Thursday, May 29, 2003

 

Not a lot going on right now. There's a bunch of cool anthologies with deadlines in June, and I'm trying to write/submit stuff to as many of them as I can. Hopefully some of these stories will find a nice home.


I might be going to see the latest "inbred cannibal" movie, Wrong Turn, tomorrow. Unless the reviews are totally dismal. It stars Eliza Dushku, Faith from Buffy. I hope it's good. I'm a sucker for cannibal movies. Haha. If I go see it, I'll post something here.


Infernally Yours,


LLS


Thursday, May 22, 2003

 

BYE BYE BUFFY


Well, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is over. The last episode aired this Tuesday. I thought the series finale was pretty good, considering that I thought this was one of the weakest seasons yet. I just couldn't get into the whole "slayer wannabes" storyline. I didn't care about them, I thought they were boring, and I felt they took away too much time and focus from the core characters - the ones I really wanted to see more of, especially since this is the last time we'll be seeing many of these characters.


I also thought the First was a very uninteresting villain. He can take the appearance of anyone who is dead. You can't touch him. And all he seemed to do was talk and talk and talk. Definitely pretty low on my list of "big bads." Once the evil preacher Caleb showed up (and yeah, that’s the same guy who was the captain on Joss Whedon’s short-lived misfire Firefly), he was a welcome relief because finally here was a powerful villain who did more than just talk!


I originally came to Buffy late – I think it was around the end of season 4. I have to admit I avoided the show the first few seasons because I had this idea that it was another stupid teen angst show, sort of a Dawson's Creek with vampires. But enough people I like and respect suggested I give it a chance. Once I did, I found out how wrong I was. Buffy was a well-written, intelligent show with great characters. I've been playing catch-up on the early seasons as they come out on DVD, and it's been a lot of fun seeing all the stuff I missed. I'm almost grateful I didn't watch it from the beginning, because now I get to see all this stuff fresh, for the first time.


It’s definitely one of my favorite shows of all time, but I just wish that such a great show could have ended on a more exciting note. The First didn't do it for me. The last few episodes got back on track, but it was too little too late. Knowing this is the end of the show, and not just a season, makes it that much more of a bummer.


I'm actually one of the few people I know who thought last season kicked ass. I really dug the dark mood of the season, and having the big villain be Willow, one of their own gone bad, with god-like powers, was terrific. In a weird way, I almost wish the show had ended last season instead - it was a much bigger bang for your buck.


And now for some SPOILERS***


Some problems I had with the last episode:


It should have been two hours, so they didn’t have to rush through it. A show this good deserved a two-hour finale.


The death of Anya was a real letdown. I think she's one of the most underrated characters on the show - I never failed to find her entertaining, and she was often a good source of comic relief. I even thought she was developing a pretty funny chemistry with Andrew at the end. For her to die in such an off-hand way annoyed me. And the reaction to her death amounted to Xander asking Andrew if she died fighting, and Andrew saying "Yeah, she saved my life." And then it was on to other things and forget about Anya. I thought she deserved better.


At least Spike got to die as part of a grand gesture befitting a major character. Of course, I'm not sure if he really "died" since I've heard rumors he's going to be on Angel next season. Not sure how they're going to work that one out!


As for Angel, his brief appearance seemed pretty gratuitous. He shows up, gives Buffy the amulet, and then he disappears again. He didn't even hang around to help in the final battle to save the world.


Willow, probably my favorite character since she became a witch and got all goddess on us, was totally underused this season. Last season she was the most powerful one of the group and probably could have kicked the First’s ass all by her lonesome. This season, she was so afraid to use her powers that she was almost the nerdy Willow from season one all over again. I know she was afraid to release her dark side again, but with the fate of the world at stake, couldn’t she get her priorities straight? When she did finally get in touch with her inner goddess, it was very brief and hardly worth the effort. Considering she could have resolved this whole storyline in an episode or two early on if she'd really wanted to.


Oh, and they totally dropped the ball with Dawn. When she was introduced as "The Key" it was supposed to be a big deal, and they should have found a way to bring that up somehow in the final storyline, but they simply ignored it.


I think the last episode could have been a lot more momentous. It wasn't quite a whimper, but it could have been a lot bigger bang.


Despite my problems with the episode, though, it could have been a lot worse. And it is pretty depressing to see the show end. Buffy kicked ass. This show will be missed.


*****


I didn’t say anything about last week’s Angel finale, but I thought the show had a great season, definitely superior to Buffy’s this time around. The writing and storylines were fantastic, especially the whole Jasmine storyline, who, by the way, was a far better villain than that chatty First.


The season finale of Angel, where Angel and the gang get to take over Wolfram and Hart, wasn’t really a great story in itself. It was more of a coda to the Jasmine plot. More of a setup for what’s to come. With the amazing (and seemingly limitless) resources of the once-evil law firm at their disposal, the Angel gang can turn their fight against supernatural baddies up a few notches. This has opened the door for much potential for next season. I can’t wait to see what they do next.


Even though I'm sorry to see Buffy go, I can't wait for next season of Angel. Nice to have something to look forward to.


Tuesday, May 20, 2003

 

DOES THE MATRIX RELOADED LIVE UP TO THE HYPE?


Went to see Matrix Reloaded last Friday, hoping to be blown away by it... and I was. But if I talk about it in detail, it’s going to sound like a very mixed reaction. This is the kind of movie you'll enjoy more if you leave your brain at the door.


*****SPOILERS AHEAD *****


I really thought that the story, for the most part, was pretty dumb - the "philosophy" is something out of a Philosophy 101 class. And I don't think the second Matrix film is as coherent and well thought out as the first one. It was clear that this one was just a bridge between movie 1 and movie 3.


Also, early on in the new movie, we see the human city of Zion (in the future world of the Matrix). This is the last stand of humankind against the evil machines....Ho-hum. The Zion segment was a total snooze. The movie comes to a screeching halt at this point, which is a bad move. You don’t want to bore the audience so early on.


That said - once the action starts, the movie is great. From the scene where they go to the French guy's house to get the Keymaker - on - it's just non-stop. And I'm not even all that big a fan of most action/special effects movies. But this one took everything to a new level. Hell, I hate car chases and I was riveted by the one in Reloaded.


The Matrix is such a soup of other influences, from cyberpunk books to Hong Kong action movies to anime, that there's probably not a scrap of it that is original. But at the same time, the look of it, and the scale of it is just so big - that it mostly transcends its shortcomings. I can't explain why it works, but it does. The last hour or so of Reloaded is a total roller coaster ride. It's like the biggest video game you ever saw combined with the most high-tech martial arts movie.


The action really works, but I was much less impressed with the script. It was trying so hard to be deep and spiritual that it just came off as hokey. One of the very few “philosophical” scenes that was actually intriguing was Neo's meeting with the mysterious man known only as The Architect. I wanted to know more about him – and I’m quite sure we will in the third movie, Matrix Revolutions.


I also kind of dug the “British Albino Twins,” which were new to the series. I actually wanted to see more of them. It was cool how they were able to become ethereal at will (it reminded me of the android superhero, The Vision, from the old Marvel Avengers comics – he could do the same thing). I bet we’ll definitely be seeing more of them in movie 3, too.


And I keep reading in articles that Carrie Anne Moss is some great beauty. But I don’t see it. She’s a good actress (she was really terrific in Memento), but I think her features are a little harsh. In contrast, Monica Bellucci has a small role in Matrix Reloaded and she is a fuckin’ knockout!


As for Keanu Reeves - man did this guy luck out! He used to be the biggest joke in Hollywood and then he found a movie where he didn't have to act! The less he says, the more he just stands around looking cool, the more effective Neo is as this great mysterious Christ figure. (Although I have to admit, if I see one more movie where the lead character is a messiah figure I'm gonna projectile vomit - what a humungous cliche that's become!). But think about it - all of a sudden Reeves is like this cool actor and people take him seriously. It's kind of funny. He certainly hasn't gotten any better at acting - he just finally found a role that played to his strengths and made him look good. He better thank his lucky stars every day that he got cast in the first Matrix movie!

*****


I also saw the new Neil LaBute movie this past weekend - The Shape of Things . I think I enjoyed this one even more than the Matrix flick.


For those not familiar with LaBute, he's the director who made In the Company of Men and Your Friends and Neighbors . Two movies with a definite mean streak. Then he seemed to have a misstep with Nurse Betty (a movie that he didn't write, by the way). It had a few good things in it (like Morgan Freeman, who outacted everyone in the film), but it really seemed like LaBute-Lite, and the plot seemed kind of ludicrous to me. After he did that, he did an adapation of A.S. Byatt's Possession . It seemed like LaBute was changing his ways and abandoning the vicious social commentary of his early films.


But I'm glad to say I was wrong. In The Shape of Things , LaBute shows that he's back on track. Aside from Todd Solondz, I can't think of another American director who is so unafraid of pissing people off.


The Shape of Things is about how relationships can change people. In it, a schlubby guy meets a pretty art student and she goes about trying to change him - getting him to lose weight, dress differently, etc. How many times have we seen this kind of thing in real relationships? But in LaBute's film, things don't stop there.....


That's all I'll say. But it does have a wallop of an ending.


It's based on a stage play LaBute wrote, and my only complaint is that early on it does seem a bit stagey. The dialogue seems a little stilted, and at first it's almost like it doesn't fully make the transition from stage to film. But that awkwardness dissolves quickly and you're left with a savage satire of modern relationships.


This is one fun flick.


Wednesday, May 14, 2003

 

Another blast from the past. Early on, when I first started this blog, I published one of my early movie columns, called "Carnival of the Eye." That one was about silent movies. Well, here's another one. This one is about books that have been made into movies:


CARNIVAL OF THE EYE


(Originally published January 1997)


OF WRITERS AND MOVIES


Everyone’s heard the phrase, “The book was better than the movie.” When you’ve read the book first, and you’ve really enjoyed it, chances are pretty good you’re going to feel this way. More times than not, books lose something in the translation. There are a lot of reasons for this. Most books are too long to fit into the constraints of a two-hour movie, so they have to be condensed, which means various scenes, and sometimes whole subplots, have to be jettisoned. Another reason is that the screenwriter and the director may feel they want to represent their own personal visions in the screen version, and change the original work to reflect their own sense of style. This is usually bad news, because it means the style of the book, which made the book so great in the first place, will be altered, usually for the worst. Hollywood being what it is, everyone involved in a film wants to put his or her own personal stamp on the movie. From prima-donna actors who want special scenes put in to showcase their talents, to the fact that a script may be rewritten numerous times by numerous writers, each making more and worse changes. This results in an end product that may not look anything like the original book.


None of these reasons make it any more pleasant to see a great book massacred on film.


Some writers fare better than others. Let’s take a look at two writers who have had various movies made of their books, and how it’s turned out.


In the 1940’s and 50’s, there was a film genre known as film noir. These movies were mysteries with a dark edge (and usually the lighting, or lack thereof, reflected the mood). They usually involved a lead character who inadvertently gets drawn into a criminal act, almost always because of a woman. In these movies, you couldn’t trust anyone, and they almost always ended on a bleak note. A classic of this genre is the movie Double Indemnity, starring Barbara Stanwyck. While this genre unfolded on film, the books that inspired it were going strong. One of the writers who best typified this style was Jim Thompson. However, it took Hollywood a few decades to catch up with him.


Throughout the 1980’s and into the 90’s, Hollywood rediscovered Thompson, and a string of films were churned out, based on several of his books. The thing that makes Thompson so interesting is that he transcended his genre. His books weren’t the cookie-cutter product of many of his contemporaries. They had a psychological insight that was rare, and there are moments when a strange kind of surrealism creeps into his work. He was considered one of the most literary writers in a field considered, by many, to be trash.


Thompson cut his teeth on working for the movies when he worked on two scripts for director Stanley Kubrick in the 60’s: The Killing and Paths of Glory. These are two excellent films. On both films, though, there were problems with Thompson getting proper credit, which infuriated him. However, this was nothing compared to his displeasure with movies based directly on his books.


The Killer Inside Me, a film from the 70’s starring Stacy Keach, took arguably Thompson’s best novel, changed it in illogical ways, mutilated it, and amounted to nothing more than a bad B-movie. The first version of The Getaway, after various problems with directors, became a bad vanity project for Steve McQueen and his then lover Ali McGraw (the remake faired little better, instead becoming a vanity project for Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger. Neither film keeps Thompson’s original, disturbing ending).


More recent films like After Dark, My Sweet and The Grifters were much more successful at capturing the mood of his books, but the most successful adaptation just might be, strangely enough, a French film, Coup de Torchon, directed by Bertrand Travenier and based on Thompson’s novel, Pop. 1280.


Most of Thompson’s books are still in print, published by Vintage Press. And if you’re interested in film noir, it lives on. There’s a whole new wave of noir-influenced films. Two of the best examples being Pulp Fiction and the excellent The Last Seduction.


Another interesting writer who got attention from the movies in the 1980’s was Charles Bukowski. A poet, short story writer and novelist, Bukowski was an underground icon for years, and was a celebrity overseas, where his books received the appreciation they deserved. Therefore, it’s no surprise that the Hollywood movie that brought him to the attention of mainstream America was directed by a European. Barbet Schroeder (who would later direct such hit films as Reversal of Fortune and Single White Female) was a fan of Bukowski’s and was respectful enough to ask Bukowski for an original script, and then did his best to protect the project from corruption. The result was Barfly, a darkly humorous film starring Mickey Rourke (in his best role ever) and Faye Dunaway. The tale of a man whose life revolves around drinking, fighting and women (in that order), it is, like Bukowski’s novels, steeped in autobiography. In this instance, a slice of life from his younger days in L.A., before he made a name for himself as a writer. Bukowski even appears as a customer in one of the bar scenes. Few writers have such a pleasant experience watching their work translated into film, and you can see the joy in the movie, despite the fact that star Rourke already had a reputation for being “difficult.”


Other movies based on his books have continued to do his work justice, and it is no surprise that they have been foreign films. These include Tales of Ordinary Madness, which stars Ben Gazarra as the Bukowski stand-in, and Love is a Dog from Hell. Bukowski died a few years ago, but his track record so far for book-to-movie translation has been better than most.


There are more horror stories than not when it comes to writers’ work being made into films.


Speaking of books and movies, if you liked the movie Trainspotting, you might just want to check out the book it’s based on, by Irvine Welsh. You can find it in any bookstore, and while it is narrated mostly in a Scottish dialect that takes some getting used to at first, it eventually gathers a good rhythm. There are several scenes in the book that are edgier and different from those in the movie, and there are whole sections that aren’t in the movie at all. Especially interesting are the chapters devoted to the female characters, who were ignored in the film.


© 1997 by L. L. Soares


Thursday, May 08, 2003

 

Well, I finally saw X2: X-Men United this week, and I dug it a lot. I was a big fan of the series in the 80's during the first Chris Claremont/John Byrne run on the comic book, and while I don't read the comic anymore, I've been enjoying the movies so far. I actually liked this one better than the first X movie - a more interesting and involved storyline this time around. And the great Brian Cox (as Col. Stryker) was much more effective than I thought he would be as the main bad guy this time, even if he was just some military man with an agenda to get rid of the mutants. Then again, I don't remember Cox ever giving a bad performance.


It was an intelligent, classy superhero movie, and it might just be my favorite superhero flick so far (me being a much bigger Wolverine fan than a Spider-Man fan). Of course, The Hulk is still coming out next month, so that could change. And I’m still trying to stay hopeful about next year’s Punisher movie, despite the recent casting of Thomas Jane.


WARNING: SOME X-SPOILERS AHEAD*******


First off, I thought Nightcrawler looked terrific, especially the way he "bamfs" (teleports). They did a really good job on that. And I thought Alan Cummings did a good job with the part, even if Mr. Wagner's personality is a little "one-note" at times. Not enough of Colossus, though (he looked good but two seconds wasn't long enough). And I think the Sentinels would have been a lot cooler than Stryker's (human) troops. They dropped the ball on that one. This would have been a great way to introduce them.


I was more than happy with the screen time given to my two favorite characters, though, Wolverine & Magneto. It actually makes sense to have Magneto keep appearing in the sequels, since the whole Prof. X/Magneto tug of war is the central struggle in the X-Men comics. And it's always cool to see Magneto show off his powers: like making bullets out of iron extracted from a man's blood. And I really liked seeing Wolverine cut loose and go all slice and dice on those soldiers' asses. Killing bad guys is still what he does best.


One scene that I thought sucked, though, was the one where Prof. X says some shit about no smoking in the room while he’s accessing Cerebro (the central computer Prof. X uses to keep track of all the mutants in the world), so Wolverine puts his cigar out in his hand… and he actually winces (!!). What the fuck?! This is a guy who fought the Hulk twice and lived. And he gets all wimpery about a little cigar burn? I don’t think he’d have any reaction at all to it. I gotta admit, that scene pissed me off.


I have to admit, I was actually pretty impressed with Mystique this time around; she seemed to have more to do, and she was pretty cool the way she did it. Rebecca Romjin really kicks ass in this one. And Famke Janssen was just fine as Jean Gray – and wasn’t that the Phoenix moving beneath the water's surface at the end? Woo-hoo! This definitely sets things up for the Dark Phoenix saga next movie (long-time X-Men fans know what I'm talking about). Can’t wait for X3 if that’s the case.


Nice cameos by everyone from Kitty Pryde, phasing through walls and floors during the soldier attack, to Hank McCoy on TV (man, I wish they'd have the Beast in the next one), and I saw "Remy Labeau's" name mention during the Cerebro scan. Gotta bring Gambit into the movies eventually.


Iceman wasn’t cool enough, heh heh. I guess, since they had him as a kid in the movie, he hasn’t developed his powers enough yet -the dude couldn't even totally "ice up" like he does in the comics - which is too bad, that would have been a great visual! And I think there was way too much time wasted on the teenage X-Men (Rogue, Iceman and future villain Pyro) - they were pretty boring compared to the heavy hitters.


Lady Deathstrike, an old Wolverine villain, makes a cool appearance as Stryker’s “assistant.” She was okay, and has a fight to the death with Wolverine – but y’ know, she's no Sabretooth.


But, all in all, a really good, intelligent superhero flick. Bryan Singer is doing a great job with the series so far. It seems a lot more thoughtful than other superhero movies. I hope he stays for more sequels. At least we know the quality would stay top-notch if he does.


Oh, and I saw the trailer for The Hulk movie beforehand, and I thought it looked pretty cool. I'm not disappointed yet. But we'll see when it actually comes out if it holds up.


* * * * * * *


Also saw Identity this past weekend, and I really enjoyed it. Clever script, good acting, and while it might not have been perfect (I think the secret was revealed too soon), it did seem more intelligent than most so-called "thrillers" these days. And it was directed by the guy who also directed Heavy, a little indie gem I remember fondly, which was probably the best (and most sympathetic) role Pruitt Taylor Vince ever got until he got typecast as creepy psychos (he plays one of those in Identity - not that he's not good at it - and those vibrating eyes of his are very effective).


I thought the acting was great all around from John Cusack to Ray Liotta, to Amanda Peet (she's been in a lot of bad movies and it was nice to see her actually shine in something for a change), to John C. McGinley (I think he’s a really entertaining actor - I remember he was simply amazing in the TV movie Intensity a few years back).


And I'm always for the redhead thing, and I've been a fan of Rebecca DeMornay since she was young and very blonde back in Risky Business , but her role was just too one-dimensional this time around. She was the least developed character (script-wise, lol) in the movie, unfortunately. One of the few letdowns.


I ended up seeing Identity as a double-feature with another thriller, Phone Booth, which was somehow enjoyable too, even though it was directed by Joel Schumacher - the man responsible for some of the most suck-ass movies of recent memory (his two Batman movies come instantly to mind). Of course, Larry Cohen's script is what made this one so good - I've been a fan of his since It's Alive (with its killer mutant baby), Q (with its resurrected Aztec god) and God Told Me To . I wish Cohen would direct something again soon, be he seems to be focusing on screenwriting these days. Colin Farrell remains Schumacher's good luck charm (I think Tigerland, the first teaming of Schumacher and Farrell, kind of redeemed Schumacher for his past cinematic crimes, and Phone Booth continues to steer him in the right direction). And Keifer Sutherland, as the villain in Phone Booth, shows he has one of the most dramatic voices around today. It’s funny – I used to hate this guy – I thought he really sucked in a few movies (he was really fuckin’ annoying in Dark City, taking on some weird fucked-up accent and mannerisms that bugged the hell out of me). But ever since he’s been playing Jack Bauer on 24, I have to admit, I’m a Sutherland fan. The guy’s redeemed himself.


Both movies were thrillers with clever scripts. Both had minor flaws, but were enjoyable enough so that you didn't notice or didn't care. Not a bad way to spend a Saturday.



LLS


writing from the Theatre Macabre



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?