Samurai Jack (2001-2004)

I used to watch this show when it was first out, and enjoyed it then. I have since revisited it with my boys, who love it, too. Ultimately an action series, with the fights between Jack and various adversaries as the centerpiece, the show is a very satisfying exercise in cinematic style and retro animation that leads you along pleasantly. The attention to details is marvelous, even with the comparatively simply drawn animated cells -- it's kind of reminiscent to me of games that are scaled down to liquid crystal or ASCII formats, or Lego stop-motion renderings of movie scenes, shot for shot -- there is this wonderful attention to detail in the episodes, despite the seemingly low-tech animated canvas. The action sequences are alternately beautiful, poignant, thrilling, bracing, and often unforgettable. They can be watched over and over again. And the late Mako's delightful voiceover work as Aku, the prime nemesis of Jack (voiced by Phil LaMarr, when Jack talks at all), anchors it so well. If you haven't seen this series, and you enjoy animation, you would do well to watch it, because few animated series have ever been as bold in execution as "Samurai Jack." The animators have the patience to let scenes carry themselves, to linger on frames, all sorts of things in a style that hearkens back to artier movies of the 70s. Never frenetic, "Samurai Jack" is a very, very satisfying series, well worth anybody's time.

The Road

I finished reading Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" -- having read it a year or so after seeing the movie, and I wasn't as impressed as perhaps I thought it'd be. I think McCarthy's a kind of Literary King Midas, where the plaudits come raining down like doubloons upon him, above and beyond what he actually does. The book is a downer -- one, long, dreary slog through a doomed world, like a hike undertaken by literal Holocaust survivors. There is an element of human vanity running through this book like beef jerky -- as if Man actually would have the power to destroy the world. There is a thanatotic notion that if we're going to go as a species, we'll be damned sure to take the world with is. But really, humanity will only succeed in extinguishing itself, if we're dumb enough (or crazy enough) to take that road -- life will go on without us. It has before, it will again. For literary audiences, however, I guess such a narrative conceit is catnip, which is why this book was so overpraised and over-awarded.

It's not a bad book, I guess; but it is a dismal one. The writing is unadorned and spare to the point of being almost nonexistent, and while there are some phrase turns here and there that are reasonably nice, the writing's not that good. Sacrilege, I know, but there it is. Some of his imagery stumbles over its own feet here and there, in his effort for an evocative image. For example...

And on the far shore a creature that raised its dripping mouth from the rimstone pool and stared into the lights with eyes dead white and sightless as the eggs of spiders.

Now, you might read that and go "Oooh, how evocative is that?" But I was like "Hmm, sightless as the eggs of spiders?" Unconvincing, affected. He doesn't do quotation marks or much in the way of capitalization and punctuation, and the dialogue goes like this for all of it...

Did you have any friends?
Yes. I did.
Lots of them?
Yes.
Do you remember them?
Yes. I remember them.
What happened to them?
They died.
All of them?
Yes. All of them.
Do you miss them?
Yes. I do.
Where are we going?
We're going south.
Okay.

That's how all of the dialogue goes throughout it. The story's about a dying dad taking his innocent young son down a road to some supposedly better place (although where it is is unsure; they're vagabonds), hiding from cannibal tribes and other desperadoes, although like all Litfic works, this is secondary to the larger narrative. The withered-apple plot is secondary to the depiction of the ruined world, although because the man in it (he has no name we get to see, nor does his boy) isn't terribly reflective, we don't really see what he thinks of the end of the world. There's mostly a grim disappointment on the part of the guy, as he tries to keep "the fire" of civilization burning in the hearts of himself and his son, with his son offering a moral counterpoint to the father's failure to live up to his own ideals in the conditions of the world.



I found the movie to be far more affecting than the book. Maybe it's because the desultory gray tones of the movie and the acting was stronger than McCarthy's writing -- it's difficult to evocatively portray endless dreariness and doom, akin to writing a dirge, perhaps, and just sustaining that long monotone of mourning. In the movie, the horror and ugliness of the world is right up there for the taking, and draws you in, whereas in a book, the words fall flat and while the imagery is there, it is endless imagery of ash and gray and death and doom, and the lack of much to juxtapose this leaves the reader somewhat pummeled into aesthetic submission -- yes, the world sucks, we get it. Nature, red in tooth and claw, we get it. Death everywhere, got it. It becomes a parlor game of how the ongoing sameness of doom can be portrayed in novel ways.

I won't go with where he goes with it, although there is no new thematic ground covered in it, no grand insights beyond "Life's a bitch and then you die." If anybody but Cormac McCarthy had written this, it probably wouldn't have been published. It's not a bad book; it's an adequate book. Certainly not a Great Book(tm). In a hundred years, I don't think it's going to speak to people with any kind of narrative power; then again, in a hundred years, maybe nobody'll be reading books anymore--maybe nobody will be left to read'em.

Bad Moon (1996)

I picked up this movie in a cheapie bin, because I'm a sucker for werewolf movies, and was pleasantly surprised by what is a pretty decent werewolf movie -- I'd give it a B+ to be honest. It's a small movie, and is fairly straight and to the point. I was surprised to see Michael Paré in it, and Mariel Hemingway, of all people. Set in the Pacific Northwest, it follows a single stay-at-home mom who is some kind of lawyer (it appears to require a lot of telecommuting and use of a laptop). She and her son and their dog, the German Shepherd, Thor, live in an upper-middle class kind of redoubt bordering on the woods. Her brother, Ted (played by Paré), is a lycanthrope, and basically the story spins off from there, as complications ensue, with the dog being an integral character in the course of the story (of course, the tip-off is in the opening credits, when you see that the source material is a book entitled "Thor" -- so, you figure the dog is going to be fairly prominent in it). The movie is written and directed by Eric "The Hitcher" Red, so you know it's somebody who at least has the understanding of how to craft suspense in a movie. The werewolf looks suitably monstrous, and is not CGI (although some computer graphics are used to show a transformation at the climax). The "real" presence of the werewolf in the scenes makes it more effective, in my view, despite the whole "Man in the Rubber Suit" effect. The monster looks convincing, and Mariel Hemingway looks suitably scared when things get out of hand. A small movie in terms of budget and aspirations, it ultimately achieves what it sets out to do; they could have probably added another 10 minutes to flesh out the principal characters' relationship with one another a bit more, or at least offer some kind of narrative conflict for when big sister realizes what her little brother's become. But overall, it's a satisfying werewolf movie, way better than I expected.

Ravenous (1999)

You know, "Ravenous" was a total flop -- all these years later, it's still not even come close to making its budget (maybe 1/6th of the way there). I remember it appearing, and disappearing from theaters almost immediately (I know because it was out one week and I thought "I should go catch this" and delayed and the next thing I knew, it was gone), but the concept of it appealed to me, and I watched it years ago (weird to think that 1999 is now a long time ago, really -- doesn't feel so long ago). Anyway, I think this movie will stand the test of time as a cult classic. Maybe it's not there, yet, maybe it'll languish in near-oblivion for another decade or so, or maybe folks'll see it and appreciate it.

I love this movie. The setting of it (19th century, in the California wilderness, although shot in Slovakia, it really does look COLD there, and that isolation works well), and the nice playing with the Wendigo legend, fusing it with maybe a bit of "Dracula" and notions of Manifest Destiny, and getting good performances out of a number of actors, to say nothing of the marvelous black humor that runs right through this movie -- it's really, really good, and I never get why more people haven't seen it or bothered to catch it. Director Antonia Bird doesn't necessarily shoot thrillingly (although she does convey good atmospheric shots here and there), and there are some continuity errors here and there in it, but overall, the movie doesn't just hold together; it's classic horror, with a bit of a twist here and there.

Guy Pearce plays Captain John Boyd, a reluctant (one might say cowardly -- a theme that runs throughout the movie) war hero who is sent to a distant fort in California, where he runs into the odd group of locals at Fort Spencer, in the Sierra Nevada ranges. There, they encounter Colqhoun (played wonderfully, with beady-eyed intensity, by Robert Carlyle), this stranger with a ghastly tale of cannibalism that is reminiscent of the Donner Party. And things go into freefall soon thereafter. I won't throw any spoilers into this, as the movie has some nice twists and turns. Pearce's Boyd is a fairly introverted, tortured character, and, as far as protagonists go, is fairly weak -- I imagine this turned off audience goers, who might've resonated with a stronger hero -- but Boyd does find his strength as the movie progresses, and understands what he must do to prevail over the Evil he faces. Boyd rises to the occasion (and, again, this might've bothered the audiences who saw it, who likely craved a happier ending).

The movie is well-shot and well-paced, and certain scenes will stay with you forever -- not even from outright bloodshed (certainly, blood is spilled in this movie, but never for its own sake) -- but it's the implications in the carnage here and there, the suggestion of what's going on, that carries the weight, and it makes this a superb, even smart horror movie. Not a slasher film, not an ironic, smarmy meta-horror, and not an exercise in pure terror (thinking of "The Strangers," here) -- "Ravenous" is, instead, a Grade-A horror film that takes you on a grim and haunting excursion. It's not a perfect movie, but it's far, far better than its dismal reception would leave you to believe). I've watched this movie a number of times, and it always manages to rope me in. Something about the setting, the time period, the good characterizations, the villainy of the Bad Guy -- all of it makes for an intoxicating and memorable horror film.

If you haven't seen it (and odds are you haven't, since, again, this movie was a total flop), you owe it to yourself to catch it. So much of what passes for horror these days is basically torture porn, or is an exercise in brutality -- "Ravenous" is, instead, a smart horror movie that has some nice, nasty reversals throughout it, and some curious implications woven within it.

Hero Factory

I have generally avoided themed Lego products -- I favor the more generic sets, but on a whim, I got one of the Hero Factory figures, and, in short order, got several of them. The good guys are all alternately Iron Man types -- like people in exo-suits, or else cyborgs. They all have amusingly prissy names like "Preston" and so on, versus their badass call names, like "Surge" and what-not.



Anyway, what sold me on these is how articulated they are -- the ball-and-socket joints make them truly fully poseable in a way I haven't seen since the old Micronauts toys of the 70s. And they're sturdily built, easy-to-assemble, and are modular, offering any number of iterations and permutations. The Heroes have a group of villains to take on, like Meltdown, the Corroder, etc. My boys love'em, and we get a lot of play out of them. Again, the highly articulated frames make them wonderful to move around and pose. Fun to assemble (and, by and large, easy to assemble, not too many pieces), and fun to play with, too. Pleasant surprise.

Nerf Clear Series

Is it un-PC to love toy guns? I dunno. I got my boys a couple of Nerf Clear Series dart pistols (a Maverick and an EX-3). They're very cool. A great look to them, seeing the inner workings, and they are surprisingly powerful and accurate, well-designed. They shoot either suction cup-tipped Nerf foam darts, or Velcro-tipped Nerf foam darts. The suction cups are my favorites, because they stick in a perpendicular fashion on the target, if it allows for suction cups to adhere to them. The action of the Maverick (which is a six-shooter, looking like a clear version of something Robocop or Agent Smith would use, or possibly one of the Men In Black), anyway, it's very smooth, with the slide cocking it, allowing for rapid fire if you "fan" it like you would a single-action revolver, cowboy-style. The only fault I saw with it is if you don't load the cylinder perfectly (which itself is easy to do, generally), you can get a jam. But if it's loaded properly, it'll fire very rapidly, and accurately.

The EX-3 resembles a machine pistol, and fires a single shot (you draw back the bolt and fire), and it had room for two additional darts in storage in the front. What's more, it has an LED light on the front acting as a laser gunsight, which is powered by 2 AA batteries that load in the handle. The EX-3 is smaller than the mighty Maverick, but is no less powerful or accurate (and, despite it being a single shot, you can load it more quickly than the Maverick, which can be a consideration for kids playing Nerf Wars or whatever). One drawback of the EX-3 that I found is that the contact that triggers the LED is very delicate, and can be jarred loose with rough play (and it's next to impossible to fix, just because the piece is so tiny). But given the low price of the gun, it is otherwise very well-made and feels right, has the right amount of heft.

There are larger Clear Series rifles and what-not, but I haven't played with those (yet). The pistols, however, are a real blast.

These are, I gather, limited edition Nerf toy guns, so get'em while you can, I guess. They are very cool, fun to play with, and have a great feel to them and a futuristic style. They handle nicely and are durable, and the range is impressive.

But definitely watch out about shooting in the face, because despite the easy action of these toy guns, they are surprisingly powerful, and you can fire them accurately clear across a room and hit what you're aiming at.

Backyard Safari Mega Magnifier

I got my boys a $9.95 Backyard Safari magnifying glass from Summit (cheaper than the $14.97 shown here on Amazon). The thing is HUGE! It's a fresnel lens, is plastic, not glass -- you know, like those lenses made of concentric circles like they use in lighthouses? It is a cute toy, and it is BIG -- like 15" across, and a foot wide. When I bought it from the bookstore, the clerks were transfixed by it (hadn't realized it was on sale there) and kept playing with it. My boys love it, and it's fun to use, with some slight distortion in the lens because it's such light plastic.



However, I would warn you that fresnel lenses are very effective magnifying glasses, and that means if you have a kid who has any procilivity for starting fires, this is an excellent means of doing so -- so be careful of that. Not that the product is dangerous per se, but definitely don't leave it on a windowsill or in the hands of a kid who knows that magnifying glasses = fire and likes starting fires.

By way of testing it, I was able to light up a piece of cardboard in 15 seconds (indoors, mind you) with this sucker, once I found the sweet spot. It burned a hole in a piece of cardboard in that amount of time. 15 seconds to smoking ruin!

This is a fun toy and, as a novelty, it can't be beat -- it is the biggest magnifying glass I've personally seen, but just be careful with it (and you'll want a welder's mask or some other means to protect your eyes if you're focusing that beam, because it's bright). Fun to play with, however. I found myself wanting to get several to extend the power.

Despicable Me (2010)

I saw this one with my boys yesterday, and I'm glad I did. It's funny and well-written. Plenty of laughs for the grown-ups and the kids alike. The story follows Gru, this apparent supervillain who has been outclassed by an up-and-coming villain named Vector (Vector is the Apple to Gru's PC -- you can definitely see that in everything Vector does). Gru wants to reclaim his position as top supervillain by stealing the Moon, and, as part of that scheme, he adopts three orphaned little girls (sisters -- the cerebral oldest sis, the quasi-tomboy middle, and the cutsie pie youngest). Gru's villainous heart is, of course, softened by the introduction of these three kids in his world. It's kind of a nod to good parenting, I think -- that kids bring fun and love to your life in ways that a job never will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_rUbqbhUEQ

Anyway, the animation is crisp, the characters are amusing -- Gru's a stitch, and the girls are dangerously cute, and the story is light and entertaining. Universal is in Pixar's shadow, but this is a great addition to their portfolio. I can't wait to get it on DVD.

Despicable Me (2010)

I'll review this one tomorrow. A lot of fun, well-written, good times!

**** (out of five)

Inception (2010)

So, I caught "Inception" tonight, deciding to spend my valuable entertainment dollar on this Christopher Nolan-directed blockbuster. First off, it's going to do very well -- the theater was packed, the most-packed I've seen any theater in recent memory. I honestly can't recall a more-packed theater, so people are into this movie.

Unfortunately, I'm not one of them. I really, really wanted to like this movie, but IT WAS BORING. I was fucking bored. Where to begin (without throwing any spoilers into the mix?) Hmph. It's a lukewarm action movie -- I mean, I have a problem with the whole "It's all a dream" kind of narrative conceit to begin with. I like my fiction to be REAL, ironically enough. Don't wrap a fictional tale in a fucking dream, pretty please? But I went anyway, because I thought it might be compelling enough to sit through, anyway.

The build-up was deadly-dull, dishing out the exposition, a few very light brushstrokes on characterization, Leo DiCaprio gamely trying to act -- you know the look, the furrowed brow, the careworn look. The other actors, doing their thing, basically being his foils and sounding boards for Leo's character to react to.

This movie is actually two movies -- a caper movie (but Oooh, it's a DREAM caper), and a kind of ghost story involving another character (a subplot that runs through the thing and is stitched into the larger narrative as part of Leo's back story). And I found myself thinking that the subplot would've made a much better movie, although it wouldn't have been a blockbuster action movie -- the dream caper aspect was just interminable, went on and on, various effects tossed into the mix, as we follow the characters from A to B to C to D levels of worlds-within-worlds. Talk about living in a dreamworld!

But this layer cake plotting is thinly-drawn, since the action isn't TOO over-the-top, and the characterization is nearly nonexistent, so it's hard to care too much about what's going on. It's that bane of lukewarm filmmaking that afflicts some movies.

Oh, sure, Christopher Nolan spackles in the gravitas in his ponderous manner -- the almost-ceaseless soundtrack (which always bugs me, wears down my ear -- the nonstop wash of mood music that tells us Something Important Is Happening Here -- it was used a lot in "The Dark Knight" as well). And he runs the jumpycam action sequences to show that Something Important Is Happening Here. But it's all too telegraphed -- too much and too little.

The subplot around the character "Mal" (!!!) is ultimately the most interesting part of the movie, a kind of dream ghost rattling around in Leo's character's head, but she's given short shrift relative to the exigencies of the broader dream caper, which grinds on to its inexorable and tepid conclusion. But a movie written around Mal would've been far different than the "Inception" that was made -- it would've been better, too, but they clearly wanted to go for the sugar fix of the action movie with super special fx.

And the dream special effects are certainly dazzling on some level, but again, it's too much doing too little. Fucking boring. It was boring. I was bored. And it was too long. I'm being deliberately vague (again, avoiding spoilers, here), but there is a thick vein of "Who Gives a Fuck?" running right through the heart of this movie -- the catalyst for this caper is shadowy, the motivations of Leo's character are murky (I mean, we're TOLD why he's doing it, but it hardly fucking matters), the other characters are pasteboard, and even the dreams themselves are big piles of bullshit.

This is a mediocre movie that didn't move me, and yet it'll likely succeed admirably because people love dreamy special effects. Although "The Cell" was roundly panned, I think it did a much better job communicating the weirdness inside somebody's head than the rather linear portrayals of reality in these dreaming characters. Hell, watch the "Nightmare on Elm Street" movies, too, while you're at it. They're more satisfying and meaningful movies than this one, which was heavy on dross, but with little in the way of actual dramatic or narrative paydirt. And while the ending had the audience crying out, it felt more like another ruse and I again thought "Who Cares?"

I wanted to like this movie, but it was just boring. You'll see what I mean if you watch it.

** (out of five)

Hercules (1997)

I watched Disney's "Hercules" with my boys the other night, and they seemed to greatly enjoy it, and, while I'm not a particular fan of Disney's movies, it was enjoyable enough. Good performances from the actors, reasonably good animation, and a typically Disneyfied storyline made it light fun.

That said, it's curious to see the Disney cultural meatgrinder go to work on the Greek myths. I mean, where to start? The saucy Megara (she looks hot) stole much of the show (but not too much, mind you -- it's Disney, after all), but I watched her happy ending with Herc and thought "Lordy, she's doomed." given that I know what happened to the "real" Megara when she hooked up with Hercules. NOT a happy ending for her or their kids. Of course, the cuddly, doting Hera was a total pie on the face of Greek mythology -- I mean, Hera? HERA? The original Olympian shrew bar none? A loving mother figure to Hercules? She wasn't even his mom, and what's more, Hera hated Hercules more than she hated most of Zeus's bastard children!



What else? How about the Judeo-Christian ethic evident in Hercules's growth as a hero -- Zeus saying something like "Being strong's not enough; what matters is the strength of your heart." Or something like that, in the context of his love and self-sacrifice regarding Megara. I mean, obviously, it's DISNEY, so they'll hew toward mawkishness whenever possible, but to invert the Greek heroic tradition to serve a Judeo-Christian ethic amused me to no end -- ancient Greeks would've choked at such a representation of Hercules.

The Titans were curiously rendered -- two of them resembled Norse Giants (Ymir and Surtur, if memory serves -- ice and fire giants). They certainly looked impressive enough, but it was odd to me, seeing these grand Norse Giants somehow standing in as Greek Titans. Somehow, I can forgive the gospel-singing Muses (they were entertaining enough), but the hash they made out of the myths was perplexing.

All the same, taking it unseriously, it was enjoyable on its own merits, but Zeus help any kid who gets their understanding of the Greek myths by way of Disney! It was pretty to look at, and fun to listen to (and James Woods was having a blast as Hades, clearly), but I felt like I needed to inoculate my boys against Disneyfication by reading actual Greek myths to them!

Not-So-Great Gatsby

So, I finally read "The Great Gatsby." I don't know how I never got around to it all of these years, but, on a whim, I read it. I think because some folks who've read my writing have said that my style reminds them of Fitzgerald, so I thought "Fuck it, I'll give his masterpiece a read." My stepdad hated that book, threw it out a window when he was in college, and I know someone else who hated the book so much that she couldn't finish it.

Had to tackle it at last, and I did. Surprisingly, for such a short book, it is a fucking slog. I was surprised at how hard it was to get through. Not because it was nearly impenetrable ala James Joyce, because the prose was bright and accessible, but just because it was so boring. Boring. BORING.

Not that there weren't lovely turns of phrases here and there -- there were, but I was surprised that this, the Modern Library's Number 2 greatest work of fiction of the last century, was so spare. I read it as a writer, delving through it, the language, everything. It just didn't do it for me. I was surprised at how lacking it was, in terms of language. Like Ralph Ellison's masterpiece, "Invisible Man" -- that book serves up dazzling prose in thick and juicy slabs -- whole paragraphs and chapters that sizzle with writerly energy. And much of Hemingway's best stuff also hits like that. Whereas Fitzgerald's prose struck me as a dash of seasoning here and there. Very slight.



I found myself wanting to say "WHO CARES?" while reading, even while wanting to get through it. I was disappointed, and wondered how this book became so canonical. And then I did some delving, saw that it had been nearly forgotten shortly after coming out, and Fitzgerald died feeling an abject failure as a writer -- and then, "The Great Gatsby" was included in some WWII pack given to soldiers -- some 150,000 copies were included in those packets, and that made me think that THIS was the reason the book became canonical: all of those copies, those soldiers reading that slim novel in wartime, hearkening back to an era they likely remembered in their childhood -- voila! Instant classic!

Not to be too cynical, here, but would that book have become a super-classic if not for that 150,000-copy literary inoculation given to those soldiers? It likely informed the aesthetic for a generation. Would that every writer could be so lucky! Right time, right place, I guess.

Because, in my opinion, the book was not so great. Well-written, but not nearly as well-written as I thought it would be, and not even close to the best book I've ever read. And now I wonder if I should read more Fitzgerald to see whether I can find what there is in his work that I can take inspiration from, because I found precious little in this little book. I won't forget reading it, but perhaps for all of the wrong reasons.

Also, it was curious for me, because I'd read Nathanael West's "The Day of the Locust" years ago, and I found many similarities of style between him and Fitzgerald. And, of course, those two were friends, curiously enough, so it shouldn't perhaps surprise me that they kind of wrote like each other, since odds are they read each other's work.

It was curious for me to read "Gatsby" and see a similar writing voice to West, given that Fitzgerald is, by far, the ultimately more famous of the two writers. And, bizarrely, West died in a car crash on the way to Fitzgerald's funeral, which binds them together in still more curious ways in my head.

Drink: V8 Fusion

If I have an addiction to anything, it's likely to V8 V-Fusion juices, which masterfully blend fruit and vegetable juices in one seemingly healthy package. There's no corn syrup or any other bad stuff in there, just fruit and veggies. They taste GOOD, and seem to be packed with antioxidant-laden nutrients. The main flavors...

• Strawberry Banana contains the juice of 10 vegetables and fruits: sweet potatoes, carrots, tomatoes, beets, white grapes, oranges, apples, strawberries, bananas, banana puree.
• Tropical Orange contains the juice of 6 vegetables and fruits: sweet potatoes, carrots, yellow tomatoes, white grapes, oranges, pineapple.
• Peach Mango contains the juice of 8 vegetables and fruits: sweet potatoes, yellow tomatoes, yellow carrots, carrots, white grapes, oranges, peaches, mango puree.
• Pomegranate Blueberry contains the juice of 8 vegetables and fruits: sweet potatoes, purple carrots, tomatoes, carrots, apples, white grapes, pomegranates, blueberries.
• Acai Mixed Berry contains the juice of 8 vegetables and fruits: sweet potatoes, purple carrots, carrots, apples, white grapes, açai, blueberries, limes.

There's also Blackberry Cranberry and Passionfruit Tangerine ones I've had, which are also very good. Of these, the only one that's somewhat disappointing to me is Tropical Orange. Relative to the other flavors, it's just not quite as good -- it just feels like adulterated orange juice, and not as good. But all of the others are really good. My personal favorites are Strawberry Banana and Peach Mango, which are just really refreshing. Peach Mango mixes nicely with rum, incidentally, if you're feeling up to it. They're just a nice way to get a jolt of veggies and fruit without any peeling or anything more involved than pouring a glass of juice.

Note, not to be confused with V8 Splash -- which IS a corn syrup-filled beverage that you often see lurking in vending machines. Fusion is sweet, but it's from sugar, not corn syrup. So, remember: Fusion good, Splash bad. Unless you are into corn syrup, but who really is into corn syrup?

There's also a V8 Fusion Light, which is for people who are perhaps more conscious of sugar intake than I am, but I've never had it. I love this product, and hope V8 keeps cranking out more flavors, because I'm always keen to try them, and, with the exception of Tropical Orange, I've never been disappointed.

If I had to rank-order my favorites, it would be as follows:

1. Peach Mango
2. Strawberry Banana
3. Passionfruit Tangerine
4. Blackberry Cranberry
5. Pomegranate Blueberry
6. Acai Mixed Berry
7. Tropical Orange

Give'em a shot, I don't think you could possibly be disappointed by them, unless maybe you're a dick who craves disappointment.

Splice (2010)

I saw "Splice" last night, directed by Vincenzo Natali and starring Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley as Clive and Elsa, these ultra-hip genetics researchers who apparently craft genetic chimeras for fun and profit, under the aegis of Newstead Pharmaceuticals, their employer. This movie definitely draws from David Cronenberg as its thematic polestar, although it isn't nearly as cynical or dark-hearted or political as Cronenberg). All the same, the movie is entertaining old-school Horror, as the power couple create Dren, this chimera that happens to have human DNA in the mix.

The movie is really a fable of parenthood, the perils of having a teenaged daughter under your roof, although, disappointingly, I think the movie didn't dwell nearly enough on the relationship between the three of them -- despite the foray into Dr. Frankenstein-style parenting, Clive and Elsa show only somewhat more parenting acumen than Dr. Frankenstein did -- clearly, the "could it be done?" aspect dominated over the "now what?" nature of the experiment. Elsa has deep mommy issues -- both personally (in terms of even wanting a kid) and in terms of her clearly-troubled relationship with her own mom (who is never seen, but her presence is felt, just the same).

Dren, the chimera they create, is the most compelling character in the mix, although Polley and Brody do a great job with what they're given -- I only wish they were given more and the biotech company angle was minimized in favor of the dysfunctional family trio they created. As it is, it's clear that their research work still is front and center, and Dren is largely sidelined to episodic snapshots in the barn they ultimately keep her in.

The actress Delphine Chanéac does a marvelous job giving life to Dren, who becomes both more and less than human as the story evolves. Although not speaking, she is very evocative in her pantomimed performance, and speaks volumes without saying a word. It's hard not to be both sympathetic for Dren and alarmed by her as the biotech fledgling literally flexes her wings and faces the world that her surrogate parents have done nothing to prepare her for (indeed, Clive and Elsa, despite feeling something for Dren, clearly have no idea how to be good parents -- any halfway good parent can watch what they do and sympathize, while also thinking "Okay, you guys are screwing up royally, here.")

Things spiral out of control in the story, and the ending's unfortunately a little sloppy -- actually, not entirely true: the ending-ending is dark and compelling, but the climax is unfortunately slapdash and while they wrote for it in the story, and prepared for it, it still ends up a little convoluted and undermines the work Chanéac did up to that critical point. While the "anything goes" aspect of her chimerical nature is understandable, and it's certainly alien as hell, I liked Dren as Chanéac and wanted more of her than the movie offered.

Complaints about the movie are mild -- namely the hipper-than-thou lab personages of Clive and Elsa, their emo/goth lab workers, the superfluous presence of Clive's brother in the lab (he's not even a placeholder, frankly -- he's just so much black hair-dyed meat), the rival/handler Barlow, and the company woman -- all of them take up space and don't particularly add much to the overall narrative arc of the story. Sure, the biggest, most chimerical monster in the movie is Newstead Pharmaceutical, and some Cronenberg-style nods are given to that, but somehow the blows don't quite land the way they need to.

But, Elsa's relentlessness, Clive's fecklessness, and Dren's monstrosity anchor the movie and make it an enjoyable, if not perfect effort. The dark humor in it plays nicely, and I laughed out loud both with it and at it at various points -- ludicrous and horrible at the same time. I think a little more attention to the relationship between Elsa, Clive, and Dren and less of the corporate angle would've made the movie better still.

* * * .75

Tackling Race

I saw an ad that's either for Dr. Pepper and/or for pizza -- I can't recall. Anyway, there's a couple of football players, black guys, one of whom is (I guess) a defensive lineman, the other (I guess) is a quarterback (?) -- and the defensive guy delivers pizza to the door of the posh dwelling of the QB, and after giving him the pizza, he tackles him. There's dialogue in the mix, but I can't remember it. The QB's house is television-opulent, and this dowdy, middle-aged white maid comes into the frame and looks at the guys with an admonishing glance. Here, I found it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-J9NvAalco

Now, you can see it. Something jumped out at me while watching that ad: the maid. Wealthy black man, white maid. Oooh! He's arrived, right? And yet, the advertising company was careful to have it be a decidedly not-attractive, middle-aged white maid. Not a hot, young white maid.

That choice made me wonder if they deliberately avoided that because they didn't want the knuckledraggers to get up in arms about a successful black man having a bodacious young white maid working for him, handing him his drink -- because of the sexual connotations, naturally. Instead, it's like "Sure, he's got a white maid, so you know he's made it, but she's not a babe, so you, gentle viewer, can be sure that there's no hanky-panky going on." I mean, not only is the maid old, she's the least-attractive person in the ad.

Given the constant use of sex in advertising, the deliberate sexlessness of the ad jumped out at me.

KFC Double Down

Grease is the word! I had to finally try one of those KFC Double Down meatwiches, and it was tasty enough -- two amazingly hot breaded chicken breasts, some sauce that reminded me of Thousand Island, some whitish cheese I didn't bother to identify, and a couple of strips of bacon. Health food, this isn't. And yet, despite the surely-deadly levels of fat in this, it wasn't overly greasy -- none of that throat-clearing one sometimes encounters after eating something too greasy. It all washed down pretty well.

It's a bit of a blunt instrument, flavorwise -- chicken/bacon/cheese/sauce -- not much in the way of flavor nuances, but then, it's a fucking Double Down, right? So, it doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is, and you shouldn't hope for it to be, either. Come in with low expectations, and you'll have them more than met. I liked it as a culinary curiosity, although I definitely wouldn't make it a regular part of my diet.

It certainly didn't feel like eating ball bearings, which is how Long John Silver's would make me feel (back in the 70s, the last time I had it). I ate it, was stuffed, but didn't puke or otherwise experience anything more traumatic than very greasy hands (handprint pictured above) and slight finger-burn because, with fried meat acting as "bread," there's no shelter for the fingers!

The Devil's Rejects (2/2)

I finally watched the rest of "The Devil's Rejects," which I thought was just terrible. Zombie tries to humanize the monster characters he created at the front end, showing them among their freako kin, and shows the hard-assed Lawman getting obsessive in his desire to bring them to justice. And, of course, instead of simply wasting the trio of nasties, the guy tortures them graphically, ensuring that they all ultimately get away, despite suffering some injuries along the way. But it's impossible to feel an iota of sympathy or empathy for the characters, given the horrors the unleashed on the front end. Zombie's editorial and directorial sympathies appear to be with the title trio of freaks, but they couldn't die soon enough, and an overlong ending with "Free Bird" playing is just too much to bear.

Looking at some of the reviews for this trash, I saw, to my incredulity, that Roger Ebert gave it like three out of four stars, but I just don't see it. It's competently shot, but it's just a pile of junk thematically. Bad dialogues, wafer-thin characters, a dreadful morality -- all of it.

Pass. Pass. Pass. Pass.

It's weird to compare this movie with one that clearly inspired it, like the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre." In that one, despite the whole freak carnival of it, Tobe Hooper clearly identified with the hapless victims who end up on the wrong end of Leatherface's chainsaw. But Zombie so clearly identifies with the monsters in "...Rejects" that it's galling.

He could've written a more complex movie around Captain Spaulding, if he'd only had the writerly chops to pull that off, but that character was, by and large, only there for comic relief (what little there was of it). Anyway, blech. You feel like you need a shower and some brain bleach after watching this movie.

Pontypool (2008)

I just watched "Pontypool" tonight, and found it to be a very cool take on the zombie movie. It's a Canadian movie (or is, at least, set in Canada) and basically has this word virus that occurs when people say two words in close succession that have similar sounds. Like "symptom" and "symbol" or "Mister" and "missing" -- that kind of thing. It triggers a kind of crazy feedback loop in the minds of the victims, turning them into zombies, basically, as their brains short-circuit and they chase others around trying to kind of "complete the circuit" or something.

Anyway, it was nice to see a fresh take on zombies! The movie focuses on a small radio station in the middle of nowhere in Canada (I'm assuming somewhere in Quebec, since French-Canadian elements pop up a few times in it), and the story is seen almost entirely from the vantage point of the characters in the little radio station, with grizzled radio star Grant Mazzy as the protagonist of it (played by Stephen McHattie, who played the Svengali-like therapist for Elaine in SEINFELD, as well as Nite Owl I in "Watchmen" among various other parts). He has a great voice for the part of a radio host, and that's a nice element in it.

The virus is haunting enough to make you a bit paranoid about the use of language -- as a writer and editor myself, I am acutely aware of the use of language, and could spot the "triggers" the moment they appeared, thinking "Oh, no!" It seems like the filmmaker was kind of making a point about the damaging effects of talk radio on some level, although this thematic point doesn't get in the way of the larger effort.

I really liked this movie, and the tension is well-maintained in it, perhaps more so because of what you don't see -- most of the zombie horror is occurring outside, beyond the sight of the characters -- which helps keep production costs down, sure, but also creates a real kind of bunker atmosphere that was claustrophobic and haunting.

The director said: "At Rue Morgue's 2008 Festival of Fear expo, director Bruce McDonald stressed the victims of the virus detailed in the film were not zombies, calling them "Conversationalists". He described the stages of the disease: There are three stages to this virus. The first stage is you might begin to repeat a word. Something gets stuck. And usually it's words that are terms of endearment like sweetheart or honey. The second stage is your language becomes scrambled and you can't express yourself properly. The third stage you become so distraught at your condition that the only way out of the situation you feel, as an infected person, is to try and chew your way through the mouth of another person."

Good times! A welcome addition to the zombie movie subgenre! And be sure to watch past the end credits!

Severance (2006)

I watched the British horror movie/black comedy "Severance" last night, hoping it was something it wasn't. The trailers for it make it seem like it's this wry, dark comedy -- I mean, it's referred to as a horror-comedy, for fuck's sake...

"Severance" trailer

The biggest problem: NOT FUNNY.

And it's not simply a matter of an American kind of failure to appreciate British humor on my part -- if anybody understands both black comedy and dry humor, it's me. The problem was that the movie just wasn't funny -- sure, there were a few wryly amusing gags in it, but the movie just fails completely to live up to the promise of its premise. Seriously, you want horror-comedy? "Cabin Fever" delivers that aplenty. This movie doesn't.

For all of the front-end mentioning about the company retreat, there's almost no actual satire of workplace bullshittery in it. I imagine the writer pitched this movie with that otherwise solid concept and ultimately failed to offer a comedic payoff.

The characters aren't well-developed, and the situation just devolves into a hum-drum slaughterfest against some completely uninspiring villains (near as I can tell, they're pissed-off Hungarians out for revenge). The writer was clearly trying to make a political/satirical point about arms dealers getting what's coming to them by getting killed by and large by the weapons that their company makes, but it falls flat -- the writer just didn't know what to do with the premise.

For example, the nebbishy guy (in the clip above, caught in the bear trap) -- they play that moment for comedic effect by having the others try to free him, and they slip their grip on the trap, leading him to get yet another snap of the trap on his leg, making him scream all over again.

Okay, I get it -- funny on the first slip, sure. And then they do it again. And again. And again. Four times? Five? And, oh, big shock -- his leg gets severed. Ha. Ha. They overuse the joke and the nebbish doesn't even get the satisfaction of doing anything more than screaming -- he should at least get to scream out something about the people being butterfingered fuckwits or something. It's like the pie in the face -- the first pie, sure. Okay, but halve the laughs with each subsequent pie, until only the crickets are chirping.

The American protagonist in it ("Maggie") gets points for being an ass-kicking chick -- she fights hard and at least has the benefit of making the right moves at the right time (she's a stone-cold killer); there's a drugged-out Brit male character (can't remember his name -- I'll call him "Limey McGee") who also survives, but he's just a dolt and a twit -- it felt like the writer had extra-fondness for that character (maybe reminding the writer of himself? Not sure), who just gets high and trips out most of the time, and sloppily fights his way to survival before ending up with a pair of Slavic escort babes and a stated desire for a foursome at the end of the movie.

Oh, and they led off with the Small Faces' "Itchycoo Park," the bastards. Of course, at that point, I didn't realize how sucky the movie was going to be, so there was still hope then.

The movie's just a drab slaughterfest, not nearly as smart or funny as it thinks it is, and it was a big disappointment. FAIL.

The Devil's Rejects (1/2)

I watched some of "The Devil's Rejects" last night, before falling asleep (yeah, it put me to sleep). Rob Zombie is an acknowledged fan of Horror, but watching that movie (or what I did of it), I knew that being a fan of Horror and being able to actually write and/or direct a horror movie is a very different thing.

What I saw of it was mean-spirited and icky -- there's clearly money behind it, because it doesn't look cheap, but there's just something terribly foul (and dirt-cheap) in this movie -- good horror confronts the viewer with the sublime, and there's simply nothing sublime in this movie. There is misogyny, cruelty, foulness, barbarity -- and there is a sense of editorial approval on the part of Zombie for the villains (they're too repugnant to even be considered "antiheroes"). It's weird to imagine the raw cynicism at work in the filming of this movie, like the aesthetics of pretend depravity -- "Oh, I was Naked Girl Corpse Number 1 in "The Devil's Rejects"). And there's precious little humor in it -- it appears to take itself very seriously, and that misses out on a vital element of horror: HUMOR. Even black humor is humorous, and this movie piles on the carnage without a lick of humor in it (it reminds me a bit of oh-so-serious Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" -- which also took itself incredibly seriously as it bludgeoned the audience into submission, while pretending to be offering some kind of cogent social commentary). The victims of the "Rejects" aren't deserving targets -- they are unfortunates in the wrong place at the wrong time. Horrific, sure, but Horror? No. The character of Captain Spaulding brings only the barest whiff of humor to the story, and even that is just a tiny whiff that gets overshadowed in the bloodbath.

My intuitive sense of Zombie in this movie is someone with the means to indulge his enthusiasm for the genre, without having the narrative, intellectual, or aesthetic chops to really pull it off. Now, I haven't seen the rest of the movie, but what I saw of it was fucking dreadful -- horrible people doing horrible things to people -- that kind of inverted ethic where fans of this are supposed to identify (?) with the killers at the expense of the victims (?) -- not sure where he was taking it, whether the trip is worth taking, and so on.

I enjoy Horror, but to me, this wasn't really Horror -- it's the same reason I avoid so-called "Splatterpunk" and "Torture Porn" and the whole "Saw" franchise. Popping people into the meatgrinder isn't Horror in my view, although it is surely horrific. Maybe my intrinsic sense of righteousness demands that the evil be punished, and the lead characters in this movie most definitely need to be napalmed -- and I'm not entirely sure that this'll even happen.

Movies like "Straw Dogs" and "Deliverance" are, while not marketed as such, most definitely Horror movies (and horrific) -- they call forth a monstrous dread in the viewer, invoke Terror and Horror in graphic ways -- but there is enough character weight in these harrowing movies to carry the audience through. Since the killers are the nominal protagonists of this movie, there is nobody to identify with (except for sympathy for the victims and the actors starring in this movie). It's very dehumanizing.

Horror, for all of its reputation, is not a dehumanizing genre -- it actually places a huge and high value on humanity, and approaches issues of what makes us human by exploring the horrors of Man and Nature. None of that is evident in this movie.

(I'll comment on the rest of it after I've watched it, which I'm only doing out of a sense of narrative closure -- judging from the front end of it, I think I know what's coming on the back end)

Cabin Fever

It's nice to see that Eli Roth's "Cabin Fever" (2002) still remains one of my favorite horror movies. It's dark, gruesome, and darkly hilarious. It has some of my all-time favorite horror movie moments, including this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMS9Rv3ksrU&feature=related

Bahaha! In the context of the movie (where some college kids go off to a cabin and get infected by a mysterious and horrible disease that picks them off one by one), it's just too perfect a set up, and the group cohesion falls apart as they're confronted with their own mortality. There are some very memorable images from it

Of course, it's not some sensitive Emo fable -- rather, it's a darkly funny exercise in mayhem, and nothing is sacred. It's got some stupid elements in it, it's got some funny-as-hell elements in it, and it's got some seriously horrific elements in it -- basically, a good time IF you enjoy horror movies.

I finally got it on DVD over the weekend, after not having seen it for years (and often touting "Harmonica Man" from it, which is, sadly, not properly shown on YouTube), and was pleased that I enjoyed it as much or more as I did the first times I saw it.

The asshole characters are extra assholish, and the plague falls on the just and unjust in roughly equal measure, coupled with rogue rednecks on the rampage (itself a bit of a wink-and-nod at the preconceptions of the characters).

It's fun, it's funny, and it's horrifying, and in a culture that runs from death and disease as much as ours does (I mean, who wouldn't want to run away from death and disease, right?) -- it hits a nice nerve, and bravo to Roth for tapping it (and the mean-spirited nature of the protagonists in it amuses me, too -- the selfishness of youth?)

Some horror fans I know hate this movie, but I think they're wrong -- it's all kinds of good, and you can't help but laugh while you're busy grimacing and squirming from it.

Book: The Ruins

I may link to some of my older Amazon reviews, just for fun, before sorting out future reviews with Amazon...

http://www.amazon.com/review/R12WIRUEI41UZD/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Music: Swervedriver remasters

I love Swervedriver, and when I saw that they were reissuing their albums as remasters, I jumped on that, more out of a show of support for the band (and really, really wanting them to turn out new material -- hint, hint?) -- not because I needed the albums (which I already have), or even the additional tracks (there are four on each of the albums I bought -- "Raise" and "Mezcal Head" -- which have some of their best tracks). But I was secretly hoping that the remasters would really make the albums even better than they had been in the past (as was the case with the remastered "The Who Sell Out," the Small Faces's "Ogden's Nut Gone Flake" mono remaster, and the New York Dolls's remastered debut album [which is the best remaster I've yet encountered -- it's fantastic if you run across it -- like a whole new album]).

Anyway, I was disappointed that the Swervie remasters don't sound different from the original albums -- they may indeed be remasters, but if so, the producers did so with a very, very light hand, as I can't honestly discern anything new. I tend to listen to my music with headphones, so any changes are immediately apparent (again, in the case of the three excellent remasters above, it's very, very clear that they were improved), and I just didn't pick those up on these.

But I would still recommend them if you've never heard Swervedriver before (I would also recommend "Ejector Seat Reservation," which is one of the best albums of the 90s, not that anybody would know it). If you have the older Swervie albums, there's not much reason to get these remasters, unless you just want to support the band in some way, shape, or form (or, for some reason, don't have the bonus tracks).

Defendor

So, I watched "Defendor" last night, under the pretense that it was some kind of darkly comic take on superheroes (kind of, I don't know, "Mystery Men" meets "Taxi Driver" or something). The trailer certainly makes it seem like that...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do7ur4ji7r8

But no. It's not like that at all. The trailer is misleading. I'm not even going to put a spoiler warning in this, because there's nothing to spoil. Woody does a good job with his character, but he goes almost "full retard" on it (to coin the term thrown out in "Tropic Thunder") -- Arthur Poppington in it is a serious mental defective and/or mentally-ill guy who's a nitwit wannabe do-gooder. There's more than a little "Don Quixote" in this quest for justice, with the prostitute/junkie played by Kat Denning as his Sancho Panza -- alternately, Arthur is Jesus and Kat Denning's character is Mary Magdalene. There are plenty of "This Is Jesus" movies out there, where a simple-but-good character offers some redemption for a dirty, ugly world (typically by dying). It's been done and done.

This movie is at war with what it's trying to say -- the comedic possibilities of it are completely undermined by the obvious handicaps of Arthur. The guy needs institutionalization or at least a halfway house. The weight of his moral crusade is offset by his near-inability to really clearly see reality around him -- that's the Don Quixote in the mix. Captain Industry is his image of evil, and he fixates on this Serbian crimelord (who could be windmill or Satan, you choose) as Captain Industry, and tries to go after him bravely, and stupidly, and becomes martryed -- inspiring people in the world around him to do and be better people.

The bad guys are just footnotes in the movie -- they're bad because they're bad, and we don't see much of them, not nearly enough. Kat (I'm not even digging again for her character's name, it's too much work) is the snarky hooker with a heart of gold who gloms onto Defendor for some reason. Blah blah blah.

I read that this was director (and writer) Peter Stebbing's first effort, and it shows in my view -- the narrative is just off, the characterizations are off, the pacing is bad, the movie doesn't know what it's trying to be (except, as I see it, a vaguely Catholic Christ-influenced superhero narrative in the mold of, say, "Constantine," "Hellboy," "The Crow," "Dogma," "Forrest Gump," "The Matrix," and probably "Legion" -- although I didn't see that last one). Movies with that emphasis you can kind of spot because the people in it area invariably wretches kind of at odds with life and with themselves, and are, in some way, shape, and form, healed by the redemptive power of the nitwit Messiah and his sacrifice.

I would have preferred it to have been more like "Taxi Driver" if it wanted to be serious; or more like "Mystery Men" if it wanted to be funny. But while it's framed as an action/comedy-drama, there is precious little comedy in it, and while it strives for some kind of poignancy, it just amounts to a stupid man going up against evil men, and in his stupidity (while condemning himself to death), manages to bring them to justice.

To fix the movie, I'd have increased the pacing of it, the dramatic structure, made it either funny or serious (or at least seriously funny), would have aced Kat Denning's pointless character and upped the role of the friend who cares for his half-retarded buddy, Arthur, and would have beefed up the roles of the villains in it considerably.

Anyway, don't see it expecting it to be funny or exciting (e.g., action) because it's not. Apparently the studios wouldn't touch this movie because they found it difficult to characterize, and that was a wise move on their parts -- some things things are difficult to characterize because they're visionary; other things are difficult to characterize because they suck. This is the latter. It doesn't suck completely -- it could have been good, but it needed serious work on the script to actually flow properly.

Watch "The Crow" -- it's a far better movie.

Sunshine

(This was also from November 11 of 2008, although I rewatched "Sunshine" yet again the other night, so it's on my mind -- new comments are in brackets).

I watched most of "Sunshine" again last night. It's an almost-great SF movie that unfortunately falls far short near the end. It's unfortunate, because they set up this great stuff, and then blow it. Now, as is sometimes the case with movies like that, I make "sense" of it by spoofing it a little. What follows contains spoilers, so if you're intent on seeing the movie, don't read it!

[I read in the wiki entry that director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland took a year to write the script, and went through 35 drafts!!! Given how the story lurches badly in the third reel, I wonder what they were thinking in the overall process -- I think they could have salvaged the movie, but were clearly locked in around a particular arc that derailed what could've been a masterpiece]

I think what really happens aboard Icarus II is that Cassie goes insane, and kills off the rest of the crew, projecting this in the personage of Pinbacker. She seems to be the nicest person aboard the ship, certainly the softest, which is why nobody would suspect her. Thinking of it this way, the movie makes more narrative sense, rather than having Pinbacker as this hack-and-slash villain who miraculously survived all that time aboard Icarus I, only to pounce on the astronauts on Icarus II. And it being an "inside job" would account for all of the various breaches of security and protocol that afflict the crew -- that, and perhaps a collective psychosis resulting from their long voyage toward the Sun. The flakiness of psych officer Searle, for example, evident at the outset, busy nearly blinding himself, kind of tripping out, and Captain Kaneda, who's not much better [he is incredibly passive for a spaceship captain]. The crew can basically be split between sane and insane crew -- with Mace, Corazon, and Capa being the sane members, and Kaneda, Searle, Cassie, and Trey being the insane ones. Harvey is mostly a coward, so I guess he caucuses with the insane ones, under the circumstances. Cassie for awhile talks Capa into things, before he eventually gets his wits about him and completes the mission. The key is why is Cassie so intent on stopping the mission? She's easily the most wishy-washy member of the crew, but perhaps that's because she's so keen on maintaining this mask of sanity.

Anyway, that outcome makes it a more satisfying movie than the whole bogeyman-in-space outcome of a straight read of the story gives you. Of course, the film's production people don't really give one the above; there's not enough slack in the story to really run with that interpretation -- everything is what it appears to be. It's just that if they had done the above, the movie would've been more compelling than it ended up being. Plus, it's amusing to think of it like that, since Cassie is so clearly supposed to be the most sensitive of the astronauts, given her constant careworn looks on her face throughout it [a Rose Byrne trademark].

I did the same thing with "Forrest Gump," among other movies -- like you can believe Gump led this uniquely ultra Baby Boomer life, or you can believe he's just deeply delusional and builds this fantasy world out of what he sees on television. I like the latter interpretation, as it mocks the generational fellatio the filmmakers perform on the Baby Boomers, versus it being this case of this dullard leading a superhero's kind of life.

[Other options include having the Icarus II crew actually interacting with Pinbacker -- making him another character, instead of simply a monster out to kill the crew of the sister ship. One could also eliminate Pinbacker entirely and run with the ghost ship in space and the Icarus II crew quietly going insane. The character of Harvey is completely wasted, too -- it's clear that nobody on the crew likes him, and he's not keen to be there (having family at home, it's understandable where his heart and head is) -- but that gets wasted, along with everything (and everyone) else. There are serious flaws in the movie -- bad decisions made at key points that lead to an inevitably bad outcome, and the writers basically just throw the characters into a blender and hit "puree" and that's that. "Alien" was clearly some of the source material for this movie, but "Sunshine" lacks the good writing of that, so one ends up with a movie that has a good enough concept, great set design, a good cast, and half of a good story that is completely squandered by the end, as the writers force the conclusion they want to reach.]

The Last Winter and The Strangers

(this was from November of last year, from another blog)

I watched "The Last Winter" and "The Strangers" over the weekend, part of my usual Halloween frightfesting. Although the former was well-reviewed, I felt there were some big-time problems with the actual writing of the story; it could've benefited from a few more revisions of the screenplay, I think. My sense was that the writers were happy to indulge Ron Perlman in it, and as such, his character got away with a lot more than he should have, to the detriment of the overall narrative. Also, the "hero" in the story would've been better off as an early victim, as he doesn't quite do his part in the story. Further, the story arcs a certain way that doesn't do half the cast justice in it. There were some good eerie moments in it, but overall, I think the work didn't fully use all of its resources.

I was much more impressed with (and scared by) "The Strangers" -- which was a far simpler story than "The Last Winter," but while it might've been only four cylinders, it was running smoothly on all four of them, and made excellent use of terror and dread in the story to build into a real nightmare of a story. The primary weaknesses were the "true story" lead-in to it -- that wasn't necessary, was distracting (esp. since the "true story" basically alludes to the Manson family murders, as well as a creepy personal experience of the director).



It filled me with dread, made me so grateful I no longer owned a home in the country, for sure. I'm used to dealing with city weirdness, but it's a different brand of weirdness to country creepiness.

Food: The Gemini Bistro

I ate at the Gemini Bistro, and really enjoyed it. It's on Lincoln Avenue, and has a lot of dark wood and old-school kind of elegance and ambiance. Everybody's impeccably-attired and the service was tip-top. It classifies itself as an "American bistro" -- which to me means a bistro with fast service, for which I'm grateful, not being one who likes to wait.

I had the Prix Fixe menu (served from 5 to 6:30 p.m.), which is three courses for $31 ($49 if you want wine with each course). I opted for the lobster bisque, short-rib ravioli, and German chocolate cake.

The bisque was really tasty, with very tender lobster chunks in it, great color and seasoning. I could have probably had that bisque the whole evening, just with some bread (the bread is served in shiny metal cones with attached butter caddies). Great flavor. I savored it.

The short-rib ravioli was tasty, qualified as a "medium" plate serving (Gemini does small, medium, and large plate servings, depending on the menu item), and while it was maybe a half-dozen round raviolis nicely seasoned and accompanied with shards of aged parmesan, it was enough, I found, to fill me up. The taste was good -- rich and hearty, but also very delicate.

The dessert was beautifully plated -- a three-layer German chocolate cake, a square of reasonable size (in Chicago terms -- everything here is served in bistro portions), and a pretty little dollop of hazelnut ice cream atop a hazelnut fruit spread (I asked the waiter about that, and he told me what it was, but I forgot the fruit that was representing, there), and a sprig of mint. The cake was tasty, if not mind-blowing, but the ice cream was a nice treat, served very cold and it kind of upstaged the cake a bit.

The bar is a nice, long, broad thing, and they do full meal service there, too. I had the best Old-Fashioned I'd ever had in Chicago there -- their "Velvety Old-Fashioned" which was a blend of Maker's Mark, Cointreau, and Bitters, with the requisite mulled cherry and orange wedge garnish. It was fantastic. I often use the Old-Fashioned as my benchmark beverage for a bar, to test their mettle -- not because it's a complicated cocktail, but because it's such a simple one. And I am pleased to say that they nailed it -- strong and flavorful, I had two of them, and had a little trouble putting my jacket on when it was time to leave, and my head was spinning for about an hour after leaving. That is one good cocktail!

I had no complaints about the food or the service -- both were very good. I don't have any complaints at all, really. The Gemini is a nice place -- very Chicago, in its mix of elegance coupled with a lack of pretension. The only discordant notes (and they're minor, truly) were the music -- when I came in, Cream was playing, which just doesn't fit with the decor and overall ambiance of the place. Not that one wants the trademark Smooth Jazz(tm) or whatever, but it just didn't fit with the beauty of the place -- the music changed later, but it still wasn't quite right. Also, the television in the top corner above the bar seemed out of place. Sure, I get it -- a bar with a television -- who doesn't have that? But at the same time, the place seems too sharp for such a common contrivance. Maybe its absence would be felt, but something about the Gemini Bistro, to me, makes it seem a classier place than that.

But those are very minor complaints. I enjoyed the food, loved the cocktail, savored the ambiance, and appreciated the setting. All in all, I'd say it's well worth your time, if you're in the area. A great place for brunch, lunch, and most definitely a place to take a date.

Four out of five stars: * * * *

http://www.geminibistrochicago.com/

How To Train Your Dragon

I took the boys to see "How To Train Your Dragon" (or whatever it's called). It was cute. The boys seemed to enjoy it. As ever, CGI graphics just get better and better -- rich details like the pebbled hides of the dragons just come to life. It was rated PG, and I think that was, perhaps, justified -- there's nothing scary in it or anything, but there are lots of explosions, fires, the dragons, and what-not. The protagonist ("Hiccup") strikes me as a very Gen X protagonist -- just something in his manner feels that way to me, which is kind of funny to see in a kids movie -- like they know that Gen Xers are parents, now, so they craft a kiddy protagonist that kind of plays to things we can relate to (sort of like how so many of the older kiddy movies had gratuitous Elvis references -- something for the Boomers to wink and nod to) -- but it's funny, because Hiccup is sarcastic and facetious, and so I think any Xer parent taking their kid to it'll be like "Yeah, I'd probably say the same thing."

The aerial scenes are lovely, quite breath-taking on the big screen -- the heavenly clouds, the lovely countrysides, the swooping dragons. All of that. Good stuff. You really felt the propulsive motion of those sequences.

I think the Vikings portrayed in it must be from the Orkney Islands, because they have Scots accents (I know, right? Vikings with Scottish accents? I consoled myself with thinking they were somewhere near the Orkneys). Unless, somehow, Scots accents are seen as inherently barbaric. Not sure, not sure.

But I think the movie had a nice balance of character development and certainly a curiously pacifistic message that jumps out at you in this time of our country fighting two wars abroad (remember them?) -- and one moment that particularly makes you think of today's new reality for survivors of wars.

I won't reveal any plot points or surprises. I'd not say the movie was up there with "Up" or "Wall-E" necessarily, but it was a good effort, and it certainly kept my attention.

One (big) complaint: Enough with the 3-D movies already -- we know you're doing it just to rack up box office receipts, you bastards. Not EVERY movie need be 3-D. It set me back $33 to see this movie -- and that was at a matinee.

Band: Mission of Burma

Mission of Burma rocked Double Door last night. They did a great job. Probably the best small-venue show I've seen (or at least tied with Buzzcocks, who I also saw at Double Door). They brought it and played amazingly well. Definitely no sense of phoning it in, like with Dinosaur Jr last year (at the Vic). I'm actually sore from all the jumping around I did.

The audience was of mixed aged, since M.O.B.'s early fan base is comfortably middle-aged, now. Lots of indie music geeks (*koff*) and their coolio nerd-girlfriends. But M.O.B. really brought it and had the room thumping. They did two encores, including "Red" (one of my all-time faves of theirs), and finishing with "That's When I Reach for My Revolver" (which Moby covered many years ago).

Red (circa 1983)

Money well-spent. Very glad I caught the show. It was pretty amazing, all the activity out in Wicker Park, at the main intersection -- since the gentrification of that area, it's become quite the dating mecca -- Meatmarket Central! All the gals in their Saturday Night duds, all the tool guys trying to look sharp. It makes me want to bring a camera down there and capture it sometime -- the volume of humanity on the prowl is too amusing.

Flicks

I got the "Justice League" movie (direct-to-DVD) and was pleasantly surprised by it -- much of the Bruce Timm-directed production team was involved with it, despite the different animators, and the result was very solid. My boys LOVE the movie, and I've watched it a couple of times, think it was fun, well-done. Not treading new ground, storywise, but it was marvelously well-executed and fun. A lot of in-jokes for comic book fanboys and -girls, but it was a compelling work, and I look forward to seeing what else Bruce Timm and company turn out. They have making good animated superhero stuff down pat!

"Push," an ostensibly SF paranormal thriller (involving superhumans) had some arresting images and at least a theoretically usable premise, but it didn't fully cohere the way it needed to -- the whole didn't equal the sum of its parts, and one of the characters (played inertly by Camilla Belle, who appears to have taken the Katie Holmes School of Acting to heart) is a big drag on the overall story. It could have been a good thriller, but I think it got out from under the creators of it, and didn't fully deliver. I think my favorite sequences involved the Screamers/Bleeders, who had a sonic scream attack...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwaiD8ZVYOU

Although the precognitive Watchers were also interesting. Surprisingly, Dakota Fanning did a good job in her role as one of the Watchers (although she was distractingly hunchy -- is that just her being "in character" or does she always have such rotten posture?) She's kind of a pint-sized Kate Hudson, and her relationship with lead character "Nick" (played by Chris Evans) was more convincing that the cobbled-together love interest Evans was supposed to have with Camilla Belle's wooden character (who reminded me of Selma Blair's "Why Is She In This Movie?" role in HELLBOY).

"Coraline" is the latest Neil Gaiman triumph -- and I say that as a bad thing -- I'm not a fan of Neil Gaiman's work. He's just too British for me, too affected, too something. Some people love his work, his dark fairyland, gothic-infused mentality -- the same folks who worship Tim Burton worship Neil Gaiman as their Tolstoy. But it doesn't quite ring true for me -- his work doesn't reach me, and I can't exactly say why. Something about his writing style, his sensibility, something. The technical achievement of the movie outweighs the larger themes of it, in my view -- a movie that's fun to watch but which doesn't particularly deliver the goods. I just kind of watched it, enjoyed it after a fashion (despite the constant, cloying British eccentricity routinely demonstrated by the supposedly American characters in it).

House of the Devil

I watched "The House of the Devil" the other night, and liked it well enough. An indie horror flick, very self-consciously crafted to appear to have been shot in, say, the mid-80s, with the simplest of touches -- characters' hairstyles, the mom jeans, the rotary dial telephones, the big Walkman -- and it looks very much like it could've been a movie of that time.

It delivered some good atmosphere and some startling moments, although I felt that too much time was spent creating the mood and when things get out of hand, they get out of hand almost too quickly for it to really work properly, in terms of pacing, like going from too little to too much all at once.

Also, the meta-factoid at the beginning basically throws any proper suspense out the window -- not having context for what was happening might've made it work better on the face of things.

As an exercise in cinematic style (e.g., simulating an 80s horror movie), they definitely hit all the marks properly. As a horror movie itself, I don't know if it'll qualify as a classic of the genre.

I don't know if this was deliberate on the part of the director or not, but there's a lot of eating in the movie -- it kind of draws attention to itself, like business for the characters to do. It becomes a little distracting, all the nibbling that goes on. Maybe they wanted the characters to have more to do than just, say, smoke (which some of them do, too). Not sure. But it was a little distracting for me.

Also, the overall conceit of the story was less than I'd hoped for, and the payoff didn't quite deliver for me. Like they ended at both a good and a bad point, saying more by showing less, but also kind of copping out (just because of the rushed elements of horror in it making the payoff feel perhaps a bit contrived).

Greta Gerwig (one of my indie film crushes, right up there with Parker Posey) is in it, in a small role as the protagonist's friend.

Drag Me To Hell

I watched "Drag Me To Hell" last night (no, not a documentary of my life of the past ten years, although the title does make me think of that) -- and it was fun. I watched the unrated version. I mean, it's GROSS, but it's so over-the-top that you can only laugh at it. Sam Raimi seems to channel "Evil Dead 2" in a big way with it, that kind of madcap, hyperkinetic horror (or is it simply his directing style?) that is Raimi's trademark.

It's quite a contrast from "The House of the Devil," which was far more serious, and was more quietly and earnestly horrific (and with a much-smaller budget), whereas DMTH was just having a good time delivering the shock and awe kind of stuff.

As intended, I sympathized with the cutie Alison Lohman in the role of Christine Brown, hapless loan officer at a bank who denies an old Gypsy woman a loan and gets cursed for her troubles. Things go from bad to worse for her, leading to all sorts of embarrassments and woes.

The diminutive Lohman carried off her role very well, and she literally goes through hell in the course of the movie, which adheres to classic horror tropes throughout. Her boyfriend, Apple pitchman-turned-guy-trying-to-be-a-regular actor, Jason Hill, does his part, although he's always distracting to me. I always think "Hey, Apple Guy!" I'm sure he hates that, but that's what he gets.

Anyway, the movie has some genuinely horrific/gross moments in it, but plenty of laughably scary-dumb moments in it, too (not laughing at per se, so much as laughing with -- I mean, when a would-be sacrificial goat gets demon-possessed and starts spouting demon-speak, what can you do BUT laugh?) Clearly, while wanting to deliver a straightforward horror romp, Raimi and company didn't take themselves TOO seriously. When the little kitten's in the scene, you know what's going to happen -- indeed, I said "Here, Kitty Kitty" almost the same moment Lohman's character did.

I knew where it was all going, but enjoyed the ride, all the same. It's curious for me to contrast this movie with the other one (it's kind of like contrasting the apocalyptic movies "2012" and "The Road" -- while ostensibly dealing with the same subject matter, one is lighthearted and gleeful, the latter is as serious as a heart attack).

Gettin' down and dirty with Alison Lohman.

Which one did I like better? I don't know. This one was more FUN, if that makes any sense, although in terms of delivering creepiness and a generally horrific vibe, "The House..." may have delivered more out-and-out chills.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

I watched "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" at long last, and enjoyed it, almost despite it being a West Anderson movie. I say that because Anderson's made a career out of dishing out a certain type of ambiance in his works -- trying out-Salinger Salinger, is how I typically put it. Not so much with "Bottle Rocket," but from "Rushmore" onward, he ladles that kind of quirkily patrician kind of world that conjures up the Glass Family that so occupied Salinger. J.D. Salinger's taut style of writing certainly influenced me in the 90s, when I read most of his books, but to see it served up onscreen (albeit somewhat adulterated by way of Anderson) is, somehow, I don't know -- arch?

He must be a fun and/or indulgent director, as he has his usual band of actors who appear eager to work with him again and again (Tim Burton has that same quality).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spCknVcaSHg

Anyway, "...Fox" is fun and enjoyable because while you can't for a moment ignore that it's a Wes Anderson movie, the stop-motion and Roald Dahl source material for it renders it palatable and charming. For example, having George Clooney voice Mr. Fox might seem questionable, since the man is so busy being (or trying to be) Cary Grant Lite that he can't occupy any scene without derailing it -- but since it was just his voice, it lets the character of Mr. Fox come through more than it otherwise would have. Quite the opposite with Bill Murray as the Mr. Badger -- I love Bill Murray, but he kind of overwhelms his character a bit -- you can just SEE Murray in the character so much, which amuses me. Bill Murray is so Bill Murray that even as just a voice, he possesses anything he touches.

The plot of the movie pits the Foxes against three farmers, and it escalates through the course of the story (and, I think, drags a bit in the third act -- I found myself getting a bit fidgety, and being surprised that it's only 87 minutes long -- it felt a bit longer owing to that third act). But it's dryly funny and clever and cute and is a cool effort. My boys loved it and wanted to watch it again and again. I think Anderson was smart to avoid lapsing completely into self-parody with it -- the venue change let him do his thing without it appearing that he was doing his same old thing (and yet, yes, he was doing his same old thing, but I didn't care, because I enjoyed the movie a great deal). The power of stop-motion puppetry! Never, ever underestimate the power of puppets, where kids are concerned!

Oh, and I can instantly irk B1 just by imitating Mr. Fox's call-sign that he does (you can hear it at :04 in the trailer linked above). I do it and he says (in this admonishing, irritated tone) "Dadddddyy. Don't. Do. That!"

Deadgirl

So, I watched "Deadgirl" last night, part of my recent horror movie filmfest of the past few days, and this one is, by far, the most horrific of the three I just saw. Like squirm-in-your-seat horrific, and also, perhaps, the most classically constructed as a horror story (in the sense of the supernatural leading to the fall of the characters).

That said, it was certainly not a perfect movie, although it was a creative spin on the classic zombie movie narrative (and something I'd actually conceived in the 90s as a story idea, but something I never wrote, because it's just too fucking gross). I'll mention the problems I had with it first...

First, it was too long -- they needed to edit it more tightly. Fewer shots of protagonist Rickie biking around town aimlessly, less time dicking around (pun intended) in the abandoned mental institution. They could've probably trimmed a good 20 minutes off it without consequence.

Second, Rickie (played by Shiloh Fernandez -- there's a name for you) was miscast -- the actor playing him didn't at all convince me as the burnout/loser character he was supposed to be (especially when contrasted with Noah Segan's ghoulish "J.T." and Eric Podnar's dopey "Wheeler" -- those two were perfectly cast and believable in those roles). Fernandez might've come across as weird, but he just didn't fit the burnout/skater/outsider/freak-n-geek character we're supposed to believe he was playing.

Third, Rickie is far too passive of a character in the narrative -- way, way too many shots of him looking on in horror at the admittedly horrific goings-on, or scowling meaningfully at nothing, looking all Walking Wounded. Clearly he's got a lot on his mind, but the story doesn't really give him much to do -- he's perennially railroaded by his out-and-out psychopathic friend, J.T., and rather than really being active in the story, Rickie just coasts along.

I know why they did that -- they wanted Rickie to keep his hands somewhat clean, compared with the horrific hog wallow presented by J.T. and Wheeler. We're supposed to feel some level of sympathy for Rickie, who at least has a modicum of bystanderly compassion in the story, but his half-hearted and half-assed attempts at doing the right thing don't carry much resonance, and since he never really follows through, they are weak, at best. For a protagonist, he's very weak.

Especially when contrasted with J.T., who largely steals the show with his villainy. The wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time, as the primary villain in the movie, J.T. rides roughshod over the story as thoroughly as he does over the other characters -- and that's not a bad thing; it's fun to watch him be disgusting and horrible in a human trainwreck kind of way. Clearly Noah Segan was having a blast playing the flat-eyed teen psycho (oh, and I looked him up -- the actor's a Libra. I figured. Librans always have those doll's eyes).

Fourth, the love interest (sorta), JoAnn (played by Candice Accola), is weakly played in the story, so whatever she's supposed to represent to Rickie is lost by the weak characterization of her, so what ultimately happens to her is lessened -- she doesn't have far to fall, because she (and his relationship to Rickie) is only very barely fleshed out. Again, it doesn't convince or persuade beyond a "Oh, sure, what the fuck?" from the audience.

The plot is what the title says it is -- a couple of high school losers find a zombie chick restrained in an abandoned asylum and make her their sex toy/slave. That's it. And it's plenty fucking horrifying, and if they'd just tweaked the script a little here and there, they'd have really nailed it, I think. It does succeed in being incredibly disturbing, and while it may on the face of it appear to be anti-woman, I think it was more accurately anti-man (or anti-teen boy, anyway) -- because the women characters in the movie (including the zombie Deadgirl) are actually sympathetic, compared with the guy characters, who are all creeps and weirdos (with the exception of ineffectual Rickie, who just manages to wince emotionally now and again, and, at least up to a point, display some modicum of decency).

A few more revisions to tighten the story up, a more sharply-written script (better dialogue and characterizations) and a better-cast Rickie would, I think, have made it a canonical horror movie. As such, it emerges as a horrific movie with a lot of dark promise.

I would advise against seeing it if you are a horror movie tourist -- if you enjoy horror movies, you'll be ready for it (and still horrified), but if you're just a tourist, it'll freak you out for sure. I will say that the gore elements of it are understated, but the implications of what's going on are damned horrific.

I just like coming up with blogs

I love coming up with new names for blogs. Mixes of words that nobody's thought of, yet.

This one will be all reviews, all the time. Reviewing everything. Even reviewing reviews, if you're not careful.