Movies

Summer of the mega-flop…?

Like many of you out there, movies have been ever present in my life and I’m a huge fan.  When I was younger I used to be one of the first people in line for new films and eagerly read up on what my favorite actors were up to.  Lately, however, I’m almost always in some kind of time crunch and don’t have the opportunity to get out to the theaters like I used to.

So now, watching the fleet of summer films come and go from afar is a curious experience.  Especially this summer’s crop.  As I mentioned in my previous blog review of The Heat, I’ve seen exactly two “summer” films this season, that and Star Trek Into Darkness.  It’s been hard not to notice all the films coming and going, like cars whose drivers are leaning hard on their horns as they whiz by you on the highway.  These movies try to get your attention and do so for a fleeting moment before they’re gone and the next one inevitably drives by.

Given all the stimulation out there, be it music to movies to TV shows to books to video games to facebook/instagram/etc, our culture appears to be succumbing to a new kind of attention deficit.  We’re constantly being stimulated and now seek out the “new” thing, because whatever we just saw/experienced is done and often all but forgotten.

With the movie industry, this can be a very frightening thing.  If you’re investing several hundred million dollars on a film, you obviously hope your film will succeed.  To succeed, it needs to have some kind of staying power.  If it doesn’t, the enormous budget is a mighty huge chunk of change to lose out on.  This summer, more than others perhaps, seems to have spawned an inordinate number of “mega” flops, motion pictures with a huge budget that met with near complete indifference.

There have been other flops in other summers, to be sure, but Ben Kingsberg at Slate magazine offers an interesting article about this particular group of summer movie duds:

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/07/steven_spielberg_hollywood_imploding_how_he_predicted_a_disastrous_summer.html

I don’t think there’s much to argue with his essay, though I believe part of the mega-flop problem lies in films that needed far better scripts/stories.  With the exception of Pacific Rim, which audiences seem to like but which is nonetheless underperforming in the USA, most of the other mega-flops listed appear to have left audiences and critics alternately bored or turned off, usually because of weak stories.

A $200 million film, in the end, is only as good as the script/story being presented.  Extreme action and CG effects can temporarily dazzle the eye, but if the film itself never really gels, then its no wonder people are eventually turned off.

Movies

Franchise Fails

Interesting article by Daniel D’Addario for Salon.com concerning several recent films which were meant to be part of a franchise…but whose weak box-office receipts pretty much ended that possibility:

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/25/franchise_fails_the_planned_sequels_well_likely_never_see/

I enjoyed the list but found it was, as mentioned above, rather too “recent” in its sampling of failed movie franchises.

Regardless, I’ve always felt it takes a dangerous amount of hubris to make a film that you’re already thinking will make for a good “series” of films.  The danger lies in thinking about what’s to come rather than focusing on making the one good film you have in front of you first.

The Green Lantern film, I believe, is a great example of this.  What could –should– have been a good first film was ultimately buried in far too many irrelevant plot/character elements.  For example, why include Sinestro, who probably should have been the movie’s villain, unless you intend to use him that way?  The movie featured a far weaker set of villains as it was, leaving us at the tail end of the film with a little snippet showing us Sinestro was going to be the villain next time around.  Big waste.  But not the only one.  The film also featured the character of Amanda Waller.  She has considerable back story in the comic books but, in the context of the film, wasn’t all that relevant.  Why did the filmmakers not only include her but also waste our time giving her an “origin” story?

However, planning for sequels when making your first movie doesn’t always result in failure.

Way, waaaaay back when I saw the original Star Wars in 1977, the far younger me was bothered by the way that Darth Vader was clearly shown to have survived the events of the film.  While the young fans around me were instantly clued in to (and absolutely delighted by) the idea there were going to be sequels to the smash hit, I felt showing Darth Vader survive so clearly and broadly hinting at a sequel was arrogant film making.  Bear in mind, in 1977 the idea of movie sequels or franchises was limited to only one: James Bond.  Most movies released were “stand alone” features and while some might have had the possibility of sequels (would have loved to see more of the adventures of Bullitt!), their stories often started and ended with the first movie.

Luckily for Mr. Lucas and company, my opinion was a lone voice in a world filled with adulation, and the sequels came and did incredible business.

One film not included on the above list is Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins.  If only by the title we get a great example of the movie-maker’s hubris in action.  I mean, The Adventure *BEGINS*?!?  How much more do you need to say to imply you think there will be more adventures to follow?

In the case of poor Remo, his adventure began and, with the exception of a failed and long forgotten TV pilot that came afterwards, ended right there.  Still, arrogant as the tile was, I have to admit the film wasn’t all that bad.  It just wasn’t all that “great”, either.

Ah well…

Movies

The Heat (2013) a (almost right on time!) review

The 2013 edition of the Big Summer Movie Extravaganza! is slowly, inevitably, winding down.  Audiences have been “treated” to all manner of big spectacle, though it felt like every other film being released every other week was either a) a superhero adaptation and/or b) a big sci-fi effect extravaganza.  To be sure, there were others genres in the mix, but given the spate of films released, many of whom wound up eliciting yawns from the movie going audience, one almost feels a sense of…relief…that the summer movie season is just about done.

I suppose its a sign of the times (and my relative lack of it) that to date I’ve seen exactly two (2) of the many movies offered thus far.

The first, Star Trek Into Darkness, was a film that I enjoyed reasonably enough while watching it and immediately afterwards.  In the days/weeks since, the film’s stature has decidedly shrunk in my mind.  No, I haven’t changed my mind and now feel the film was bad…but…well…let’s just say that Star Trek Into Darkness is one of those films of the moment, and the moment has passed.

The second and so far last of the 2013 summer movie films I’ve seen is The Heat, the Sandra Bullock/Melissa McCarthy action/comedy.  Truly, more comedy/comedy, as the action sequences aren’t really all that spectacular and are few and far between.

NOTE: This is not a knock against the film!

In fact, The Heat, while perhaps not a comedy “masterpiece”, is nonetheless exactly what it aims to be: A female version of the foul-mouthed “at-first-enemies-but-eventually-friends/allies” buddy cop films.

Sandra Bullock plays the “uptight” Ashburn while Melissa McCarthy plays the vulgar, streetwise Mullins.  They are drawn together in Mullins’ stomping grounds of Boston because of the emergence of a mysterious drug lord.

To get into the plot details is an exercise in describing pointless cliches.  Yes, the couple spar at first.  Yes, they have to deal with unsupportive higher ups.  Yes, they do things “their way” and, eventually, become a true crime-fighting team.  Finally, they take down the drug lord.  Duh.

The plot, let’s face it, is just an excuse to get at the meat of the movie, which lies in the way the two actresses play their respective roles and build a relationship.  This is where The Heat succeeds very well.  As a bonus, the film even manages to deliver a touching moment toward the very end concerning Ashburn’s old high school yearbook…before following that up with a brilliant joke involving a certain animal.  I love jokes that are set up early in a movie and followed up later on.  In this case, the set up and payoff are wonderful.

So if you’re in the mood for a good, old fashioned vulgar buddy cop “R” rated comedy (with no nudity!) that happens to feature two female leads, then The Heat is very much worth your time.

Movies

Save the Movie!

Fascinating piece by Peter Suderman for Slate magazine concerning the increased use of a writing formula, specifically the 2005 book Save The Cat! by Blake Snyder, has influenced the structure of recently released movies:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder.single.html

Being an author myself, I’m always curious to read things like this.  There is a certain curiosity to finding the works you create, to some degree or another, follow story structures that have been around for many, many, many years.  But it’s one thing to realize you use certain story structures in place for centuries and its quite another to slavishly follow a formula.  Any formula.

For me, the big payoff of Mr. Suderman article concerns the above and comes with this paragraph, which all too clearly spells out the dangers of following this particular story formula too closely:

Yet once you know the formula, the seams begin to show. Movies all start to seem the same, and many scenes start to feel forced and arbitrary, like screenplay Mad Libs. Why does Kirk get dressed down for irresponsibility by Admiral Pike early in Star Trek Into Darkness? Because someone had to deliver the theme to the main character. Why does (ACTUAL CHARACTER REDACTED BY ME TO AVOID SPOILERS) defect to the villain’s team for no reason whatsoever almost exactly three-quarters of the way through Fast & Furious 6? Because it’s the all-is-lost moment, so everything needs to be in shambles for the heroes. Why does Gerard Butler’s character in Olympus Has Fallen suddenly call his wife after a climactic failed White House assault three-quarters of the way through? Because the second act always ends with a quiet moment of reflection—the dark night of the soul.

As I said before, a very fascinating and enlightening piece.

I am curious to read Mr. Snyder’s book, but on the other hand perhaps he offers too easy a “cheat sheet” for authors to use, and abuse.

Books/Literature

Corrosive Knights…a 7/19/13 update

I’m done with the third draft of the latest Corrosive Knights novel (I’m going to keep the actual title secret a little while longer).  The book, as it stands now, runs a little under 104,000 words, making it one of my longer novels.

It also features what I believe is my most complex plot, if only in terms of settings and characters.  There are a lot of characters running around this book and we bounce around many different (and hopefully very intriguing) settings.  The book features a “wrap up” of the first major Corrosive Knights story line which began in Mechanic and continued through The Last Flight of the Argus, Chameleon, and Nox.

Corrosive MACNThe big question:  How long before this novel is ready?

The draft I just finished ironed out many of the novel’s plot “kinks”, story threads that weren’t fully developed or were too clunky or just plain didn’t work as originally written.  There is at least one section of the book that still needs a little work in that respect, but otherwise I should be transitioning from fixing the novel’s story -usually a very thought and time intensive exercise- to focusing more exclusively on grammatical issues, which is more often than not a far easier thing to do and one which takes far less time to revise.

I estimate it will take at least two if not three more drafts before I begin to feel comfortable enough with the idea of releasing it, which means at least two if not three more months before everything’s ready.

As it is, I’m very excited with the work.  For those who wondered how exactly the first three novels in this series form a larger whole, you’ll get your answers with this novel.

I can’t wait to get ‘er done.

Movies

Evil Dead (2013) a (mildly) belated review

Expectations and hopes are a tough thing to overcome.

When I first heard that they were remaking the original 1981 The Evil Dead, and more importantly that the original director Sam Raimi and the original star of the feature (and cult hero) Bruce Campbell were involved, I was really, really hoping this remake would be good.

When it was released, I was dying to see it in the theaters but, as has happened all too often, I simply didn’t have the free time available to make the trip to my local cinema.  I did read some reviews and became…concerned.  On Rotten Tomatoes the film scored a decent 62% positive among critics and a similar 68% positive among audiences.  While these scores were enough to label the film “fresh”, the rating was hardly a strong endorsement.  Nonetheless, I had to see it for myself.  When it finally reached the home video market, I gave it a twirl.

So…what did I think?

In a nutshell: Not all that much, alas.  On a four star scale, with four being a “classic”, I’d give the film at best two stars.  I can only recommend it to fans of the original series who absolutely, positively have to see the remake.  Others may want to avoid it and stick to the originals.

Longer review follows…

BEWARE OF SPOILERS!!!!

Unlike the original film, 2013’s Evil Dead is first and foremost a gore fest.  Its main goal and purpose appears to be to try to gross you out as much as possible while, here and there, giving small and larger shout outs to the previous Evil Dead films.  Yes, we have friends going to a cabin in the woods for a weekend.  Their purpose to go there is because one of their group, Mia (Jane Levy), is a drug user and the group of friends along with her somewhat estranged brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) want to force Mia to go through a “cold turkey” weekend and hopefully kick her habit.

On its surface the drug element is interesting but, as the movie plays out, it ultimately is just an excuse to justify why the soon to be un-happy campers stay at the cabin a little longer than they should have.  For you see, it is Mia who first notes the strange things going on in this cabin and is the first to see the ghostly images…and when she tells her friends what she sees, they excuse it as her attempts to get out of the cold turkey treatment and back to more friendly environs.

Anyway, the proverbial shit hits the fan and our group of friends are knocked off one by one in very brutal ways.  Unfortunately, between the start of the film and that point we get so little characterization and therefore develop so little empathy toward most of the group.  Most woefully underwritten is Elizabeth Blackmore’s Natalie.  I wasn’t sure exactly what her relationship to the others was, other than that she just happened to be present.  Despite this, she is given the “honor” of replicating one of the more (in)famous sequences in the original Evil Dead 2.

Speaking of which, of the other characters the one that is perhaps the better developed is Olivia (Jessica Lucas).  She is the nurse and friend who watches over Mia and, unfortunately, is also the one who tells the others they need to be strong and remain through the cold turkey session.  However, she’s also the very first to pass on.  A real shame as she, more than the others, elicited sympathy…at least from me.  If only the director had made her the secondary lead!

And that brings us to perhaps the film’s greatest problem:  Just who is the lead?  Reading up on the film before its release, it was noted many times that this film would give us a “female” Ash (Ash, of course, is the Bruce Campbell character from the original Evil Dead films).  From the beginning it was clear Mia was intended to be the protagonist.

As mentioned, however, she is the first to see and feel the “evil dead”, whereupon she’s completely taken over by them.  What winds up happening is that she spends most of the film “possessed” and then locked away in the basement while the others are being picked off one by one.  During that section of the film, the longest part of the film, Mia’s brother appears to be the protagonist.  But since I already knew Mia was the central character, as the minutes pass I grew more and more impatient to see her do something -anything!- other than be locked up in a basement.

She is supposed to be the female Ash after all.  Let’s see her do something!

Alas, it isn’t until all but her brother are dead that she “comes back”.  Even then, however, her fight against the resurrected demon is (natch) gory but not all that exhilarating.  We even get a repeat -of sorts- of the Evil Dead 2 gag mentioned above (twice in one movie?!), but it plays out rather ridiculously.  The movie ends and we get the credits.  You stick around until they’re over and you get perhaps the movie’s best scene, a very tiny cameo by Bruce Campbell himself.

All right, so the characters are weak and the movie’s focus appears to be more on the gore than anything else.  On the positive side, the direction is quite good and the effects are damn good.  As with many films that have left me wanting in the past, the main problem appears to once again be a script that could use a little more work.

Evil Dead isn’t a terrible film, just not a terribly good one either.  As a fan of the original Evil Dead series, perhaps there’s a little bias in my views.  Regardless, I came in hoping for the best and felt, when all was said and done, that this film could have been a lot better than it ultimately was.

Books/Literature

J. K. Rowling and the Power of Brand…

Interesting article by Lev Grossman for Time magazine concerning the recent revelation that mega-popular Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling secretly published a novel under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith last year and the implications of this revelation…

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/07/16/the-name-game-j-k-rowling-and-the-power-of-brand/

I’ve long realized -and it seems only obvious- that once you become a recognized “name” in the literary field, you automatically sell far more books than if you’re a newcomer and/or nobody.  True, sometimes a book by an unknown author seems to appear out of no where and become incredibly popular -this could be said of Ms. Rowling’s initial entry into the Harry Potter series- but once you’re established, your books sell.

But when you’re not…

I’ve read in other articles that Ms. Rowling’s pseudonymous novel, The Cuckoo’s Calling, sold something in the order of 1500 copies worldwide before the revelation of her involvement in the book.  Naturally, post-revelation the book is a hot seller and as of yesterday was #1 on Amazon sales for novels.  When it was initially released, the book was apparently well received by critics, yet despite that the novel fell into the black hole of public indifference many, many novels good and bad fall on a daily basis.

The fact that the novel is now a big seller further emphasizes the obvious…once you’re a well known author audiences tend to be interested and receptive to your works.  I noted a couple of days ago the passing and my admiration of the works of Richard Matheson (you can read about that here).  Toward the end of the blog article I mentioned his novel Hunted Past Reason.  The only (ahem) reason I bought the novel was because I saw it in a bookstore in the “new arrivals” section and noted it was written by Mr. Matheson.  Simply seeing his name on the book made me reach out for it.  I read the description of the book on the dust jacket and wasn’t all that impressed.

But it was a new novel by Richard Matheson!

I had to give it a try.

In the end, the book proved a BIG disappointment, perhaps the absolute worst thing I’ve ever read by Mr. Matheson.  If the novel had been written by Joe Blow, I probably wouldn’t have given the book a second glance.

The moral of the story is that if you’re an author and hope to have any success, you have to try your best to create a buzz (any buzz) regarding your book.  Otherwise, expect mediocre to terrible sale figures.

C’est la vie.

Music

David Bowie’s isolated vocal tracks…

…to “Starman” and “Five Years”.  Absolutely fascinating stuff:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/07/15/david_bowie_s_isolated_vocal_tracks.html

As mentioned in the article, there was interest around the web when the isolated vocal tracks of the Queen/David Bowie collaboration “Under Pressure” was released.  If you’re curious about that, here it is.  It’s worth giving a listen to as well:

General

McDonald’s 10 Most Spectacular Menu Flops!

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

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

Some of these are quite…interesting.

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

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

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

Movies

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

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

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

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

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

All that changed with Die Hard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

He’s not the only one.

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

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

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

Who knows.

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

The Blog of E. R. Torre