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.
General

McDonald’s 10 Most Spectacular Menu Flops!

And you thought all McDonald products were successes! (If not gastronomical delights)

http://www.thedailymeal.com/mcdonalds-10-most-spectacular-menu-flops

Some of these are quite…interesting.

Like the Hula Burger.  And the McLobster (!).  There are only a few items I can remember (several of the mentioned items on this list appeared in certain specific parts of the country or were on foreign menus).

In fact, looking the entire list over again there are only three items I’m familiar with:  The “Supersize”, The McLean, and the Arch Deluxe.

I was always bothered by the whole “Supersize” thing…it seemed like waaaay too much food (and drink).  I don’t believe I ever tried the McLean, but I do recall eating the Arch Deluxe.  It wasn’t too bad, all things considering.  I’m surprised it was such a big flop.

Movies

A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) a (mildly) belated review

I know I’ve mentioned this before, so indulge me for a bit.

When I was younger, I was really harsh in reviewing films.  I couldn’t tolerate what I viewed as mistakes, large or small, especially in a feature’s story.  If something didn’t make sense, even if it was a tiny thing that might not have amounted to all that much in the feature’s full running time, I nonetheless blasted it.  If a film was suspiciously similar -at least enough to accuse it of being a rip off-, well ditto.  If the effects weren’t up to snuff, if the acting was off, if the direction and editing weren’t pleasing, ditto again.

In recent years I’ve mellowed out considerably.  Not that I don’t find films here and there that are, to me, utter and complete failures.  It’s just that I as an author I can sympathize with the heavy lifting that goes into the act of creation and have come to realize that sometimes things just don’t work out, no matter how hard you may try.

A Good Day to Die Hard, the fifth (!) movie in the Die Hard franchise (but not the last as a sixth movie is in pre-production for release in 2015), arrived with considerable critical scorn, at least as far as I could see.  The original 1988 Die Hard was a watershed moment in the career of actor Bruce Willis.  While his TV series Moonlighting was popular, his movie career was hardly flourishing.  His two previous motion pictures were both directed by Blake Edwards, first the comedy Blind Date and then the comedy/mystery/pseudo-western Sunset.  Both movies, if memory serves, didn’t exactly light the box office on fire or make anyone think Mr. Willis had what it took to transition from TV actor to Movie actor.

All that changed with Die Hard.

The movie proved a box office hit and the character Mr. Willis portrayed in the movie, Officer John McClane, was funny, witty…damn near brilliant.  Two years later Die Hard 2 was released, and while some now “poo-poo” that film as nowhere near as good as the original, I consider it a great action film as well.  Five years later, in 1995, Mr. Willis and original Die Hard director John McTiernan returned for Die Hard: With a Vengeance and audiences once again were happy to follow the further adventures of Willis’ McClane.

Me?  I didn’t like Die Hard: With a Vengeance all that much, though I enjoyed seeing Bruce Willis return to that role.  It would prove to be the last time we’d see Mr. Willis playing the character until twelve years later, in 2007, when Live Free or Die Hard was released.  As with the previous Die Hard film, I thought it wasn’t all that great.  It seemed the action sequences were becoming waaaay too big and unbelievable while the characterization of McClane was becoming an ever smaller part of the overall picture.

Which, in a nutshell, is the problem A Good Day to Die Hard has in spades.

Sadly, another problem is that Mr. Willis has aged.  He no longer looks like the young man he once was, the young man we could envision doing all those crazy stunts while beating his body to a pulp.  Still, it would be hard to envision a young Bruce Willis doing the action sequences called upon his character in this film.  For the action sequences in this movie are so big, so wild, that it becomes nearly impossible for us as an audience to believe anyone could survive even one of those set pieces, never mind the five or six strung out through the film.

And those action sequences, as good as they might be (I happened to think the initial one, involving what appeared to be the demolition of every road and vehicle in and around Moscow was quite excellent) nonetheless strain our ability to believe what we’re seeing could happen.

In action films, that’s the trick a director/actor/effects crew should be sensitive about.  Can the audience believe what they’re seeing might happen?  Even avoiding that question, the fact is that A Good Day to Die Hard winds up being so enthralled to those same action sequences that the characterization so beloved in the first few Die Hard films is almost completely missing.  This is easily the least “John McClane” film of the bunch.  Bruce Willis could be playing any “good guy” Bruce Willis-type character…he’s that invisible as a person within the context of the movie.

He’s not the only one.

We’re presented with McClane’s son and, to a far lesser extent, daughter in the movie, but both characters are just that, characters.  Jai Courtney, who was nicely menacing as one of the main baddies in Jack Reacher, switches to good guy mode here and isn’t all that bad…but neither is he all that great either.  The blame, as before, lies in the fact that this is a movie built around those all important action sequences.  Jack McClane’s character, therefore, is a stereotype:  The angry, abandoned son who, by the end of the film, grows to love the old man.

Dodging bullets, I guess, will do that to you.

Anyway, near the end of the film we are presented with an interesting switcheroo regarding the bad guy(s) and, I have to admit, I found it a clever switch indeed (Maybe by then I was desperate for anything other than action action action).  In fact, seeing that switcheroo made me wonder what the original screenplay for this film was like.  Could it possibly have been more character oriented?  Could more thought have been put into creating a suspenseful, less pedal-to-the-metal action fest?

Who knows.

We can only judge A Good Day to Die Hard for what it is:  An expensive and near non-stop action fest that features little in the way of character development.  Not the worst action film I’ve ever seen, mind you, but one that desperately could use an infusion of the smart-assed humanity we saw in the earlier appearances of one John McClane.

Books/Literature, Movies, TV

Richard Matheson, RIP

1 Comment

Found out a bit belatedly of the death of one of the 20th Century’s most influential authors, at least to me, Richard Matheson.  He was the rare author whose works spread out form “mere” novels and short stories to include screenplays and many, many famous episodes of classic TV shows, including The Twilight Zone.

Richard Corliss of Time Magazine offers a great essay about the works and influence of Mr. Matheson over his career:

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/06/28/richard-matheson-1926-2013-the-wizard-of-what-if/

For me, the ultimate Richard Matheson story was/is Duel.  There’s something about the idea of facing off against a mysterious -and homicidal!- truck driver that intrigued and terrified me.  The first movie I ever recall seeing was Duel, which was also director Steven Spielberg’s first big hit and an obvious template for what would become his first MEGAhit, Jaws.

But even taking Duel out of the equation, there are plenty of other memorable movies and concepts he created which are buried deep in my psyche.  The novel I Am Legend (and, more specifically, the Charlton Heston starring second movie version of the same, Omega Man).

There was also the very chilling Trilogy of Terror and that doll…

And let’s not forget the classic Twilight Zone episode Nightmare at 20,000 Feet!

I could go on, mentioning such classics as Kolchach: The Night Stalker or Legend of Hell House or The Incredible Shrinking Man…but suffice it to say, for the most part I’ve been delighted by Mr. Matheson’s work over the years.  Given the volume of said work, there were bound to be some disappointments and, sadly, my most recent experience with Mr. Matherson’s writing was the novel Hunted Past Reason.

Do yourself a favor and, if you haven’t already, check out the stuff I’ve mentioned above.  But avoid that last novel.

General

Stars who were once homeless

Recently Jennifer Lopez noted that she was homeless at one time before achieving stardom.  Here, from Time magazine, is a fascinating list of ten celebrities who were also homeless for a time before hitting it big:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/11/stars-who-were-once-homeless/

I’m fascinated by the list because it proves, to some extent, that even when you’re at your most down and out, there is a chance you can pull yourself up and make something of your life.

Sadly, I suspect these are the only few examples of the extreme exceptions to the rules, people who were down and out and turned it around completely.  There are others, of course, who may try and never can get out of extreme poverty.

Books/Literature, General

Orson Scott Card…again

A while back (you can read it here) I noted the controversy regarding sci-fi author Orson Scott Card and his views on homosexuality.  I’m not a big fan of Mr. Card’s works, though I have read what is arguably his most famous novel, Ender’s Game, which will soon be released to theaters as a major motion picture.

I noted in the previous column that the controversy surrounding Mr. Card may wind up hurting the film’s box office prospects, and it would appear that Mr. Card is himself worried about the very same thing and has tried to address the main controversy regarding his previous comments:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/09/orson_scott_card_gay_marriage_issue_has_become_moot/

In many ways, I feel for Mr. Card even as I can’t find sufficient sympathy to excuse his previous comments.  I feel for Mr. Card because he’s a victim of his own verbal venom in an age when such comments are easily accessible via the internet and difficult, if not impossible, to expunge.  It is possible, for example, that over the years Mr. Card’s opinions have changed and he’s softened his stance toward homosexuality and homosexual marriage.  I’m not saying this has happened, mind you, only that it’s possible.  Unfortunately for Mr. Card, those previous comments he made will remain available for anyone to see and read and will always follow him, even after his passing.

More recently, Hugh Howley, the author of the hit “self-published” sci-fi novel Wool got himself into some similar trouble when he posted a blog entry verbally lashing a woman he met at World Con (http://www.dailydot.com/culture/hugh-howey-the-bitch-from-worldcon-rant/).  Unlike Mr. Card, whose anti-homosexual comments can be found over the years, Mr. Howley appeared to realize rather quickly that his rant was inappropriate and offered an apology (http://www.hughhowey.com/to-those-whom-ive-offended/) and opened himself up to interviews where he further elaborated on the blog post and offered explanations as well as apologies (http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/CultureShock/archives/2013/04/19/hugh-howey-explains-why-he-removed-controversial-blog-post)

I suppose the point is this: Think about what you’re saying, whether it be to someone else or something you yourself post online.  It’s common sense.  On the other hand, perhaps it is also a good thing to look inside yourself and evaluate your own feelings and philosophies.  After all, if you’re a public figure (or even a casual facebook user) and are “smart enough” to not make any controversial public rants, yet have such strong feelings, perhaps you should consider, and re-consider, them.

In the long run it might make you a better person.

General

I could watch stuff like this all day…

As you watch these video clips, after a while you figure you’ve seen enough.  I mean, after a while, things have to get a little repetitious, right?  After all, how many times and ways can you see amateur parkour “talent” running into a wall…or the ground…or water.  How many times can you see cars/motorcycles/people on skateboards/etc. wipe out?  How many would-be “extreme” athletes can you still find amusing once they land crushingly on their backs or heads?  And what of the adventures of the very drunk, as they stumble around and inevitably fall?

There can’t be much else, can there?

And then, suddenly, you’re at minute 13:55 of the video and you see a bunch of Mensa candidates find out what happens when you stick a knife into a toaster.

As I said before, I could watch stuff like this all day…

Movies

You’re doing it wrong!

A fascinating list of 15 films based on the lives of real people and their true stories that received a backlash from those people…because they felt their depiction in the movies was incorrect:

http://styleblazer.com/152963/youre-doing-it-wrong-15-movies-based-on-a-true-story-that-received-backlash-from-their-real-life-characters/

Haven’t seen all that many of the films referenced there, though two of the bigger exceptions are Ed Wood and The Doors.  I enjoyed both films though Ed Wood clearly tried to create a “happy” ending for the film, that Ed Wood’s Plan 9 From Outer Space somehow was a triumph when ultimately released instead of an object of complete ridicule.  As for The Doors, Val Kilmer nailed the Jim Morrison role, but the story presented, even to one as fond of the music of the Doors as I am, simply wasn’t all that interesting.  By most accounts, the real life Jim Morrison lived a life of excess, both with drugs and alcohol.  While he found incredible success with his music, those excesses ultimately resulted in dying far too young.  Other than the music and his copious use of alcohol and drugs, I have a hard time recalling other elements of his story as depicted within the movie, which I suppose explains the family’s scorn for Oliver Stone’s film.

Of the films I haven’t seen, I feel for most for  Fritz Ostermueller’s daughter, the pitcher depicted in the movie 42 as a racist headhunter (she noted evidence that suggested this was not the case) and Marc Schiller, one of the victims presented in the recent comedy Pain & Gain.  In the later case in particular, it feels really tasteless for filmmakers to make a comedy of the near gruesome murder of a person, one who wound up in a coma because of the actions of the central characters in said film.

If there’s any lesson to be taken from this list, its that making a movie based on “real life” events and people is tricky enough, but it’s especially hard when the people behind the stories (family or otherwise) are still alive and can voice their displeasure.

Movies

Django Unchained (2012) a (mildly) belated review

After sitting around for several weeks, I finally plopped the Django Unchained DVD into my machine last night and gave it a whirl.  As it started up, I thought back to the very first time I ever heard of director/writer Quentin Tarantino.  It was many, many years ago, back in the pre-internet intensive days of 1992 when his first major motion picture, Reservoir Dogs, was making quite a buzz at film festivals and newspapers (remember those?) lauded the work of this wonderful new director.  By the time the movie finally reached my area, I absolutely had to see it.

Watching Reservoir Dogs proved quite the experience, like sitting in the passenger seat of a car which was being driven by a complete maniac, all the time wondering when/if you’re going to crash.  Other than the somewhat ambiguous ending, I loved, loved, loved what I saw.  Never mind that later we found the movie “homaged” (or, if you’re less tolerant, ripped off) City on Fire.  Regardless, Reservoir Dogs was such an incredibly unique experience, at that time, that I had to see more of Tarantino’s works.

His follow up film, 1994’s Pulp Fiction, cemented his reputation as a director/writer to watch, but as much as I liked it, it wasn’t as good an overall film, IMHO, as Reservoir Dogs, mainly because for me the Bruce Willis segment was lacking (though I would hasten to add that I did love both the prologue to this segment, featuring Christopher Walken’s demented “watch” sequence, and the non-chronologically revealed fate of John Travolta’s Vincent Vega).  Mr. Tarantino’s follow up films, Jackie Brown and Kill Bill (Volume 1 and 2), unfortunately, didn’t do all that much for me, though I’ll admit up front I’m in a minority with those particular feelings.  Jackie Brown, for all the fascinating actors, never really engaged me story-wise.  Kill Bill appeared to be Mr. Tarantino doing his personal version of The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, only using 70’s karate-type action instead of the wild west.  The question I had after seeing the film(s) was why bother with Mr. Tarantino’s version when I can just watch the Eastwood original?

Mr. Tarantino’s next major motion picture, Deathproof, part of the two-part Grindhouse motion picture set, was absolutely great…at least in the latter half of the film.  I absolutely, positively loved the film’s second act while absolutely, positively felt the complete opposite about the surprisingly uninteresting dialogue-filled first half.

Inglourious Basterds was next and proved one of the first BluRay purchases I ever made…but I have yet to actually see the film.  One day soon.

Which brings us back to Django Unchained.  As you can probably imply from the above, my one time love for Quentin Tarantino’s works has fizzled over the years.  Given that I haven’t found the time or inspiration to sit through his last film and the length of time it took me to get to his most recent one, my frame of mind while watching it wasn’t the best.

Yet as Django Unchained rolled out, I was very much into the film.  It was bloody, it was violent, it was profane…and yet also quite hilarious (the movie’s best bit has to be the whole pre-“hooded raid” segment…the dialogue there by the actors, and Don Johnson especially, was hysterical).

Sadly, this highlight of the film led into the second and final act, which while reasonably entertaining was nowhere near as good as what preceded it.  Like Death Proof, we had roughly one half of a great film.  Unlike Death Proof, the better stuff was in the first half.

Before I go any farther, a quick recap of the film’s plot:  Django (Jamie Foxx) is a slave in the days just before the Civil War.  He was separated from his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) and longs to get her back to his side.  In comes Dr. King Schultz (the excellent Christoph Waltz), a bounty hunter, who needs Django to identify a trio of criminal brothers he is hunting.  He frees Django and, after getting his prey, takes a liking to his new partner.  King asks Django to continue to work with him for the winter and, following that, will help him find and free his wife.

It is after winter (and the aformentioned Don Johnson sequence) that we proceed to the movie’s second act, where King and Django find that Calvin Candie (a slimy Leonardo DiCaprio) purchased Broomhilda and has her at his plantation.  The duo attempt a variation on the Trojan Horse (this movie features plenty of echoes to mythology) to try to spirit the woman from his clutches.

The problem with this half of the film is two fold.  For one, it feels disjointed, as if Mr. Tarantino realized belatedly while filming that the movie was running too long and was forced to cut a lot of material in the telling of this last half of the film.  For example, Candie’s sister Lara Lee (Laura Cayouette) is presented in a total of perhaps three or four very brief scenes and barely has any dialogue…and yet I get the feeling the audience is supposed to view her as every bit as evil and slimy as her brother.  However, we simply see too little of her to get much more than a hint of possible incest between brother and sister and almost no real sense of evil.  We’re also briefly introduced to Candie’s “trackers”, a group of mysterious gunfighters in the man’s employ, and the most intriguing of the group is Zoe Bell’s female tracker, a woman who is seen a grand total of maybe two times, who wears a blood red scarf to hide the lower half of her face.  Who is she?  How did she end up being part of this all male gunfighter group?  Is she indeed a deadly gunfighter?  Why does she hide the lower half of her face?  All good questions, NONE of which are ever resolved.  She appears very briefly in one scene and the next time she appears Django kills her and her crew in a matter of a few seconds.

Really?

So, assuming I’m right, Mr. Tarantino was forced to trim an awful lot of material from the second half of the film and it hurt.  But nothing hurt the movie so much as what he had Dr. King do toward the film’s end.  I won’t spoil things too much, but suffice it to say that after all this time, I would have expected this professional bounty hunter to act in a far more professional manner than he did toward the film’s first major climax and not risk his life and the lives of both Django and Broomhilda because of his own stupid pride.

Or, to put it more succinctly for those who have seen the film:  Really?  All you had to do was shake the man’s hand!  Shake it already!

Still, despite a weak and at times confusing closing half, I enjoyed enough of Django Unchained to recommend it, especially to fans of Mr. Tarantino’s unique mix of humor and violence.

Books/Literature, Comic Books/Graphic Novels, Computers/Electronics, Movies, Music, TV

Is the Internet worth it?

Fascinating article by Andrew Leonard for Salon.com regarding something that has been on my mind often of late:  Despite all the great stuff it offers, what of the negatives regarding the Internet?  Is all the good worth all the bad, both potential and realized?

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/05/creative_destruction_government_snooping_is_the_internet_worth_it/

Mr. Leonard’s focus is mostly on governmental “snooping” and journalism but it also can relate to the general impact of the Internet on everything, including loss of privacy both unintended and unrealized.  For example, I recall in the earlier, wildly popular days of Facebook that some clever thieves realized that some posters on that social media website would over share their day to day activities, to the point where they posted information about upcoming vacations, including where they were going, when they were going, and for how long.

Which meant these clever thieves now knew when a poster’s home was potentially unguarded and empty and for what specific period of time, making it a perfect target for theft.

Revelations about the Government’s internet snooping should be alarming to most people, but there are other economic factors that I’ve were influenced by the rise of the internet.  I’ve mentioned before how certain “mom and pop” type stores simply cannot compete with full service internet “stores” like Amazon.com and how even some bigger retail chains, including bookstores and electronic stores, now are in danger of closing their doors because of the increasing ease of purchase and seemingly unlimited stock available online.

But there exists yet another big threat created by the internet, one that personally scares me for different reasons:  The possibility of creative destruction.  If you think about entertainment, you think about a few things: Music, movies, television, books/novels, comic books, etc.  All of these creative endeavors are now victims to pirate websites.

Looking for the latest album by artist X?  Download it for free…sometimes before the album is officially released!  Looking forward to seeing movie X?  Same thing.  Novels?  Comic books?  Television shows?  Ditto, ditto, and ditto.

Where will this piracy of creative ideas eventually lead?  If you’re a struggling artist, there’s precious little money to be made in your works.  Whatever little bit you can scrape together is helpful and may allow you to hone your craft and allow you to make better and better product…provided you can indeed pay your bills.  But what if your current work(s) find their way to pirate websites and whatever meager amount of money you might have earned on your current, best works takes a hit because of illegal downloads?

And what of established artists?  Will movie/music companies become more and more fearful of signing off on a big budget item if the worry about how much they’ll lose on the illegal downloads of said item?  Is it possible some companies will simply give up on funding films/TV shows/music albums entirely?  And where will that leave many of us, audiences hungry for new entertainment?

As Mr. Leonard put it in his article:

…we are increasingly sensing that we have no idea where this techno-roller coaster is ultimately headed. There’s a sense that things are out of control. Our growing uneasiness doesn’t jibe well with all the hype about how the world is being made a better place by a proliferation of smartphone apps.