Category Archives: Movies

Movies

The Jackal (1997) a (very) belated review

Way back in 1973 there was a thriller released to theaters and adapted from a best-selling novel by the name of The Day of the Jackal.  It starred Edward Fox as the mysterious “Jackal”, a highly skilled and deadly killer for hire who is charged with eliminating Charles de Gaulle, the president of France.

I loved the film.  It had a near documentary presentation and despite the fact that the “Jackal” was clearly a nasty, nasty man, you couldn’t help but admire how he pieces together the elements of his plan while the law slowly, inevitably, nip at his heels.  The climax of the movie was incredibly gripping and audience manipulation at its finest: You root for the good guys to stop the “Jackal” even as a dark part of you wishes, after witnessing all this planning and activity, he actually finish the job.

Here’s that movie’s trailer.  Pardon the “Harry Palmer Movie Site” lettering…this appears to be the only available YouTube listing featuring this trailer…

Many years later and in 1997 a powerhouse cast consisting of Bruce Willis, Richard Gere, and Sidney Poitier would star in a remake of that film, entitled The Jackal…

I saw the film years before, though I doubt in theaters when it was originally released, and recalled not thinking all that much of it.  Again, I loved the original film and this remake felt so very…inferior.

The years pass -as they inevitably do- and The Jackal was on cable last night and I started watching it almost from the very beginning (I think I missed the first few seconds or, at most, about a minute of the very start) and found myself curiously drawn to it.

Seeing the film again from essentially the beginning to end and with the memories of The Day of the Jackal not being quite as strong as they were when I first saw this remake, I found myself far more engrossed in this film than I was before.

Mind you, the film remains far from “great” but my feelings for it have moved up quite a bit.

The plot of The Jackal is essentially the same as the original film, though it does sport some big differences.  You have a shadowy group of people who hire the Jackal (Bruce Willis) to kill someone and his target is…well, I won’t get into spoilers here but let’s just say that reveal is part of the story versus the original film which gave us who the target was from the beginning.  We then have, like the original film, a “split” movie, alternating between the Jackal and his preparation(s) for the kill and our heroes’ attempts to find him.

On the good guy side, Sidney Poitier plays FBI Deputy Director Carter Preston.  His character is in league with Russian Major Valentina Koslova (Diane Venora), a tough as nails operative, and when they get wind of the Jackal and the fact that he plans to commit a very high level assassination, they get in touch with Richard Gere’s Declan Mulqueen, an IRA “terrorist” currently in prison and the only person they know who has had contact with the Jackal.  After a bit of bantering, they offer him vague promises of a better/lighter prison term to help them hunt him down.

Turns out they really do need him as Mulqueen reveals he has actually seen the Jackal and, in their group, is the only person who can identify him by sight.  Later still it is revealed Mulqueen isn’t interested in hunting down the Jackal just to reduce his prison sentence.  He and the Jackal have a history…and Mulqueen has very good reasons to want the Jackal taken down.

So, returning to my overall view of the film this time around: The Jackal entertained me far more than it did the first time I saw it all those years ago and, as I stated before, it could be because my memories of the original film have faded over time and therefore I’m not comparing both films head on anymore.

The Jackal was a good suspense film but, as I also stated before, not quite great.  There were several problems with the overall story, things that happen that make no sense or aren’t adequately explained.  For example, the Jackal at one point paints a van with a removable white paint and, using a high pressure hose, times how long it takes to wash that paint off.  This is an intriguing bit of plot and, if memory serves, it was used in the original film, but in The Jackal the use of the wash-off paint is pointless.  I won’t spoil things but when the Jackal finally does wash the paint off, it is for no real reason and, given what happens, it might have been smarter for him to just leave the original paint!

Later on in the film, toward the climax (MILD SPOILERS), we have Richard Gere’s Mulqueen chasing the Jackal through the streets and eventually into a subway but its never really explained why his character would think the Jackal went that way.  Given the large amounts of people running to and fro, it strains credibility to think he would spot his target among so many people.

Another problem with the film, at least to me, was that the movie’s makers got a little too pleased with showing off Bruce Willis in various disguises.  While the idea of him changing his looks made sense, after a while it felt like overkill.  Perhaps that’s just me.

Still, the movie nonetheless moves nicely and the star power gathered together is fun to watch, as is spotting cameos by some then up-and-coming actors in early roles (J. K. Simmons and Jack Black both appear in the film and you can spot them, if you look hard, in the trailer above).

The bottom line: While no classic, I came away with the impression The Jackal was a better film than what I originally thought, though it still doesn’t quite reach the levels of a really great suspense film.  If you’re in the mood for a decent action/suspense film with some major star-power, you could do worse than watch The Jackal.

Movies

Train to Busan (2016) a (mildly) belated review

Train to Busan, a South Korean production, immediately made my list of films I intended to catch after their theatrical run (in this film’s case, I don’t believe it played in my area).

The few reviews of it I read were glowing and intriguing, noting the film was a high-tension zombie film set, for the most part, on a train traveling from Seoul to, you guessed it, the city of Busan.

So I waited and, after a while, the film was made available for purchase,  I found it via VUDU on sale one day and, rather than wait for Netflix to get it, gave in and outright bought the film.  Yesterday I finally had a chance to see it and I’m pleased to say I don’t regret the purchase one bit.

Train to Busan’s two main characters are Seok Wu (Yoo Gong), a self-centered fund manager who barely has time for his very young daughter, Soo-an (Soo-an Kim).  He’s revealed to be a ruthless financial “shark” who is willing to ease an investor’s concerns over the phone and then turn around and make a killing selling the same stock he just told the man to hold on to (I hope I remember this right! 😉

When the workday is done we see him in a garage talking on the phone to his wife, who lives in Busan, and whom he is in the process of divorcing.  She tells him their daughter wants to come to Busan to see her and essentially begs him to do the right thing on her birthday (which is the next day) and allow her to come to Busan for a visit.

Seok Wu doesn’t care to do so and tells her.  When he reaches his apartment and gives his daughter her birthday gift, a Nintendo Wii game system, his daughter’s reaction isn’t what he was expecting.  He asks her why she isn’t impressed with this gift and the daughter points to the Wii system she already has and which he gave her as a gift for “Children’s Day”.

Feeling guilty over this and noting it is clear his daughter wants to see her mother, Seok Wu agrees to take his young daughter on the train to Busan.  He figures to miss only half a day of work and be back at the office by the early afternoon.  Together they drive to the station but along the way see fire trucks roaming the streets and a big fire taking up an entire floor of a high rise.  They don’t stop to dwell on the tragedy and instead drive on, reaching the train and boarding it.

We are presented with a larger cast of characters on the train, some of whom will be a part of the story.  Not one of them notices a distressed woman with mysterious bite marks on her leg board the train.

Very soon, pandemonium begins.

Train to Busan, as I noted above, very much lived up to my expectations.  It is exciting, action filled, and tense as hell.  It also knows when to slow down and give us character moments…along with building up the tension for the next action/horror scene.

For those adverse to gore, the film does not dwell on or show much of it, which I didn’t mind at all.  Sometimes, particularly in zombie films, gore becomes the way to give audiences doses of horror but in a film with this giddy amount of high tension, it wasn’t necessary to have much of it.

Though I ultimately loved the film, there are a couple of minor negatives worth noting.  For example, the film’s characters were just that, more “types” than “real” people.  Given the fact that the central core of characters is fairly large and the movie has only so much time to present them and then put them in danger, I didn’t mind though some others have pointed this out as a negative.

A little more problematic is the fact that this is a fairly low budget film.  Granted, outside of Hollywood “blockbusters”, most films made in foreign lands don’t have anywhere near the money the bigger Hollywood films require.  Nonetheless, there were some scenes in Train to Busan which I suspect the film’s makers would and could have made far larger and impressive had they the budget to do so.

Regardless, these two negatives are at best very minor.  Train to Busan is an exciting, action/tension filled zombie film that easily sits atop the list of the best of the genre.

Well done and recommended!

Movies

Cinematic trash, 2016 version

Over on Slate.com, Amy Nicholson offers a fine article which focuses on some of the more dubious cinematic features released in 2016…

Raise a glass to the finest cinematic trash of 2016

If the article’s headline doesn’t make it obvious, Ms. Nicholson’s article defends some of what many perceive as the worst of 2016, be it films like The Brothers Grimsby, Gods of Egypt, or Warcraft.

She also states this about The Nice Guys:

Ryan Gosling’s 30-second pants-cigarette-gun-newspaper-bathroom door shuffle is better choreographed than anything in La La Land.

Here’s that scene:

It seems like only yesterday (well, it was actually two days ago) that I noted The Nice Guys was one of the most disappointing films, to me, released in the past year.  While I didn’t hate it, the plot was nonsensical, the action was muted (our dubious heroes never felt like they were in any real danger), and while there were some truly hilarious moments in the film, it seemed all of them were encapsulated in the movie’s trailers.  Including the scene above, which I agree with Ms. Nicholson was a thing of beauty.

While I may not entirely agree with Ms. Nicholson’s love for The Nice Guys (or, indeed, the other films she feels were unfairly trashed as…uh…trash in 2016), the reason I pointed out her article is because it reflects how people nowadays are becoming way too judgmental about other people’s opinions.

Once again: They are opinions.  Works of art, by their nature, can turn on person A while simultaneously turning off person B.  I may love movie X while the vast majority of people hate it…and its OK.  My liking the film does not negate your not liking it, just as surely as my not liking a film doesn’t negate your liking or loving it.

Yet this simple statement isn’t reflected in online comments.  Indeed, in her article Ms. Nicholson concludes her first paragraph, in which reveals she gave The Brothers Grimsby a “thumbs up”, by defensively stating:

Even so, when I filed my thumbs-up review, five weeks into a new job I adore, I sucked in my breath before clicking send. Sticking up for trash isn’t a fireable offense, but it does guarantee that for the next two years, any time I write a less-than-rave review of the latest DC gloommerung, some egg on Twitter will rebut, “Yeah, but your clearly a moron for liking Brothers Grimsby.” (Misspelling intended.)

I totally see her point here, even as she indulges in the same finger pointing (“DC glommerung”?).

Once again: So freaking what if she liked The Brothers Grimsby or Gods of Egypt or Warcraft or any of the many other films released last year that many panned and even more stayed away from?

Seriously: So what?

Even if the films are, at best, a “guilty pleasure”, if you’re getting enjoyment out of something, why does it become such a crime?  Many people hated Batman v Superman (you knew I’d get there eventually, didn’t you?), some almost hysterically so.  I’ve read many of the more even-keeled posts from people who state, point by point, the things they don’t like about the film and, in many cases, can’t fault their logic.

It didn’t stop me from nonetheless enjoying the hell out of the movie.

There were waves of biting comments regarding the new Ghostbusters.  It was “sexist”, it wasn’t funny.  It was stupid.  It was insulting the studios would dare remake such a beloved cinematic treasure.  Seriously?  I mean, I can see people being bothered by a remake of, say, Casablanca or Citizen Kane but Ghostbusters?

There was even an early preview review of the film, posted on YouTube, in which the person who saw the film ravaged it for its sexism (he felt the ending in particular and the use of the power weapons pointed to this) and the fact that it was just not funny at all.

I saw the film, hoping for the best but expecting the worst and, you know what?  It wasn’t bad at all.  Was it the Best-Damn-Comedy-Ever-Made™?  No.  Not by a long shot.  But it was an enjoyable time-killer with some very funny scenes and effects that weren’t anywhere near as “terrible” as some stated.

The point I’m making (over and over again) remains this: It’s fine to love or hate or anything in between a film.  Or a song/album.  Or a book.  Indeed, anything artistic.  It’s perfectly legitimate to have an opinion on it.  Just as its perfectly acceptable for others to have the same or opposite one.

The problem lies when people seem to feel their opinion is fact.

In the arts, it never is.

Movies

The Prophecy (1995) a (very) belated review

Yesterday and while feeling myself in a mental fog (don’t ask…and, no, it has nothing to do with drugs or alcohol, neither of which I consume), I was flipping through the channels and hoping to get my feet on the ground (figuratively) when I caught the start of the 1995 film The Prophecy.

I’d heard about the film and knew there were several sequels made to it (according to Wikipedia, this film has produced four sequels).  I also knew it had the delightfully off-kilter Christopher Walken in it as the bad-guy and so I stuck around and watched it.

Wow.

Look, the movie is, at best, a fairly low budget “B” movie with a pseudo-religious plot that doesn’t make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

Counterpoint: You have Christopher freaking Walken playing the angel Gabriel, who walks the Earth and talks in your typical Christopher Walkenese while hunting down a soul hidden from him…a soul which would lead to the end of a war in the heavens which, we’re told, is stalemated.

Christopher Walken’s Gabriel is indeed your badguy, and he’s an absolute hoot, turning from “nice” to “nasty” with remarkable ease.  If there’s any real negative to say about this film (other than the fact that the plot is silly as hell), it is the fact that the movie should have had Mr. Walken in every scene.

Anyway, back to the plot.

So you have this evil soul hidden in the body of some military man who dies of old age and the angel Simon (Eric Stoltz in what amounts to a semi-long cameo) takes the soul from his body and hides it in the body of a little girl (Moriah Shining Dove Snyder) while Gabriel and his minions try to get their hands on it.  As stated before, this soul is so evil having it on Gabriel’s side will give him an advantage in the eons long War of Heaven.

Simon enlists the aid of a former priest, now policeman named Thomas Dagget (Elias Koteas) to…I dunno, help or keep his eyes peeled or something.  Gabriel eventually finds and kills Simon while Dagget, close behind, figures out the little girl is the target and, with the help of Katherine (Virginia Madsen), the little girl’s teacher, they hold off Gabriel and try to free the girl of the evil extra soul she carries.  Got it?!

Look, we’re not talking Casablanca here.

But for some at times cheesy fun and a wonderful evil performance by Christopher Walken, plus a you-have-to-see-it-to-believe-it cameo by another pretty big named actor at the end of the film (I won’t give him away…suffice to say he was in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and, like Mr. Walken, his appearance in the film is a total hoot), you could do a lot worse than spend some time with The Prophecy.

Movies

Rex Reed’s Worst Movies of 2016

1 Comment

Opinions of works of art, one must repeat to oneself, is a subjective matter.

That book or movie or artwork of song you like, even flat out love, might be crap -or worse!- to others.  I’ve always been fascinated with reading negative opinions on works of art, even those I may like that others do not (Need I repeat, for the upteenth time, the fact that I happened to love the much maligned Batman v Superman?).

Sometimes reading negative reviews, provided the reasoning is strong/logical, provides a fascinating alternate look at things you might find very good.  Again, the key here is to read an informed, logical explanation for why something doesn’t work for you.

With that in mind, I present:

Rex Reed’s Worst Movies of 2016

Sadly, not all the movies presented in this list are given an explanation for why they’re on the list.  For example, at #7 is Martin Scorsese’s The Silence.  I haven’t seen the film and don’t know if I will, but I’m curious as to why it falls in this list.  So too film #6, The Lobster.  Some have offered great praise for this film while others feel it isn’t all that great.  Why does he feel it fails badly enough to make it to his worst of the year list?

But the main reason I bring up Mr. Reed’s list is for movie #8, The Nice Guys.  Here’s what Mr. Reed had to say about that film:

Afflicted by the same hammered, incomprehensible immaturity that makes modern American comedies unwatchable by any sane person’s standards, this action spoof of the brain-dead, odd-couple cop-buddy franchises popularized by Mel Gibson and Danny Glover, or Eddie Murphy and Judge Reinhold, is equally dumb and forgettable but not even half as amusing. This one, by the jarringly untalented writer-director Shane Black, is merely violent, vulgar and stupid.

I was very eager to see The Nice Guys when I first heard of it.  Shane Black, the movie’s director/writer, was the man who wrote the screenplay to one of the older films referenced in this mini-review, the Mel Gibson/Danny Glover film Lethal Weapon.  Naturally, I was damned curious to see the film, for Mr. Black’s presence (he also directed the very funny Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) but also to see how Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe would interact.  When the trailers appeared, things looked encouraging…

When I finally got to see the film, it proved a disappointment.  The best laughs, as I noted in my original review, were found in the movie’s trailer.  The mystery wasn’t all that intriguing and by putting a 13 year old character in the center of the film (she is Ryan Gosling’s daughter), whatever danger the characters faced was dissipated as I just knew Mr. Black and the film’s backers wouldn’t dare actually endanger a 13 year old.

I ultimately gave the film two and 1/2 stars, noting it was just a little above average.  And yet the film has made the “best of” lists of several critics, something I find baffling and perhaps why I can’t help but smile at Rex Reed’s biting remarks regarding this film.

While I wouldn’t put The Nice Guys on my “worst films of the year” list, it may well be #1 on my “Most Disappointing” films of the year.  I don’t believe I’ve had as high hopes for any other movie this year as I have The Nice Guys and, if I’m being very honest, despite finding the film “OK”, it was far, far less than I had hoped.

Movies

Jason Bourne (2016) a (mildly) belated review

I’m a fan of the original three Bourne films (2002’s The Bourne Identity, 2004’s The Bourne Supremacy, and 2007’s The Bourne Ultimatum).  All three featured Matt Damon in the titular role of Jason Bourne, amnesiac American hitman who is trying to figure out the lost pieces of his life while the “Agency” works very hard to eliminate him.

Until the Bourne films appeared, the king of the spy films was James Bond but, as Pierce Brosnan limped through his last features in the role, not only James Bond but the entire superspy genre appeared to be played out.

So it was a very pleasant surprise to find there was still life in it, as long as one offered a great plot and genuinely exciting action sequences.  All three of the original Bourne films were a hit and their influence was clear when in 2006 the then latest James Bond reboot, Casino Royale, appeared and, to my eyes, to a great degree took note of the Bourne films and moved in that direction.

After 2007’s The Bourne Ultimatum, however, it seemed this movie franchise was at its end.  I distinctly recall Matt Damon was asked about either the plot of this film or where the franchise could go from here and, tongue planted in cheek, he noted something along the lines that all three films had the same plot.

He wasn’t totally wrong.

For each Bourne film does indeed feature a repetitive plot which I pointed out in the very second sentence of this review.

Despite the repetitive nature of the plots, the three original films nonetheless managed to use what they had well.  When we reached The Bourne Ultimatum, however, it was clear this film was intended to be the finale.  All of Jason Bourne’s original questions were answered and our protagonist made amends for his violent past while closing down the agency that made him what he was.

Despite this seemingly complete resolution, Hollywood being Hollywood and the allure of money to be made resulted in the first, and thus far only, “sideways” sequel to the Bourne films, the 2012 Jeremy Renner/Rachel Weisz starring The Bourne Legacy.  On paper the concept wasn’t bad.  Since Matt Damon wasn’t going to be in this film, the producers decided to focus on the many other “Jason Bournes” out there and make a feature on them.

Alas, what may sound intriguing on paper unfortunately didn’t work, IMHO, in the finished product.  I felt The Bourne Legacy (you can read my original review of it here) was at best an “OK” film that didn’t resolve anything and appeared to be intended to start a new franchise rather than stand alone as its own good film.  It comes as little surprise no sequels to this film were ever green lit.

However, Hollywood being Hollywood (redux) and money to be made, it shouldn’t be too terribly surprising that with the passage of years, Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass (he oversaw the last two of the original three Bourne films) were again drawn into making another Bourne film.  They did, of course, and earlier this year Jason Bourne was released.

Alas, despite some really good action sequences and a very game Matt Damon, the best I can offer is, like The Bourne Legacy before it, a mild recommendation for Jason Bourne.

The film certainly isn’t a disaster.  As I stated before, the action sequences are quite good at times (even if the final car chase is ludicrous).

But the story…

Once again we have Bourne looking into his background.  Once again we have the “Agency” and their shadowy operative after our hero.  Nothing’s really changed except the concept this time around seems tired and at times I couldn’t help but feel things weren’t as interesting as before.

Yet there’s little doubt the film could have been great.  It features a good cast, including Tommy Lee Jones as CIA Director Robert Dewey, current “it” girl and soon to be Tomb Raider Alicia Vikander as CIA operative (and a woman with her own agenda) Heather Lee, Vincent Cassel as “Asset”, a hitman with a personal grudge against Jason Bourne.  Julia Stiles also makes her return to the Bourne universe as Nicky Parsons, a role she’s had in all three original Bourne films.

But, again, the movie was decent but never spectacular.

The big problem lies in the screenplay and the way the story is told.  As an audience we’re whipped from place to place and people are heading rapidly to the left, then to the right, then there’s gunfire and fist fights and car chases and general mayhem and rinse, lather, and repeat, and all revolve around a) Jason Bourne’s “origin” and b) a Mark Zuckerberg/Steve Jobs-like character who’s created some kind of Facebook-like program everyone uses and which the CIA hopes will allow them to watch over everyone.

By far the film’s worst sin and what soured me on much of what followed involves the films opening moments.  I’ll get to this in a moment but it does involve a big SPOILER.

So, before I get into that SPOILER, I’ll repeat: Jason Bourne is a decent enough time killer that you should be able to enjoy but, frankly, you’re better off checking out the original three films.  A mild recommendation for Jason Bourne completists.

SPOILERS FOLLOW!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

 

All right, for those still here: The movie gets started by Julia Stiles’ Nicky Parsons breaking into the CIA computers (a wise move…NOT!) and downloading some very sensitive material, including files related to Jason Bourne and the assassin program he went through.  The CIA notes what she’s up to in real time and, because of the nature of the material she steals, they believe Ms. Parsons is in league with Jason Bourne.

This isn’t the case.

Jason Bourne has kept a very low profile while currently residing in Greece.  He makes money in bare knuckle boxing matches and while staying “off the grid”.  He has no idea at all what Parsons is up to but after she’s stolen the sensitive CIA material she seeks out and finds him at one of his boxing matches.  There, she allows him to see her.

After the match, Bourne finds she’s left him a note in his belongings on where to meet up with her.

This is where the stupidity of the story goes really deep.

Why not just meet Bourne right then and there?  Why leave him a note and then meet him elsewhere?

Oh, right, because when they meet up where she wants to meet, in the middle of a freaking all-out street riot in Athens, they become targets to the CIA who has, by this time, figured out where they are (as opposed to at that boxing match, where they weren’t at), and we get to have an Exciting-Chase-Sequence™ which eventually results in Nicky Parsons getting shot and killed…but not before she gives Jason a key to a locker which will lead him to the next place he needs to go.

How do I put this delicately?I  This sequence is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.

Why the hell didn’t Nicky Parsons just wait for the boxing match to be over, approach Bourne, and talk to him there and then?

I’ll tell you why…Oh wait, I can’t.

IT MAKES NO SENSE.

It felt like the movie’s creators hoped to “shock” audiences at the death of this recurring character just as they did with another big character in the opening minutes of the second Bourne film (I won’t reveal who).

But in this case, the way it was done was just beyond stupid.

If you can get past that, you may enjoy the rest of the film a little more.

Maybe.

Movies, Music

Anno Horribilis…2017 can’t come fast enough…

So over the weekend we had two big news items regarding celebrities.

The first was Carrie Fisher, best known for playing Princess Leia Organa in the original Star Wars trilogy and reprising the role in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, suffered a heart attack while on a plane traveling to L.A.  Based on some of the comments offered, things sounded very grim.  However, the latest update, from Carrie Fisher’s mother Debbie Reynolds, is somewhat encouraging: She reported Ms. Fisher was “stable”.

I’ve noted many times I never got into Star Wars, even though I was of the right age and a sci-fi fanatic then (as I am now). Despite this, I have nothing but positive thoughts for Ms. Fisher, who not only was good in the role (a damsel in distress with a no-nonsense attitude), but also was quite good in other roles, including her hilarious turn as the ex-girlfriend from Hell turn in The Blues Brothers…

Then, yesterday, Christmas Day, came word that George Michael, ex-Wham! member and (even more successful) solo artist, had passed away at the very (too!) young age of 53.  I’ll remember him most for this video, which was stylish and sexy as hell and introduced the world to Cindy Crawford:

He also had a great sense of humor and was the first musical guest to star in James Corden’s Carpool Karaoke for Comedy Relief…

Like Star Wars, I can’t say I was ever a big fan of George Michael’s music.  Just wasn’t my thing.  However, there is little doubt he had talent and a great voice and, let’s be fucking serious, 53 is not any kind of age to pass away at.

2017 has got to be better, no?

(Then he remembers who becomes President in 2017.  Gulp.)

Movies

Passengers (2016) redux…

Though I don’t intend to see the film and am turned off by the “twist” presented within (and, based on the reviews, the very lame way its dealt with), I’m nonetheless fascinated with the Chris Pratt/Jennifer Lawrence film Passengers.

In part it is because of similarities to a portion of my novel Ghost of the Argus, which, because it was a big element of said novel, clearly is an interesting topic for me…or else I never would have included it in my novel.

Having said that, a clarification: The idea of someone trapped alone on a spacecraft with a long time to go before it reaches its destination is not some blazingly new or original concept.  Indeed, if you peel off the sci-fi element, the person living all alone goes back at least to Robinson Crusoe.  In sci-fi, there’s what is arguably Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey, which featured two astronauts alone on a big starship heading to a distant location while the other crew members were in some kind of cryogenic sleep.

As for the Passengers twist, check this out, the cover to Weird Science #20, originally published in 1951.  I vaguely remembered that particular issue (I’m a fan of the EC line of comics but shamefully admit the cover of this book and its similarity to the movie was pointed out elsewhere):

Image result for weird science #20

Pretty much the plot of Passengers, no?

Anyway, that’s about all I have to say about this film…unless of course something else occurs to me! 😉

 

Movies

Passengers (2016), creative coincidence, and telling a story

Back in the stone age and when I was in High School, our English class was given a creative writing assignment.  It went like this:  Imagine you were on vacation on the TV show Fantasy Island , what would your fantasy be?

For those too young to know, Fantasy Island was a TV show that ran from 1977 to 1984 and featured Ricardo (KHAN!) Montalban and Herve Villechaize as the easy-going -and perhaps supernatural- hosts of Fantasy Island, a place where various guest stars -a revolving bunch of relatively well know actors- to the show came and spent a weekend living out their greatest fantasy.  The fantasies/stories presented could be humorous, touching, action filled, etc.

In many ways, this was a more “benevolent” version of The Prisoner, where people wanted to be on the island rather than escape it.  A new version of the show would appear in 1998 and feature Malcolm McDowell in the titular “host” role but the show went nowhere and was cancelled after a single season.

Anyway, I considered the assignment and what “fantasy” I’d like to enjoy.  There are soooo many choices, many of which would never fly in a High School English class.  So, removing the X-Rated ones and after thinking about it, I decided it would be really cool to spend a quiet weekend in a super-large spacecraft, far away from anyone and everyone and in a place I could unquestionably enjoy some peace and quiet.

As you can guess, at that particular moment in time I must have really had my fill of people!

Anyway, the idea remained in my head for years.  Around 2012 or so and when I first began writing Ghost of the Argus, the fifth book in the Corrosive Knights series, I was finally able to use that concept in one of my novel…along with some new wrinkles: The person “trapped” in the super large spacecraft has 50 years to go before reaching his destination.  Why was he on the ship?  Who put him there?  These mysteries were revealed in the telling of the story.

Earlier this year or sometime late last year I first heard about the Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence film Passengers and, once again, experienced that curious sensation of creative coincidence.  The trailer below gives you a general idea of the movie’s plot.

Now, before you think I’m about to go into a “they ripped me off!” diatribe, nope.  My understanding is that Passengers existed as a screenplay since 2007 or so, many years before the movie was finally green-lit.  I certainly had no awareness of it until filming started, so I didn’t rip the story off and unless the person who wrote the screenplay also happened to be in my English class way back in 1981/82 or so and was so floored with my “spending time alone in a large spacecraft” concept, I very much doubt he took my concept either.

While a case of creative “coincidence” is certainly intriguing, it doesn’t amount to anything more than that.

Now that that’s clear, let me get on with what I did want to talk about: Passenger’s plot.

I will be getting into some SPOILERS regarding the story and not mentioned in the trailer above so if you’re interested in seeing the film, you may want to move along.

SPOILERS FOLLOW!

YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!!!

Still here?

Ok, so the trailer above shows us a super large spacecraft traveling over a hundred years to its destination.  There are people aboard the ship, all of them in some kind of stasis, in theory sleeping until they reach their destination.  However, two of the passengers (played by Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence, natch), are awoken 90 years too early and suddenly they are the only “awake” passengers on this ship.

By the time the ship reaches its destination, they will likely be dead.

Again, going by the trailer alone, audiences are asked: What do these two very charismatic and beautiful people do?  What awoke them?  Can they somehow get themselves back into stasis or are they condemned to live out the rest of their lives and likely die well before the ship reaches its destination?

Though I haven’t seen the film or read the screenplay it was based on (so take some of my opinions below with that pinch of salt), certain elements of the story have been released.

The big twist not revealed in the trailer but which has been revealed elsewhere:  Only one of these two passengers, Chris Pratt’s character, awoke too early.  His character spends a year alone on the ship, slowly going crazy, until he stumbles upon Jennifer Lawrence’s character’s stasis chamber.  Though he never met her before, he accesses her files and falls in love with who he thinks she is.

And then he does the unthinkable:  He decides to awaken her.

Think real hard about that.

Our protagonist, who is essentially condemned to living a life in solitary, granted through no fault of his own, decides to condemn another person to that same fate.

By his actions, regardless of how “nice” a guy he may be, our protagonist’s actions make him, essentially, first a stalker (he doesn’t know Jennifer Lawrence’s character at all.  He simply sees this beautiful blonde in a stasis chamber and, viola, knows he has to have her) and kidnapper.

While Chris Pratt’s character is a victim of circumstance, Jennifer Lawrence’s character is now a victim of him.

This, my friends, makes him a villain.  A despicable one at that.  He takes his own needs and places them above another person’s life.

Again, going by the reviews and what information I’ve gleaned about the screenplay, Chris Pratt’s character hides the fact that he’s responsible for Jennifer Lawrence’s character early awakening.  The deception kept secret, the two grow closer and closer to each other until they are a couple.

The reviews further note that when Jennifer Lawrence’s character realizes what was done to her, the film promptly falls on its face and fails to properly address the horror of this situation.  Instead, audiences are given Chris Pratt’s character “cute” ways of winning back the love of Jennifer Lawrence’s character.

The bad taste, many critics note, lingers.  (If you want to read some of the reviews, they can be found over at Rottentomatoes.com, where the film so far isn’t tracking well at all.

Some have countered the “icky” facts of this set up and said people are being too “sensitive” or (heaven’s forbid) “feminist”.

To them I say, consider this: What if the Chris Pratt character had been, say, a homosexual and the person he awoke was a male heterosexual and over the course of the film romances this clearly uninterested party?  How would we view his character then?

What if instead of dashing, handsome Chris Pratt, the movie’s protagonist was played by someone considerably less dashing and handsome and far older?  And what would we think if this person awoke someone who was very young?  Like way too young?

We shouldn’t have to think of all these things yet the film tries to cut off those considerations by presenting us these two beautiful mega-movie stars so of course they should fall in love which each other and work out whatever problems they have.

I mean, what’s kidnapping and sentencing someone to death between forced lovers, right?

I won’t be catching Passengers because while its plot is similar to something I came up with and since used in one of my books, the wrinkles placed in this movie, frankly, make my skin crawl.

Passengers comes out later this week.  I wonder if others will find the story as distasteful as many of the critics so far have.

Movies

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story…the early reviews

They’re pretty positive, so Star Wars fans, looks like you’ve got a…

…huh…?

Ok, so the reviews are pretty positive and Rottentomatoes.com has the film scoring a nice 84% positive among critics so far but…is there a proverbial disturbance in the force?

Some of the positive reviews clearly are that: Very positive.  Naturally, there are those who outright do not like the film.  While going through the reviews both good and bad, I get at least a couple of repeated criticisms leveled at the film by most critics.  They are: 1) The film’s leads, including Felicity Jones’ Jyn Erso, are very bland and 2) the film kinda muddles along for the first 2/3rds of its run time before giving audiences a rousing climax/finale.

One of the more curious reviews I read was this one, by Germain Lussler at i09.com, a writer who I find very entertaining to read.  His review of the film can be found here:

Rogue One Truly Understands How To Be A Great Star Wars Film

Based on that headline, you would think the film was a home run for Mr. Lussler, who in his review admits to being a HUGE Star Wars fan.

Yet as positive as the review starts out, Mr. Lussler then notes the things he feels are either wrong or don’t work in the film and, by the end of his review, wonders:

But as you leave (the movie), you may also start to wonder something. The film has so many surprises and winks to the rest of the franchise—are all those fan moments of excitement and recognition masking the film’s other flaws? If you’re a Star Wars fan, it’s hard to say definitively when you’re on one side or the other, but I do feel the characters, pacing, and story are engaging without them. Hopefully the many connections to the other films—and there are a lot of them—act more as sprinkles on top.

The fact of the matter is that for many, Star Wars and its various films have moved beyond critical reaction.  To many, the love of the features is such that they’ll dive into any new film of the franchise with an incredibly sunny disposition and, in many cases, actively ignore any faults that may lie within.  A reassessment and realization of a film’s flaws (if any) may -or may not- happen later on but by then the latest movie will have made a tremendous amount at the box-office and, in future years and regardless of how they feel about the film later on these same fans will own copies of those movies as well.

While George Lucas prequel films are today almost universally panned, people forget they did great business at the box office and people lined up and eagerly watched each and every one of these films.  At the time of their original release many stated they loved the films, only to later go back and admit their flaws.  I suspect many of these fans who later admitted to not liking those films have copies of them and, with the arrival of Rogue One, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if many do a viewing of these three prequel films before going into the latest one, which takes place just before the events of the original Star Wars film (Or Star Wars IV: A New Hope as it was renamed).

As I’ve stated many times before, I was never all that into Star Wars and doubt I’ll catch Rogue One in theaters when it is released this week.  Having said that, unlike all those who seemed to take glee in stomping on a creative work, I sincerely hope fans get what they need from in this film.

I sincerely hope they enjoy the hell out of it.