles in horror films, Men, Women, and Chainsaws, she makes the point that when the "final girl" of a slasher film takes the killer's machete away from him, only to use it against him, she is in essence emasculating him while becoming an embodiment of manhood.  Keeping this in mind, it's difficult to see the lightsaber battles in Star Wars as simple children's entertainment anymore.

But since the majority of weapons, by design, have to either protrude or shoot outwards, are there any that don't live under the shadow of the schlong?  Let's look at a few onscreen killing machines that aren't huge dicks.

1.  BEAR TRAPS

While not being the easiest thing to lug around, it's been put to good use by film characters as diverse as David Sumner and Leatherface.  When landmines are out of the question, but you want to hobble your characters in the worst way possible, these steel jaws of death are the way to go.  While not often fatal in and of themselves, they often don't lead to a positive outcome for those that get snagged by them.

2.  PITS

Not so much an object, as a lack thereof.  Pits have been a staple of villainy since time immemorial.  The spice is in the variety of things you could have at the bottom;  Spikes, sharks, a black hole. . .  the Sarlacc pit, perhaps?  My all time favorite has to be anything involving lava.

3.  GAPING MAWS

From Jaws to the Sandworms of Arrakis, nothing inspires mortal terror in people like the prospect of being swallowed whole.  Sure, these creatures are often cigar shaped, but it's the consumptive aspect that gives us the willies.

4.  THE NOOSE

Squeezing tightly around your neck, cutting off all airflow;  this is a death desired by no one.  Besides hanging, the rope can also be used to drag, or to stretch, with horrifying effects.

5.  VAGINA DENTATA

Nothing better approximates a vagina than a vagina.  Not too many examples of this in film, but the recent release Teeth made good use out of hungry labium.

Well, that's all that comes to mind off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are several others.  Any glaring omissions?  Anything in here that you wholeheartedly disagree with?  Please respond in the comments below.