All posts by ERTorre

E. R. Torre is a writer/artist whose first major work, the mystery graphic novel The Dark Fringe, was optioned for motion picture production by Platinum Studios (Men In Black, Cowboys vs. Aliens). At DC Comics, his work appeared in role-playing game books and the 9-11 Tribute book. This later piece was eventually displayed, along with others from the 9-11 tribute books, at The Library of Congress. More recently he released Shadows at Dawn (a collection of short stories), Haze (a murder mystery novel with supernatural elements), and Cold Hemispheres (a mystery novel set in the world of The Dark Fringe). He is currently hard at work on his latest science fiction/suspense series, Corrosive Knights, which features the novels Mechanic, The Last Flight of the Argus, and Chameleon.
TV

The Great British Baking Show… Something Irritating

I’m going to get really deep into the weeds here so if you have no interest at all in The Great British Baking Show, scroll on to another post and find something more interesting.

Further, if you are a fan of the show (like me!) and don’t want to have the latest episode, which aired last Friday on Netflix, SPOILED, then avert your eyes, watch the show and catch up, then read on.

All right then, you’ve been warned.

To being, I love the damn show. Unlike the American/Food Network shows that feature chefs competing against each other -and there are so many of them!- The Great British Baking Show is generally pleasant and deceptively placid. Deceptively because there is tension beneath the surface but it is like watching, of all things, professional golf: The contestants are truly competing with themselves to do the best they can. They have no control over what the others do so their struggle ultimately is with themselves.

Yes, the same thing happens in the American shows but there always seems to be a more raw edge to the competition, a dog-eat-dog in-your-face tension and sweat and the smell of cigarettes (or worse) in the air.

Here, its all so pleasant, so quant. So very British.

As I said, I love the show.

However…

Way back in one of the show’s earlier seasons and I believe during a quarter or semi-final episode, the judges (the incredibly named Paul Hollywood and, at that time, Mary Berry -seriously, can two people have more awesome names?!) wound up booting a very young contestant from the show. I thought they did so not so much for what she did that particular episode, but because they got to the point in the late stages of the season where they felt she didn’t deserve to go to the finals rather than performed poorly enough in the given episode.

But before I get to the whys of this, let me explain what the show is about.

Each episode of The Great British Bake Off features three “challenges” which are…

…a signature bake, which tests the bakers’ personality and creative flair; a technical bake, which tests experience; and a showstopper bake, during which the bakers are able to showcase their depth of skill and talent.

The first two challenges are considered lesser challenges but do, of course, figure into the ultimate judgment at the end. The final bake, the “showstopper” is graded much more strongly and, in various episodes has times saved or condemned chefs who were on the proverbial bubble.

Which, is as it should be, if each episode was graded strictly.

However… (redux)…

Back in that early season episode I mentioned above, this very young chef (she was, if memory serves, maybe just turning 20), was at times inconsistent in her baked deliveries but clearly tried very hard. No, she was not the very “best” of the chefs, especially in the show’s early episodes (it sometimes takes a bit for a chef to start to shine), but each week you could see improvement to the point where I began to feel she was a legitimate contender for the finale (again, if memory serves).

So in this particular episode, and if memory serves, she does decently in the first two rounds and quite well in the showstopper round. I felt -and this was obviously my opinion and nothing more- her overall performance, based on what the judges said, was better than at least one if not two of the remaining chefs.

And further, I felt one of the more consistent chefs, one of the ones that looked to be a shoo-in to the finale, should have been booted at that point instead of her.

Yet she wound up being the one removed.

The family and I -we really need to get a life- argued about the choice and I felt, rather strongly, that the judges at that point essentially chucked their grading guidelines in favor of allowing what they felt was the overall better chefs to continue to the finale instead of adhering to their grading guidelines.

Welp, the very same thing seems to have happened again this past Friday with Episode 8 of Season 12, Free From Week.

In this episode, we’re down to the five chefs, Jurgen Krauss, a soft-spoken chef who hails from Germany. He’s easily the most consistent chef of them all, winning star baker 3 times (which means in the 8 episodes aired, he “won” 3 of them) and received Paul Hollywood’s famed handshake (if you know the show, you know what I’m talking about) once.

There’s Giuseppe Dell’Anno, a very pleasant guy who hails from Italy. He’s easily the second most consistent of the chefs and my youngest daughter’s favorite to win it all. He’s had 2 wins and 1 handshake.

There’s Chigs Parmar, a young and rising talent who started a little rough but over the weeks got his act together and created some very beautiful bakes, and according to the judges tasty, bakes. He’s won 2 star bakers and gotten 1 handshake.

There’s Crystelle Pereira, another incredibly pleasant chef who’s won 1 star baker and gotten 1 handshake. She can be very, very good but at times flounders.

Finally, there’s Lizzie Acker, the most inconsistent of the remaining bakers. She tends to impress with her flavors but often presents bakes that simply do not look all that good.

Yes, these bakes are graded for flavor and presentation!

The rundown of the final five I’ve given above was done very much on purpose: I’ve given you who I believe is in the #1 position through who I believe is in #5 position.

So, logically, Lizzie Acker is the one that would seem to be the one most at risk.

True to form, she was the one cut in this latest episode.

However… (redux times two)…

The fact is that in this episode she didn’t do badly at all. In fact, she did quite well -at least according to the judges- with her “showstopper” bake while Giuseppe Dell’Anno, the man I feel is the #2 position… most certainly did not.

The first two rounds were, it felt, something of a wash. Crystelle Pereira did the worst on the technical round and Lizzie Acker, if memory serves, was in 3rd place. The first round, frankly, escapes my memory but I believe everyone did decently enough.

So like previous episodes of the show, to me and the family it seemed like the “showstopper” round would be the one to decide who goes forward and which of the five would get cut.

Here’s where the trouble comes in: Every one of the contestants did very well in the showstopper round, including Ms. Acker… except for Giuseppe Dell-Anno. His bake, the judges felt, was a failure, both in how it looked as well as how it tasted.

Once the reviews by the judges were done, the family and I (I repeat: We gotta get a life) got into an argument over who we felt was about to be kicked out.

My youngest daughter, who wants Guiseppe to win, was disheartened. As much as she felt he was the one who was going to win in the end, she acknowledged that based on his showstopper performance, things weren’t looking good for him.

It seemed, frankly, like we were about to witness a HUGE upset: that one of the two top chefs in this season’s show was about to go down.

And here’s where, IMHO, the judges decided to chuck their rules.

In the conversation Paul Hollywood and Prue Leith (she took over for Mary Berry), the show’s hosts talked with them about who looked to be a potential star baker and who was in danger of elimination (they do this, by the way, every episode and just before the judgment is rendered).

Paul Hollywood, at this point, says something to the effect of “Guiseppe did well enough in the first two rounds to make it to the next.”

My jaw, frankly, dropped.

He effectively gave Guiseppe a pass for a rare (it was!) failure in what should have been the round that determines who stays and who goes: The showstopper!

Again: That’s not the way it should be. The showstopper round is supposed to be the single biggest determinant of success, and Guiseppe plain and simply failed while everyone else, including Ms. Acker, did well!

By all rights, and though it would have been an incredibly shocking development, Guiseppe wound up staying while Ms. Acker was booted!

It’s annoying, to say the least, and it shows that, at least on The Great British Baking Show, sometimes your previous successes guarantee your future ones.

Movies

Dune (2021) A (Almost Right On Time!) Review

There are movies you eagerly look forward to seeing the moment you hear about them being made. There are films you never heard of and watch and are pleasantly surprised -or not- by them.

Then there are films you have available to you and for whatever reason you simply don’t want to see them.

This was the case with the latest version of Dune.

Why?

Because I’d already seen David Lynch’s version of the film, released in 1984 and found some of it quite good (Sting in particular made for a great villain) while other parts were head-scratching and confusing. I also saw the Sy-Fy network’s mini-series released in 2000 and enjoyed it well enough, though it suffered from a lower budget and, IMHO, not as strong acting/direction.

I haven’t read the famous Frank Herbert written book both movie and mini-series are based on, though I tried. Like Robert Heinlein’s Stranger In A Strange Land, it seems like dense 1960’s era science-fiction novels are my kryptonite: I just lose interest as I struggle through their voluminous pages.

Regardless, I was familiar enough with the Dune story that the idea of sitting through another nearly three hour adaptation (and one that, I found out, covered roughly 1/2 of the book!) felt daunting. Add to the fact that Denis Villanueve, whose previous film was Blade Runner 2049, another nearly three hour sci-fi deep immersion which I ultimately found good but which suffered from a script should have been tightened considerably (read my review of that film here), and you can understand my doubts.

Yeah, the idea of sitting through another very long Denis Villanueve film featuring a story I was familiar with just… it was a tough thing to justify, especially when its so damn hard for me to find the free time to see any film nowadays.

Still, as luck -and my new best friend HBO Max- would have it, the film was available to be seen and I did have that free time so I decided: Let me give the film a try.

I wasn’t going to commit totally to it. My plan was to give it fifteen-thirty minutes and, if it appealed to me, I’d watch the whole thing. Otherwise, I’d shut it off an that was that.

Welp…

I suppose I could end the review with this statement: I saw the whole thing.

Unlike Blade Runner 2049, the movie’s very long presentation’s felt fully justified and the script much tighter, perhaps because it was based on such a long, and meaty, novel.

Considering we are dealing with a lot of political intrigue involving alien cultures and similar political games of chess, the movie moved surprisingly well and the exposition didn’t feel dull, at least to me.

The movie was aided immeasurably by a top flight cast, including Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling, Zendaya, and, in the role of Paul Atreides, the protagonist of the piece, Timothée Hal Chalamet.

Many of the names I mention above appear in the film in what could be considered “cameo” roles lasting no more than a few minutes (particularly Zendaya and Charlotte Rampling), but they all add their own intriguing elements to the story.

Mr. Chalamet, I feared, might wind up being a little too young for the role. Truly I feared we would have another Dane DeHaan/Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets situation where the protagonist simply wouldn’t look like he could survive in such a rough setting as presented.

As I turned out, though, Mr. Chalamet did fine. He had the advantage, versus Mr. DeHaan, of his character being very young and inexperienced at the film’s onset versus Valerian supposedly being already a Flash Gordon-like badass.

Here, we follow the growth of his character and his becoming aware of his abilities.

In many ways Dune plays out like a science fictional version of Lawrence of Arabia, presenting us this weird land and, via the protagonist, we immerse ourselves in it and her cultures. Dune’s story is a thinly veiled examination of policies in the Middle East. Replace the “spice” with “oil” and it all makes sense, though there is more to it than simply that.

As I said above, the fact that I found myself watching this film to its end despite having grave reservation I would is a testament to how I felt about it.

Now that we have the first half of the novel, I genuinely can’t wait to see the rest!

Recommended.

General

Oh… Aaron…

Let me be right upfront here and say: What I’ve seen of Aaron Rogers, quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, on TV he comes across as a humorous, down to earth guy. Apart from a damn good player (how I wish my poor Miami Dolphins had a quarterback of his caliber!) he seems like a guy who geeks out on popular culture and even managed to snag a turn hosting Jeopardy! on TV… and what little I saw of him doing so he didn’t do too bad a job of it.

Which makes the latest news regarding Mr. Rogers all the more head-scratching.

Over the past week/weekend it was revealed Mr. Rogers would sit out this past Sunday’s game, which the Packers wound up losing, because he had contracted COVID.

That in and of itself isn’t a huge deal… because of the infectious nature of the virus, one should be cautious around groups of people as even those who have been vaccinated can contract it, though by being vaccinated you stand a much better chance of having mild reaction versus a life-threatening one.

Anyway, here’s a segment from Inside Edition which manages to hit the more salient points regarding Mr. Rogers’ situation:

Now, I don’t subscribe to much of what’s stated at the opening of the clip above, that fault somehow lies with his current girlfriend/fiancé Shailene Woodley. Though she clearly believes in homeopathic remedies, I strongly suspect a good part of the reason Mr. Rogers and she are together is because they probably -and very likely!- believe in the same stuff.

So blaming her for Rogers’ situation is at best deflection and at worse something far darker.

Because Mr. Rogers is a (in terms we professionals use) a grown-ass man whose life decisions are his own, for better or worse.

No, what’s outrageous about this situation is that a) Mr. Rogers, in an interview in April and as noted in the clip above, heavily implied (one might even say lied) that he was vaccinated when he clearly was not and has subsequently admitted to this fact.

And even more alarming b) he did this interview where he tries to put the blame on “woke” or “cancel” culture and further notes he takes advise about vaccines/COVID from Joe Rogan!

Joe freaking Rogan?!?!

Look, I get -to some degree- people’s hesitancy about getting a vaccine. You feel like maybe your body isn’t your own and somehow pressure is being inappropriately applied to get a vaccine.

But the research is there now if one cares to look at it. The FDC does not willy-nilly give approval to a new vaccine “just because”. They go over the data and it takes considerable research for a drug -any drug- to get the proper approval.

They do this because approving of a new drug or vaccine, a product which by its nature will affect the health of an individual, is that important and requires a great deal of documentation and strong experimental results before such an approval is issued, which was obviously done for the big vaccines currently available, ie Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.

I’ve had the Pfizer vaccine and enough time has passed that I’ve scheduled myself for the booster shot.

I’m one person, of course, but at least for me and my immediate family, we’ve all had the vaccine and apart from some fatigue after the shot, there has been no big adverse reactions and, even better, we’ve not had the virus (that we’re aware of!).

The thing that’s most infuriating about the Aaron Rogers situation, and by extension with all those who refuse the vaccine, is that they are slowing society’s move toward a day when we aren’t going to be as concerned about COVID.

All their talk about their freedoms and their supposed knowledge about alternate treatments and hesitancy of getting their vaccine ultimately slows the rest of us from enjoying that day that is ultimately coming when COVID isn’t such a concern. And all the while, they risk their very lives with their at best ill-informed opinions.

For me, its frustrating as hell because even in my family there are those who have been sucked into this alternate reality where freedom and “choice” are somehow equated with rejecting a vaccine which has been proven to help.

One day, we’ll get to that freedom. I’m certain of it.

In the meantime, how many must suffer -and some actually die- before we get there?

Music

Let It Be, 2021 vs 1969 film Version

There’s been considerable interest, at least for me, in the upcoming release of the new Let It Be documentary/film.

Way back in 1968/9, Michael Lindsay-Hogg was hired by The Beatles to document the process of making their next album, which wound up being Let It Be.

The album, and film, were for years thought to be fraught with issues. The album’s creation featured friction between the members of the band and, when they were done making the album, seemed to feel the end product wasn’t worth revisiting until later. They would wind up making another album, Abbey Road, and Let It Be wound up being given to Phil Spector who added his famous (or, going by Paul McCartney’s reaction to the whole thing, infamous) “wall of sound”. That album would be released as their “last” album, even though they made it before Abbey Road.

Meanwhile, the Michael Lindsay-Hogg documentary was released in a very limited run and, it appeared, The Beatles themselves weren’t all that happy with the final product there either. The film essentially was locked up in a vault and released once more in the 1980’s and hasn’t been seen since.

Director Peter Jackson, the man responsible for the Lord of the Rings movies, was offered the entire 56 hours of footage Mr. Lindsay-Hogg filmed during that time and will soon release a brand new 6 hour long documentary featuring that material.

Over at Rollingstone.com, Brian Hiatt offers a fascinating -though brief- interview with the 81 year old Michael Lindsay-Hogg regarding his original work and his experiences with The Beatles as well as his opinion of the documentary he released versus the one that Peter Jackson is about to release. It’s a fascinating read:

Original Let It Be Director Defends His Film: “I Don’t Care” That Ringo Hates It

Now, to begin, that headline is far juicier than it need be. At the risk of SPOILING the interview, the headline makes it sound like Mr. Lindsay-Hogg has some kind of anger against Ringo which, if you read the interview, is clearly not there. He feels like Ringo’s impressions of the original film may be dated and that he likely hasn’t seen it in a very long time and may not be quite remembering it for what it was.

Further, Mr. Lindsay-Hogg seems to be perfectly content with the idea of Peter Jackson doing “his” version of the documentary with Mr. Lindsay-Hogg’s footage. Mr. Lindsay-Hogg feels like he did the best he could at that time and with the demands for a 1 and 1/2 hour film.

Also interesting -and again, I know I’m SPOILING things- Mr. Lindsay-Hogg appears to be the person who suggested The Beatles have their famous concert on the rooftops of the building, which served as the climax of his movie!

Fascinating, fascinating stuff.

In spite of my spoiling things, if you are a fan of The Beatles and interested in reading about his thoughts on the film and what happened behind the scenes while making it, please give it a read. At the very least your jaw will drop when he describes his first meeting with the band… and what John Lennon brought in for them to hear!!!

Different times indeed, my friends.

But there is one portion of the interview in particular I found especially intriguing, so much so that I want to present it here.

For many years its been noted by historians that The Beatles’ public facade was a creation made to make them look like pleasant chaps who were witty and funny and just really, really nice guys.

The reality, as many have pointed out, was quite different. The Beatles hailed from Liverpool and, again as many have noted, it was a very rough neighborhood. Further, when they first set out to play clubs in Germany, they would appear at many very rough clubs. I recall the father of a friend of mine many years ago said they were in a club in Germany (he was German) when The Beatles played and there was plenty of shouting, hurling of drinks, and fights, and The Beatles (who at that point hadn’t yet recruited Ringo Starr) were very much at home in this very rough place.

Anyway, if you read the interview, you get to this part:

(Question): As it is, the brief moments of tension you do show (in your film) between Paul and George are among the most famous Beatles footage ever captured.
(Michael Lindsay-Hogg): A lot of people were surprised. Because the Beatles had been portrayed as the moptops, that they were just fucking adorable. In real life, they were tough. This just goes back to where they came from. Liverpool is a tough town. I wouldn’t particularly want to run into Paul McCartney in a dark alley, if he didn’t like me.

I find that final line about running into Paul McCartney in a dark alley absolutely hilarious.

Not that I don’t believe Mr. Lindsay-Hogg, quite the contrary!

I find it astonishing -yet all too believable- that The Beatles and their outward persona that we’re all so used to is nothing more than a fabrication, that the actual Beatles were rough, cut throat types who you simply DO NOT mess with.

But seriously, the idea of Paul freaking McCartney being someone you don’t want to run into in a dark alley…?!

As I said, it really strikes me as hilarious… though it probably isn’t!

Movies

Shadow In The Cloud (2020) a (mildly) Belated Review

I saw the trailer to this film when it was originally released and, I must say, I was intrigued…

Not bad, right?

As with far too many films, I missed it upon its initial release (shortly, I believe, before COVID blew up) but the movie was on sale through VUDU and I picked it up and, a couple of days ago, the wife and I gave it a watch.

Afterwards, I asked her what she thought of it.

Not all that much, it turns out.

In fact, she thought it was beyond stupid, a film worthy of being presented on MST3K. A film that was dumb, dumb, dumb.

I could see where she was coming from.

But, I didn’t hate it quite as much.

Don’t get me wrong: The film was far from “great” and, if I were pressed to put it on a 4 star scale I’d likely give it two stars, perhaps 2 and 1/2 if I’m feeling charitable.

Even so, that’s for the entirety of the product. There were moments in this film that I thought were quite great… I just wish the film had been like that at all moments rather than at some.

Chloë Grace Moretz stars in the film as Maude Garrett, a mystery woman who appears with a strange case in arm at a foggy airfield. The eerie mood is already set in those opening minutes with odd 1980’s synth music (which I really enjoyed, being a fan of such music, but which some might find out of place in a film set in World War II).

She enters an aircraft with its all male personnel and presents papers which suggest she’s on a secret mission carrying a top secret cargo (in her case) which needs to reach its destination.

The all male crew isn’t too fond of bringing a woman on board. Reading here and there about the film afterwards, it seems some felt it was “insulting” to feature the all male crew as mostly hormonal savages in the presence of a woman. Given the epoch, I didn’t find it all that problematic, but there sure does seem to be some major sensitivity these days about how men are portrayed in film (see the recent, all female starring remake of Ghostbusters).

They force their unexpected passenger into the “bubble”, the lower machine gun turret under the aircraft and, because its such a tight fit, she is forced to give up her case, which she does to one of the crewmen who promises to watch it and not look inside, which she claims would be a court martial worthy offense.

This, I must say, is where the film really surprised and delighted me and I’m going to SPOIL things a little so, if you’re interested in seeing the film, I suggest you do so and come back afterwards to read the rest of the review.

In case you’re doing that, I’ll offer my bottom line about the film: I can’t necessarily offer an unqualified recommendation for Shadow in the Cloud. Though its a well done film with pretty good effects (some, alas, aren’t quite as good), it features an engaging hero in Moretz’s Garrett and some genuinely eerie and thrilling moments… which are unfortunately upended by a script that I suspect was being reworked considerably as the film was being made.

Still, if you want to see something really far outside the beaten path, you could do much worse.

All right then…

SPOILERS FOLLOW…!

So Garrett is sent into the bubble and, for the whole first half of the film, we as viewers are stuck there with her, isolated and alone, with only the radio communication with the other officers -which at first is incredibly crude on their part- as her only “company”.

Garrett spots a plane pacing them and, worse, a creature -a gremlin- that is on the plane itself, slowly ripping it apart.

These moments are the film’s most effective, where she tries to convince the rest of the crew that a) they may be followed by enemy Japanese aircraft and b) that this creature is ripping their ship apart.

Before Garrett finally leaves the bubble, the crew realizes what she’s carrying, which turns out to be her baby, and it further turns out that she’s running away from an abusive husband who may want to kill her as the baby isn’t his… but is the baby of one of the crewmen on this flight.

Now, I’m going to stop right there and say: That was a HUGE mistake, storywise, in my humble opinion.

Worse, it felt like it was something added to the script after the fact.

The Gremlin attacking the aircraft seemed to keep honing in on the case and baby, trying to take it for itself, which truly didn’t make a lot of sense. Did it know there was a baby within? Never made clear. But even if it did, why would it be so interested in it?

It felt like, to me anyway, that there was some other story element which was discarded regarding the case and its contents which linked the Gremlin more closely with wanting it and choosing to attack that particular aircraft, and I strongly suspect it had nothing to do with Garrett having a child and fleeing from an abusive husband.

The movie’s story, which takes elements from what is perhaps the most famous Twilight Zone episode Nightmare at 20,000 Feet (the one directed by Richard Donner and starring William Shatner, who sees a Gremlin on the airplane wing and freaks out trying to prove to the others in the aircraft they’re in danger) as well as the very first episode of Amazing Stories (which featured a crewman stuck in the bubble of an aircraft not unlike Garrett is and featured Kevin Costner and Keifer Sutherland in the cast) is credited to Max Landis who, shortly before the film’s release was accused of sexual and emotional abuse by eight women, has his name all but erased from the film’s actual credits (I honestly don’t recall seeing his name posted there, but I might have simply missed it).

What I do recall is that when the film was released the studio and stars made a point of noting that beyond the sale of the initial story, Max Landis wasn’t involved in the project at all, and the screenplay on IMDb is listed as being by Landis and director Roseanne Liang.

I have little doubt once the accusations against Landis were made public those in Hollywood made a great effort to distance themselves from him and I also strongly suspect Ms. Liang reworked the story/script quite a bit.

Unfortunately, and as I said above, we’re left with things that simply don’t connect well. The Gremlin which attacks is just there, without any real explanation or reason. He goes for the case carrying Garrett’s child “just because” and this too is presented without any real clear reason.

These things wind up hurting the film, which otherwise is not all that bad and is quite suspenseful at times.

In the end, I’m once again forced to say that a film that could have been quite good, which had plenty of ingredients, including generally good effects, a great lead/performance, and an intriguing initial premise, was undone by a script that needed a little more work, especially with regard to its reveals.

Which is just too bad.

Books/Literature

The New 2021 Novel Update #10

Last week Thursday, the 21st of October, I finished the 3rd Draft of my new 2021 novel and…

…we’re getting close.

There were issues regarding the motivations of certain characters within the book and, as I was banging out the newest draft, that stuff sorted itself fairly well, I think.

After getting that done, I spent Friday the 22nd working on another story, this one a fairly short one, and got the first draft done. By the end of Friday I was feeling pretty burnt out with all this writing and work I’ve been up to and resolved to take it easy during the weekend.

For the most part I managed to do just that, though I did slip in a quick second draft of the short story. Today, Monday, I managed to get a 3rd draft of that story done and sent off to my collaborator.

Now, I’m purposely not giving out too many details about this particular story. It’s off the beaten path of the other stuff I’ve done to date and I’m hopeful it bears fruition and finds itself published, though that remains to be seen. Regardless, even if nothing comes from it, I’m happy with what I wrote and may eventually post it here if nothing does come of it.

Regardless, I’m feeling a little recharged now. Perhaps not fully so, but enough to feel like its time to print up the latest draft of my novel and get to work on its 4th Draft.

The bad news: I doubt the novel will be good enough to publish when I’m done with this 4th draft, but it wouldn’t shock me if it winds up being one of the last drafts needed. At this point, I’m guesstimating the novel will require at least two, if not three, more drafts and before its done.

That may seem like a lot, but it feels like the worst of this is over and my focus is turning toward revisions involving the process of story telling versus actually creating the story. The later is always much harder than the former!

Here’s hoping!

Uncategorized

Runaway Brain…

Does the above title, for a Disney animated short, seem familiar to you?

Don’t feel bad if it isn’t… Until today I certainly hadn’t heard of it.

Runaway Brain was a short created way back in 1995 which featured, for the first time in decades a “new” story involving Disney’s principle character creation: Mickey Mouse. I could get into the details of the making and subsequent release of the short and its legacy (which seems to be none), but rather than do so, let me point out this article by Drew Taylor and presented on polygon.com which goes in depth into…

Why Disney buried Runaway Brain, the monstrous Mickey Mouse short

Again, the article does a very good job explaining why this short, which began as an attempt to triumphantly bring back Mickey Mouse, is now essentially buried, and the bottom line is one which has occurred in plenty of different occasions:

One “boss” green lights a project, they go over it and agree with what will be done, and when said project nears its end/conclusion, a new “boss” comes in an decides what was ok for the previous regimen isn’t good for them.

Changes were made, professionals involved were angered and frustrated, and ultimately a watered down version of the product is released and subsequently -because Disney is big enough to do so- the final product is purposely buried.

The fact that the product involves what is arguably Disney’s “biggest” character, Mickey Mouse, makes the story all the more intriguing. That and the fact that, unlike Song of the South, the short doesn’t involve racial stereotypes or outmoded/offensive ways of thinking about races, the main reason Disney refuses to release any formal version of Song of the South to the public.

It’s a fascinating story but, truthfully, if you follow the history of any major studio, you’ll find similar stories just like this, of projects that have gone off the rails and movies/TV shows/what-have-you that eventually limped out into general or limited release, then essentially being forgotten or allowed to be forgotten.

Still, a fascinating story, if you’re interested in reading about it!

Movies

Man That’s Brutal…

Back when I was very, very young, I stumbled upon this book…

Written by Harry and Michael Medved (Michael would go on to become yet another –yawn– of those pants-on-fire conservative commentator/extremists), the book was a hilarious look at some of the worst films which, to that date, had been released.

At least according to the Medved brothers.

The book was popular enough to merit a sequel…

…and it too was quite humorous.

I have to admit, though, over the years and as I’ve become a writer, I’ve grown to be… uncomfortable… with books like this, even though I can’t deny the humor of lambasting works which are so bad they deserve the treatment.

Why?

Because I’ve been on the proverbial “other side” and know that creating a work, any work, requires considerable effort and time and I know now that nobody sets out to make something truly awful… even if when all is said and done that’s what is indeed created.

Having said that and while I feel bad for those who worked to make something and failed, perhaps miserably so, it’s still undeniably funny to read a post ripping said project to pieces…

Which brings us to the matter at hand, Steven Lloyd Wilson’s review of the Bruce Willis film Survive The Game, another of Mr. Willis’ seemingly endless VOD releases he’s participated in.

Here’s the movie’s trailer:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=uMDaFlO_CZs

I’ve read here and there that Mr. Willis has gotten to the point in his career where he takes on these types of films because a) they involve no more than one day’s worth of work and he’s quite strict about leaving when his time is up (so the film’s makers often have him in a single room/set saying his lines, often without co-stars present all that much) and b) he’s paid for that one day’s worth of work somewhere in the range of one million dollars.

There are many such films listed on Mr. Willis’ IMDb page (check them out here). Currently he has an astonishing 13 films listed on his resume for 2021 alone and all of them, near as I can tell, are similar low budget VOD features like the one above.

Anyway, without further ado, here’s Mr. Steven Lloyd Wilson’s review of Survive The Game. It’s quite hilarious, in my humble opinion…

Is “Survive The Game” Part of “A Christmas Story” Cinematic Universe?

Give it a click. It’s worth the laughs, if not actually sitting down to watch the film!

Books/Literature

The New 2021 Novel Update #9

A few days back (you can read it here) I offered my last update on my latest novel and wrote:

This current draft is a very serious one

It occurs to me this line needs a little explanation.

After all, each time I sit behind my computer and stare into the monitor with whatever current draft of whatever novel I’m currently working on… am I not taking the work seriously?

Yes, yes I am.

But there are times when one is simply fishing around for ideas, where you have a general notion of where you want to go but are searching around for the proper way to get there.

I can’t tell you the number of times I sit in front of that computer and sit there… and sit there…

…and nothing seems to come of it. I may move the proverbial ball a few inches forward -I usually do- but truthfully the end result might be almost negligible and I feel like Sisyphus pushing that boulder up the hill. Yeah, I’ll eventually get there and the boulder rolls back down the hill and I’m back to the start with that new novel, searching for a new and interesting path to take that boulder up that hill.

The current draft of the book is a serious one because I see the path now to the top of this particular hill, where in earlier drafts that path might not have been so terribly well defined.

Or, to put it another way, the novel’s skeleton is complete and I’m moving on from coming up with the story proper and feel like I’m about to move more solidly into the revision phase, where its not so much what I’m presenting, story-wise, but how I’m presenting it.

It will still take time, of course, and I’m not quite there, but the boulder is getting that much closer to the top of the hill.

Movies

The Case of the Curious Bride (1935) a (Ridiculously Belated, Your Honor!) Review

Despite its formulaic episodes, I happen to love the Raymond Burr Perry Mason TV show. Based on the very popular (and also formulaic!) novels by Erie Stanley Gardner, who could pump out a book a week it seemed, there was something grandly entertaining about seeing Raymond Burr’s Perry interact with a usually fascinating all star cast and solve a murder his client seemed to absolutely do and there was simply no way around it.

However, there were a series of Perry Mason films made well before Raymond Burr took to the television role and The Case of the Curious Bride is one of them.

Here’s the movie’s trailer:

One day while going over the latest movies offered on TCM, I spotted this film. Now, I haven’t seen a single non-Raymond Burr Perry Mason feature but this one really got my curiosity and for one reason and one reason only: It had a very early appearance of one Errol Flynn.

Don’t recognize the name? Welp, he was a very big action star, featured in such films as The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Sea Hawk, and Captain Blood. He was primarily known as a very handsome swashbuckler, and his personal ilfe… ho boy, that must have been something (he would die at the very young age of 50 in 1959, his hard living, hard drinking, and sexual adventures/misadventures having sapped the life out of him by that point).

But I was fascinated by the idea of seeing a very young, pre-fame Errol Flynn in a Perry Mason movie. Yeah, I was damned curious to see this!

Alas…

If you’re interested in seeing this film solely for Errol Flynn, be prepared to see him for a grand total of maybe two minutes (or less) of screen time. In fact, he doesn’t say a single line and shows up in a flashback toward the end of the film where its revealed how exactly he died.

Yep, he’s the film’s murder victim.

Having said that, The Case of the Curious Bride nonetheless proved to be a fun, if ultimately frivolous, mystery film. Warren William plays a decidedly theatrical Perry Mason, a man with food on his mind (!) who gets involved in a case involving an old female friend of his (played by Margaret Lindsay) who is now married but who had previously been married and -she thought- widowed. Only it turns out her previous husband is alive and blackmailing her (the role seemed to fit Errol Flynn to a tee, given his reputation outside the studio!).

Anyway, Perry, Della Street (a delightful Claire Dodd, who inhabits the role almost as well as Barbara Hale would in the Raymond Burr TV show), and personal P. I. “Sudsy” Drake (Allen Jenkins, putting on the ham in a big way… I much prefer William Hooper’s more serious Paul Drake from the TV show) get themselves chin deep in the case and figure out, by the end, whodunnit while their client comes very close to the electric chair.

Another element beyond the cameo by Errol Flynn that makes the movie notable is that it was directed by one Michael Curtiz, a workhorse of a director who, a few years later, directed this one little and almost forgotten film called Casablanca. He also directed several of the best known Errol Flynn films, including the aforementioned The Adventures of Robin Hood.

Yes, The Case of the Curious Bride isn’t a film destined to be remembered or admired but it is a fun little mystery with the added bonus of having two fascinating minutes featuring a pre-famous Errol Flynn directed by what would be one of his bigger collaborators in Michael Curtiz.

For those who find that alone fascinating, the movie is an easy recommendation.