Star Wars-The Force Awakens: Returning Home In a Galaxy Far, Far Away

Hey, it's good to be back home again, as the late and remembered John Denver once said.  And, like John Denver, he's not the only 70s icon who is still remembered.  For Star Wars, which got it's start in 1977, it has the added virtue of never having left us. Forcefully bursting upon the American culture in 1977, it took up residence in our collective conscience.  Now global, though it has ebbed and flowed, it has never left.  Even through moments where the franchise seemed to have seen better days, the hunger for more adventures in that far away galaxy remain with us.  If the multiple movie money making records broken this weekend are any indication, the hunger is just as voracious.  But if it is one thing Star Wars fans are, more than hungry, it is vulnerable of heart.  The Prequel Trilogy got a decidedly mixed reaction from fans and those who hate, they hate deeply.  Disappointment aside, as well as expected wariness, many of these same fans despise the efforts and distrust the storytelling judgement of director/writer JJ Abrams.  JJ Abrams is the creator of LOST and the man who rejuvenated Star Trek. He is a fanboy for sure and master of the mystery box, the emotions of the moment and rapid fire scenes.  But some fans were concerned that his return to the Star Wars universe would be light and fluffy, full of image but bereft of logic and narrative flow.  Some of those fans point to Abram's treatment of Star Trek as evidence.  As financially lucrative as Abram's Trek films have been, some say they exemplify Abram's worst tendencies as a storyteller, to be more interested in the moment rather than the deeper narrative thread that connects them.

      However, that would not seem to be the case at all.  Star Wars The Force Awakens is a film with a sound narrative and mythic fantasy logic running through it that has run through the entire saga, that being destiny, family and the ongoing struggle between light and dark, but out on the physical world as well as deep within the soul.  Unlike Star Trek, which Abrams admits he wasn't a fan of before he became involved with the franchise, Abrams clearly connects with Star Wars on an intuitive personal level.  Though that is not a guarantor of a good story, that seems to be the case here and the critics seem to agree that Abram's stuck the landing, with the film rating 95 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.   

      The film begins thirty years after the end of Return of the Jedi.  One of the most controversial decisions Disney has made with their captaining of the Star Wars franchise was ditching the established Extended Universe (EU) trilogy, most notably its post-Jedi tales.  From Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire trilogy...

 ...forward, the fans already had a well-developed version of the SW universe going forward, with well developed post-Jedi elements, both in the personal lives of our beloved characters as well as the larger politics of the galaxy.  Zahn's books were a smashing introduction and it was those books that kept SW alive for many fans.  So when Disney did what it did, many raised loud voices of objection.  However, though Disney had logical reasons for doing this (a cumbersome quasi-official timeline they had no part in creating, the fact that many of the EU books are pretty bad), they did recognize the rich treasure trove the EU books and the elements it brought into being did offer.  So, when TFE does kick off, from the opening fanfare and crawl forward, it is clear the EU is not dead.  It is just, altered according to the muses of JJ Abrams and his co-creators.  For example, like in the EU, it is clear the defeat and deaths of Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader did not mean the end of the Empire.  In the EU, huge fleets, armies and occupied worlds still remain for the New Republic to contend with, with splinter factions of the former Galactic Empire squabbling for control.  In TFE, this is also true, with The First Order arising from the ashes of the Empire.  Another concept of the EU was that the Empire eventually started conscripting its enlisted forces, most notably stormtroopers.  Part of their training is submitting them to some kind of intense conditioning to ensure their loyalty and obedience.  One young, inexperienced trooper in his first combat engagement, finds that he does not have the stomach for gunning down helpless villagers and decides he needs to escape.  He enlists the help of a captured Resistance pilot and the two of them escape from The First Order and land on the desert world Jakku, where a young scavenger girl named Rey and a wayward droid named BB-8 await.  This is where things start, but not where they end, in an adventure that crosses light years and alien worlds, delving into family ties and the mysteries of an awakening Force.

    Thus, we are reintroduced to the Star Wars universe, an old, dear friend with a fresh face.  Believe me, it is good to be back home again.

    May the Force Be With You.


   

SPECTRE-JAMES BOND WILL RETURN (AGAIN)

Once again, James Bond has graced us with his presence, saving the world from unspeakable evil.  Just as well, considering the evil never seems to run out, either in his world or as we were recently reminded, in ours. It is safe to say that 007 will never run short of missions, as long as MI6 keeps him in the field. 

Which is a bit of a question, considering how the film starts.  Bond is in the field in Mexico City on an apparently unauthorized mission, chasing down a suspect that M (Ralph Feinnes) seemingly is not in the know about.  Needless to say, this irks him.  The audience goes from witnessing a spectacular action sequence, the first brief Bond girl of the film and some nice humorous moments to being chewed out by M back in London.  Worse comes to worse, MI6 is looking at budget cuts, being merged with MI5 under an umbrella organization that is heavily dependent on artificial intelligence, managed by a figure Bond dubs "C", Max Denbigh (played by Andrew Scott, who is also Moriarty opposite Benedict Cumberbach's Holmes on the BBC's Sherlock).  And now, the 00 program is under fire, regarded as obsolete in the age of drones.  Bond's rogue antics don't help things much.

So, Q puts an electronic leash on Bond, under M's orders.  But that does not help things, as Bond, against instructions, attends the funeral of one of the assassins he killed in Mexico City.  This brings an encounter with Lucia Sciarra (Monica Belluci, not only, for my money, even being older, one of the sexiest Bond girls ever, and one of the sexiest women ever) and Bond first hearing (in this incarnation of the franchise), the name SPECTRE. For long time fans, this is the sinister chief criminal organization Bond finds himself battling, both in the films and books.  And with SPECTRE in play, you have to have Ernst Stavro Blofeld.  The filmmakers have been cagey about his involvement in the film, however, but I won't spoil it for you here. 

But with classic sultry Bond girls, world travel, big villains, gadgets and supervillain high tech hideaways, this is a Bond film in the modern era, with modern anxieties, like artificially intelligence, the surveillance state, border defying evil operatives, that embraces the classic tropes of the franchise.  The wonderful Skyfall was a melancholy walk through the memories of the series.  SPECTRE, on the other hand, embraces many old school tropes in real time.  The film has been embraced by moviegoers, scoring tops at the box office both weekends in its initial release.  With high attendance and very favorable reviews, it is clear the film is a hit.  However, there have been some grumbling that the film was a step back.  That its nostalgia for the history of the franchise was done well, done better in Skyfall.  I disagree. Skyfall was a misty review of one's memories.  SPECTRE is an old warrior remembering age old wisdom as relevant today and joyfully girding himself with it as he leaps into a new world full of dangers new yet familiar.

James Bond is back.  And JAMES BOND WILL RETURN.

Maggie-Daddy's Little Zombie

Maggie...quite possibly the oddest Arnold Schwarzeneggar movie I've seen. A zombie apocalypse movie whose focus is one guy taking care of his daughter as she slowly begins to waste away from the disease and become one of the undead. You expect Arnie to bust out in a zombie slaying fury, piling them up by the metric ton. Nope. None of that. Picture the warm family fuzzies from Jericho, with no gunplay, at any moment. It actually works, but it feels weird the whole time, because of the cinematic repetoire Arnie brings with him. Thing is, he's really pretty good at this, which involves him being a real actor.

My late trailer impressions re. Star Wars The Force Awakens...

       Three trailers later, JJ Abrams continues to play cagey and coy, proving to be the master of the mystery box, showing much but revealing little.  That's just how he rolls.  It stirs up interest, it generates conversation and free media coverage.  In an age where you have a zillion media channels, it pays when you have free helpers commenting, sharing, and cutting/pasting what you do, turning into a free branch of your marketing machine.  And Abrams is the true master of that skill.

        He loves Star Wars, too.  After being handed the keys to the Star Trek universe and putting that franchise back in the public eye, one that admittedly he isn't a fanboy of and one where the fan opinion on his work is sharply divided, he gets the keys to the kingdom of the other big science fiction franchise, the one that he does love and counts as one of his biggest inspirations to what he does in life.  Can he do it?  And will fans give him a chance?

        Let us examine the evidence...

        First off, I enjoy JJ Abrams' Star Trek movies.  The things they do well, they really do well.  Contrary to the griping of some fans, he has captured the original characters in feel and portrayal.  He has thrown in some different elements, like the characters being more raw, less refined and experienced, in some cases less comfortable in their skin.  But he has captured the more elemental natures of their personalities.  He has successfully brought familiar elements out and captured the simpler essences of their onscreen chemistry.  He has recast the TOS characters and successfully brought them to life again.  This is in itself a feat, one many fans said could not be done (perhaps they should stop saying that.  It has been proven wrong repeatedly).  He has brought the Trek universe back to life in vivid visual terms and captured a human  rawness, even a frontier spirit, even better than original Trek did.  Now, mind you, I am a prime timeline fan.  And that deep history I've been with for many years that JJ Abrams tossed into another timeline has me not really interested in the ancillary media that has since been published.  And I sense I am not alone in that respect.  Fans want Star Trek.  This is Star Trek, but an alternate timeline story.  We are ok with that, if it is, say, a universe that is acknowledged as an alternate timeline (Mirror Mirror U, etc).  But this is almost like Lucas producing the Special Edition Star Wars films and insisting the original cuts don't exist anymore, refusing to acknowledge them.  I'm ok with these films and their new timeline.  But if/when they do get around to a new TV series, I want the Prime Universe back.  I'll follow one in this new timeline, but it is the Trek Prime Universe that is truly "home".  So, novels, comics, videogames...Prime or nothing for me.

        Abrams is clearly a fanboy, big time.  And he is playing in playgrounds that so many of us dream to on a professional level.  Star Trek is one of those beloved playgrounds that have inspired so many.  The roots go deep, DEEP.  Abrams is not one of those fans.  Which in itself is not a bad thing.  Nicholas Meyer was not a fanboy, yet went on to be central in creating some of the most beloved Star Trek adventures ever (STWOK, STTUC).  However, Meyers was able to do this because he was able to see Trek clearly.  And he got it.  In Star Trek, even when the action is high and swashbuckling, the thing that makes it stand out is that it is cerebral.  It cares severely about the why of things.  Who we are, what is the meaning, why do we do all what we do?  Can we do better?  Should we do better?  What is better?  Star Trek cares about all this and so much more and its fans tend to do the  same.  Abrams, however, is on record as saying, "Star Trek was too philosophical" for him.

       Now, I am a LOST fan.  I love the ending far more than most.  Ambiguous endings, metaphysical endings, I love all those.  To me, life is more about the Mystery than the concrete answers.  So demanding all your fiction have its plot elements tied up in a nice, neat package at the end, even more that can entirely be explained by "rules", is silly.  Life is mystery.  Stories can be mystery.  You want all your loose ends taken care of in the end?  Watch Murder She Wrote.  And yes, LOST could be a deeply philosophical show.  But...here's the key difference.  Star Trek wants you to think.  In the thinking, you will often feel.  But the emotions are just a bonus.  And often optional.  Like Spock, Trek fans can sometimes be uncomfortable with emotional expression and sensation and prefer logic and Data.  Less complicated, "right" answers (not really, but the illusion is often there). So the emotion first approach of LOST with no real answers, or seeming contradictory ones confuse them.

       Which brings us to Star Wars.  It is a curious thing in scifi/fantasy fandom that we see tribal tendencies popping up.  Rivalries drawing up battle lines, harsh rhetoric, this has been going on for ages, die hard fans of both franchises giving each other the stink eye, never mind that many, if not most fans are actually fans of both.  I have met partial partisans of both camps, though I don't pretend to understand them.  I am a huge fan of both franchises (but will admit, if pressed, bigger Star Trek fan).  The rivalry I see as kind of pointless, as both are fundamentally different kinds of science fiction.  Star Trek has always attempted to attach itself to the real world.  It has used science fiction allegory to take a look at real world issues from different angles that a distance in time and space uniquely allows.  It also traditionally tries to build a hopeful, plausible future that gives humanity possibilities to which we can aspire.  Star Wars, on the other hand, has never tried to tie itself to the "real world".  Right in the beginning, it says, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...".  It has always put itself in another world and has never tried to make its astronomy, technology, theology, politics or anything else follow any "real world" rules.  It is about elemental simplicity in those elements, just create a universe with a distinct feel.  Which is the essence of Star Wars.  It is not about heavy duty philosophizing (which is not to say that does not go on, it very much does, especially that, spiritual nature, honor, goodness, that kind of thing).  But it is not about those things in the abstract, figuring out "how they work".  It is about FEELING, all those things in the Star Wars universe are how the characters relate to them, how it moves them from one plot point to the next, or both.  Star Wars has little time for sitting around philosophizing abstractly, it is nearly always about how it relates to the players on the screen (which is one way the Prequels got off course, they tried abstract philosophizing, but Lucas didn't know how to do it believably and keep it in the spirit of Star Wars, re. relate it to the characters and their travails and give the audience just enough).

      Which brings us back to Abrams.  Lucas's failures with the Prequel films (which are to various degrees watchable, imo, iffy movies with some very, very good parts that deserve to be in better films) have fans very nervous about what is coming.  But Abrams has been raising hopes with his beautiful trailers of Star Wars: The Force Awakens.  Abrams, in those trailers, has been doing the two things he does best, emotion and mystery.  We know almost nothing about the plot of the film.  We have intriguing introductions to some new characters and are joyfully shown old, beloved ones.  What we see, what we hear, what we feel, is new, yet familiar.  Abrams is a Star Wars fan from way, way back.  It is safe to assume that he knows the universe and is as well versed in it as any serious fan.  However, he is a master craftsman with a particular style and he further is in the unique position of having just come from shepherding that other major science fiction franchise back onto the cultural map, front and center.  That universe was not one of his major fandoms and frankly was not the best fit for his sensibilities.   Even so, what he did produce was very good (though fan dissatisfaction in some quarters is quite understandable, and here's hoping, going forward, that Trek fully finds itself once again).  But now, Abrams is over there in a galaxy far, far away.  And his twin drivers, emotion and the mystery, and all other elements serving them, are better suited to the Star Wars universe.  Like Han and Chewie, he has "come home".

      It is a mistake to fear both the Prequels experience or that of Abrams' Trek films.  Now, if you just hate JJ Abrams's style, you may be out of luck, but I would suggest if you are a Star Wars fan, you give at least this first film a chance and see where we go from there.

      That is my impression.  But full disclosure, I am an Abrams fan while fully acknowledging his weaknesses.  Despite them, I do believe the Force is once again with us.

The Martian: Under The Right Circumstances, Becoming A Pirate Just Means Borrowing a Rocket...Who Knew?

Used to be, when folks said The Martian, they may have thought of this guy...

 

 



 

 

Or perhaps these...

 

 

The really science fiction aware among you might have even though of this...

 

 

 

Buckle up, space cadets. Mars now has a new face, courtesy of author Andy Weir, director Ridley Scott and actor Matt Damon as astronaut and botanist Mark "Mars will come to fear my botany powers," Mark Watney

 

 

Seems at some point in the not too distant future, our friend Mark will have a run of bad fortune and find himself stranded on the forth planet out from the sun.  What was intended as a stay of a few months will be much longer and Mark, if he is to survive, will need to summon all of his will and skill to overcome all the obstacles Mars will throw at him.  And Mars will do just that.  You see, Mars, right now, is a place not set up for ready survival for humans.  But...given some material and a can-do American spirit, a guy has a chance.

And that is just the scenario presented in the book written by Andy Weir and adapted by filmmaker Ridley Scott, a smart, able, willful guy presented an improbable scenario and challenged to overcome.

There are those who have written of The Martian as being an ode to science.  And it does have that element, not only with our desire to explore and dare to go to those difficult place to broaden our horizons and presence, but overcoming hardship by "doing the math".  But that is not the end of the story, as it were.  The Martian is about those virtues of people in difficult circumstances, willing to make those decisions that don't necessarily have the support of the numbers.  The crew of the Ares, who unwittingly left Watney behind, are willing to risk their careers, their ship and their lives to spend several years in space just to attempt a difficult rescue of their stranded comrade.  The director of NASA, Teddy Sanders (played by Jeff Daniels), is depicted as almost bureaucratic and insensitive at first, but he lives at the top of a pyramid that isn't necessarily the most stable and he has to juggle politics, public perception and mission success, with them sometimes seemingly fiercely competing and he has to make it all work.  Despite the easy trope of making him the evil technocrat, though the movie may dance with it a bit, they never take him down that route.  They create some suspense with him weight hard decisions and taking some risks during the crisis.  Some of them even fail, yet still he carries on.
And then, there's the Chinese.  Again, the temptation might have been there to play them as the villains or the hardball competitors looking to see America fail, even if it cost the lives of astronauts.  But in this film, though there is a sense of rivalry and calculation, which of course there would be, they are also depicted, the Chinese space scientists and admistrators, that is, as ultimately having common cause with the Yankee explorers.

We live in a world with much fear and anger at this point in time.  Some of that is quite real and rational.  Some of it, well, cynical minds might say it is an indictment of our lightning fast mass media and those who manipulate it for various reasons, as well as a gullible public looking for easy answers in a complex, challenging world.  It might be tempting at the time to let the fear take over.

But through it all, the stars beckon us forth, reminding us gently, every night, that when we get around to it, when we decide to focus, a grand adventure awaits.

The Martian is one of those gentle reminders.

Ant-Man: Smaller Marvel film packs a big, ant shaped punch

Ant-Man, the newest opus from Marvel Films, had a troubled birth.  Originally envisioned as a tale entirely disconnected with the bigger Marvel cinematic universe, auteur Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, etc) increasingly bumped up against TPTB at Marvel and eventually fled the project (with some, like fellow creator Joss Whedon protesting openly).  Even though oncoming director Peyton Reed, a talented, sharp director known for Bring It On as well as the star, comic actor Paul Rudd (Scott Lang, the Ant-Man) did some adjustments, the ghost of Edgar Wright remains in the film's feel and sensibilities.  Which is good, because Wright is one of my favorite directors, and his stylistic and storytelling hooks are unmistakable. Such wrangling  behind the scenes has destroyed many a project, though, and that was the fear, that the persistent "creative differences" would claim one more victim and score the first real wound to the Marvel Cinematic U.

However, with consistently good reviews, word of mouth and a certified fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes, Ant-Man has seemingly defied the odds and managed to turn in both a good movie in its own right and add another chapter and dimension to the Marvel Movie Universe that people will be happy to refer back to. Its 58+million box office take in its opening weekend is considered relatively modest for a Marvel film, though still respectable.  Having taken number one at the box office, however, in addition to doing equally well overseas, from its troubled origins with a very obscure character to what appears to be the rumblings of great word of mouth, Ant-Man, for it's hero's short stature, will probably have some really long legs.

Again, I have to admit that these films are talking to both the fanboy comic guy in me as well as the kid, because I know these characters in depth and have been following them since my age was in the single digits.  I'm quite familiar with the tiny, giant adventures of Hank Pym (played in the film by Michael Douglas), Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) and all the various ants brought on board the film.  In fact, I eagerly awaited the Marvel cinematic universe getting to these characters.  I wondered how they were going to touch on it, as the Marvel originals do touch on some dark topics and convoluted ties to Marvel esoterica (Hank Pym is brilliant, but was also at times unstable, abusing his wife, Janet Van Dyne and unwise projects like the creation of Ultron, he had a mad scientist aspect to him).  Most of this, they slyly referenced or deftly breezed over, leaving it for later reference as circumstances permit.  But one essential element they had to address is Janet Van Dyne, Janet Pym, the "air headed heiress", the Wasp.  In the film, she is shown briefly, and is explained as missing and presumed dead, having gone "quantum" in one heroic instance of miniaturization.  She left Hank with a daughter, Hope, who strongly favors the comic depictions of her mother.  At first, the relationship between Hank and Hope is shown as strained, with lots of unresolved baggage.

In comes Scott Lang, engineer and ex-con who needs a break.  Hank is willing to give him that break, a mission to secure his "Pym Particle" technology, which is what makes his miniaturization powers possible.   In a series of training montages where Hank and Hope teach Scott how to punch, talk to ants and use the miniaturization technology, Scott runs through keyholes, teaches ants to juggle pennies and briefly tangles with one of the Avengers in the build up to the break in at Pym's old corporate HQ and confrontation with Hank's former protoge' turned megalomaniac, Darren Cross and the Yellowjacket suit.

It is a heist film with superheroic hijinks.  It is a peek into another obscure character and one of the other mysterious otherrealms of the Marvel universe, in this case, the Microverse.  It is a film that manages to be better, much better, than it probably has a right to be.

Geektastic.  Go see it.

Jurassic World-So, How Does a Sailor Get Known as a Dinosaur Wrangler?

Really, how does a sailor get to be the go-to guy for animal wrangling?  How many jobs do they have in the US Navy that even involve animals?  Dog handlers?  Maybe a select few horse experts?  Some veterinarians and assistants?  The original Jurassic Park, directed by Steven Spielberg and released in 1993 with its stellar cast and a window into a recreated bygone age, dazzled filmgoers that year.  I was working for a movie theater at the time and still would have sat through multiple viewings even if I did not get free movies as a fringe benefit.  The fully realized dinos charmed and awed an audience who previously had only seen stop motion versions of these creatures.  Nascent computer generated imagery and animatronics brought them to life in a way that still stuns today.  So, how do you top that, since topping it you must do?

Well, you create a bigger park.  It is no longer just a Jurassic Park (which still exists as a neglected ruin on Isle Nubar).  The island is now home to a bigger, more lavish and even more high tech and elaborate attraction.  This time, both the Jurassic World management, park manager Claire Dearing (played by Bryce Dallas Howard) claims they have it all right.  And in her meticulously managed world with no room for living systems or chaos, she believes they have a handle on this.  So she is fully ready for a visit from her nephews, Nick and Ty, even to the point, she pawns off their first day at the park on her assistant.  Too busy, dontcha know.  The one cast member from the first film, Dr. Henry Wu, makes his return, in charge of Jurassic World's dinosaur lab.  He is responsible for the new round of creations, including a frankenstein-like beastie that never existed in the real world, dubbed Indominous Rex.  It is a combo of Tyrannosaurus Rex and...classified DNA.  Hm.  I'm sure that won't be a problem.  Oh wait, it is.  And when things do go scaled bellies up, are Chris Pratt's ex-Navy dino expert Owen Grady, bringing wisecracking charm and steely resolve to the mix, along with Vincent D'Onofrio, also former military, with an ambition to prove weaponized dinos as a concept.

Like the first Jurassic, what keeps this movie above just a pretty scifi actioner, besides a really terrific cast, is some underlying philosophy.  Jeff Golblum's Ian Malcom, the chaotician from the first film and the original novel, made the point that, "Your scientists were so concerned about whether they could do this thing, they never stopped to ask themselves if they should." Henry Wu, on the other hand, in an expanded role in Jurassic World, when berated on about the freak factor of Indominus Rex, points out that all the dinos are freak creations.  That modern science had to take shortcuts to bring any of them to life.  And this does not seem to matter to him.  He is the personification of Malcom's cautionary note.  That science alone is not enough.  If it does not have a sense of values and humility tempering its ambition, bad things can happen.

It is not so much a matter of forbidding you meddling in God's domain.  Just keep in mind in your meddlings whose domain it is and having some humble circumspection while you are stumbling in the dark.

That may have been a very large dino footprint you just tripped in.  Try not to scream.

Mad Max-Fury Road: The Fast and the Feminist?

Max Rockatansky rides hard on the roads of the future wasteland in the film Mad Max-Fury Road.  Director George Miller first introduced us to this world and the title character, originally played by Mel Gibson  in 1979.  At first, he was a hard driving police officer struggling to maintain law and order in a civilization and world crumbling about him.  But when he lost his family to a criminal bike gang lead by Toecutter (Hugh Keays-Byrne), the little thread he was hanging onto inside snaps.  Max takes vengeance upon Toecutter's gang and is seen at the end of the original Mad Max driving furiously, seemingly to nowhere, as directionless as his life has become.  The subsequent films, The Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome saw him wandering still, alone, stumbling into interesting situations that force him to engage with people that he otherwise would probably avoid.

This brings us to Fury Road.  Max, now played by Tom Hardy, still wanders the wasteland, still alone.  He seems to be an empty shell of a man, purely driven by a spirit that does not allow him to accept death.  He survives to survive and seemingly little more.  He is a silent wanderer who keeps to himself, unless crossed.  Then he explodes into a maelstrom of struggle, determined to extricate himself from whatever has beset his void girded vigil and return to his emptiness, it would seem.  For little else seems to motivate him.  The wasteland is an empty, wan, lonely and seemingly dying place.  But like Max's soul, it has a fierceness at the center and a determination to go on.  And where that continuance takes hold, there is potential for growth anew and hope, though the world and Max may not be aware of this.

So when he is beset by the Warboys of Immorten Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrn again), he at first reacts in his usual manner, fierce determination to survive and escape.   But when in the course of events he comes in contact with Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), a female combat driver in service to Immorten Joe, his guard over time slowly begins to lower and he begins to actively acknowledge the world outside himself once again.  Furiosa has her own agenda.  She has stolen a War Rig (think souped up 18 wheeler) and is making off with Joe's Brides (women who serve only as baby makers to produce War Boys).  She can't have children herself, yet her ability has made her one of the few female warriors in Joe's community.  At some point, though, she decided that was not enough and that she needed to try to return to her people, a tribe of women in the fabled "Green Land".

Along with a feral yet somewhat good natured War Boy named Nux, Max makes common cause with this motley crew and finds the possibility of human connection that he has not known in a very long time.

The visuals of Fury Road are lush, the design work, especially on the vehicles are inspired and insane and the action is quite fast and furious.  The characters are colorful, over the top and understated as the story requires.  Tom Hardy, especially, does Mel Gibson proud in his turn as Max Rockatansky.  Immorten Joe is a menacing, colorful dictator in the true wasteland warlord tradition.  And then there's Charlize Theron's Furiosa.  She is a competent, level headed, formidable female warrior geared for surviving the wasteland.  But she has ideals and faith that the world has not killed and she is willing to fight for them.  Also, refreshingly, there is no romantic subplot between the male and female leads, that is, her and Max.

Some have called this a triumph for feminism.  I disagree. I think it is more due to the vision of George Miller and his unwillingness to buy into cheap Hollywood cliches.  If some find that in line with the political ideologies, more power to them, I guess.  But for me as a storyteller myself, I'm glad to see that Miller's first loyalties are to his own instincts as a creator, rather than to audience surveys, corporate bean counters and the like.  Like Max, he drives on in the direction he wants to go.

Very good time at the cinema.  You should drive there quickly.  But observe traffic and vehicular safety, please.

Avengers-Age of Ultron: A huge cinematic step almost resulting in psychic groin pull

Once upon a time, a boy built a toy robot.  This robot was to be a friend and guardian to all humankind, protecting us from those big threats he knew awaited us.  The boy was good with building machines and he had complete confidence his creation would serve us well.  The problem is, his creation was a bit too smart and had its own ideas on how to "serve".  Big explosions and snarky quips followed.

Thus, we have the cliffiest of Cliff Notes versions of the plot of Avengers-Age of Ultron, the follow-up film to Joss Whedon's sophomore motion picture effort, The Avengers.  For those who haven't been following closely, Marvel Comics has been doing a sensational job bringing its comic book universe to the silver screen (and now small screen, with Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter, Daredevil and more to come). Whedon came on board with a few script doctorings (he is well known for that) and then, with his creative, offbeat talents demonstrated years before, his love and knowledge of imaginative tales such as comics well established and with a name that carries weight and cultural currency with legions of fans, he was given keys to the Marvel kingdom.  With those, he unlocked the Avengers.  And when that one went on to do record breaking box office business, he naturally was offered the follow-up.  He accepted.

And now, we have Avengers-Age of Ultron burning up the movie charts.  Starting out overseas, it began making bank immediately.  Hitting the US shores, it has pulled in serious bucks for both its opening night and debut weekend and has fans taking in the spectacle in droves.  Despite all of that, does Avengers-Age of Ultron prove itself a worthy film all its own?

Yes.  But that yes does come with some buts.  It is truly a worthwhile spectacle.  The huge budget clearly wasn't wasted.  In a story that takes it clear across the globe, it shows the Avengers team as a global force, taking the fight to evil wherever they are.  They aren't just a New York or even a team that just concerns itself with stateside threats.  So the action is huge, epic and amazing, with shots clearly choreographed to evoke comic panels.  But...it is an assault on the senses and it is so...much at times, it becomes almost physically exhausting.

Fortunately, things are broken up with plentiful well written character moments.  Not only are they recognizably in character, acknowledging the characters' comic roots as well as their past cinematic adventures, they establish these characters aren't just costumes.  They are hearts and souls, wounded ones in many cases.  However, the snark does come across a little heavy at times.  The first Avengers movie had only a couple of moments where Whedon seemed to be reaching a bit far for the joke.  The sequel, though most of the jokes hit home, had a few that made you feel that Whedon was trying a bit too hard for the funny.  A straight line, or perhaps just grim silence might have been better for a couple of moments.

Lots of new characters were introduced in this film, as well as new ones previously introduced were brought on board for the follies.  Again, in the hands of a lesser storyteller, this movie would have taken on a Batman and Robin level of bloat.  Joss Whedon knows these characters, loves them, knows what makes them tick.  So they all had moments and they all rang true.  But you did get the sensation of an overstuffed sausage at moments, filled to bursting.  Whedon has said he left over an hour of film on the editing floor.  With more film, this movie might have felt a little less stuffed.  However, it would have clocked in at over three hours at that point.  Here's hoping we see what didn't make the cut on the Blu Ray.

Finally, the movie does have some great poignant comments about modern world situations.  Raw power is not necessarily enough to set things right alone.  Technology and tools don't necessarily bring you the results the designer intended, as Tony Stark is loathe to admit.  Ultimately, this is a human world needing human solutions.  Even the machines acknowledge our power, seeing us as either the great threat to be exterminated (Ultron) or unique creations not to be dismissed (The Vision, played immensely by Paul Bettany).

Avengers-Age of Ultron is huge.  It is a grand chapter in the world of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and a satisfactory film through which Joss Whedon can exit his part in this play.  It is not problem free, but if the Marvel Universe is one you want to follow, this is a step you can take with satisfaction.

Chappie-Not Really a Short Circuit Remake At All

Neil Blomkamp fascinates me as a filmgoer and science fiction fan. In a day and age where we are inundated with remakes, sequels, adaptations and all kinds of manifestations of what a jaded film goer might call, “been there, done that”, Mr. Blomkamp is a filmmaker who made his mark with the 2009 film District 9, painting a unique, dark vision of the future in a tail of interstellar refugees layered upon entirely Earthbound and human social strife. Not only that, Blomkamp opened a more populist look at South Africa, which he has stayed with in his follow up films, both Elysium and Chappie. District 9 exploded onto the psyches of science fiction film fans, presenting a unique vision of a truly alien visitor knitted with unfeeling human bureaucracy and the heroism sometimes found at the end of one’s rope.


There is a problem when you are this good right out of the gate, however. It sure makes you an act that is tough to follow. Elysium, though I thoroughly enjoyed it, even more so, considering it was not a prequel, sequel, et al, was considered ham-fisted and thin its characterization and world building by some. So…Blomkamp then decided to remake Short Circuit.

Well, no, not really. Chappie is no more a remake of Short Circuit than it is a remake of Robocop, though it does have elements of both movies. That is, it posits humanity building robots to help protect itself from itself on the streets of the future, in this case, robot cops to help patrol the streets. Like Short Circuit, there is a set of events with one of them which results in it developing consciousness. Rather than destroy it, like some would seek to do, this machine is nurtured through both kindly humans and later happenstances and allowed to become a fully self-aware, self-actuating being.

On the surface, sure, Short Circuit-ish. But the actual details of Chappie’s journey take several departures from that of Johnny 5. Cute on the surface at times, in the unspooling of its narrative, it goes both darker and deeper, especially the way it ends; with Chappie contemplating his own destiny before him and the fact that he won’t be facing it alone.

Plus, there’s less Ally Sheedy and De Barge. Not to slight Ms. Sheedy, but I definitely don’t miss De Barge.

Take a chance on Chappie, a film that is not a sequel, prequel or remake.

I just realize after watching all the seasons, True Blood really is not a good show.

At all.

Thought I'd throw that out there.

Bettie Page Reveals All-The Soul Behind the Smile, the Heart Behind the Hooters

In the early 90s, I picked this up at Excalibur Comics and Games, State Line, Texarkana, Texas...

The jungle girl with the amazing curves in the cover illustration drew me, but the photos within had me riveted.  

Inside were pictures like the above and more.  Admittedly, my experience with female physicality was not extensive at the time, despite being in my early twenties and just out of my first two years in the US Army.  Just so that the little glimpse they showed of one of her nipples in one of the photos at the same time embarrassed me, yet enchanted me.  So the next time I saw her nude (I would later find out that Bettie took nudes aplenty), it wasn't nearly so much of a shock.  And I began to see the female form as something more than an object of lust (though there was plenty of that and I began to be much more confortable with that).  I began to appreciate the portrayal of female physicality as an art subject all its own.

                                                                                                                                                                            
And thus, a long distance fanciful love affair ensued.  Over time, I amassed a nice collection of photos, books, pieces of art and became intimately familar with the form of Betty, no, BETTIE PAGE.  But I knew very little of the substance of her.  I knew nothing of her soul.  Back then, no one knew if she was even still alive, having had her time in the sun in the 50s (1952-57).  Various figures were working behind the scenes to find her, to find out what happened to her and if she was aware of the fandom that had rediscovered her in the late 80s and still to the present day.

In Bettie Page Reveals All, this fun, funny and touching documentary talks to many of those who knew her in various stages of her life, and she went through many of them.  She started out as poor southern girl in unfortunate family circumstances.  She seemed to be interested in a more traditional life (marriage, normal job, kids).  But the circumstances that happened and that she found the most success at, beyond being a great student, was the world of pinup, cheesecake and stag films.  This is especially interesting that it happened in the fifties in America, an era known for discomfort with open displays of human sexuality beyond a very sharply circumscribed perimeter.  Add to that, Ms. Page was a spiritual woman, who felt the call of God in her life and manifested that in various ways, though not always the way she wanted.  She never felt that her work due to her physical allure was sinful in any way.  And, as a Christian, I don't, either.

If what you want is photos and video, oh yes, you get plenty of that in this documentary.  Tons of Bettie material as well as other women who worked with her or were inspired by her.  The point of this exercise is not cheesecake and titilation, though.  That's just a bonus for being a Page fan.  This is about getting to know the girl behind the glory.  That is the magical thing about this documentary.  Even though she died in 2008 (RIP), and her funeral is depicted, this film was a long time in the works and the producers got extensive interviews with her on tape before she passed away.  Much of this story is in her own words.

The way she tells her tale is that she was not trying to be a showstopper.  She was not trying to be anyone's icon or political statement.  She was not out to change the culture.  She was just being herself.  She was just having fun.

And that is how true magic happens, when it manifests from just simply who you are.

Thank you for the memories, Bettie Page.  I for one truly miss you and appreciate the gifts you shared with the world.

Coming Review: Bettie Page Reveals All

She was erotic poetry physically manifest.  Bettie Page Revealed her in all her sexy humanity.  Review coming tomorrow.

The Frame-When Our Stories Become Aware

In 2009, an intriguing indie fantasy film called Ink came out.  Sure, it was a low budget affair, perhaps some dodgy acting here and there, but it was a wonderful flick with powerful writing, about a convergence and conflict between denizens of the dream world and how their conflict encroaches upon ours.  The visuals were compelling, the soundtrack was terrific (composed by writer and director Jamin Winans) and enough of the actors were strong enough to transport viewers into the otherworldly scenario being laid before them.

Well, Mr. Winans is keeping on with another mindbender, 2014's The Frame.  Winan's craft has improved with this film, in that the cinematography has gotten more sophisticated in the way he stages and frames his shots and action.  His actors have seemingly upped their game even more.  Structurally, the story is, at first, seemingly smaller than Ink, as it primarily involves two people, one a professional thief looking to leave the trade and another a paramedic.  What they both don't know is that they are watching each other on TV.  The paramedic is in a reality TV show in the thief's world, while the thief is a character in a drama in the paramedic's "frame". 

The real kicker happens when one day, the two notice they can talk to each other through their TVs.  This begins the foundation of a love story and an exploration of art and reality.  What is real?  When does something become real?

And when characters get out of hand in their reality, is there anyone else to rein them in?

The Frame.  Check it out.

The Zero Theorem-Tearing at Illusions, Grappling with God

In the future, we still grapple with the essential questions.  We are pretty good with the "what" of things, even decent with the "how" of things.  But the "why" of things, the big questions of purpose and reason, continue to elude.  Or at least, elude the preferred singular approach of science (the process of figuring out the physical workings of things) and even philosophy (or at least, the approach of which uses language to parse ad infinitum and break things down into their tiniest pieces parts in concept).  The whys continue to defy.  There have been attempts in some materialistic and philosophical circles to dismiss the importance of the whys entirely, that they are all just creations of our inner  electrochemical workings.  But no one buys that.  Not even the proponents of such views.  Because, you wait long enough...some of them waffle publically.  When we look into the outer dark or the inner light, no one can be long term satisfied by the idea that it is all for nought.

Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume some will still try and will turn our greater and greater technological prowess to the purpose of the same.  In the future, it is reasonable to assume that computing power will be greater.  Fortunes will be more immense (for some) and those managing said fortunes might find talented individuals, such as a Mr. Quohen Leth (Christoph Platz), an obsessed loner waiting for a phone call to give him a purpose in his life.  Well, Management does not have a purpose for him.  But it does have a job.  Management wants to hire him for his computer operating and number crunching skills to solve an immense mathematical formula, the Zero Theorem, whose resolution will put this God question to rest, once and for all, one way or another.  Or so they hope.

Is the universe purposeless and meaningless?  Are we eventually just lazily spinning our way to the Heath Death of the universe?  Or is there something more going on here?

We live in a curious time now where our technological prowess is stunning and growing.  Our knowledge is expanding.  Yet, idealogically, assumptions seem more unstable than ever.  Traditional religion is being openly questioned, and yet, contrary to those asking those questions, religion and spirituality is pushing back, both in ways terrifying and against the spirit of Spirit (terrorism, militant fundamentalism) and hopeful (ordinary people finding the answers offered by the materialists have been found wanting and people have begun to look at religion and spirituality anew).

One of the most stunning is the release of The Principle, a film that seemingly asks for another look at the pre-Copernican idea of the universe.  Such a view has been reacted to as "heresy" among the materialists and has been called one of the most negatively reviewed non-viewed films.  Now, that is a nutty idea, the idea that perhaps Copernicus took civilization off the rails in ways.  However, the idea the filmmakers had is that Copernican theory was a platform that science then launched off of in ways that evidentially and philosophically are increasingly unsupportable.  That is, the universe as a big, mindless machine.

The Zero Theorem, contrary to what some might expect, is not an embrace of  the mindless materialism, the God-null.  In fact, Terry Gilliam's religious and spiritual views are far more complex than that.  He allows for a universe of mystery.  Of active engagement.

Of where we mere mortals need to look to the outer and inner, we need to wonder and seek it out.

The Zero Theorem almost is a call to action to just that.  That spiritual auto-pilot, our inner sleep, is a big part of what is messing us up.

Good film.

True Blood-A Season 7 Retrospective-Does this Vampire Tale in the end...Suck?

Yep.  It is all said and done.  HBO's adaptation of the tales of the strangest, most sexed up town in Louisiana, originally books by Charlaine Harris has now wrapped up.  For seven years, we were regaled with tales of the denizens, living and undead of Bon Temps, lurid, colorful, improbable, shameless, bloody, yet somehow compelling.  What started out as the simple tale of a small town bar and grill worker Sookie Stackhouse amdst a sociological sea changed cause by vampires "coming out of the coffin" due to the creation of a synthetic blood substitute, turned into a bodice ripping drama of mayhem and powerplays of various supernatural communities working out their issues, with Bon Temps somehow being the ground zero of much of this.

With all this going on...when you get to the end, you have to decide, was the journey worthwhile? Was it worth it, this stay in Bon Temps for seven years?  In deciding that question, one has to contemplate just what kind of show True Blood was.  True Blood can be sort of deceptive when attempting to sort this out.  Clearly, Sookie Stackhouse was going to be one of the epicenters of this thing, her and her relationship with Bill Compton, a Civil War veteran whose family has deep ties to this community.  And for some, that was a bit of a problem from the get go.  Their "will they/won't they" relationship and the drama it orbited around could get tiresome.  Sookie has interesting qualities but setting her up to be the most desirable woman in the TB universe only works if you buy into that conceit.  I didn't.  She was attractive and had a moral compass.  But her judgemental BS and her penchant towards drama just got annoying.  And as noble and interesting a character as Bill Compton was, seeing the puppydog like traits is attraction towards her took on just got too much at times.  Yes, things got interesting with some of the moral quandaries he had to deal with, and though his dip towards vampire religion was interesting, I wish it had been set up and developed more.

Which is one of the key criticisms of True Blood.  There was a bit of schitzophrenia about what kind of show that it wanted to be.  The show touched on various high concept ideas, from the existence of the supernatural and how it affects affairs in the human world, spirituality and the like, but more often than not, it just used the situation for more mayhem and didn't really explore things in any meaningful way.

The main draw for the show was really some of the supporting characters.  While some relied mainly on the charisma of the actors (Tara, Alcid, etc) to give them the life they had, as it wasn't clear the writers had any purpose for them beyond bouncing them off the main players, some of the others got some fairly meaty arcs to deal with and had great moments and endings that satisfied at the end.  The top of that heap was Eric Northman (Alexander Skarsgaard) who started out as an old, powerful vampire who embraced is not-human nature.  Except for his also inexplicable draw to Sookie (which they resolved with some dignity, thankfully), with some rather skilled writing as well as portrayal from Mr. Skarsgaard, showed humanity in a monster with out wimping him out.  I suppose closest to that would be Lucien Lacroix from the TV series Forever Knight, another mandatory show for vampire fans.  He was shown as a decent being under certain circumstances without watering him down or dialing down the fact that he was fundamentally not human.  Although, now that I think about it, he would be more like Janette from FK, in that he accepts his nature, but is more matter of fact about it, not quite reveling in it.  For revels, you need Pamela Swynford De Beaufort, Bonnie to Eric's Clyde.  She embraced the inhuman nature of vampire even more, but, like Eric, held on to enough of her "love", I suppose is the word, to keep her from being a monster.  But she very much was an apex predator, a vampire, and did not care much for most of humanity. 

Jason Stackhouse is another supporting character who emerged.  First shown as a dimwitted himbo horndog, he is later shown to not be actually stupid, just a guy who was used to getting by on sex appeal and athleticism, yet later developments in life made him come face to face with the deficiencies in his character.  Rather than just continue to be the user and hedonist he had been for most of his young life, he became determined to become something better, something more.  And in this, he succeeded, forging a life of professional responsibility as a police officer and redefining himself in how he dealt with friends, family and even women.  They no longer served in a universe of sex/no sex.  Not that it became a feminist condemnation of the heterosexual man, it just became a case of a young man maturing and learning more about recognizing the humanity in those he previously had just seen as objects of conquest.

Though that thing with him lusting after Eric Northman was a bit out of left field.  It seemed less character development and more about fangirls looking for slashfic fodder.

That is what makes True Blood worth it for the long haul.  Yes, it was sexy and visually stunning.  But for the long term, with some characters that went in circles and high concepts that ultimately went nowhere, many characters had very satisfying arcs and portrayals and their stories were worth it.  It will be interesting to see how it holds up on subsequent viewings, but this first time completing the journey, it was ultimately worth it.

The Whisperer In Darkness-Lovecraftian Horror filmed in Old School Horror Cinema Style

It seems that Howard Phillip's Mythos are nigh ubiquitous.  No matter where you look, games (electronic and table top), books, TV and film, the influence of the works of Lovecraft are there.  Tales of alien, mindbending horror lurking at the edges of vision, their very presence breaking down human perceptions, warping minds and shriveling souls.  That's before they even step on the physical stage, as exposure to the fleshly presence of Mythos manifestations is something sought by only the insane or the ignorant.  Given this rich heritage and influence, direct Lovecraft films have gotten relatively few big Hollywood productions.  In fact, it appears that the first will be the long in development Guillermo Del Toro's At The Mountains of Madness, a tale of icy polar alien exploration whose influence can be seen in The Thing (both versions), stories from X-Files (both the season one episode "Ice" and the first film, Fight The Future), and Ronald D. Moore's Helix (season one).  There have been other films with direct Lovecraft influence.  John Carpenter himself has two, Prince of Darkness, and At The Mouth of Madness.  It seems, though, the domain of Lovecraft adaptations is more in smaller budget productions.

The Howard Phillips Lovecraft Historical Society celebrates all things Mythos and seeks to bring to the world loving recreations of the worlds of HPL.  The society dabbles in several media realms, but some of their most remarkable works are film adaptations of Lovecraft's stories, not only seeking to accurately tell his stories, but do them in a way that recreates film styles of old.  Their first film was an adaptation of the classic Call of Cthuhlu, done in the style of yesteryears silent cinema.  Their followup, The Whisperer In Darkness, moves up to the black and white style of the old Universal Monster films and applies them to the Mythos, telling the tale of Professor Albert Wilmarth of Miskatonic University, Arkham, Massachusets, investigating a case of folklore seemingly come to life.  Skeptical of the outlandish claims and feeling the need to defend "scientific integrity", he is overwhelmed by the otherworldly madness he discovers.  But being a brave man and determined to do the right thing, he steps up faced with supernatural horrors and the prospect of an alien incursion.

Lovecraft's tales refuse to just step off the stage.  Despite the difficult language at times, the obvious age of the prose and the times described and the problematic nature of what appears are some of Lovecrafts viewpoints (accusations of racism, nativism, et al), his worlds inspire writers and other creators to this day.  Not only can Lovecraft's voice be heard in other fictional universes, creators return to his worlds and seek to bring them to life before new audiences.

Whisperer In Darkness does just this, with an eye to authenticity as well as excitement, wonder and otherworldly horror. 

This is a good one.  Check it out.

Tusk-Kookoocatchoo

Once upon a time, a boy blew his credit cards on an indie movie with his buddies.  The film, which took place mostly in a convenience store, blew up and boom, new indie auteur Kevin Smith was born.  Since then, two things have remained fairly consistent.  One, he is a man who goes through life passion first.  He has no problem telling the world what he is about and what he loves, be it literature (comics), film (geek cinema), food (anything sugary), mind altering substances (pot) or sex (yes, please). He mixes and mashes with his passions and what he feels inspired by, but he is determined to make certain it is his voice that is the primary note being hit.  Now, he may have had pretenses at selling out and going corporate and should any of his attempts at actually doing so gone the way he wanted, he might have embraced it for awhile.  Because he does want success, he does want the benjamins and he does want to be the adored figure of millions.  Well, the thing is, is that he always comes back to his own voice.  His own voice has now brought him back to film, and he hasn't let his experience with Red State go away.  He loves the idea of small indie film and now has gravitated to gonzo oddball horror.

What started out as frustrated Kev not breaking out into radio has become an online empire.  Smodcast Internet Radio has become quite the little cottage industry, a network of internet radio shows about a huge range of interests, with Smith on many of them.  The flagship show, Smodcast, has Kevin with his friend and collaborator, Scott Mossier, palavering about whatever, but a go-to schtick is to pitch movie ideas on the air.  Kev then decided...why not actually use these?  From Smodcast episode 259, where Kev and Scott discussed a weird Craigslist ad offering free room and board for the boarder dressing up in a Walrus costume for a couple hours.  Kev took that concept and ran with it, with the story of a podcaster (Justin Long) pursuing a strange story and ending up being caught up in some madness up North.  Tusk is the first film in the True North trilogy, next up being Yoga Hosers, the lead characters in that one being the two Colleens, Canadian convenience store clerks (a favorite them of Kevin's), played by his daughter (Harley Quinn Smith) and Johnny Depp's daughter (Lily-Rose Depp).  Depp himself will be returning as Quebecois homicide detective Guy Lapointe.

I don't want to give the story away, but if you have listened to Smodcast episode 259, you know it already.  Walrus suit.  That's all I'll say.

I only have two criticism.  The Walrus suit, valiant effort though it is, shows the limits of the films budget.  But that's ok.  And given that Smith is a veteran podcaster, it kind of surprised me that the podcast scenes were a bit too FM Morning Zoo.  But that's ok.  Creative, clever writing and actors embracing the madness and surprisingly human moments, Tusk is a great opening to an intriguing new trilogy that so far isn't like anything you have seen before.

Zodiac-An Unsolved Murder, Like that Piece of Hanging Skin At The Roof of a Burned Mouth

Opening scene, July 4th, 1969, a young couple, Darleen Farris and Mike Mageau, are assaulted by a mysterious marauder wielding a hand gun at a lover's lane location in Vallejo, California.  Mageau survives, Farris does not.   One month later, the Sanfrancisco Chronicle began getting taunting letters making fun of the police and their progress on the murder, accompanied by cryptograms.  Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr) is the tenacious crime reporter assigned to that beat and Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a Chronicle cartoonist has a knack for puzzles and finds himself drawn to the case.  Later, his interest becomes a burning obsession, which brings him in touch with the cops in various departments in the area as they work the murders that start stacking up.  It becomes a part of local folklore.  It is even the inspiration of the Scorpio killer in the first Dirty Harry movie.  The Zodiac killer not only consumes lives, he destroys careers and families of the people pursuing him. 

Unsolved murders have a particular fascination.  From the puzzle that refuses solution to the idea of the boogeyman still lurking in the shadows, history's Jack the Ripper, my hometown's (Texarkana) Phantom Killer and more, these figures frighten and fascinate in equal measure.

David Fincher plays down the theatrics he sometimes is known for and plays down the gimmicks as well.  His skill here is demonstrated primarily in just bringing to life the people and times of late sixties, early to mid seventies Bay Area California, with locations and music that take you there.  Less about suspense and chills and more about the multi-layered puzzle that is the Zodiac Killer and the emotional and spiritual stresses pulling at the killer's pursuers as they continue on their course.

If you are looking for slasher porn or heebie jeebies, this is not your film.  This is, though, a real life mystery and a film that lets the mystery tell itself.  Fincher is a director who knows just when to step up and knows when to back off.  When it comes to being a dance partner with the material, David Fincher is a man who knows how to lead and knows when to let his dance partner call the tune.

Great flick and an education in a particular chapter of American crime history.

Close To Home-I've Never Met a Draftee Who Loved What They Were Doing

It is true, I haven't.  Not that my experience with military conscription is extensive.  I was a volunteer (the US ended the draft in 1973, though males still have to register for Selective Service, just in case). But during my years in Korea, I saw lots of draftees (males still are required to put in a couple years in the Republic of Korea Armed Forces, females can volunteer).  To a man, they seemed to regard their time as jail and could not wait to get out.  And, to be honest, very few of them struck me as honest to goodness soldiers.  I think the ones assigned to combat units and especially the few who decided the military life is the life for them are the ones who make the transition in their minds from civilian to soldier.

In Israel, all young people, men and women, have to do a couple years in that nation's armed forces. In Close To Home, we get a glimpse of a couple of girls in the Israeli Defense Forces.  Smadar is rebellious and seemingly doesn't take her role as a soldier seriously at all. Mirit is a little more poised and wants to do a good job, but unlike Smadar, her family is right there in Jerusalem and she would rather be assigned someplace else, have some new experiences and have a job besides what they do, which is going up to Arabs in the street and checking them for their ID.  The two of them try to come up with ways to kill time, avoid the attention of their commander who occasionally comes to check on her troops and try to have a a "normal" life outside their service.  They tend to be kind of lighthearted and lackadaisal in their approach until one day, a bombing does happen.

Even after than, though they seem to walk a bit straighter and gaze a little sharper, it is clear they are still in that marking time mode.  Though even the career military personell in this role seem to be uncomfortable with this particular task and view it as something to be endured, rather than embraced.

The life of a draftee whose days are spent checking IDs isn't a glorious, glamorous or exciting one.  Closer to Home makes that clear.  These two girls seem determined to find something in this experience, though.  Through it, they seem to find each other.  In the midst of social turmoil, dubious politics and military make-work drudgery, finding a new friend in which to share adversity is not nothing.

Watch this movie with some decent wine and questions.

But...keep in mind, though an unglamorous window into an unglamorous life and job, keep in mind, like the job and lives it is depicting, it is really kind of dull.

Grand Budapest Hotel-The Dollhouse Between Wars

I've been a disciple of the canon of Wes Anderson since Rushmore, which of course didn't introduce the initial Anderson players (that was Bottle Rocket, a Wes Anderson heist film), but more of them came on board, including Bill Murray (genius right there) and Jason Schwartzmann, among others.  Rushmore is one of my all time favorite films, for I can relate to being a "talented oddball" who aspires to "greatness", yet I find my attentions and passions divided, to the point I appear to some lke a drifter.  But I am not.  Wanderer, yes.  To a classic rock soundtrack.

Now, the point of Rushmore was to expand the Anderson toolbox.  With Royal Tennanbaums and The LIfe Aquatic with Steve Zissou, the tribe, themes and style are firmly in place.  The tribe is his favorite players, Mssrs Murray, Schwartzmann, et al.  The themes are art, beauty, surreal within real, and isolation, seeking connection.  And often, seeking greatness in addition or to substitute for connection.  A sense of the world as a diorama/dollhouse is often the style, with a kicking musical accompaniment.

Which brings us all the way to The Grand Budapest Hotel.  With this film, you have some intriguing variations on his tools.  Sure, the tribe is there (Murray, Schwartzmann, Jeff Goldblum, William Dafoe et all).  Sure, the surreal dollhouse look and feel is there (the kicking rock is absent, though, because the era is wrong.  Mr. Anderson likes his classic rock, but he also likes his authenticity and attention to detail in is recreations).  Simply put, you have two gentlemen in the modern day sit down to share a meal at the said hotel, which only has a few guests and apparently has seen better days.  The older gent (F. Murray Abraham) relates to the younger man (Jude Law) how he obtained the hotel and his wealth.  He started out as a "lobby boy" named Zero, a refuge from a people displaced by the activity of World War 1. He is under the apprenticeship of Gustave (Ralph Fiennes), the concierge of the GPH and a man who frames the world in beauty.  He even sees it in places others might miss, like older women, tacky art and the like.  A paramour of his, an older woman as mentioned before, incredibly wealthy, apparently has named him in her will as she just died.  So he goes to the reading.  At which point, he finds himself framed for murder, along with Zero, with one of the lady's relatives, played by Adrian Brody, determined to see him take the fall.

Well, Gustav is an industrious and determined man.  He also has a keenly honed sense of justice and etiquette and finds them all violated under these circumstances.  He is determined to see justice done, not only himself cleared, but the real culprits dealt with in the most final and mannerly way possible.

Thus, we have a war torn Europe and a struggling hotel as the backdrop of an epic personal struggle, a determination to preserve a world in which beauty is safe and unmolested.  A fantasy within fantasy, perhaps, especially in a Europe torn by two world wars.  But as far as ideals go, there are worse ones which to aspire.

Great flick.

The Corridor-Lovecraft With No Tentacles

Lovecraftian horror is an honored subgenre in in macabre films.  You need some specific elements for a film to qualify as Lovecraftian.  1. Hapless characters clearly in over their heads and have no idea just how in over their heads they are.  2.  Something weird and/or creepy in their midst that does not immediately play all its cards.  Someone might know that "something is not right", but if they warn anyone, usually the others ignore them until it usually is too late.  Finally, brain blasting 3. Those exposed to the horror start to lose their marbles.  Their sanity is heading around the bend, probably, though not necessarily inevitably, never coming back.  They probably aren't even aware of this.  Again, there may be one or two...but they will probably end up dead in a gruesome manner.

Though there are exceptions.

So...get some dudes, some brosephs who have known each other for decades.  Take them up to a cabin in the woods a long way from civilization.  Have one of them discover something weird, in this case what looks like a "corridor", made up of phantasmal vapors, or energy of some kind.  The brosephs think this is their ticket to fame and fortune and as they celebrate in the way they will, they have no idea that they are slowly going bonkers.

Oh, and one key thing about horror, but especially about the Lovecraftian, there is no tying up the loose ends.  There will be loose ends at the end.  No "it as all a delusion...maybe".  No "I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids".  Something beyond the framework touched human lives and left them forever changed.  And did not bother telling anyone why.

That is the dealio.  That is what it is.  It is all about a ride.  It is all about the trippiness.  Can you dig it?  Can you handle it?

Then you probably should be able to handle this trip into indie horror.

Cool flick.

How I Live Now-YA Does Not Have to Pander to Teenagers

Recently, I've been reading lots about John Milius, the maverick filmmaker who rubs the dominant left-politically inclined culture the wrong way in both his persona and his work.  Hollywood has not been kind to him, but he does his own thing and makes his own statements.  Those statements do stick out, especially since he is a voice against the grain.  One of his most famous films is Red Dawn and depending on your personal inclinations, you either love it or you hate it (awesome Basil Poledouris score).  The reason I bring up Red Dawn is that it depicts an apocalypse that is relatively uncommon, that of the mostly conventional war destabilizing the social order of the society of the characters. 

Daisy (Saoirsi Ronan) is an American girl sent overseas to live with relatives in Britain, as World War 3 has broken out. The combatants aren't spelled out, nor are the reasons for the conflict, though Britain is hip deep in the war.  Daisy's family lives out in the sticks and whatever is going on, they hope to avoid it, even when Daisy's aunt, the mother of the British family, is called away (she's a government official).  They hear news reports over the radio.  Occasionally, military planes fly overhead.  One day, a nuke detonates close enough for them to feel the air displacement and be in range of fallout.  But still, they hope to hold out.  Especially Daisy, because she has fallen in love with her older cousin Eddie, who has helped drag her out of the shell she was in when she got to the farmstead. 

However, British soldiers show up, apprehend them and separate the males from the females to take them to "safe houses" for the duration of the crisis.  Things go pear shaped, though, and Daisy and her young cousin end up making their way by foot back into the countryside, avoiding troops as well as brigands to try to find their way home.

This one is a subtle apocalypse, as the crisis isn't the star.  It is just a stage content to stay in the background as much as possible.  It just occasionaly surfaces to remind everyone that, hey, world might be ending and things are all higgedy.  Throw assumptions out the window because there is a new normal in da house.

Being a teenager can be rough.  Sometimes that is when people have first experienced war.  It has to be worse when the war is global.  And you aren't even a soldier.

Good flick.