RIP Roger Ebert

A man who has inspired me in more ways than you would initially think. He reviewed (most) movies as fairly as possible, recognizing that they should be reviewed on their own merits, not on the preferences of the reviewer. He could value an action movie for being an action movie, not a drama or Oscar-bait.

He was also a consummate writer. His movie reviews are worth reading for not just the value of knowing if a movie is worth seeing, but also for the beauty of his wordcraft. He could be sentimental, funny, snarky, sweet, or harsh, but he always did it with well-styled words. To be able to write like Ebert is the highest goal a reviewer (of any topic) could strive for. I read his personal blog for the same reason.

You will be missed, Roger, and my heart goes out to your loved ones. May you and Gene keep two thumbs up in the Great Beyond.

Fire the gal because she's at fault, never the guy

Now, I don't really like Kristen Stewart. I don't find her to be all that talented of an actress, and I can't deny that her starring in Twilight also colors my opinion of her (though I haven't liked her in anything else she's been in either; it's always the same flat portrayal, as if she's bored of being there.). That said, she was cast as the lead in Snow White and the Huntsman. Should a sequel be made, however, she won't be returning.

Why not, you might ask? I assume you might ask because about half the readers of this blog follow pop culture/celeb stalking even less than I do. Well, if you didn't hear, the 22 year old Kristen Stewart had an affair with the married (he's also a father) 40 something director of the film. I'm definitely not cool with this; they both were in relationships with others (Robert Pattinson has since dumped Kristen Stewart according to the gossip mill), and it takes two to tango, so to speak.

My problem is simple. She's facing this shitstorm more or less alone. She got dropped from any potential sequels, while the equally cheating bastard director is still slated to direct them. Quoi?

Yes she cheated. No, it's not cool. Yes, she knew he was married. But yes, he cheated, no, it still wasn't cool, and yes, he knew he was married and she was in a relationship. She's young and stupid--as we generally are at the age of 22--and he's old enough to know better (but apparently is still stupid). But so far as anyone can tell, he gets to keep his job because he's male. She, quite possibly, has shot her career in the foot because she's young and fucked up. Fans are irate, largely because many of them don't seem to grasp that she's a real person, not Bella "I'm a whiny loser who has no self-esteem and is completely wrapped up in a creepy guy" Swan, and are incensed that she treated Edward Robert Pattinson this way.

I'm incensed that the director (don't remember his name, don't care) doesn't seem to be sporting any visible bruises from his wife. I don't advocate automatically ending a relationship after an affair. There are so many factors to consider, and I think that determination depends on each couple and individual involved, and those of us not involved should shut up. That said, I think it's absolute bullshit that one of these two got fired for having an affair, but not the other. Both are at fault, but instead of treating them both as such, or better still, not getting involved at all (and if one or the other or both or neither wish to work together again, leave that decision up to them and those close to them), the decision was made to blame the woman. Again.

Because it's always our fault.

On Storytelling

In case you somehow missed it, I love to read.  I love stories.  I love the way a good author can craft a tale in a way that will draw me in and compel me to continue reading, either because the quest is interesting (usually not, actually, if you want to closely examine pretty much any story), or more likely because of the impact the journey has on the protagonist.  The best stories are about characters and how they react to events and grow throughout the quest.  Essentially, everything else is a MacGuffin.  Now I'm not saying that the quest/journey/plot isn't interesting and important, because it is, but it's how it affects the character that is most interesting.  A well-crafted mystery can achieve both; you want to know how and why _____ happened, and there should be some sort of impact on the characters.  A less-well crafted mystery will have you less interested in the characters, but still curious about the how and why (pulp fiction is a good example--hard-boiled dicks are all basically the same, but the mystery might still be good).  And conversely, a mystery that's purely character driven can be a bit dull as well; you did want a mystery to puzzle over, didn't you?  Even so, if only half of a mystery novel is well-crafted, then it's still a fun read.

A prime example of a rather crappy plot but a character that grows is actually the rather trashy Anita Blake series.  The plots are all really quite similar, and fairly forgettable, but the characters grow over time.  Anita, especially, but all the characters exhibit change in relation to their surroundings and events.  Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels are interesting in the fact that the world itself is effectively a character.  It grows and changes in response to the characters who populate it, and it's one of the few constants throughout his novels--yes, Death appears in every Discworld novel, and the Night Watch, Witches, Lord Ventinari, and others appear regularly, but the true star of the novels is the world itself.  I don't like some of the plots or their main characters (Thief of Time), but I love the effect that the characters have on the world; Going Postal, for example, introduced a mail system, and The Colour of Magic introduced the concept of insurance (and the idea of burning down your building for money).  These ideas grow throughout the novels they're introduced in, as well as subsequent novels.  Pratchett's world is anything but static, and it's the most fascinating part of his novels.

But still, it all comes down to characters.  And that, my friends, is why I think the medium of TV is wonderfully suited for storytelling.  Mom and Dad don't watch a lot of TV, unless you count baseball in the summer and football in the fall/winter, but they do tend to watch shows on USA Network.  Conveniently, USA's slogan is "Characters Welcome."  And if you look at every single show they put out, they are character driven.  Monk.  Yes, there are weekly mysteries, and many of them were excellent (and a few were crap, but for 8 seasons, there was probably less than a full season total of bad, or even mediocre episodes).  But the real reason to watch Monk was to watch Adrian Monk cope--or not--with the loss of Trudy, with the loss of his badge, and with his crippling OCD and 312 different phobias.  Monk could have been designed as a novel or series of novels (and there are spin-off novels), but to truly bring Monk to life, to be successful in making him believable, Monk needed Tony Shaloub.  Tony Shaloub managed to make Monk human.  Seriously flawed, and with comedic touches, but human.  Monk is believable as a human being.  I think the real humanity would be hard to portray in a novel.  The expressions that flash across his face, and the struggle he goes through to touch or try to not touch things would be far too wordy in a novel, but necessary to humanize him.  Without them, Monk is a caricature; but with them, in written form, the reader will be continuously yanked out of the story by the details of Monk's compulsions.  With an actor behind the OCD and the phobias, however, Monk was praised by people who suffer from excessive OCD as being real, as being an example of what they actually suffer through, while still being funny at times, but not mocking or hurtful.

USA has done something else with their characters now.  I didn't think about it this way until Mom said it, but on Suits, they've created a character who I viewed as the lead (even though he gets second billing), but Mom views as the MacGuffin.  Mike is someone we actually care about, someone who reacts to, and grows and changes in response to external stimuli.  But I think Mom is right; Mike's job is to act as a MacGuffin for Harvey.  Now, I think you could argue that many characters serve as MacGuffin's for many other characters: in Burn Notice, the burn notice itself is a MacGuffin, but this season so was Max--or at least his death.  In literature, Lord Voldemort is far more MacGuffin than character.  In the Harry Potter books, he rarely ever acts as a character, even when he's there (and mostly he's not--he's discussed and feared, but rarely do we see him in person).  He is the reason for the quest.  He also happens to be a character, and not even a completely one-dimensional one, but mostly, he's the MacGuffin.

But why do I think TV is such a great medium for storytelling?  Well, in a good, scripted TV show (not "reality," which is also scripted, and certainly not real, but isn't designed to tell a story), you have the same necessary elements as you have for a book.  You're writing a story, so you need the same things.  You need a plot/journey/quest/raison d'être, you need a protagonist and usually some other characters, and you need the characters to emotionally grow and change in response to the quest that's been put upon them (theoretically, this is optional, but trust me, it's not).  But once you put the words into the mouths of actors, you get something else--real depth of humanity.  People you really care about.

I care about Anita Blake, and I care about Harry Potter, but Monk was real to me.  Alicia on The Good Wife is absolutely real to me.  She would be an excellent character in a novel, but Julianna Margulies adds life to Alicia, by being able to show all those little things that can be hard to put into words.  Conversely, it can be hard to translate some things to screen--the depth and richness of Tolkien's world is one, though Peter Jackson did a credible job overall, and I have no notion how you could reasonably translate the magic of Cooper's King of Shadows to the screen.  But where TV has, at least in my mind, the advantage over movies, is that it's serialized.  It's broken down into chapters.  We may satisfactorily wrap up one week, and another week we may be left with a cliffhanger (Lost, it got old after a time).  But you always know there's more.  In a movie, theoretically, that's it.  In reality, there will probably be at least one sequel, and probably more, but it's supposed to be done, finis.  Like a novel, you may want to visit it again, but TV, like a novel, keeps you driving forward because there's always a next chapter.  Until there's not, but networks have started to not do that to fans as often now, in part to avoid another "Nuts" incident, I would bet.  TV is an extended novel, one that has convenient stopping points, but another chapter if you want there to be.  And if not, you can stop at any point.

Reading List: January 2011

A new year, a new reading list.  In less than 4 days I finished my first book, and I wanted to finish it sooner; I really, really enjoyed it.  Shortly before we began circling Heathrow on our flight back from visiting my folks, Adam and I started watching an Aussie movie called Tomorrow, When the War Began.  Had we known that we were going to be in the air for an hour or so longer than planned, we would have plugged our headphones in, but we understood enough of the movie to enjoy it even without audio.  Sadly, it doesn't seem to be released anywhere outside of OZ/NZ, so we can't rent it, or buy it without having it shipped from OZ (we have a region free DVD player, so no worries on that front at least).  But the good news is that the movie is based on a series of young adult novels (The Tomorrow Series by John Marsden) and Adam was kind enough to pick up the first one for me as a Christmas present.  After I got over the self-referencing first person style and the narrator gets into telling the story, it's really good.  It's a teen adventure/suspense/drama/romance thing, and it works fairly well.  Compelling storyline, and the balance of teen love and angst is just that: balanced.  It appears, and just as it starts to bug you, it goes away.

Sadly, however, I'm done with it already.  I have a nice Amazon gift certificate to spend, and while I have a lot more stuff I want to buy than the certificate is worth (which is saying something--thanks to my overly generous parents!), it looks as though I'll be picking up at least some of the rest of the series.  Probably all of it, because I am a completionist.  And the first one was quite good.

***

If you read on, you'll see I've acquired the rest of the Tomorrow series.  None of them are exactly long, and they get shorter as they go on (except for the last one), so I'm reading basically one a day.  On one hand, I'm not sure they're quite as good, but on the other hand, I really want to find out how it all ends (which isn't really the case, since after the 7 Tomorrow books Marsden wrote 3 more about Ellie, the narrator of the Tomorrow series).  But I'm enjoying them still, despite all the frustration in trying to get ahold of them.  In fact, I'll be asking Levi if he can help me out with that shortly . . .

So without further ado, January's reading list:

10. * Mrs. Pollifax and the Golden Triangle, by Dorothy Gilman (Mrs. Pollifax Series #8)
 9.  The Other Side of Dawn, by John Marsden (The Tomorrow Series #7)
 8.  The Night is for Hunting, by John Marsden (The Tomorrow Series #6)
 7.  Burning for Revenge, by John Marsden (The Tomorrow Series #5)
 6.  Darkness, be My Friend, by John Marsden (The Tomorrow Series #4)
 5.  The Third Day, The Frost (aka The Killing Frost), by John Marsden (The Tomorrow Series #3)
 4.  The Dead of Night, by John Marsden (The Tomorrow Series #2)

 3.  Skin Trade, by Laurell K. Hamilton (Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter #17)
 2.  *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, by J. K. Rowling (Harry Potter #7)

 1.  Tomorrow, When the War Began, by John Marsden (The Tomorrow Series #1)

James Cameron is a Douche

or

An Open Letter to Director James Cameron

Dear James Cameron,

Your movies are long, preachy, and generally suck.  Titanic had an obviously predictable plot, because unless you were planning on changing history, the ship sinks.  And your script for Titanic made two talented actors (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) look like hacks.  My heart nearly didn't go on, but your movie did.  And on.  And on.  And on.

Avatar would have worked better as a cartoon, because that's what it looked like.  Sam Worthington--another talented actor--kept slipping in and out of his accent.  Was that intentional, or was he so bored he couldn't remember what he was supposed to sound like?  Plus, your script had horrible dialogue, the plant life on Pandora was unbelievable (it's unlikely bamboo and maples would live next to each other on any planet, but--to be fair--Lost also made this mistake), and the penis-hair-bond thing was just creepy.  I gave you 1 point for the unobtanium thing, but you immediately lost it on the sheer preachiness of your film.  I too care about the environment, have many issues with the health care situation in the US, and am not overly fond of large portions of capitalism, but I also believe in the subtleties and fine nuances of good storytelling.  You failed.  You ripped off from Lord of the Rings, Independence Day, The Matrix, Star Wars (specifically Return of the Jedi), Pocahontas, Delgo, Call Me Joe by Poul Anderson, and lord only knows what else.  I understand that many, many stories are at least partially derivative, but you are bordering on plagiarism in some cases.

Plus, your movies are too damn long.  Get over yourself.

Sincerely,

Katie

RIP Tony Curtis

Thoughts and prayers go out to Jamie Lee Curtis, who lost her father, the great Tony Curtis.  The best ways to honor his memory?  Watch two great films, both starring Jack Lemmon as well.  Some Like it Hot and The Great Race are both funny and sweet, and show off the comedic chops of Tony Curtis beautifully.

No IMDb links; they've changed their website and I hate it.  What was once the greatest site on the internet has slowly degenerated into a pile of monkey feces.  Too many ads that jump around and too much futzing around with the things that worked.

[Not Sunday] Review #9: Twilight (Book and Movie)

Although I doubt Stephenie Meyer's Twilight is the worst book I've ever read, I'm hard pressed to think of something worse (I didn't finish the first book of the "Left Behind" series because it was so awful--don't know if that counts, though). Let us start with this quote (which was on the back cover of the copy I read):

About three things I was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was a part of him--and I didn't know how potent that part might be--that thirsted for my blood. And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.

Oh, where to begin? There are many reasons why I think this is an apt quote to use to explain my disdain for Meyer's writing. But let's start with the first vs third person approach to story telling. For those who don't know/remember/care, first person is "I". "I went to the store today." Third person is "he/she/it/they." "Joe went to the store today." (If you care, second person is "you" and is very rare in literature; it entails making the reader a part of the story). Most people use third person--in fact, I can't think of a book I've read in the last 6 months that's written in first person except for Twilight (I've probably read 50 books in the last 6 months). There are a lot of reasons for this, but I write my fiction in third person for two reasons. Firstly, it's really hard to be convincing in the first person voice. You really have to work hard to make the character seem believable, and you have to do it without the benefit of outside descriptions. It's really hard to explain emotions and moods without background, and it's difficult to naturally explain background within the first person voice. Secondly, the third person style of narration allows for the introduction of knowledge outside of of the protagonist's direct experience (obviously this ties into the first reason). Quick example that most people will probably know: Harry Potter is the protagonist, but occasionally J.K. Rowling will write a chapter following another character (Snape, the muggle PM, etc). Harry has no knowledge of these events, but we, as the reader, can know about these events because of the omniscient narrator that the third person voice provides. First person is limiting in these ways. I have written in first person (very successfully) but only once, and that worked because I was the protagonist (fictional story, but all based on people I knew), and I was essentially witnessing other events, and could thus explain them.

Right, back to the quote. As explained, it's in first person. This isn't inherently a sin, but if it's done badly, it's painful. I argue that Meyer did very badly. It's incredibly angsty and melodramatic, and overall, the book is filled with minutiae that no one cares about in my life, so why should I care about it in hers? Admittedly, the angst and melodrama isn't totally inappropriate, as Bella (female protagonist, and owner of the "I" voice) is 17, but Harry Potter was an emo douchebag in the fifth book, and I hated him, so why should I like Bella any better? This quote just epitomizes self-centered teenage melodrama, and pompousness to boot. Yes, I talk like that all the time, and I did even when I was 17. But it lacks believability to me. I'm not sure why, but the "I" takes away all credibility in my mind. Perhaps because she is 17, and who truly falls in love and finds their soul mate at age 17? If it were an outside, impartial narrator, I think the credibility would go way up. Compare the quote above with this one:

About three things Bella was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was a part of him--and she didn't know how potent that part might be--that thirsted for her blood. And third, she was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.

I still think it's a crap bit of writing, but in my mind, it does improve with the change in narration. I would also change the "and she didn't know how potent" clause to language less clunky, but we take what we can get (note, my fiction writing is cleaner than my blog writing; generally my clauses are more simple and less dependant).

Besides the voice and the generally appalling nature of her writing (this quote probably is the worst of it), what really bothers me is what Meyer did to a decent plot. It's not a brilliant plot, and it's certainly nothing new or unique, but it's a solid plot line: girl meets boy, boy is repulsed by girl, girl and boy fall in love, boy turns out to be vampire, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back, girl wants to be a vampire. In short: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back. That's as basic and solid as they come. Yet Meyer destroys this plot through little things. First, teen love is not chaste. I'm not saying that Bella and Edward (vampire boy) need to have sex to make it believable--they don't--but it creeps me out how "pure" they both are. It's written in first person, and you have to hear Bella's thoughts on everything else, but nothing on how she wants more than a kiss and a little snuggle (you know she does). "But oooh," you say, "he spends the night with her several times." Yes, and that's just creepy. Vamp boy doesn't sleep, so he stares at her for 8 hours. If Adam did that to me, I'd be freaked out at his obsessive, stalking nature. However, I think this is a direct result of Meyer's religion (which also appears in how Edward believes he's evil, but hopes that somehow he can be forgiven or something...).

Even worse--and outside of mediocre, melodramatic writing--is what Meyer did to vampire mythology. There is a LOT to vampire mythos, and it varies. Some of it is even contradicting. But there's a solid, established base to work with. So what does she do? Ignores it. These vampires can subsist off of animal blood (fine), hate werewolves (enh, I only know that one from the Underworld movies, but it may have more basis than that), and have superhuman senses and strengths (fine, but she went overboard--they wouldn't sound like boulders crashing into each other, and hitting a baseball that hard would shatter the bat, but not sound like thunder), but they also glitter in the sun. What the fuck?! They GLITTER? In the SUN?

Seriously? That's what she came up with? Gah. I don't object to vampires being able to move about in the day, though the best books that allow that put some kind of restrictions/penalties in place to stay reasonably close to the established mythology. But there are ways it can be dealt with effectively. But glitter? Seriously, that's just bad. Really, really awful.

So there's my review of the book. If you long to read it, don't buy it. Borrow it from the library or something (or talk to me, I can hook you up), but don't put money in that woman's pocket. She doesn't deserve to be rewarded.

As for the movie: it might possibly have been worse than the book. The special effects were unremarkable (the glittering vampires didn't really glitter), everyone was emo, and Robert Pattinson's American accent kept slipping. You can say it's because he's supposed to be from a different era and it slips because of that (Bella says that he sometimes sounds like he's from a different time), but it's because he can't hold an American accent. Also, the plot mostly follows the book, but has some weird off-shoots that are confusing and unnecessary. I've definitely seen worse movies (and not just bad horror movies), but this one was pretty bad. Also, Robert Pattinson: not hot. Sorry, but he's not a super-attractive guy in general, and the way he's made up for the movie makes him extra not-hot.

Sunday Review #6.5: Doomsday

I blame Adam. Entirely. It was awful. He says it wasn't. It was bad, though. Very, very bad.

The special features for Doomsday indicate that it was trying to make a more modern post-apocalyptic film than Mad Max and the like. Except that rather a lot of those have been made lately, and rather better than this one. Off the top of my head, I'd point to 28 Days Later, which may or may not be one of the better ones. I like it though. But I digress.

The worst part about this movie is the two major names in it: Bob Hoskins and Malcolm McDowell. I love Bob Hoskins, and he was great in this, but wow...I hope they got paid well. Less so Malcolm McDowell...he's weird and does weird films so he may have liked the concept.

Actually, I take that all back. The true worst bit about Doomsday isn't the great actors with a horrid, mishmashed plot, it's the horrid mishmashed settings. You go from post-apocalyptic urban to suddenly looking as though the cast and crew stumbled onto the set from "Robin Hood" and decided to film there--complete with the "Robin Hood" costuming--for a bit. Oy.

Sunday Review #4: Planet Terror

So as you might have possibly guessed, we've been watching movies that Adam wants to see of late.  I like this type of movie as well, but LoveFilm (similar to Netflix) doesn't allow you to actually order the queue, just prioritize movies into "high," medium," or "low."

This week's review is of Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror.  This is not meant to be a review of the plot, but rather an examination of what Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino were trying to do with their "grindhouse" concept.

So to start with Tarantino and Rodriguez both grew up with the "grindhouse" double-feature concept: going to see exploitation films that showed in cheap, crappy cinemas.  Rodriguez (or Tarantino, don't remember which) explained that these films, instead of creating thousands of prints for wide, simultaneous nationwide release (like what we have now--think Titanic for example), they would print only 10-20 copies or so, and those copies would travel around the country, stopping in a different city every week.  This meant if it started in say, New York, the print would be clean and decent, but as it travelled around and was played more and more, it got grittier and dirtier and damaged (being played in poorly maintained machines didn't help).

Both directors loved going to see this type of movie--often zombie or slasher flicks (or something similar).  But as this concept doesn't really exist anymore, they decided to team up and do it themselves--but in wide release.  It's been a while since it released into the cinemas, but I believe that Grindhouse as a film was less that successful, so it was split into its separate parts, Death Proof and Planet Terror.  I haven't seen Death Proof (yet), so I can't comment on that one, so though I imagine it is similar in many aspects, I wouldn't know.

Planet Terror is a zombie style flick, and (intentionally) not a particularly good one.  That said, I think it captured what it was trying to be admirably.  The acting and the script were fairly cheesy, and since I've seen several of the actors in other roles, I know they can act well.  There were the obligatory T&A scenes, lots of violence towards others--zombies or not--an attempted rape where the girl kicks ass, the bad guy who's a good guy/hero who dies, and a chick with a gun for a leg.  Yeah, that was a combination of both awful and awesome.  Definitely an exploitation film.

The picture was gritty, and looked as though it was on cheap film (Rodriguez shoots all of his films digitally now).  I felt like they did a good job slightly undersaturating or oversaturating the color of the film (it varied); it wasn't overt, but looking at it from a film-making perspective you could see that it was there.  Really, every aspect of the film felt like one of those awful Saturday afternoon movies that you get when there's nothing on, or the late night cable TV/local access station that shows really really bad TV and movies (usually no more recent that the 1970s) because they can't afford better.  Rodriguez wanted to capture a mood, and I think he did so well.  It's a bad movie, but it's a bad movie that's not that bad.  It's funny in places, and you could do a lot worse.  And given that the guys were trying to pay homage to particular genre and experience, they did a great job.  The movie was better that more exploitation films: the guys wanted to live up to the promise of the posters, something that the "real" exploitation films never did.

I think they beat the "standard" set by the original Grindhouse poster (image here), in part because I think they set the standard low.  However, they did achieve (for me, at least) one of their purposes: fake trailers were also made as part of this project, inserted before each movie.  Included on the Planet Terror DVD was the trailer for Machete, which actually looked really funny.  Still bad, but funny.  The hope Tarantino and Rodriguez had was that fans would want the trailers turned into full movies.  I would definitely see Machete, so I think they won on that score.

On a side note, people who know me know I swear.  A lot.  Worse than most sailors.  All I have to say is this: watch an interview of Quentin Tarantino sometime.  Wow... (a lot of my info for this came from an extra on the DVD--the Q&A session Rodriguez and Tarantino held at ComicCon 2006).

Sunday Review #3: Cloverfield and Diary of the Dead

This week's review is a joint review of the movies Cloverfield and Diary of the Dead. The reason why I'm doing these movies jointly is because they are told in a very similar style, one that can work very successfully, or that can fail miserably. I may have people really hate me for something I'll say down the line.

Cloverfield, if I remember correctly received rather poor reviews when it first released to the cinemas. Without bothering to reference the reviews, I can see at least one reason why: the camera work is nauseating. Literally. I saw The Bourne Supremacy in the cinema and walked out with a migraine due to the shaky, handheld nature of the camerawork. Cloverfield was way worse: some cinemas even had warnings outside the cinema due the film's ability to induce motion-sickness.

I did not have the same problem with Diary of the Dead. However, the stories are told in similar ways. The difference being, in this case, that the protagonists of DoD are film making students, whereas the "Clover" gang are just friends who happen to have a video camera.

Quick plot summaries before I move on to the storytelling aspect. Cloverfield is about a group of friends living in Manhattan throwing a surprise going-away party for another friend. Around 11pm, a massive earthquake is felt, and so the attendees rush up to the roof to see what happened. Turns out, a giant monster is attacking Manhattan. Think Godzilla, but it's not (frankly, Godzilla is cuter, and King Kong is less destructive). So, your basic monster movie. Most of the people die, they have to rescue another friend, etc. etc.. Not the greatest monster movie ever, but not bad.

Diary of the Dead is another George A. Romero zombie flick. I personally think this is one of the better recent ones he's produced (though my fav will probably remain his remake--of his own movie--Dawn of the Dead). DoD is a bit different from his other zombie fare, due to it's storytelling. Otherwise, same basic premise as most zombie movies: people are happy and carefree, suddenly dead people aren't so motionless anymore, and aforementioned happy and carefree people now have to ward off attacking dead things that want to eat them. Shooting of friends/loved ones does inevitably ensure at least once. Predictable? Yes. Enjoyable? If you're into gore and mayhem and killing shit dead (again), absolutely.

What sets both of these films apart, and could ultimately make or break them, is the nature of the storytelling. Often when you see a movie, there's the "Fourth Wall". The link will explain it more than I will if you care, but in short, the fourth wall is the boundary between the audience and the storytellers (actors, writer, etc). It's what makes the audience voyeuristic, and why they feel like they are simply watching events unfold. I would argue that documentaries do not have this (well...we'll not get into that). Both DoD and "Clover" break the fourth wall. DoD is told as a documentary (or in this case "mockumentary", since it's a fictitious movie) by the film students, who are filming events and piecing the footage together with footage found on the internet. The entirety of the story is told with one character or another behind the camera at all times, or narrating the internet footage.

Surprisingly, this worked really well for me. I can see it failing quite easily--and did in fact, when I tried to watch The Blair Witch Project (this is where people may hate me). I found "Blair Witch" convoluted and boring and--like "Clover" and "Supremacy"--painful to watch due to (unintentionally) bad camera work. It worked for Romero because he had a good basic plot ("arrhh....brains.....") combined with a carefully thought out secondary plot: the student obsessed with recording and documenting historic events for posterity. And of course, the affect of that student's obsession on those around him. It gave a fresh take on the zombie movie. Which I like, but can get tiresome if it's the same basic plot structure over and over again. Luckily, Romero is talented enough to be able to find new things to focus on when it comes to zombies. Hey, the guy is a little...different.

I don't think Cloverfield failed in this same endeavor. I think it was not as successful, and frankly, I think that's because the story wasn't as good. Or more specfically, I don't feel as though the secondary plot, the lives of the friends, was as good. I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a pronouncement that all storytelling is essentially how the characters act and react in relation to events and their environment. That said, you could argue that there is only one plot, and it's just told slighty differently. Either way, the reason why it didn't work as well is because the characters weren't particularly compelling. Though they interacted with the monster and their environment, I felt they were detached from all events. Which can lead to a whole big discussion on how the camera lens can make you less a part of events (I can name some photographers I know who use this phenomenon all the time). Philsophically interesting, but not really great movie watching.

Neither of these movies are exceptional, must-see films. But I did enjoy both of them (watch Cloverfield with lights on and on a not very big screen to minimize headaches and motion-sickness). They both went out on a limb and tried to do something different, with varying degrees of success. If you're in the mood for zombie fare, you can most certainly do worse than Diary of the Dead, and it's probably worth seeing just for the introduction of Samuel, who spawned the great line "I thought the Amish were a friendly people!"

As for monster movies, you can do both better and worse than Cloverfield. It's interesting, but I think the production staff (including J.J. Abrams, who produces Lost, Fringe, and did the new Star Trek movie) was more caught up in the style of storytelling rather than ensuring that they had a solid story. Still, if you're looking for something new, it's worth a glance.

Requiescat in pace

Paul Newman passed away from cancer at his home in Connecticut on Saturday.  He was one of the greats, both as an actor and as a philanthropist.  Rest in peace, and our thoughts to your family.

An utterly charming movie

I watched a lovely "modern" fairy tale last night entitled Penelope.  I don't really want to give any of it away, but it was charming and sweet, funny and honest.  It stars Christina Ricci and James McAvoy, as well as Catherine O'Hara and Peter Dinklage (I'm sure you'll recognize him if you look him up).

I know this isn't much to go on, but I found it to just be a beautiful movie all the way around.  Funny, sweet, sad at time, but with the lovely happily ever after.  So go watch it.  Cuz I don't want to spoil it.

Cool, but not bloody fair

So I'm thrilled that Dead Gentlemen are doing so well and their distribution deal finally went through. This means that more money can be made, and the new Gamers movie goes through Netflix, amongst other rental agencies, but I can't deny a small amount of irritation. Why? Because of this:



I sold my stake and ownership in the company shortly before moving to England, in part because I wasn't contributing huge amounts to the company and didn't want to feel as though I was leeching anymore. I also sold because I needed the money to eat whilst in England. Granted, it wasn't much, and not what the share was techinally worth, but what was I going to do with that many tee-shirts? Besides, I still support the company, and I got more than I paid in regardless. So I'm very glad that there's a very long wait on Netflix, but I'm also irked, that I also have to wait.

At some point I'll buy the flick. Here's hoping I still get an employee discount. Did we even have those?



EDIT: Sorry, you'll have to click on the image to see it more clearly. Right now, that seems to be about as big as I can make it.