When is an Alien not an Alien?

Now, apparently.

Alien prequel now called Prometheus and will be an unrelated story.

This sounds like a good idea to me. The Alien films really had no "continuity," it was more that they had the common elements Ripley, the Alien and its variants, and an evil corporation looking to harness the Alien as a weapon. There is no real Alien "universe", given that decades elapse between the films. Notice that I'm not counting the Alien vs. Predators films. I'm barely counting Alien: Resurrection, which which was a terrible film, chock-a-block with dodgy effects, cardboard characters, and an incredibly unengaging story.

So Ridley and gang get to make something new. Huzzah!

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest

It was pretty compelling for a film in which, essentially, nothing happens. Not as good as the first film, but much better than the second.

Well worth the $5 admission.

*** (out of 4).

Misread wish fulfilment?

While visiting a friend recently, we walked by a movie theatre near her home. The view of the marquee across the street was slightly obscured by a tree, leaving this:

THE GIRL WHO KICKED
THE LITTLE FOCKERS

If only.

Avatar 1.3

I'm reading online there's another version of Avatar coming out on DVD, making it the third version of the film. Is it just me or does anyone else see the irony of a film with a strong environmental message being released three times on discs and packaging made from non-renewable resources?!

I get that audiences in general won't sit still for films over two hours and that theatre owners (rightly) don't like the longer films, because it means fewer screenings per day. So I'm not opposed to an extended cut of a film on DVD, if the film warrants it, but when it becomes the norm, when we can't ever see a "definitive" version of a film on a big screen with an audience, let's call it what it is: a cash-grab. Does a DVD release of Predators, to pick an example, need more footage?! The Expendables?! Would any amount of extra footage make Watchmen a good film?

Sometimes, studios mess with a director's vision. Films like Blade Runner and Brazil were released with happy endings which their respective directors railed against. In these sorts of cases, "Director's Cut" versions on DVD are valid. Sometimes films are restored years after they were made and new footage is unearthed, examples being Vertigo, or Metropolis. In this case, a new DVD release is warranted. These days, however, in most cases, the new editions are nothing more than scraps from the cutting room floor stuck back into the theatrical release, or in the case of comedies, a bit more nudity and swearing. It's now expected that nearly every major film release will have an alternate version available on DVD a few months later. That's not restoration, or artistic vision, that's planned greed.

Not being a buyer of DVDs (the odd used disc here, a Criterion disc there), it doesn't affect me much, but I worry for a society that not only consumes but is willing to re-consume basically the same thing a short while later (and in the case of Avatar, one more time!) I know someone who has a wall of DVDs, a lot of which, by his own admittance he bought "to have complete sets of.." [Indiana Jones, Star Wars, X-Men, etc.]. He hasn't watched some and has no desire to watch others. He's bought DVDs that do nothing but sit upon a shelf! He's bought into some marketer's idea of what constitutes a complete set of something. It borders on mania! When did seeing a film in a theatre become just the first part of an experience? More importantly why the F are we listening to marketers?!

I remember my father being outraged in the summer of 1977, upon finding out I'd been to see Star Wars again after he'd taken me. "What are you, stupid?" he asked. "You can't remember things?!" Harsh as that was for me to hear at 10 years of age, he had a good point.

Chris Morris interviews

These probably won't mean anything until you've had a chance to see the Jihad comedy Four Lions (yes, you read that correctly, and yes, it is funny, very funny in places) but you can hear and see director/co-writer Chris Morris discussing the film on WFMU, on the Film School Rejects site* and on the Motion Captured Podcast.

Best quote from Mr. Morris: "I don't have a pathological personality disorder, so why get involved in Twitter?"
-----
* Be warned, the audio on the Film School Rejects video is quite poor.

(R)ather (E)xhasuting; (D)isappointing

RED was bad. Feel the seconds of your life running out of your body and onto the floor bad. Walk-out bad. This film was completely flat, under-written, and barely directed. Everyone except Karl Urban phoned in their performances. It wanted to be an action film but didn't have the guts to be violent. It wanted to be a comedy but didn't have the snappy dialogue or pace needed to elicit laughs. This film should have been a cross between Leon (aka The Professional) and Gross Pointe Blank. Instead it was more like a cross between The Dream Team and Kindergarten Cop. So, Producers, you think Helen Mirren with a sniper rifle can save a film? Maybe, but RED ain't that film.

It's a shame this wasn't a better because the source material--a three-issue comic series by writer Warren Ellis and artist Cully Hamner--is a compact, nasty revenge story that zips along to its sad, inevitable conclusion.

RED, the comic, is worth seeking out. RED, the film is worth avoiding.

The Dulcet Tones of James Earl Jones

I'm not much for parodies, especially Star Wars parodies, but once in a while, someone puts in the time, effort, and talent and comes up with something hilarious. Enjoy!

Wolverine 2

Darren Aronofsky is reportedly directing Wolverine 2 (source). At least it's not a prequel or a reboot.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine was unbelievably awful. But then again, 90% of the comics featuring Wolverine have been unbelievably awful. Marvel Comics has so often nearly killed the goose that laid the adamantium eggs with overexposure, contradictory origin stories, convoluted time-lines, and knock-off characters (because more of the same is what the audience demands, isn't it?). Hell, there's even dispute about Wolverine's designation. Is he Weapon X (the letter), or Weapon 10 (Roman numeral X), as suggested in the now-nearly-wiped-out-of-canon Grant Morrison New X-Men stories? At this point, who cares? And of course, the movies versions of the X-Men are different again.

I haven't seen Black Swan yet, but Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain, and The Wrestler have all been excellent films. No reason why Aronofsky won't succeed with a genre piece. I'll go see it, but to see what he's doing, not Wolverine.

Currently Listening to...

...The Social Network soundtrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. It's a terrific disc of dense music, packed with lots of slippery electronics and surges. It's one the best things Reznor has done. Like all good soundtracks it enhances the film without distracting. Yet this soundtrack is not uninspired background music. On the headphones, devoid of image, it's a terrifically engaging work.

Filmmakers often use songs to put viewers into the emotional headspace of characters or convey specific emotions. It's a cheap shortcut, one I call "soundtrack over substance". Watchmen is a film loaded with examples of this. The director and producers didn't even have the good sense to license much of music which was directly quoted in the comic, or they changed the scenes so much that when they did use music quoted in the comic, it made no sense in the context of the film. The comic shows two characters approaching an Antarctic fortress on hover bikes. Author Alan Moore imaginatively quotes "All Along the Watchtower": "...two riders were approaching/ And the wind began to howl." The film uses the same music, but the characters are walking towards the fortress, so the lyrics now don't mirror the action, and it becomes an "I wonder why they used Jimi Hendrix here?" moment. The use of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" over an overly-long sex scene was just schmaltz.

Doctor Who broke with tradition last season and used a song under a scene wherein Vincent Van Gogh is transplanted temporarily to the 21st century to see a retrospective of his own work. While the perfectly serviceable song by Athlete didn't ruin the scene, I'm not convinced the scene needed such an obvious musical punch, not with Matt Smith, Bill Nighy, Tony Curran, terrific actors all, and the luminous Karen Gillen onscreen.

Some films make great use of songs. Magnolia manages to nicely avoid sentimentality by having the characters lip-sync one of the wonderful Aimee Mann tunes. Basquiat uses period songs evocatively, not literally. Trainspotting busts out "Lust for Life" as an ironic anthem for the "upside" of herion use.

Quentin Tarantino, Oliver Stone, Guy Ritchie, and David Lynch all use songs to complement or contrast action and dialogue. Using "Bang Bang" by Nancy Sinatra to Open Kill Bill Volume 1 was inspired, as was re-purposing "Cat People (Putting Out Fire)" by David Bowie for Inglorious Basterds. Julee Cruise's vocals added more layers of dread and loss to Twin Peaks.

I'm happy David Fincher and the producers commissioned a proper score for The Social Network, and didn't just fill the film with assorted songs from the years covered in the film. With dialogue like Sorkin's why would you let song lyrics speak for the characters?

The Social Network soundtrack is up there with the soundtracks for Mishima: A Life In Four Chapters and The Hours, both by Phillip Glass; and Mike Oldfield's score for The Killing Fields. What are your favourites?

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Caption: Go Go Gadget Truancy!

Finally saw this film. It had some charming moments and a few chuckles, but for the most part seemed to me to be a mishmash, like every John Hughes film: equal parts slapstick, treacly love story, melodrama, crackpot philosophy, and anti-establishment rant. The little guy wins. Yada yada yada.

The woman hosting the screening said she could watch Ferris over and over. I didn't dislike the the film but once was/is enough for me. I have a suspicion this is one of those films where a sheen of nostalgia is required.

What if The Avengers Movie was made in 1952?

Sure it's just old serial footage repurposed, but it's done well, and is keeping in the style of the period being swiped from. Say what you will about the silly stories or the cheap effects of the serials, at least they're fun.



More, including an annontated vid that reveals all the Marvel characters featured.

Must we eat Crow?

Caption: This is what passed for comic art in 1989, kids.

Okay, we're safe on the Robocop front, but now I read that there is to be a remake of The Crow, the Alex Proyas and Brandon Lee adaptation of James O’Barr’s undead avenger comic book. Really?

The comic from 1989 doesn't stand up. It's a nasty bit of work, devoid of anything remotely resembling a compelling story. So why would anyone buy the rights to remake it? Couldn't you just do your own "guy and gilfriend get killed by a gang, man comes back from beyond the grave to avenge her death" film? As for the original Crow film, it did well on initial release. I saw it on video at some point and thought it as slight and uninteresting as the comic was. Wonder how much of a bump it got because of Brandon Lee's onset death?

I guess if the Hollywood boffins (and I use that term very sarcastically) are determined to remake films, better they remake these than start trying to "reimagine" the classics.

Nogocop

According to io9.com:

Robocop:

Darren Aronofsky's much-rumored reboot can pull up a chair next to Darren Aronofsky's Watchmen adaptation in canceled movie heaven, because it's been all but officially scrapped, another victim of MGM's bankruptcy.

Huzzah!

To each his own, but...

A friend who loves Nolan's The Dark Knight doesn't like Inception at all. Hey, at least Inception didn't have the climax in the middle of the film. And, unlike the lumbering The Dark Knight, Inception fairly zips along.

Salt... m'eh

Caption: "Is this American Table Salt? Russian Table Salt?
Ah, who the hell knows? Too much! Too much!"

This one's being compared to the Jason Bourne movies. A better film to compare it to would be The Fugitive sequel, U.S. Marshals. Yes, Salt is that predictable and dull. It's a plot-heavy character-light film that zips along until it's over and you're left thinking "but how could she do--?" and "how would she know--?"

There's never any feeling that Salt is improvising her way through situations, which I assume is what we're supposed to believe she's doing. Everything happens by rote: every gunshot, every explosion, every kick, and no one is in any danger of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Baddies get shot, blown up, and kicked; Salt does not. And, in a case of stretching credibility particularly thin somehow our heroine can predict the outcome of crashing a car she's not driving nor buckled into, leaving her to walk away to the next set-piece.

A better action vehicle for Angelina than the awful Tomb Raider pictures, miles better than the morally-repugnant Wanted, but not as good as the very average Mr and Mrs Smith, which a least had some humour in it.

On the dollar scale: I paid $8 to see it, worth about $4.

Scott is in the Details

Inception's reviews got me thinking about another film people seem to have trouble following, Blade Runner. I have friends who to this day argue that Deckard is not a replicant. Yes, he is. Here's someone who's qualified to say so.

Carlton redux

The Carlton has reopened under the Rainbow/Magic Lantern banner which means cheaper films and $5 films* on Tuesdays!

Huzzah!

Here's the link. Carlton Cinemas. And if you get yourself the Rainbow Cinema at Market Square, they'll give you 2-for-1 coupons for the Carlton if you ask.

Get out there and keep these niche cinemas alive, people! And if you don't live in Toronto, find the local cinemas in your town and support them.

*Alliance Atlantis Beaches Cinemas also has cheap ($4.95!) films on Tuesdays.

Question of the Day: Why Doesn't Your Brain Work?

Okay, since Inception opened I've been reading sentences like these in online reviews:

• "...ends up frustrating the audience because it all can't be figured out on the first viewing."
• "...worth the investment just to be able to say you sat through it, even if you can't follow all of its meandering machinations."
• "Some details of the labyrinthine plot are simply too obscure to comprehend on a first viewing."
• "I suspect even repeat viewings won't be enough to nail this one down."
• "...challenges our ability to keep up."

Seriously?! For a film about dreams, it's incredibly logical. It's also a lot of fun if you go with it. Listen, if you're over 14 and you cannot follow the plot of Inception, (1) you're an idiot; (2) you should not be reviewing films; and (3) you really are an idiot. Feel free to make make judicious use of train tracks.

There are a million screenplays in the naked city...

Every time I go to my local coffee shop to write, I'm surrounded by a sea of laptops and netbooks, many with open Word or Final Draft documents containing those unmistakable text "shapes" known collectively as a screenplay: wide blocks of description, narrow blocks of dialogue. From a distance it looks like Tetris being played by someone who has no idea what the object of the game is.

Similarly, I'm fairly certain that these screenplays are being written by people who have no clue how to tell an original story. Here's my guess of how these hundreds of screenplays living on hard drives across the city break down:

• 30%: 30 Rock spec scripts (most, presumably, not even close to the show's high standard of comedy)
• 9%: rewrites of films that have already been made. Yes, believe it or not, there is a sub-genre of "writer" that insists on rewriting scripts of films they didn't like. I know of someone who, and I quote from his blog, "I spent a few years in geek hell compulsively re-writing this movie [Star Wars: The Phantom Menace], literally, and no good came of it.' (Well, duh!)
• 30%: sci-fi/superhero movies
• 20%: horror/slasher/supernatural movies
• 10%: teen sex comedy movies
• 1%: solid, original scripts

Being involved with a comedy troupe, I'm always running into Creative Types writing The Next Big Thing. Once they find out I'm a writer and that I have worked as an editor, they're relentless in their pursuit of feedback. Free, of course, because to them my time isn't worth anything.

Well, Creative Types, the answer is "No". No, I won't read your Zombie Batman vs. Vampire Spider-Man script! No, don't send me your pitch for the next Star Trek series... What? Cloverfield vs. Aliens?! You do realize that "Cloverfield" refers to an area of Central Park and isn't the name of the monster, don't you? And you? You're writing a movie about people who fall in love over Twitter?

Listen, just forget I said anything, and I'll try not make eye contact with you while you're out writing your Masterpiece. Deal?

District 9

Caption: "If you just sign here, we'll be sure to over-render you in the sequel, just like we did for the Transformers."

District 9 is the first film with CGI characters interacting with real actors that didn't leave me thinking "nice CGI. What else you got?" There are no CGI fireants or gophers or Cyberkings kicking the shit out of Victorian London or confusing Trans-form-o-bots here. Instead we get Prawns, a race of human-like aliens rendered perfectly. They are even more enjoyable to watch because they're in there in service of a compelling story. Just try not get excited about the robot rig at end of the film, exquistely designed, and rendered by someone who obviously understands how machines work.

That this is a relatively low-budget film will surely make the Big Players take notice. I've always said if I had a $150 million dollars, I'd make seven or eight of these little films, not one big mess, a la Spider-Man 3. I doubt it, but perhaps the revolution has begun. Of course I'll eat my words when Neil Blomkamp is given $200 million to make District 10 or Halo.