…and 40 things presented by Time magazine you may not have known about the film:
Interesting list of items (some I knew, some I didn’t) regarding the very popular (still!) film The Godfather.
Haven’t seen the film recently…may have to give it a look again sometime soon.
Found this interesting article by Andrew O’Hehir for Salon.com concerning the various “influences”, both literary and in movies, to the very popular young adult novel (and soon to be movie) The Hunger Games:
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/what_came_before_the_hunger_games/singleton/
When I first heard about The Hunger Games from my youngest daughter (she’s a big fan), my immediate reaction was similar to the one stated early in Mr. O’Hehir’s article: Boy, this story sure sounds a lot like Battle Royale. I realized, perhaps like Mr. O’Hehir, that there were plenty of other influences, from The Most Dangerous Game to (yes) The Running Man (both the film and the Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman novel).
So while The Hunger Games may not be one of the more original literary concepts, its success is unquestionable. As I write this, the upcoming release of the movie appears to be a sure fire hit, perhaps on the level of other young adult lit films such as the Harry Potter and Twilight movies.
But, I also wonder, why has The Hunger Games succeeded as well as it has? Why, for example, does Battle Royale remain a “cult” film/book while this work looks to be the next big thing?
Once again one realizes just how astute legendary writer/screenwriter William Goldman was when he said this about movie making: Nobody knows anything.
John Carter, a big budgeted adventure film audiences seem to enjoy (Rottentomatoes.com has the film scoring a pretty high 72% among audiences with a more mediocre 50% among critics), looks to be a bust. In other times, the ingredients present in this film looked to make it a sure fire hit: Big budget, big effects, action, suspense…And, based on the audience reaction, it appeared the film delivered.
And yet…for whatever reason, it didn’t connect as well as it might have. Why? Was the film a victim of its release date? Are audiences, perhaps, exhausted by the “big budget special effects” extravaganzas? Is it possible Disney’s marketing department failed to “sell” the film to audiences? Or was the audience reaction cooler than what Rottentomatoes.com has us believe, and those who saw the film may well have “liked” it, but they didn’t really “love” it, at least enough to recommend it to friends?
And returning to The Hunger Games, in a market saturated with young adult adventure books, why has this book, derivative or not, scored so big when so many others fade away? For that matter, why did Harry Potter and Twilight become such big hits before it?
I suppose the lesson is this: You work hard, you create your works, then you hope that they succeed. However, there are no guarantees. You could create the next Hunger Games. You could create the next John Carter.
Nobody knows anything.
I’m not a big fan of romantic comedies, mainly because they tend to operate under a story “formula” that, to my eyes, has become all too predictable.
To begin, we have our main two characters (male and female). They meet, they fall in love with each other, sometimes right away, sometimes over a few minutes of screen time. Sometimes, they hate each other on the outset, but that’s only delaying the inevitable. They will fall in love with each other.
But there are complications. One of them, for example, may be engaged. Perhaps to the other’s best friend. Or maybe their meeting and love is some kind of con. Perhaps one of them was looking for a rich score, or trying to prove they could seduce anyone. In the end, they (say it all together now) truly fall in love. In the movie’s later acts, the truth of this deception comes out and it looks like the young lovers are destined to go their separate ways. Then, in the film’s final act, one or the other or both realize their love is true and they make up and live happily ever after.
The End.
Which, in a roundabout way, brings us to the 1997 film Grosse Point Blank. As I mentioned before, I’m not a big fan of romantic comedies. But like many things in life, there are exceptions. If there’s one romantic comedy that I can sit through multiple times, it is this film.
I’ve seen it several times, most recently over the weekend, and still get a chuckle out of it. Yes, the film follows the typical romantic comedy plot, but it is the unusual elements brought into the more standard ones that makes this film work so well.
To begin with, we’re not dealing with your typical protagonists. John Cusack is Martin Blank, hired killer, who is currently on a losing skid. We first meet him on one job where he’s hired to protect someone from a killer. He succeeds in his assignment…temporarily. His next job, a killing in Miami meant to look like a heart attack, is instead botched. He is forced to kill his target by far bloodier means. We further find that Blank is burned out with the job. He sees a (justifiably terrified) psychologist (Alan Arkin in what amounts to a cameo role, yet he is quite hilarious in his sparse scenes) and is being pressured by a psychotic fellow killer (Dan Aykroyd, also very funny in a someone bigger cameo role) to join his union…all while watching out that he doesn’t shoot him in the back.
Added to this mess is the fact that because of his botched jobs, Blank is being pressured to take on a “make up” job in Detroit, where he happens to have his 10th year High School Reunion coming up. Did I mention that Blank is obsessed with Debi Newberry (Minnie Driver, quite excellent as the grounded Yin to Blank’s highly eccentric Yang), a woman he abandoned on the night of their prom ten years before?
So the elements are all there for a truly oddball (and bloody!) romantic comedy. Old flames return to each other while Blank has to hide (in plain sight!) his job while avoiding assassins and CIA agents tasked to take him out, all while trying to set things right with the one time love of his life.
Grosse Point Blank isn’t Casablanca or Citizen Kane, but then again, very few films are. What this movie is is a funny and ultimately very satisfying variation on the romantic comedy formula. Sure, the elements outlined above are still there. But it is the outrageous outliers (the hired killers) that make this film strand out from so many in the pack. Recommended.
Fascinating article by T. R. Witcher for Salon.com regarding more recent examples of a cinematic hero’s “home”, and what it means in the context of the movie:
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/02/the_heros_new_fortress_of_solitude/singleton/
I find articles like this incredibly fascinating. Shining a light on elements within a movie and what they mean in the context of the story being told, especially when those elements may be visible enough to register yet subtle enough for the average moviegoer to (perhaps) not quite realize…this is the sort of stuff that makes for fascinating movie discourse.
In this case, the idea of how a hero or villain’s “home” is presented in a movie, especially now, may be a reflection on our own times.
Again, fascinating, fascinating stuff.
The ingredients that make a successful film versus an unsuccessful film are diverse. The most successful films, in my opinion, grab you from the very beginning, building from scene to scene and delivering a dynamic and unforgettable conclusion.
Unsuccessful films, too, are composed of varied ingredients…often resulting in something less than memorable. An unsuccessful film, for example, can have good acting voided by a weak script, or a good script hurt by bad acting. The direction could be pedestrian…the effects unimpressive or, worse, laughable. Then there are those films that are firmly average. They may be good enough to entertain you while you’re watching them, but the moment they’re done, so too is your interest in them.
Then there are those in between films. Movies that are “near misses”, containing so very many great features yet…yet don’t quite successfully cross the finish line.
The Dead (2010), as it turns out, is to me a pretty good example of just such a near miss. A very near miss.
The Dead is, yes, another exercise in the seemingly endless zombie genre (they’re everywhere, from TV to movies to apps to video games). The most unique element of this particular movie, however, is the setting: Africa.
In brief: The last flight of white foreigners leaving Africa after the zombie plague began crash lands. One of the very few survivors of the flight, Lt. Murphy (Rob Freeman), a mechanic/mercenary, tries to reach civilization alone. He eventually runs across another survivor, Sgt. Dembele (Prince David Oseia), an African military officer who abandoned his post and is searching for his son. Together, the two try to find some hope in this hopeless new world.
Again, there is plenty to like here, even if the plot is far from earth-shatteringly original. The zombie plague is presented in a harrowing way…the dead are quite literally everywhere, and one must not only fight them, but also the harsh African elements if there is any hope to survive. The cinematography and setting is at times breathtaking. This is territory we’ve rarely seen in film. Further, the effects and acting are also quite good. For those into gory effects, there’s plenty of it to see here, along with some great scares.
However, despite all the good, to me the film simply runs out of gas as it nears its end. I don’t want to give away any too many details, but in general I’ve found that zombie plague stories tend to end in one of two ways: 1) depressingly, as demonstrated in the original zombie plague film, Night of the Living Dead, wherein the entire cast is wiped out and we’re left with the feeling that civilization is very much doomed or 2) depressingly but with at least one ray of hope, as presented in the sequel to that film and perhaps greatest zombie plague film of them all, the original Dawn of the Dead. In that movie’s case, while most of the cast does wind up dead, the movie concludes with a feeling that the very few that have survived can and will fight on.
The Dead follows this formula. However, in this instance it felt like the ending was too “artsy” and symbolic. It was, unfortunately, my impression that the filmmakers, talented though they were, had a great idea for a story and had all these intriguing sequences they wanted to put into it, but were simply unclear on how they would wrap it all up. So they went for the formula ending but in this case, it just didn’t work.
However, having said all that, if you’re a fan of the zombie plague genre and are looking to kill a few hours watching just that, you’d do a lot worse than give The Dead a try. For all others, you may be better off going to the original two George A. Romero directed classics.
…at least according to Entertainment Weekly:
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20311937_20572218,00.html
What I like about this list is that they offer you the winning Oscar motion picture and then note which films it beat out. I tend to agree for all the mentioned films.
This, of course, puts me in the mind of something I posted a little while back (Oscar talk is slowly but surely building as we close in on the event) wherein Slate magazine offered ways to fix the Oscars, in this case Lowen Liu felt we should have a 10 year “re-vote”:
http://ertorre.com/randomthoughts/2012/02/15/how-do-we-make-the-oscars-better/
As I mentioned back then, the Oscar awards should be looked at as what they are: A snapshot of personal tastes at that time. Often, we may watch a film and have a reaction to it but, as time goes by, we may re-examined and revisit it and form a completely different opinion, to the better or to the worse, about what we’ve seen. As is the case with many of the films listed in the first link, while successful when first released, the films simply don’t stand the test of time.
On the other hand, one of the more delightful things that could happen is that you see a film you don’t like and over time you come to understand it and it becomes a favorite. This has happened to me on at least two occasions and both with horror films: Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds and Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. I can’t deny it, when I first saw both films (the former during a television airing and the later when it was first released to theaters) I didn’t like them. At all.
I found The Birds, frankly, dull and pointless, building to a bizarre, equally pointless ending. I was especially disappointed because I was a fan of Mr. Hitchcock’s work and wondered how audiences could have viewed this film as anything approaching “good”. Or so I felt then. One day, I happened to see it on TV once again and gave it another try. And for some reason, that second attempt did the trick. While watching it I understood exactly what Mr. Hitchcock was up to. He was doing his version of those almost endless “creature feature” films of the 1950’s, but he was turning the genre completely on its head. Instead of an attack of some huge bird/fish/octopus/grasshopper(!)/spider/etc. etc., Mr. Hitchcock has a town attacked by birds. Ordinary, common birds. And in those 50’s creature feature films, where the horror is usually caused by some kind of nuclear or scientific accident, there are no answers given. Nature has simply run amok. The ending, too, made perfect sense. In the creature films, a brilliant scientist and the military through diligent work come up with a way to defeat the menace. In The Birds, we are the ones that are ultimately defeated.
As for The Shining, as mentioned I saw it in theaters when it was first released and I really, really didn’t like it. As with The Birds, I thought it was pointless, not all that scary, and way, waaaay too long. And then the movie started appearing on TV and I’d catch glimpses of it here and there. Then more. Then more. Gradually, perhaps over a period of a few years, I “got it”. To this day, I think this is one of the best horror films every made, a brilliant piece that literally transports you to a world of darkness and isolation, a place where there is nowhere to run.
Brilliant, brilliant stuff.
The first and last time, until now, I saw The Town That Dreaded Sundown was probably shortly after its original release back in 1976. This means I was way, waaaay too young to see what amounts to a prototype of the “slasher” film, one that shares some interesting parallels with what is considered by many (incorrectly!) the first of this genre, 1978’s Halloween.
Based on the true story of the Texarkana Moonlight Murders of 1946, the movie is an interesting attempt to present the “facts” of the case, even though there are considerable digressions and some very clumsy attempts to bring in humor. And, yes, even a car chase/crash. Even that.
The film’s story revolves around the unsolved serial killings and assaults our antagonist was (perhaps) responsible for. In the end, the man responsible for this rampage was blamed for assaulting eight people in total and of those, killing five of them.
The impressions I most recall of the only time I saw this film was the killer himself, presented as a tall, strong, and merciless force. He wore a cloth bag over his face with eye-holes cut into it and his eyes were a very deep, deep blue. When he breathed, the bag covering his face would ebb and flow, violently. This effect was creepy and remains so. Given the fact that the actor’s face is almost completely covered, its amazing how those intense blue eyes and the very heavy breathing successfully conveyed the savagery of his character. The second most lasting impression to my mind was his final attack, wherein he assaults a housewife and her husband in a pretty gory fashion. The husband is killed, the wife almost falls victim to him.
The wife, as it turned out, was played by -of all people!- Dawn Wells, who is best known as Mary Ann from Gilligan’s Island. Given the fact that this film was made less than ten years after that show ended, she looks remarkably unchanged, and that adds a whole other layer of creepiness to see her become a bloody victim to this seemingly unstoppable killer. However, her role is ultimately quite minimal, occupying maybe five or so minutes of film time.
The movie itself shows signs of its age. While today’s horror films are not adverse to showing considerable amounts of gore, what gore is presented here amounts to nothing more than 1970’s era bright red blood. Nonetheless, despite this lack of gore, the film is quite harrowing at times. The attacks are often uncomfortably long and presented at times in a near documentary style. This adds to the horror. The victims are not presented as movie-style caricatures (ie, the horny teen, the stoner teen, etc.), but rather “real” people. Again, very uncomfortable to watch.
Where the film fails is in that the filmmakers didn’t appear to have a very good grasp of the story they were trying to tell. Between the killings, obviously, they had to present some kind of story. They chose logically, focusing on the police’s attempts to apprehend the killer. However, even this might not have been enough and padding is evident, particularly when we’re shown some very awkward -and downright stupid- “humor” sequences involving an incompetent deputy driver. This attempt at humor culminates in an out of left field car chase that results in a police car flying into a shallow lake. Needless to say, this sequence looked like it belonged in another movie.
Nonetheless, I found it interesting to revisit this very early example of a “slasher” film. While I’m not a particularly big fan of this horror sub-genre, it is nonetheless a popular genre to many. To those, you may be curious to give the film a look.
How about a 10 year Oscar re-vote? So opines author Lowen Liu at Slate Magazine:
http://hive.slate.com/hive/fix-the-oscars/article/the-10-year-oscar-re-vote
Of course, such an idea would never happen as its waaaay too embarrassing, controversial, and just plain nasty an idea.
However…
Ms. Liu points out something that is perplexing about the public’s views on art in general and something I’ve noticed on more than one occasion: What might be popular -even wildly popular- today may be passe or worse tomorrow.
Actors Paul Newman and Al Pacino were famously nominated (and sometimes not nominated) for works they should have, in hindsight, won awards for. In the end, Mr. Newman was nominated some nine times for an Academy Award but finally received one for his work in The Color of Money, the Martin Scorsese directed sequel to The Hustler. While The Hustler was (and is!) considered by many, including myself, a cinematic classic, there are few who hold as high an opinion of the belated sequel. In fact, to my mind the sequel is an incredibly mediocre film, perhaps one of Mr. Scorsese’s rare misfires. Mr. Newman wasn’t terrible in it, but neither was he as scintillating as he was in so many other, better films. The Award, it felt, was given in lieu of awards he should have received in the past.
As for Al Pacino, he was also nominated multiple times for his acting in very, very strong films. Ultimately, he was given an Academy Award for his role in Scent of a Woman. This award, too, felt like a gift for past transgressions. While the film was a success upon its release, I suspect there are few today who would consider this film anywhere near the level of many of Mr. Pacino’s “great” films, films that he deserved to win an award far more than this one.
In the end, however, Oscars have to be viewed as what they are: A snapshot of the times. Sure, there are going to be films and actors who should have won but didn’t, yet ultimately great work, for the most part, is recognized over the course of time. And works that were perhaps not as good as one thought, well, they slowly are forgotten.
With advances in computer image technology, what was once only imagined can now be put on film. Before these advances, I would argue that the most imaginative visual works were found in comic books and art in general. After all, where else could you actually see worlds of wonder created on a budget limited only by an artist’s drawing skills?
It wasn’t all that long ago, after all, that the tagline for the original Superman film was “You’ll believe a man can fly”. Back then, creating the sense of a man in flight without showing strings or using a very obvious blue screen effect was that big a deal. Today, we see entire worlds of digital wonder, creations that in the past would have required intricate miniatures or matte paintings, at the very least. Flying? That’s absolutely no big deal in modern cinema. There are almost no limits to what can be shown.
Because of this, it is little wonder that superhero film have became big business in recent times. Films with big time, envelope pushing effects are often the subject of Hollywood’s summer “blockbuster” productions. Not all are based on comic books, of course, but those that are doubtlessly make a lot of money, or else we wouldn’t be seeing quite as many of them appear each year.
In the wake of all this success, unfortunately, there are those left behind. Usually, they’re the ones you figure stand to gain the most from the success of comic books characters translated to the screen.
I’m talking about the comic book creators themselves.
Back in the mid-1970’s, when interest in the then upcoming Superman film was becoming very hot, Superman’s creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster began a public relations offensive against DC Comics, the company that held the copyrights to their creation. The duo had infamously sold their creation back in the 1930’s for $130 (the actual check was found and can be seen in this article) and were seeing Superman come to the big screen and potentially reap big rewards for everyone…but them. In the end, DC Comics, the owners of the Superman character, agreed to restore credit to Mr. Siegel and Shuster for the creation of the character. They also offered a monetary yearly bonus and health insurance. Though both creators passed away in the 1990’s, their families continue the fight for the rights to their creations.
They’re not the only one.
Back in the early 1960’s, Marvel Comics was a company that seemed to be going nowhere. That is, until editor/writer Stan Lee united with artists/co-writers Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko and, together, the trio created a plethora of well known comic book characters that have now made their way to big screen success: The Fantastic Four, Spider Man, The Hulk, Iron Man, etc. etc. etc. The song, alas, remained the same. Both Mr. Kirby and Ditko left Marvel in the mid and late 1960’s and, to this day, have not collected anywhere near the financial rewards one could argue should be due to them for their creations and co-creations. While Mr. Ditko, co-creator of Spider Man has been given credit for the creation, it is my understanding that despite the success of the films, he hasn’t made anything off them. Mr. Kirby’s heirs, on the other hand, have fought Marvel Comics for years to either gain control over some of the characters he created or be given some kind of recompense for his many years of work.
Most recently, some in the comic book community have expressed sympathy to the plight of Gary Friedrich. I’ve never met the man myself, but his name popped up on some works during the 1970’s that I read and enjoyed, published by Marvel Comics (his first work at the company began in the 1960’s). He was also the creator (although there is some dispute over some parts of this) of the Johnny Blaze incarnation of Ghost Rider.
Mr. Friedrich brought suit against Marvel Comics claiming the character’s rights were his and not Marvel’s. He felt particularly slighted, I suspect, because in spite of the financial (if not critical) success of the Ghost Rider film and the upcoming sequel, he had not been given either credit or money for his creation. In the end, he lost the lawsuit and was ordered to pay Marvel $17,000, something he is unable to do.
Comic book writer Mark Evanier offers some great insight into Mr. Friedrich’s situation here, and I couldn’t agree with his opinions more. It would seem counter productive for a company such as Marvel or DC to hire lawyers and spend great quantities of money fighting off people who could probably accept less money than that to settle their claims of character ownership.
On the other hand, I can see the company’s perspective…to a degree. The fact is that many of these creations were made at a time when one didn’t think the characters and stories would achieve the level of success they did. Comic books have been considered disposable entertainment for years. Original artwork which might be worth hundreds of thousands -perhaps even more!- dollars today, for example, were routinely thrown out. Likewise, artists and writers didn’t know or realize their creations would endure as they did and find a second life in film, TV, reprints, etc. Further, the company that made the investment on the artist and/or writer to produce their product was the one taking the monetary risk. While they hoped their current publication would succeed, it is doubtful many of them had to foresight to guess that some of the work they commissioned back in the 1930’s to today would eventually become such a bonanza. They took the financial risk, shouldn’t they reap the reward?
So what’s the solution?
I think Mr. Evanier’s article scratches at that. While his involvement with the later Mr. Kirby and the estate preclude him from making too many comments regarding that particular situation, he does note that creators and the companies that own the creations should find some kind of common ground instead of becoming antagonists.
I suppose its human nature to fight what you consider yours, whether you are the creator of a concept or the one who owns its copyright.
The awareness of these fights, by the way, hasn’t gone unnoticed. Ever since the late 1990’s, I’ve realized both DC Comics and Marvel have had very few “new” character creations appearing in their various books. It appears few authors and/or artists want to suffer what Mr.’s Kirby, Ditko, Siegel, Shuster, etc. etc. have faced and are content to write stories featuring established characters and villains while not going out of their way in creating any new characters they might eventually “lose”.
I find it a shame but not a surprise.
I suppose they’re no real moral to this story, except that a creator should be careful with his or her creations. Especially when those creations may become the property of someone else.
Another oldie but goody, from July 2011.
When I first heard about the movie Dreamcatcher, it was about to be released into theaters back in 2003.
First, though, an admission: I have never been a big fan of Stephen King’s novels. I’ve read a few, though they were “OK” at best, but found more enjoyment out of some of his short stories. As far as Dreamcatcher was concerned, I had no awareness at all about the book until the film was released.
Nonetheless, the commercials had me intrigued. For, while I freely admit to not being a terribly big fan of Mr. King’s novels, I cannot dispute the fact that there had been some very good movies based on his works, including, but not limited to, The Shining (my favorite), Carrie, The Dead Zone, and Salem’s Lot. Sure, there have also been many pretty bad adaptations (including the awful Stephen King himself directed Maximum Overdrive), but I was curious to give the movie a try.
Unfortunately, I missed the film’s original theatrical run yet remained interested in seeing it despite some withering reviews. Last night, I had the chance to do so, nearly a full decade after the original release.
Before I get to my reaction to Dreamcatcher, let me point out the film was written by Lawrence Kasdan and William Goldman. It was directed by Mr. Kasdan. William Goldman, for those who are unaware, is a living legend in the movie business. His screenplays include the wonderful Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Harper, All The President’s Men, The Stepford Wives, Marathon Man, etc. etc. Mr. Kasdan, however, is hardly a slouch when it comes to movie history. He wrote the screenplays to The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Body Heat, etc. etc. and directed such notable films such as the aforementioned Body Heat, The Big Chill, Silverado, and The Accidental Tourist.
So the idea that these three individuals, Mr. King, Mr. Goldman, and Mr. Kasdan were behind Dreamcatcher was, to say the least, a potentially fascinating mix. In front of the camera were some at the time strong up-and-coming actors such as Thomas Jane, Timothy Olyphant, Jason Lee, and, as the movie’s chief (human) antagonist, another screen legend, Morgan Freeman. With that much talent both in front of and behind the cameras, what could possibly go wrong?
Quite a bit.
Now, the movie’s direction is pretty good. The scenery/location is nice. The effects are quite good, even if some of the computer graphics show their age (this is hardly a knock as computer graphic technology has progressed considerably in the years since its introduction). The acting by all the principals is also for the most part good.
Which leaves the story.
…man oh man that story…
For the third time: I’m no huge fan of Stephen King’s novels. I never read the book this movie was based on and therefore don’t know how faithful/unfaithful it is to Mr. King’s novel. But even assuming the movie was a very radical departure from the book, the bottom line is that the plot of Dreamcatcher, the movie, is a mish-mash of story ideas and concepts seen far too many times before in the works of Stephen King himself and other, far better sci-fi and horror films.
What you have with Dreamcatcher is a movie that features elements of Stand By Me in a shotgun marriage with Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Alien/Aliens. It is a mess of a film that moves from the present to the past and never really builds up enough steam to get us involved in almost everything that’s happening. We get the typical King flawed childhood characters grown up: In their youth, they were a “gang” of misfits who swear a lifelong pledge to be friends. They get into some scary mischief (in this case, they stop a trio of bullies from beating up a mentally disabled boy) and, as a result, find there’s more to their new-found friend than meets the eye. Despite his mental challenges, the beat up boy has a psychic gift, of sorts, which he shares with the other four boys who save him from the bullies (why he does this, given the movie’s final revelations, is a mystery that is never really resolved. Suffice to say, there is no real reason for this boy to be…a boy).
Fast forward twenty some years later and the four boys, now equally damaged grownups (one is suicidal, one is a drunk, one appears to have no real job, and the other is *gasp* a student counselor), head out to a hunting lodge for their annual “mischievous boys turned into damaged men annual hangout”. They miss their childhood and they miss their childhood friend (is he dead? We’re not certain…at least yet). They hang out and eat cooked ground beef and hunt (although they never are shown firing so much as a shot at any animal). Things are going hunky dory until the alien invaders show up.
Yup, alien invaders.
These invaders are both spores ingested through breathing or worm-like creatures with very, very sharp teeth. Soon, the military cordons off the forest and the entire surrounding area, and the man in charge, Colonel Kurtz (Morgan Freeman) reveals he’s been fighting alien invaders for over twenty years now and intends to wipe out every contaminated human and animal in the “zone”. Given the character’s name, an obvious shout out to Heart Of Darkness, it should come as no surprise that the man is more than a little unhinged.
Now comes the really sick/stupid part: The people infected by the alien spores at the onset of their condition start to get really gassy. Really gassy.
They burp and fart and their stomachs swell up grotesquely. When the alien spore within them finally emerges as a sharp-toothed worm, it does this by explosively emerging…from the victim’s ass.
You read that right: The worm explodes out of the victim’s ass.
There are times I fantasize walking into an agent or movie studio executive’s office and pitching a story concept and hoping against hope that the pitch will result in a green light. I’m a nobody to the movie industry…I have a few books out there which I think are pretty good and one of my stories, The Dark Fringe, has spent the past few years being shopped around the studios by the people behind Cowboys & Aliens and might, if I’m fortunate enough, get made into a film one day. At this point in time, however, I’m a nobody to the studios and for all intents and purposes my fantasy of movie glory remains just that.
So I’m thinking: If Stephen King had never written a novel called Dreamcatcher and I was the one who came up with the concept of the story and pitched it to an agent or movie studio executive, what would the results have been? I strongly suspect that by the time I got to the point of saying “…and the alien worms come out the victim’s asses…” they would call security and have me thrown out of their offices. Hell, if I were them, I’d certainly do so!
Further, I wonder what would happen if I had stepped into a time machine and approached Mr. Goldman circa 1968, when he’s hard at work on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and tell him that one day in the future he’ll be credited with writing a screenplay about alien creatures who explode out of people’s asses…and the film is meant to be a horror movie and not a comedy, I suspect he might well have called the cops on me too.
But because we’re talking about a movie based on a book by Stephen King and written by Lawrence Kasdan and William Goldman and directed by Mr. Kasdan, reputations, I strongly suspect, precede the work itself. Getting a movie like Dreamcatcher financed and off the ground probably involved studio executives looking at the names associated with the project rather than the project itself.
I just can’t believe anyone in their right mind would read the screenplay or hear a pitch to this movie and decide to go for it. Even as a lark.
And when one of the film’s biggest “suspense” sequences involves one of the characters sitting on a toilet and thus holding the lid down to keep one of those killer worms from escaping (Can you imagine Alfred Hitchcock working on something like this?!), and the character, knowing full well his life is in mortal danger, is nonetheless tempted to leave that lid for just one second because he has to get a toothpick from the ground to chew on. Because, you know, it’s perfectly logical that when your life is in mortal danger you just have to do something that stupid…
At least in the Friday the 13th films, the cannon fodder teenagers risked their lives for something much more worthwhile…getting laid!
The only people I could recommend this film to is the MST3K crowd. You may be able to get more enjoyment out of laughing at -but not with– the film, if nothing else.