Category Archives: Movies

Movies

Reviewing something you couldn’t finish watching…

When I was much younger, I was completely enchanted by the At The Movies show.  You had the late Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert reviewing a series of films that were either released or about to be released that week and the chemistry between them was incredible even as it was clear they sometimes were going after each others’ throat.  Yet their conversation was always illuminating and, even if the film was a full on turd, they had wonderful ways of pointing this out.

Back then I thought: What a great way to make a living!  I mean, what could be better than spending your time watching films and then hanging out and conversing with someone about the merits -or lack thereof- of what you just saw?

With the passage of time, I realized that as much as I loved seeing films, the sheer number of films released each week (more seemingly every week), the reality is that being a movie critic is a very harsh job.  For every great film you sit through, there are dozens of mediocre ones and an equal number of absolutely terrible ones that you essentially have to sit through.  As a non-professional, if I don’t want to see the latest Transformers film, I ignore it.  Film critics often don’t have that luxury of choice.

Worse, as you are a “professional” critic, in theory you should go to the latest Adam Sandler film with the same dispassionate neutrality you should carry when going into the latest Steven Spielberg film.

Yet for just about everyone there must come a breaking point, where you’re watching a film so godawfully bad that you cannot stomach watching even one more second and walk out.

Again, as an ordinary individual, you have every right to leave a film half (or less) watched.  But what of professional critics?  For them to have a “legitimate” review of a film, must they see it all the way through?

On the one hand, one might argue they’re being paid to review the film and therefore they should review the whole thing.  There is always the theoretical possibility that the absolutely terrible film you’ve seen for the past thirty to forty-five minutes might redeem itself in the last half.

But, realistically, what are the odds?  Isn’t it far more likely that horrible/dreadful/no-good first half of the film will be followed by at best much of the same?

And that being the case and the reviewer states up front they couldn’t take the film and had to leave it after x-minutes of watching it, doesn’t that also provide an honest opinion of the critic’s views of said film?

Years ago my then girlfriend (who eventually became my wife) and I went to (*gasp*) Blockbuster and rented the film Class Action.  Originally released in 1991, I suspect we rented it as a “new” release at around that time and in the (*gasp*) VHS format.  Here’s the movie’s trailer…

So we popped the film into the VHS player and watched the first twenty or so minutes of it and…we just couldn’t do it.  Despite a good cast and decent direction by Michael Apted (a very active director who was responsible for diverse films such as Agatha, Gorillas in the Mist, Thunderheart, and The World Is Not Enough), this film simply didn’t do anything for us.  We were bored to the point we had to shut the damn thing off.

And yet over at Rotten Tomatoes the film scores a very high 75% positive among critics and a dead mediocre 50% among audiences.

Is it possible I was too impatient and the film built up steam as it went along?  I suppose, though I seriously doubt I’ll go back and verify.

Many, many years later and two days ago I had an eerie sense of deja vu.

I popped the Netflix DVD copy of the 2015 movie Synchronicity into my player and my ex-girlfriend-now-wife settled in to see it.  I was more excited about seeing the film than she was because I’m a sucker for time travel stories and this one, at least as described, sounded interesting.  Here’s the movie’s trailer:

While I admired the visual look of the film -even though the movie’s makers were clearly aping the style of Blade Runner– after approximately thirty minutes I looked at my wife and said: “That’s enough of that.”

To which she said: “Yes, please.”

The film, which concerns scientists attempting (and I guess succeeding) in creating a time travel machine that they had to prove worked by later sending a flower back to themselves (or something) was a muddled, uninteresting watch with characters and situations that were poorly sketched out and at times very confusing.

When we got to that 30 or so minute point, I knew things weren’t going to get much better and shut the film off, just as I had done with Class Action all those years before..

Again, I’m not a professional movie critic though I (obviously) love to write my reviews of films.  I love to see what makes a film or, for that matter, a book or a song, etc. etc. work.  I also find it fascinating to see when things don’t work, to see why it is they don’t work.

In the case of Class Action and Synchronicity, there was little need to stick with the works.  In the minutes I saw of each film I already had a grasp of why they weren’t working and it felt counterproductive to continue seeing something that I knew wouldn’t get better…for me.

I suppose the bottom line is this: Professional (ie paid) critics are human beings just like all of us and on rare occasions they too reach the proverbial end of their rope.  If they choose to write a review of a film they couldn’t see through to its end, I believe that’s not a sin, provided they offer a succinct, clear statement about why they felt said film wasn’t worth watching to its end.

Today, as a reader, you have the option of finding hundreds of other reviews of such material throughout the internet and among those you will surely find other reviews from critics who did see the particular film you’re interested in to its end.

Either way, I cannot fault anyone from reaching a level of annoyance with a film that makes them take the extraordinary step of leaving a film before it ends.

It’s certainly happened to me.

Movies

Star Trek Beyond (2016)…some musings

When the original “new” Star Trek movie arrived in 2009, I was both hopeful and, paradoxically, doubtful it could successfully reboot the original Star Trek series/movies.

You see, the original Star Trek series hold a very special place in my heart.  While Steven Spielberg’s Duel was the first movie I recall seeing start to end and understanding as a story told in full, the original Star Trek was the first TV series I recall gravitating to and loving, along with Get Smart, back in my very early years (both series were in reruns by the time I watched them, so I was a second generation fan of both).

I recall my elation at learning of, then my disappointment with the release, of Star Trek: The Motion Picture.  On the one hand, it was there was an undeniable thrill in seeing the original cast and crew I loved so much back together again…yet on the other hand the movie’s story was muddy even as the effects were for the most part great and the cast seemed constrained by the focus on the boring “newcomers” presented in the movie.  It was later revealed the movie was released in an incredible rush and, with the advent and money to be made on special edition DVDs, director Robert Wise was allowed to return to the film and “fix” it to the way he originally wanted it.  The director’s cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture is a far better experience, IMHO, than the theatrical or “expanded” edition and its too bad the new effects were made before the advent of HD and, thus, we have no HD version of the director’s cut…for now.

And then along came Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.

While critics -and many fans- weren’t all that enamored of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the film nonetheless made a lot of money.  Enough to justify the studios green lighting a sequel film, later re-titled Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

To put it kindly, this film single-handedly gave the entire Star Trek universe new lease on life.  Thanks to its critical and box-office success, we were treated (and sometimes punished!) with a string of Star Trek movies and new series, including Star Trek: The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Star Trek Voyager, and Enterprise.

With that much material, it isn’t too surprising the quality eventually started to vary considerably.  I hated the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation and, in general, didn’t like the series quite as much as so many others…yet I’d be lying if there weren’t episodes here and there -many to be sure- that floored me.  So much so that early on into the production and release of this series and when I heard they were looking for new writers, I sent out not one but TWO complete scripts for their consideration…the first script, which came back to me after a very long time and looked very well read and even had food particles (!) stuck within its pages, I suspect had a strong impression on the folks at STTNG.  Not strong enough to buy the script mind you, yet I suspect (and its nothing more than a suspicion) someone liked it enough to appropriate some of its material in the plot of one of the show’s episodes…but that’s a story for another time.

After a few years, however, the wheels of the series/movies were slowly grinding to a halt.  The original series cast got too old to continue starring in these “action” type films and, with the passing of DeForest Kelley, it was obvious there would not be another Star Trek feature with the originals.

So the original cast movies gave way to the Next Generation cast as that TV series ended its run.  But with the exception of the very first movie solely featuring that NG cast, First Contact (Generations featured both original and NG characters together), the movies that followed were, IMHO, quite dreadful.

Soon the movies stopped and so too did the various TV series and suddenly there was a Star Trek vacuum.

As much of a fan of the original series as I was, I was fine with this.  Sometimes, too much is…too much.

So fast forward to 2009 and J. J. Abrams’ reboots Star Trek with a new, young cast though he does -wisely, IMHO- include Leonard Nimoy in the proceedings.

I didn’t like the film all that much as I felt it tried a little too hard to crib other well worn Star Trek story ideas (that movie’s villain, in particular, felt like a pale re-working of Khan, which Mr. Abrams’ would do again, this time more directly, in the next film), but I did like the new cast and thought there was potential.

When Star Trek: Into Darkness appeared, I enjoyed the film when I was watching it in the theater but, afterwards, it proved to be one of those films that curdled the more you thought about it.  I haven’t rewatched it since first seeing it and I fear if I do, my opinion will be considerably more negative.

Which, in a very long winded way, brings us to Star Trek Beyond, the third feature in this “new” Star Trek universe and the first in which Mr. Abrams is not the director.  The first trailer for the film was nearly universally panned.  The next was a little better and here we have some more stuff…

Have to admit, after a turbulent first trailer, this material is a far better selling point for this new film, though I’m not a terribly big Rhianna fan and therefore her mini-interview does little to pull me for or against what’s here.

So, I’m game to see this.

I truly hope this movie wows me more than the previous two “new” ST films and takes me back to a time when ST was THE best sci-fi around.

As with so many things…we will see.

Movies

Sully (2016) drops (ouch) its first trailer…

Of late I’m ambivalent regarding seeing Clint Eastwood’s latest directorial works.

I’ve loved many, many of his films -both those he starred in and those he “just” directed- but cringed when he made a fool of himself by talking to an empty chair at Mitt Romney’s Republican Convention.  I also cringed -and refused to see- the movie American Sniper, Mr. Eastwood’s last film before Sully, even after being blown away by the great trailer promoting.  I wound up refusing to see the film because articles released concurrently with the film’s release questioned the late Chris Kyle’s veracity in the autobiography he wrote which was the basis of the movie.

But, damn was the trailer for the film good.

When I heard Mr. Eastwood’s latest film, the aforementioned Sully, was in the works, I have to admit I scratched my head.  For those who don’t know/don’t remember, on January 15, 2009 Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger glided his stricken airliner into the Hudson River very shortly after taking off.  His actions, deemed the “Miracle on the Hudson” saved all 155 passengers aboard that doomed flight.

I scratched my head because I thought: Is there really enough material here for a full length film?

As with American Sniper, I don’t know if I’ll go see Sully when its eventually released to theaters, though as opposed to American Sniper its not because I doubt the veracity of the lead character/real life person’s story.

Regardless, I must give credit where it’s due.  Mr. Eastwood and his staff have once again delivered a terrific trailer for his latest film.  I wonder, were the same people responsible for the terrific American Sniper trailer also responsible for this one?  If they were, kudos to them.  If I was a filmmaker interested in promoting my latest film, I’d check in on who Mr. Eastwood uses to cut his trailers and hire them for whatever I’m working on.

These people know what they’re doing.

See if you agree…

Books/Literature, Movies, TV

End of the story…

It’s something that as a writer I’ve thought about many a times: When does a story end?

It may seem very obvious: When its done, of course.

There are plenty of examples of “done in one” stories out there.  Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs had nowhere else to go following its bloody conclusion.

But there have been other successful films/books which have featured head scratching sequels or, if you will, continuations of the original story.  Take the original The Poseidon Adventure.  That film featured what appeared to be a hermetically sealed story and, like Reservoir Dogs, didn’t appear to have anything else to offer, storywise.

Yet that didn’t stop producer Irwin Allen from coming up with a sequel, albeit with a whole new, and very familiar, cast…

Then there are the “series” of stories featuring a prominent protagonist (or group of protagonists).  Author Sir Conan Arthur Doyle wrote four novels and 56 short stories featuring Sherlock Holmes…

Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote a series of novels featuring the characters of Tarzan and John Carter, Warlord of Mars…

In the early pulp era, you had the monthly adventures of Doc Savage and The Shadow.  Their stories would continue until the pulp era reached its end in the late 1940’s, though it wasn’t until more recent years that people have written stories wherein the two meet.

These pulp heroes, among many others, ushered in the era of the comic book superhero, and stories featuring the likes of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, etc. etc. have been around for many decades and are still delighting fans…

Of course I’m only scratching the surface here.  I haven’t even mentioned Raymond Chandler’s Phillip Marlowe books or Robert E. Howard’s Conan and Solomon Kane or Herge’s Tin Tin graphic novels or Ian Fleming’s James Bond books or Clive Cussler’s Dirk Pitt adventures or the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew etc. etc. etc.

When creating a genuinely interesting character in a interesting -and hopefully successful!- story, I suspect every author is tempted to follow up with further stories/adventures regarding that character.

But sometimes the continuations tire audiences out.  That initial spark fades and, with it, interest in the continuing adventures of said character.

I point all this out because I noticed today Amazon.com is offering a genuinely good deal for Justified: The Complete Series in both BluRay and DVD formats…

Justified: The Complete Series [Blu-ray]

During the first two of the six seasons of the show I absolutely loved it.  Season 2 featured the incredibly villainous -yet also strangely pathetic and sympathetic- Mags Bennett and proved the series’ highlight season, IMHO.  Seasons 3 through 5, while good, never quite reached the high of season 2.  By season 5, it felt like the stories were repeating themselves.

When season 6 originally aired, I recorded it to my DVR but after many months of sitting there, I ultimately deleted them. Though there remained a bit of curiosity within me to see where the show would end (the makers of the series knew that season would be its last), I had simply lost interest in seeing the show to such a degree that I couldn’t (ahem) justify spending all those hours watching this conclusion.

It is possible I change my mind.  The final season is available to be seen for free through Amazon Prime, but, again, something I loved had overstayed its welcome.

Sadly, the same happened with many other once popular shows and books.  I loved the early Dirk Pitt novels by Clive Cussler but can’t stomach them anymore.  The X-Files was one of my all time favorite shows but somewhere around the 4th season the spark was gone (though I admit I did watch the new very short series.  Unfortunately, only two of the episodes within it were great, the rest were only OK).  I remember laughing until tears flowed down my face during some of the early Simpsons years.  Now I can’t understand how it remains on the air.

Which in a very, very long-winded way brings me to my Corrosive Knights series.

Corrosive Knights Covers

Some of the prominent characters in the series are near and very dear to me.  I came up with several of them many years before formally writing this series and, in my younger mind, I figured I could write stories about them until the day I died.

But as the years passed and I worked on each individual book, there came a realization that was very much learned by what I wrote above: Sometimes the best stories are the ones that focus on one large tale and wrap up before overstaying their welcome.  These stories don’t wander or repeat themselves (at least not too much) nor do they -hopefully!- ever elicit in readers a sense of “been there, done that”.

That’s not to say when I’ve concluded the Corrosive Knights series (the series will run to eight books) there will be no chance at all for future tales involving some of these characters.

It is my hope that when the eight books are written, people will appreciate that I’ve given these stories and stories-within-stories my all and that together the series will form a larger, intriguing whole.  And after all these years of writing these books comes the realization that I’m getting very close to the finish line.

It is very much my intention to end it with a blast.

To those who have bought the books and offered their kind comments regarding the series: A heartfelt thank you.

We’re not done yet, but all the pieces are coming together!

Movies

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition (2016) a (early!!!) review

4 Comments

The official release of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition (ie Zach Snyder’s “Director’s Cut” of the film) was supposed to happen digitally on June 28th and via BluRay/DVD on July 19th but, lo and behold, certain digital movie providers are already offering the film in standard definition if you have pre-purchased it.  This was done, apparently, by accident.

As it so happens, I pre-purchased the “Ultimate Edition” of the film via VUDU (you can order it here) shortly after it was released to theaters and have been eager to see the director’s cut since.  This morning I found you could download and see the Ultimate Edition, albeit only in standard definition, since late yesterday/early this morning through either Flixster or Cinemanow.  Since most of my VUDU films appear on Flixster and I have an account through both services, I gave Flixster a look and found…nothing.

I could not download and/or watch the film through the service.  I double checked with VUDU but that service did not allow me to see the film either.

A little while later and at approximately 11 A.M. I gave my Flixster app another try and, wouldn’t you know it, I was granted the ability to download and see the film!  (Just to be very clear: What I am doing is NOT an illegal download…Flixster is a legitimate digital movie service and I paid for the film and was granted the ability to see a SD version of the film a little ahead of its official release and accidentally, of course, as the film shouldn’t be out yet).

UPDATE!!!!:  I understand WB has closed the accidental early release of the film so if you haven’t gotten it by now you’ll have to wait for the official release.

Before I get into what I thought of the film, there was a mini-controversy a few days ago when the movie’s cinematographer, Larry Fong tweeted the following on June 2 regarding the “Ultimate Cut” of this film:

Those who are fans will dig it.  If you hated it, you’ll still hate it.

Then, on June 10th, he tweeted this:

Watched #Ultimate Edition again; now believe EVERYONE will LOVE it!

So, did the movie’s producers “get” to Mr. Fong and force him to hype this new release or was the change in opinion an honest thing?

I’ll get into that in a moment but first let me state the following: I already liked the film.  I thought it was a solid piece of entertainment BUT was keenly aware that certain aspects of it were “off”.  I suspected the fact that some thirty minutes of the film had been cut from the “Ultimate Edition” before its theatrical release was what hurt the movie’s flow.

But let me emphasize: I already liked the film.

So it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise when I say I also liked the new, Ultimate Edition of BvS.  In fact, I would say you can officially trash/forget about the theatrical cut from now on and, if you have the desire to see the film, stick to “Ultimate Edition” from this day forward.

However…

I tend to agree with Mr. Fong’s original tweeted statement.  If you’re like me and you liked the film, you’ll most likely enjoy the new, uncut version far more.  If you were “neutral” about the film, you may come away liking it.  If you hated the film in its original theatrical incarnation but are willing to give this new edition a legitimate chance to change your mind, I suspect you’ll come away feeling the Ultimate Cut is a definite improvement over the theatrical version.  The big question is, is that improvement enough to change your mind?  Will you come away “liking” the film?

While I feel there will be converts, I don’t think there will be that many.

Why?  Because even though the film flows a lot better and the story “breathes” a hell of a lot easier and certain things that were unclear are much clearer and new, interesting subplots add to the overall story, the film nonetheless retains its essential story.  What the “Ultimate Cut” has done is offer us a far better telling of the story but not necessarily a new or different one.

And for many who hated the film, the movie’s story was the problem in the first place.

Again, this wasn’t the case for me and I came away delighted with this new version of the film.  Your mileage, as they say, might vary.

Now then, let’s get to what everyone wants to know: What’s new in this film?

I’ll get into that but, first…

SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!

You’ve been warned…!

….last chance to look away….!

……All right, here we go….

To begin, the film’s opening dual Batman origin stories (the one we’re familiar with and Bruce Wayne’s witnessing the fall of Metropolis) are essentially the same.  The only “new” scene I detected involved a school teacher/mother leading a line of kids through the dusty haze of fallen buildings.  This leads directly to the child Bruce saves from getting crushed.

From there we move on to the first major difference between Theatrical and Ultimate Cut: The African Desert sequence.  As presented in the theatrical version of the film, even a fan of the movie like me was confused by this part.  In the Ultimate Version the entire sequence makes far more sense, though there may be those who grimace at the fact that Jimmy Olsen is identified by name.

The repercussions of the African Desert sequence involve the testimony of the character of Zahina Ziri, who makes claims of Superman’s cruel actions in Africa.  In the theatrical cut of the film the character appears, if memory serves, only this one time.  However, in the Ultimate Cut of the film her character has an extended subplot that winds nicely throughout the film and ends shortly before the Congress sequence.

Lois Lane’s investigation into the mystery bullet she finds in Africa is also given more room and we’re shown Clark Kent’s reaction to the fact that she withheld knowledge of the bullet from him (Don’t worry, Clark Kent isn’t revealed to be a girlfriend beater).

While Lois Lane’s investigation is given more room, so too is Clark Kent’s investigation into the “Bat”.  In the Ultimate Edition and following Clark’s visit to the Gotham PD, we understand far better why Superman is so stern the first time he meets Batman.

Later on, we’re shown Superman helping bring the bodies out of the Capitol building, a sequence which humanizes him even more.  Later still, it is revealed why Superman didn’t notice the bomb (the wheelchair, Lois Lane finds, was lead lined!).

As for the movie’s climax, it remains mostly intact with a couple of bits and pieces here and there, including Doomsday taking out a helicopter.  After the movie’s climax there are a few added sequences as well, including the already revealed sequence depicting Lex Luthor meeting with what appears to be Steppenwolf, one of the New Gods.  Later, we have an extended conversation between Luthor and Batman in jail where it is made clear Luthor knows who Batman is and where Batman states he intends to send Luthor to Arkham Asylum.

There are also a few more clips presented in the Clark Kent funeral sequences, including more of the wake and Martha Kent finding the funeral expenses have been paid for by…somebody.

Obviously I haven’t given everything away but these are some of the more prominent pieces.

In conclusion, I’ll repeat what I said above: If you liked the movie, you’ll like this version even more.  If you were neutral about the film, this new version may win you over and make you a fan.  But if you really hated hated hated the film, you may find this Ultimate Edition a better overall presentation but still not enough to change your opinion.

Regardless, it was fun to finally see the film as the director intended.

If you have any questions about the Unlimited Edition of the film, please feel free to ask and I’ll try to provide answers where possible.

Movies

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition (2016)

When going online this morning, I found the following on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinematic/comments/4ntwgz/the_ultimate_cut_is_available_right_now/

Basically, various people noted that if you pre-purchased a digital copy of the Ultimate Edition of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, it was as of today available for downloading and watching, albeit in SD format, via Flixster or Cinemanow.

I pre-purchased the Ultimate Edition via VUDU but many of the films I buy (not all) are watchable via the Flixster app so I took a look and…nothing.  Then, about ten minutes ago I tried again and, sure enough, I was able to download a SD copy of the Ultimate Edition of the film!

Unfortunately I don’t have the time to see it in its entirety right now but I did watch the first few minutes and can verify this screencap:

Is legitimate.  This is the way the movie’s title is presented.

I’ll offer my full review of the Ultimate Edition soon but, meanwhile, if you have pre-purchased your digital copy of the Ultimate Edition of the film, I can verify you can download it through Flixster.

UPDATE:  It appears WB has stopped this accidental early release of the movie and you can no longer get it as I did.

Movies

The Hateful Eight (2015) a (mildly) belated review

As far as I’m concerned, had director/writer Quentin Tarantino retired after releasing the terrific one-two punch of Reservoir Dogs (1992) and Pulp Fiction (1994), he’d be assured a place in the pantheon of great movie makers.

Which is a nice way of saying that I feel his works after that point have been, in my humble opinion, hit and miss.  Understand, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Mr. Tarantino gives it his all with each new film and tries very hard to deliver something unique and new and as entertaining as it is thought provoking.

Following Pulp Fiction, Mr. Tarantino made Jackie Brown (1997), Kill Bill Vol 1 and 2 (2003, 2004), Death Proof (2007), Inglourious Basterds (2009), Django Unchained (2012), and, of course, the subject of this review, The Hateful Eight.

That makes eight films Mr. Tarantino has made and of those, the only one I have yet to see, despite owning the BluRay, is Inglourious Basterds.  Of the ones that remain on the list following Pulp Fiction, would it surprise you if I said that while each film has their good and bad, the one I like the most is the one that I only liked the last half of it?

I’m referring to the SECOND half of Death Proof, which I thought was balls-to-the-walls terrific.  Funny, action filled, suspenseful, and with an ending that had me cheering.  But that movie’s first half, up until Stuntman Mike makes his first killing, was awful and, even worse, completely unnecessary.  Cut that whole first half of the film out and watch the second half alone and you have Mr. Tarantino’s best work since those first two films, IMHO.

Still, though I don’t care completely for Jackie Brown (a movie many feel is Mr. Tarantino’s best work but one I found carried a too-hard-to-ignore big plot hole that destroys, to me, the entire story), Kill Bill (If I want to see a film that tries to mimic the thematic awe of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly I’ll just go see The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly), and Django Unchained (for me the film was enjoyable until the point where a character had the choice to hold his nose and shake a villain’s hand to end things amicably…and chooses not to.  Just shake his freaking hand you idiot!!!!), I nonetheless will repeat what I said above: You cannot fault Mr. Tarantino for trying his best to create movies that are a step above your regular popcorn fare.

With The Hateful Eight, Mr. Tarantino returns to the western though this film is very different from his other western, Django Unchained.  Like many of his other films, Mr. Tarantino is playing with well established genres and story conventions.  In this case, the biggest one he appropriates is mystery writer Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians aka And Then There Were None.

In that famous novel, a group of (we soon find) despicable people with dark secrets buried in their individual closets are brought together on a remote island under false pretenses.  When the boat that takes them to that distant island departs, they are left stranded and suddenly, one by one, are murdered.  Who among them is a killer?

In The Hateful Eight, bounty hunter John “The Hangman” Ruth (Kurt Russell) is in the process of taking his latest fugitive capture, Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) to the town of Red Rock so he can get his reward and see her hang.  The stagecoach carrying him and his prisoner are trying to beat a fast approaching blizzard but nonetheless pick up two passengers along the way, Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson), a fellow bounty hunter who doesn’t particularly care about bringing his prisoners back alive, and Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), a man who claims he’s heading to Red Rock to become its sheriff.

John Ruth is suspicious of the two and fears they may be in cahoots with his prisoner and/or might try to take her for themselves as she has a very high price on her head.  Ultimately Ruth allows the two to share his stagecoach but they are only able to make it to Minnie’s Haberdashery, a cabin in the middle of nowhere, before the blizzard hits.

Within the Haberdashery are four other curious characters and Ruth senses things are not what they seem.

Spoiler alert: They’re not.

I won’t get into much more spoilery material from here on in and focus on my feelings about this film.

Again, it was clear Mr. Tarantino was giving this movie his all and the first forty or so minutes of it, roughly to the point shortly after the group makes it to the Haberdashery, were intriguing, suspenseful, humorous, and odd…but in a very good way.

And then came “that” scene and, frankly, things went downhill from there.

“That” scene, which I will describe without giving too much away, involves Samuel L. Jackson’s “conversation” with General Sandy Smithers (Bruce Dern).  Unlike everything that happened before, that scene felt forced, as if Mr. Tarantino had this great idea and was determined to use it in this movie.  However, when all is said and done this scene, and indeed the character of Smithers, could and perhaps should -especially after all the revelations are made- been cut out of the film entirely.

Part of the problem is that I believe Mr. Tarantino made an understandable mistake when he cast Bruce Dern in the role.  I’m a HUGE fan of Bruce Dern’s impressive body of movie work and in many features he played the crazed baddie to perfection.  Unfortunately, at this time Mr. Dern is a very old and frail man and no longer looks like the menacing baddie of his younger days.  I suspect Mr. Tarantino was hoping for that Bruce Dern in this movie but instead got a man who is always in a chair, never gets up, and looks as menacing as a cotton ball.  When the scene involving Mr. Dern plays out to its conclusion, I grew to loathe Samuel L. Jackson’s character and view him as a coward, something you may not want to do when dealing with your movie’s lead character.

And yes, I know the movie is called The Hateful Eight and not The Tolerable Eight or The They’re-Bad-But-Not-So-Bad Eight.

But still.

Sadly, from that point on the film seemed to lose it for me.  Bothersome little details I could ignore became more prominent.  The big one:  Why have a great actress like Jennifer Jason Leigh in the film and then have her do essentially nothing for 4/5ths of the movie’s bloated 3 hour runtime except get beaten around mercilessly or have blood splattered on her a la Bruce Campbell in the Evil Dead movies?  Instead of wasting time on Bruce Dern’s unnecessary character arc, why not find more interesting things for her to do?

And when all was revealed toward the end (and again I’ll try to tiptoe around spoilers here), the fact of the matter is the bad guy(s) were an incredibly inept bunch.

I could go on and on but I truly don’t want to reveal more spoilers.

Despite a great start, a great cast of characters, and incredible cinematography, I can’t recommend The Hateful Eight except to those who love the films of Quentin Tarantino.  You may find more in there to love than the average movie goer but for me this was a film that could have used a little more script work.

The Hateful Eight is certainly not a disaster of a film, but it is one that could -and should- have been better.

Movies

Is Star Wars: Rogue One in trouble?

I’ll say this up front: I’m not a big Star Wars fan.  I’ve written many times before of how, as an 11 year old boy, I watched the original film in a full-to-the-brim theater in 1977 and perhaps a week or so after it was originally released…and while everyone around me went nuts while I just couldn’t get into the film (you can read more about that here).

I mention this only because I want to quickly add the following: Presenting this below information is in no ways meant to be me “gloating” regarding potentially bad news regarding Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (ROSW from now on).  As I’ve tried to make it painfully clear many times before, I have no problems with people having diverse opinions about works of art, be they books, movies, TV shows, etc. etc. etc.  Just because I like/don’t like something doesn’t mean I expect the entire world to follow my opinion and vice versa.

Having said that, let’s dive into the “controversy” surrounding ROSW.

Page 6 published the following article regarding ROSW on the May 30th:

Disney Execs In A Panic Over Upcoming Star Wars Film

The upshot of the article, written by Emily Smith, was that Disney Executives were “not fully satisfied with the first cut (of ROSW) from director Gareth Edwards” and that the film would have to “go back (for) four weeks of expensive reshoots in July“.

After a few days of rumors, Germain Lussier over at io9 provided an interesting summary of the information regarding the film and its potential reshoots up to that point:

More Details Have Been Revealed About Those Rogue One Reshoots

Then came this article which presented even worse news regarding ROSW.  Found on makingstarwars.com and written by Jason Ward, the article stated the ROSW reshoots might add up to as much as a whopping 40% of the film…

How Extensive Will the Rogue One Reshoots Be?

Amid rumors of new writers coming in to help work over the material (even that J. J. Abrams was going to have a more active role in overseeing the “fixing up”), there came this article from The Hollywood Reporter and written by Alex Ritman and Borys Kit which noted…

Star Wars: Rogue One enlists renowned stunt coordinator Simon Crane for reshoots

So, what are we to make of all this?

Again, I don’t for a second wish to be snarky or put down Star Wars fans.  While the franchise didn’t do much for me, I’m always curious about movie news such as this and I find the conclusions one can make regarding these bits of news fascinating.

This first conclusions one can make regarding these stories are the easiest: After Gareth Edwards finished his principle photography for ROSW and presented a rough cut of the same to Disney studio executives, they were clearly not happy with what he did.  Whether the executives are right or not, and I suspect Mr. Edward’s “cut” of the film will eventually make its way to home video, is irrelevant: The executives are paying the bills and if they feel the product is not “up to snuff” they have every right in the world to demand re-shoots, whether they involve 10% of the film or 40% or even 100%.  It’s their money and time and if they have each, they can do with it what they will.

There is, however, one other interesting conclusion one can draw from this and, I would hasten to say, it is my own conclusion and could very well be wrong: It appears there are several “loose lips” in this particular production and they’re not bothered at all with throwing Gareth Edwards under the bus.

The fact of the matter is that all these bits of information can’t help but make him, and his initial cut of the film, look bad.  With each new name floated out there being brought in to “fix” the movie, we’re left to think executives at Disney have lost faith in Mr. Edwards based on that original cut and, further, feel the need to not only bring in others but announce to the world they’ve brought in others to make things right.

The ultimate conclusions regarding ROSW will be made after it is released to theaters, of course, but think about this: If the film is a HUGE success and winds up beloved, those studio executives get to pat themselves on the back and say they saved a flawed/bad Gareth Edwards film from failure by bringing in all these others to help make the film “good”.  On the other hand, if the film “fails” both critically and commercially, these same executives, thanks to the rash of news released to this point, can point their fingers at Mr. Edwards and say “Well, we tried our best to save the film but there was just no way to save Gareth Edwards’ flawed work.”

Either way, it appears people out there are setting themselves up to create a win-win scenario for Disney and her executives and a lose-lose scenario for Mr. Edwards.

Movies

So this happened yesterday…

They dropped a new trailer for the “Ultimate Edition” of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, and its chock full of new scenes:

I don’t want to once again get into my defense of the movie (as anyone who has come here regularly knows, I thought the film was terrific even as I acknowledged it seemed hacked up/disjointed at points, something I suspect this “ultimate” edition will resolve), but there was one comment on YouTube with this trailer by “fero player” which, if you’ll pardon me for doing so, I’ll reproduce here in its entirety:

Batman’s entire character arc in this film is about him becoming a hero again. He’s introduced here as the monster, the devil in the shadows. Taking down criminals not to save these women, but for a lead on Kryptonite so he can destroy Superman. The murder of Robin by The Joker and watching Superman’s battle with Zod destroy Metropolis has broken him. He feels powerless against a cruel world he can’t control any longer, and that rage has turned a good man cruel. He now kills to defend himself and other people, and brands the most heinous criminals to condemn them. Cold-blooded murder will be his final step. When he hears Superman use (what he thinks is) his dying breath to beg him to save his mother, he finally sees that he has become the villain. It’s not about their mothers having the same name. It’s about Batman realizing that he is no different than the monster who killed his parents and created him. In throwing down the spear and saving Superman’s mother, he also saves himself. Anyone who looks at that entire scene and sees nothing but a shitty Step Brothers meme, they wrote BvS off before it was even filmed. They already hated it because they didn’t like Man of Steel, or they don’t like Zack Snyder, or they don’t like the idea of DC having their own Cinematic Universe. God forbid that a film actually have subtext instead of lame quips and long-winded explanations.

I present the above because at its heart this is why I found BvS such a compelling movie.  In my original review, I stated the following:

…the Batman we see here is in a fever state.  He’s off his game and very flawed, locked in on the goal of ridding the world of the danger he feels Superman represents.  The more rational Batman we are accustomed to would have realized certain things were occurring and manipulations were being made but because of his rage, this Batman misses them…until it’s almost too late.

In my “second look” at the film, I wrote this:

…it was a surprise and delight the way the filmmakers dealt with the character of Batman/Bruce Wayne.  This was an original take on the character even as it used -and did not ignore- his previous history.  Here we have someone whose world-view has radically changed.  His anger and sense of outrage were inflamed by the events of Man of Steel (we witness that film’s conclusion through the eyes of Bruce Wayne in one of the film’s standout sequences) and this has changed him for the worse.  Batman is singularly focused on destroying Superman, who he views as a danger to mankind, and this singularity in focus makes him fall prey to being used by others…

As presented in the theatrical cut, our primary focus is indeed the story of Batman’s “fall” (his second origin, the conclusion of Man of Steel) and subsequent redemption.  As was mentioned in the first quote, Batman has taken a dark road and was in danger of becoming just like his parents’ murderer (this is why it was important to present, despite the fact that it has been shown so often before, the deaths of Bruce Wayne’s parents).

But what also intrigues me about this new trailer is that it appears Batman’s story was given more emphasis while Superman/Lois Lane’s was whittled down.  Look at the trailer again and you’ll notice many, perhaps most of the new sequences revolve around either Superman/Clark Kent and/or Lois Lane, including a larger African scene, what appears to be Clark Kent investigating Batman a little more, as well as Lois Lane doing the same regarding the African situation.

Was the focus on Batman’s story arc at the expense of a similar arc for Superman?

I wonder.

On 6/28 the Digital version of the film will be released and on 7/19 the BluRay appears.

I’ll be most curious to see it then.

Movies

21 Movie Sequels that took far too long…

…to make:

21 Movie Sequels that took far too long to make

Have to admit, I’m fascinated with the list.  For your convenience the list is presented in order and, therefore, the last movie on the list was the sequel that took the longest to make vis a vis the original.

I won’t spoil which film it is, but I’ll offer a couple of hints: That particular film’s sequel appeared a whopping 28 years after the original was released in 1982 and, even more interesting, actually featured the lead actors from the original film, though their roles were smaller in the sequel (gotta have young faces as the leads, I suppose).

I reviewed the sequel a while back and didn’t like it very much but, let’s face it, other than the original’s then-magnificent effects, the first movie wasn’t all that great to begin with either.

By the way, I agree with the inclusion of Superman Returns on this list.  It appeared 26 years after the last, Christopher Reeve starring feature, essentially ignored the events of Superman III and IV, and had a new actor (Brandon Routh) play the role of Superman.  This last bit, of course and very sadly, had to be done.

Thinking about Superman Returns fills me with frustration.  I really loved Christopher Reeve/Richard Donner’s take on Superman and still feel, despite its age and now dated effects, the first Superman film is the best superhero movie ever made.  Clearly director Bryan Singer (X-Men, Usual Suspects) also felt a great deal of love for that film and the proof of this fact is that Superman Returns is essentially a remake of the original Superman.

Unfortunately, it is a pale, dull, though admittedly reverent echo and could never be much more than that.  The question I had after seeing it was: Why see Superman Returns when I can see the far better Superman?  Talk about unnecessary!

In the end, Superman Returns could -and should!- have been a great “new” film and instead, because director Bryan Singer decided to make “his” version of the original Superman, it turned out to be a plodding remake.

What a missed opportunity!