Books/Literature, Movies, Music, TV

Bored of the Rings…and Creative Self-Control

The first part of the above headline happens to be one of the more obvious take downs one can expect an unimpressed critic might use for the review of the new Peter Jackson directed The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first of his three part (!) cinematic adaptation of the J. R. R. Tolkien “prologue” to his famous Lord of the Rings trilogy series of a few years past.  Certainly its the headline used by Dana Stevens of Slate Magazine for the review of this film (check it out here), but its hardly an original insult, seeing as how this was the title of a parody book published way back in 1969.

I haven’t seen the first part of this new trilogy, but given some of the early writings regarding the movie, I suspect I’ll pass.  Not that I dislike the whole Lord of the Rings thing, be it novel or cartoon or movie.  On the contrary I was very impressed with the first two Lord of the Rings movie adaptations.  They were incredibly ambitious in scope and scale and presented some great cinematic fun.  The only complaints I heard were from Lord of the Rings purists who felt the movies at times did not follow the spirit of the books as well as they should have.  Regardless, I really liked those first two Lord of the Rings films.

Unfortunately, the last of that original film trilogy, The Return of the King, really, really tried my patience.  Indeed, even many of those who liked and/or loved this trilogy were bothered by the way this concluding film had something like twenty climaxes/conclusions before finally…FINALLY!…reaching its actual end.  It was at that moment, when I realized I loved The Fellowship of the Rings and The Two Towers but didn’t like The Return of the King, that I feared director Peter Jackson may have become a little too enamored of his work.  So enamored that he might have developed a hard time “stepping back” and shifting what should remain in the final cut of his film and what didn’t need to be there.  Or, to put it another way, he lost the ability to edit down his movies.

Mr. Jackson followed the original Rings trilogy with a remake of King Kong, and my fears were further confirmed:  King Kong clocked in at an eye-popping 3 hours and 7 minutes in length versus the original, which ran a little over an hour and a half.  When I heard he was taking over the direction of The Hobbit, I was curious but worried.  Would this film be more like the first two Ring films rather than the third?

When I heard it would be two films, then three, I feared Mr. Jackson was once again going to deliver a bloated, too long production.

Given the words of some critics, this may well be the case.  And we’re only into the first of three Hobbit films!

But before it feels like this blog entry is nothing more than a slam piece directed against Mr. Jackson, let it be noted that he would be far from the first -and certainly far from the last- creative person who may have fallen under this spell.  Criterion, the gold standard in home video releases, just put out Michael Cimino’s notorious studio-killer Heaven’s Gate, a film that many feel is the very definition of creative hubris.  Despite the fact that it was a mega-flop when it was released, the movie does have its admirers, but there is no doubt that this two and a half hour film tried many people’s patience.  In the realm of books, I’ve also seen writers -too numerous to name- who have disappointed with either undernourished or overly bloated works.  And in music, I’m sure just about anyone can name a few albums featuring normally very creative individuals who created a bloated train wreck of a work, at least in your opinion.

If there’s any sort of conclusion to made regarding this topic it is this:  Creative folks are as fallible as the next person.  They’re as capable of making mistakes as everyone else and they’re certainly as capable of getting too fond of their work, to their own detriment, as anyone else.

Somewhere along the line when I first started writing I too realized that there was a danger of falling into this trap.  One of my earliest novels took an inordinately long time to create, then it sat in the disk drive for a few years.  When I came back to it, I realized the first third of the book was waaaay too long and I chopped it down to a minimal size.  Originally I was incapable of seeing the bloat, but the passage of time allowed me to move away from the work, to become less tied into it and to see it from a fresh perspective.

Hopefully, I learned my lesson and my subsequent works have been crisp and to the point…something I feel any good novel should be.  But let there be no doubt:  The most difficult thing in the world to do with your creative works is to examine them with a cold and clinical eye and not be afraid of taking a chain saw to your “babies” and cutting down whatever should be cut down and expanding where it may be needed.

In the end, it is work well worth doing.

General

What Would Happen if the NFL Eliminated Kickoffs?

As a big fan of Football, I’m sober enough to realize in these past few years this sport has reached something of a threshold moment.  Football, in its current incarnation, is actually relatively new, with the first SuperBowl held in 1967.  Back then, the players were often “part time” professionals and it was not uncommon to find them doing things like selling cars in the off-season to earn some extra cash.

But the sport grew and grew and grew, and as it did the money involved grew as well.  Player salaries skyrocketed and, suddenly, your average Football player no longer had to find alternative off-season work.  Instead, they had the freedom to devote their off season time to condition themselves even more.  Diets were improved and training exercises were perfected.  The money rewards meant more and more young people tried out for Football in High School and College, and thus the pool of talent was deeper, meaning there was more talent at the top.  In the end, the athletes on the field today are superior specimens of strength and speed versus the previous decades’ worth.  Jim Mandich, part of the legendary undefeated 1972 Dolphin team, himself said before his untimely passing that just about any modern Football team would not only defeat but smoke his beloved undefeated team of the past.  No question about it.

Unfortunately, with these stronger, faster, and more skilled athletes arises a big problem which the NFL is currently dealing with:  Injuries.  Specifically, head injuries.  For you see, when you have athletes conditioned to be their strongest and fastest running full speed into other athletes also conditioned to be their strongest and fastest, the one part of their body that one cannot condition to take physical punishment is the brain.  It seems silly to say, but let’s be clear:  There is no exercise out there that can make your brain somehow “stronger” or better capable of taking hits.  Almost any hits.  Sure, the helmets used in the NFL today are very high tech, but the reality is that the brain essentially “floats” on liquid within a person’s skull.  Running as fast as you can and abruptly being stopped by slamming into another player may send the brain against the skull wall.  Do so many, many times over a few years as a professional player and there is a likelihood your brain will sustain some kind of damage.

Because the league is relatively young, it is only now, with the passing of time, that an awareness of the types of injuries sustained over the long term to NFL players is being realized and is becoming an issue.  The league is being sued by former players who note that in the past they were ordered to play on despite concussions and other potentially -as well as actually- serious injuries sustained on the field.  I suspect the biggest worry about the NFL is that if these players of the past that are exhibiting signs of mental and physical problems related to injuries is just the tip of the iceberg.  What happens a little down the road when the current crops of much stronger and faster players drift into their old age?  Will we begin to see even more evidence of head and other trauma symptoms?

In recent years, the NFL has become more proactive and is trying to limit head on head hits as well as a host of penalties for hitting players that are particularly vulnerable to injury.  Some worry that the NFL will eventually become something akin to flag football.

The latest idea floated by the NFL is to do away with Kickoffs entirely.  What effect will doing so have on the game?  Brian Burke of Slate Magazine offers some fascinating analysis of just that:

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/12/roger_goodell_kickoff_ban_more_scoring_more_fumbles_and_other_potential.html

There is little more to add.  I still enjoy watching Football.  However, a small part of me realizes that this is a sport caught in transition.  What we may see of it in the next decade may be very different from what we’re witnessing today.

Movies

Safe House (2012) a (mildly) belated review

What’s worse:  (a) A low budget film featuring a cast of unknowns in what turns out to be a mediocre to poorly conceived action/adventure story or…

(b) A very big budget film featuring well established actors in what also turns out to be a mediocre to poorly conceived action/adventure story?

For me, (b) will always be worse.  In the case of (a) I tend to go easier on the people before or behind the cameras for I suspect they had to deal with more difficulties regarding creative choices…if only because of budgetary limitations.

But with films like Safe House, one comes away wondering what it was that drew all this talent and big money to make what turned out to be a very predictable and ultimately disappointingly mediocre film.  How predictable was Safe House?  Let me put it this way:  If you can’t figure out who the “real” bad guy is the very moment he first appears on the screen, you’re clearly a movie newbie.

The film’s plot goes like this:  Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) is a young CIA agent stationed in South Africa whose job it is to sit bored for hour after hour at a secret CIA “safe house” and await any sort of “company” company.  He’s little more than a high tech housekeeper as he’s been at this obviously very boring job for a few months now and nothing has happened there.  In the brief glimpses we have of him, we’re to understand he’s itching to move up the CIA ranks.

Meanwhile, we’re introduced to Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington), a renegade ex-CIA agent wanted for treason who appears in South Africa, contacts an ex-MI6 agent, and is given some kind of microchip with some kind of “explosive” information on it.  Before he can leave clean with his prize, he is assaulted by a mysterious group of killers and is forced to retreat into an American Embassy and admit who he is.  From there, he is cuffed and taken to, you guessed it, Weston’s safe house and soon all hell breaks loose and the young agent has to move the seasoned (and dangerous) ex-agent/traitor away from the killers.

The movie strives to be perhaps a more “serious” attempt at something along the lines of the Bourne films, but the action sequences never really resonate and, after the first fifteen or so minutes, the film falls into a groove and never really rises or falls below that level.  We move from one scene to the next and are never as invested in the characters or the situation as we should be.  Ultimately, the film climaxes in another safe house and the “real” bad guys -you know, the one’s you should have figured out a very long time ago- are revealed and…well… it doesn’t really amount to all that much.

While Safe House is certainly not a terrible film, it never engages or surprises.  It never rises above being another mediocre action film, in spite of the big budget and A-list cast.  What a disappointment.

Movies

10 Worst Movies of 2012…

…at least according to TIme magazine:

http://entertainment.time.com/2012/12/04/top-10-arts-lists/slide/one-for-the-money/

Of the movies in this list, I’ve seen a grand total of two of them, the romantic comedy/spy drama hybrid This Means War and the Disney mega-flop John Carter.  Frankly, I disagree with their inclusion in this list.  To me, both This Means War and John Carter were hardly “terrible” films and were hardly the worst movie experiences I had this year.

On the other hand, were either of the films “great”?

Absolutely not.

This Means War, to me, was a rather typical romantic comedy that benefited from a clever concept and the charisma of its four leads.  And I won’t lie:  There were times I grinned at the silliness presented on the screen and, yes, even managed a couple of laughs.  Would I see the film again?  No.  But having seen it once and suffered through some truly execrable romantic comedies, I can faithfully report I’ve seen much, much worse.

As for John Carter, there is no doubt the movie was a box-office train wreck of massive proportions.  No one wanted to see it despite boasting a huge budget and a director who had worked magic with Pixar animated films.  As with This Means War, though, I didn’t find John Carter to be the colossal catastrophe others proclaimed it was.

Was it a great film?  Absolutely not, though I suspect part of the problem modern audiences had with it lies in the sad fact that many of the ideas and concepts found in the writings of Edgar Rice Burroughs (ERB) have been copied and pirated by for so many years now that when John Carter finally was released, less aware viewers might have felt this film was a “rip off” of concepts found in other, more popular sci-fi films.  But that’s only part of the problem.  Another big issue was the terrible, terrible promotion of the film.  Well before the film was released potential audiences already sensed the movie was a bomb and, thus, a self-fulfilling prophecy was made.

Getting past those two big issues, though, gets us into what I feel is the movie’s ultimate main problem:  The lack of charisma between the two leads.  Unfortunately, the stars of this film never gave off the sexual sparks they should have to make the audience root for their romance overcoming the many obstacles thrown in their way.  The best of ERB’s writings, from Tarzan to the Martian novels, not only featured grand adventure but also a strong sense of sensuality/sexuality.  In John Carter, it seemed like the puritanical shadow of a chaste Disney was looking over the proceedings and making sure the two leads never got too hot and heavy.

Having said that, I reiterate: Time’s inclusion of this film in the “worst of” movie list seems wrong.  Certainly John Carter belongs in the “Biggest Financial Bombs” list of the year, but in spite of the lack of chemistry between the two leads, an overly familiar story, and horrific promotion, the movie itself was hardly a complete wreck, at least in my opinion.

Of the eight remaining films on the list, the only one I sorta/kinda want to see is Cloud Atlas.  Some critics absolutely loved the film while others loathed it.  I’m willing to give it a try when it reached home video.

As for the other seven films on the list, I doubt I’ll see any of them, at least based on plot summaries and trailers.  One of those films in particular, The Odd Life of Timothy Green, looked to me like a complete train wreck.  Another Disney film.  Go figure.

Movies

12 Movie Sequels You Probably Didn’t Know About

Fascinating (though they missed a couple of weird/forgotten ones) list about the above, movie sequels you may not know existed to popular films:

http://thefw.com/sequels-you-probably-didnt-know/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_36441

Perhaps the most interesting of the bunch and maybe even the most surprising for those who didn’t know is the 1998 film Soldier featuring a great role and performance by Kurt Russell in what was ultimately a mediocre to poor film…that also happened to be a pseudo sequel to, of all things, the legendary Ridley Scott directed, Harrison Ford starring 1982 film Blade Runner!  Now, I say “pseudo” sequel because Soldier was set in the same “universe” as Blade Runner.  Otherwise, the film didn’t feature any of the same cast of characters (even played by different actors) that I’m aware of.  As mentioned in the entry, the script to Soldier was co-written by one of the writers of Blade Runner and they viewed the film as a “sidequel” to that more famous film.

As for films not on the list…One of the odder ones (and it is mentioned in the comments after the article itself) is Shock Treatment, the unsuccessful sequel to The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

While it may not be as well remembered today, one of the bigger hits of 1970 was the soap opera/tragic romance Love Story.  Today, it may be remembered more for featuring in a very small role the first screen appearance of Tommy Lee Jones, but this film was incredibly successful and, naturally, spawned a belated sequel.  That sequel, 1978’s Oliver’s Story, wasn’t anywhere near as well received.

One of the all time strangest sequels, at least in terms of casting, was the “sort of-kind of” sequel to 1972’s Robert Redford comic heist film The Hot Rock, 1974’s George C. Scott Bank Shot.  While the two movie characters played by Mr. Redford and Scott sport different names in the two films, they are in reality the same character based on Donald E. Westlake’s novels featuring the thief John Dortmunder.  I love both Robert Redford and George C. Scott, but to have them essentially play the same role in a two year span of time?  Weird choice!

Movies

The Expendables 2 (2012) a (mildly) belated review

So you have this old friend who tells you a new story involving people from your youth.  This story plays on nostalgia and features plenty of old faces in familiar situations.  By the end of the story, you smile.  You’ve enjoyed yourself perhaps a little more than you would have because of the nostalgia value.  The story presented, after all, wasn’t all that earth-shattering or, to be blunt, particularly good.

But the nostalgia had you.

That’s the way I felt about the first Expendables film released back in 2010.  It wasn’t a great film, in fact I felt that the almost concurrently released The Losers featured roughly the same concept (a motley group of modern warriors) but, in fact, had an overall slightly better story.  Still, I enjoyed The Expendables more because, again, of the nostalgia.  I loved seeing Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger share the screen together, even if their collaboration in the film amounted to about five minutes of movie time, if that.

With the success of The Expendables, a sequel was a natural, and this time around a greater effort was made to show more of what the audience demanded.  Thus, instead of a few minute cameo, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger share considerable more screen time (and actually fire weapons!) in The Expendables 2.  And if that wasn’t enough, the movie increased your ’80’s action stars quotient by adding Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme (effectively menacing as the movie’s villain, a character named…Vilain) to the mix.

…but…

It didn’t work as well for me.  Despite the fact that I feel The Expendables 2 is an overall better movie than the first Expendables, that nostalgic feeling I had has since dissipated and I’m left focusing more on the film before me rather than the thrill of seeing all these older actors together.

And, frankly, the film only worked in spurts.  The opening was pretty good, if a little too (CGI) gory.  Then we get a long slow buildup to the main story and…well…there’s not much there there.  Something about plutonium buried away and forgotten and the villain trying to get it out in a hurry (no real explanation for why) which leads to the heroes chasing said villain until a final, bloody, confrontation.  It all plays out like a video game, with the bad guys having a near army of red shirts ready to bite the dust with no real repercussions felt (bad guys, after all, have no family or friends!).

The Expendables 2 is a mediocre action film, alas, a return trip that may charm (if that’s the right word!) those who still have those feelings of nostalgia for the heroes of the ’80’s.  Others may have less patience.

Movies

Killdozer (1974) a (very) belated review

I saw Killdozer exactly one time before yesterday.  Back when I first saw this film, I was an 8 year old boy and it aired for the first time in 1974 on television.  Despite the fact that thirty eight (OH MY GOD!!!!) years have since passed, I still had memories of this film.

When I got my DVR setup, I put the film under the que, to record whenever it might show up.  A couple of years passed and the film never did show up on any channels.  Then, a few days ago, I casually made a search of the film on Amazon and, to my surprise, the film was available as a “manufactured on demand” DVD via Universal.

After thirty eight years (CHRIST I’M OLD!!!), I had a chance to finally see this film from start to finish.

Would it live up to my childhood memories?  Would it still be the suspenseful film that eight year old enjoyed so much back then?

Frankly, I was expecting the worst.  I had a couple of memories of the film -three to be exact (including the ending)- but I couldn’t help but fear that this long-forgotten-by-most film might not have aged particularly well over time.

As it turned out, I was pleasantly surprised.

No, Killdozer isn’t one of the best of the “machines gone homicidal” suspense sub-genre…I still feel the Steven Spielberg’s 1971 breakout movie (and probable influence to Killdozer) Duel is the best of the lot there, but the movie is still quite entertaining.

Based on a short story (and teleplay) by noted sci-fi author Theodore Sturgeon, the plot of Killdozer is simplicity itself:  On an island off the coast of Africa a group of six construction workers have been tasked with clearing a section of the island.  The group is led by Lloyd Kelly (Clint Walker, still as tall and massive as a mountain), a man who drives his workers perhaps a little too hard.  There is some resentment among his men, but nothing terribly serious until their main bulldozer rams a meteorite and Mack McCarthy (a very young Robert Urich in one of his earlier roles) is fatally burned by the radiation (or whatever) emitted by bulldozer slamming into the rock.

Things go from bad to worse quickly as the bulldozer begins operating on its own.  Isolated on this island, the construction crew rapidly comes to the realization that the bulldozer has a homicidal mind of its own and that they must somehow stop the machine before it kills them all.

As I said before, I came into watching Killdozer after all these years (whimper) fearing the worst.  I’ll grant you that modern audiences may find the pace of this film wanting.  Further, this being a TV movie there is virtually no gore (and not a single drop of blood) at all to be found.  Still, the implied brutality of various crew members’ deaths shocked me as a child (particularly the first person to actually fall to the “kill” dozer).

All in all, I’d recommend this film to those who, like me, have a fondness for these type of films and are forgiving toward the pace of films from the past.  Killdozer may not quite live up to Duel, but it is worth a look-see.

Movies

Safety Not Guaranteed (2012) a (very mildly) belated review

Having caught up with many of the “must see” films recently released, I had a chance to explore some recent vintage films that were a little farther down on my radar yet intrigued me.  None did so more than the 2012 romantic comedy/sci fi (?) film Safety Not Guaranteed.

Written by Derek Connolly and directed by Colin Trevorrow, Safety Not Guaranteed concerns a (at first) obnoxious journalist for a Seattle magazine who takes two geeky interns off to a nearby coastal town to find and investigate the man who posted a strange notice in the want ads concerning looking for a companion to time travel with.  The second to the last line of the want ad states that “safety not guaranteed”.

Without giving too much away, we quickly find that the outwardly obnoxious lead journalist, Jeff (Jake Johnson) could care less about this assignment and, in reality, asked to do it so that he could reconnect with an old love of his that lives in that town.  Thus the main investigator of this story becomes the shy and (possibly) damaged Darius (Aubrey Plaza) who, after finding and befriending Kenneth (Mark Duplass), the man behind the mysterious ad, begins to wonder if perhaps he’s not quite as crazy as he seems.

I really liked most of this movie.  It had a great independent vibe to it and, despite presenting some of the typical “romantic comedy” tropes (in particular the “main character gets close to other main character for secret reasons and falls in love but when the secret is revealed will love survive?!”), the movie nonetheless delivers plenty of fresh material and oddball situations to keep us involved in the story’s progression.

If there’s a complaint to be made, and it is a minor one to me, it is that the film’s ending felt a little too…obvious.  I wish that instead of giving us such a concrete ending the filmmakers had instead offered us a more ambiguous conclusion that hinted to the possibility of Kenneth being right but also left the door open to him maybe being…off.  In the end, love can still conquer all.

Having said that, let me reiterate:  It is a minor complaint and Safety Not Guaranteed is certainly worthy of your attention.  Recommended.

The Blog of E. R. Torre