Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Scott's Links March 2012

Scott roams the internet far and wide. Because of this, he supplies interesting links to Big Hollywood every day. I've asked Scott to give us a list of the best links he finds each month and a quick synopsis of what's behind each one. Check these out. . . share your thoughts! And away we go. . .

How Parks and Recreation manages to avoid partisan rancor

I enjoy Parks and Recreation very much and it's nice to see the creators intend on keeping it bipartisan, or rather, not very partisan at all. Oh, I almost forgot: Ron Swanson. [smile]

A real Navy SEAL rates the authenticity of 10 Navy SEAL movies

Military life is something Hollywood gets wrong for one reason or another, however some movies are more accurate than others. By the way, I haven't seen Act of Valor yet but I'm looking forward to Netflixing it.

15 minutes of Star Trek: TNG's Lt. Worf getting shot down by everyone

Watching this hilarious montage, it's amazing the writers did anything with Lt. Worf considering how many times he would make a suggestion only to have Picard immediately reject it.

Why world leaders call on celebrities to do their dirty work

I don't get on the celebrity/politics bandwagon but this is an interesting look at the thought process that determines why Jeff Spicoli makes a good spokesman for your cause. (Well, not your cause. . . someone else's!)

A guy rewrites The Phantom Menace so it makes sense

Deconstructing the flaws of the Star Wars prequel trilogy seems to have taken on a life of its own. This guy explains what he would've done and while I'm not familiar with every nook and cranny of the SW universe, he seems to have some good ideas.

Wanderlust and the rise of the counter-countercultural comedy

This movie seems to have disappeared from theaters already, however I can safely say my generation doesn't give the slightest s--- about hippies or the hippie movement. I can appreciate the history (and the music) but, come on, they're fair game, man!

"Homer at the Bat": the making of a classic Simpsons episode

I can't believe it's been 20 years since this episode aired. I honestly don't remember when I started watching The Simpsons - some time in 1993 or 1994 - but I enjoy watching this one on DVD. "Mattingly, get rid of those sideburns!!"

Hollywood's obsession with Mars

I truly believe the definitive Mars film has yet to be made. I wish James Cameron would direct it, instead of going back to the bioluminescent well with Avatar sequels. I haven't seen John Carter (neither did most of America) but I believe it deserves better.

As Lethal Weapon turns 25, we ask, is Richard Donner underrated?

The Omen. Superman. The Goonies. Lethal Weapon and its sequels. So why isn't Richard Donner a household name like Spielberg? Perhaps it has to do with his style, which is really no style at all. Or should I say, it's not "obvious."

10 cancelled sci-fi shows Netflix should bring back before Terra Nova

As of this writing, Netflix is in negotiations to pick up the cancelled Fox series Terra Nova. The writer of this article thinks Netflix should focus on some other shows, including a certain beloved space western. [smile]

Last night's listening:

I downloaded Michael Giacchino's score for John Carter. I don't have much to say about it since I haven't seen the film, but I'm enjoying it! Some romance, some action, and some sweeping Lawrence of Arabia-style cues, which are always appreciated. And per usual, many of Giacchino's track titles are pretty funny, in a corny kind of way.

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Questionable Trek vol. 7

We all love a good mystery and Star Trek: TNG has done several over the years.

Question From Andrew: "What are your five favorite TNG mysteries?"

Scott’s Answer: Repeated viewings have obviously lessened the initial impact but I still enjoy watching these plots slowly unfold. We begin with the aptly-titled. . .

"Clues" - The crew encounters a Spatial Anomaly (TM) and is rendered unconscious, except for Data who revives everyone. As Picard and his officers attempt to solve the mystery, it becomes disturbingly obvious that Data is not telling the truth about what happened. It turns out the crew had encountered a xenophobic race called the Paxans and the crew's memories of them were erased, however the Paxans had never before encountered an android. Picard asks them for a second chance and this time the crew does a better job of hiding the clues that had been left behind. The cast and crew do a great job of creating a mysterious atmosphere and a sense of foreboding about Data's motives, which turn out to be completely benign.

"Schisms" - Riker is having trouble sleeping, Worf reacts strongly to a sharp object, Geordi's VISOR is malfunctioning, and various crewmembers are missing. The crew investigates and determines that an alien race is creating a pocket of our universe within their own subspace domain, which allows them to perform medical experiments on victims taken from the ship. Riker is fitted with a homing device and sent into the domain to retrieve the missing crewmembers. This episode delves into the world of alien abductions and features a great scene in which Riker and Co. re-create their strange visions on the holodeck. We also get treated to some of writer Brannon Braga's best work: Data's "Ode to Spot."

"Ship in a Bottle" - In a popular second season episode, Data activated his Sherlock Holmes holodeck program and matched wits with Professor Moriarty who became self-aware. Well, Moriarty is back, requesting that Picard grant him the freedom he was promised in the previous episode. While the crew investigates, Moriarty miraculously walks off the holodeck and later takes command of the ship. In a wonderful twist, Data determines that he and Picard never left the holodeck - Moriarty had created his own Enterprise simulation within it. He eventually allows Picard and Data to leave (after being fooled into thinking he's in the real world thanks to Data's reprogramming) and Data saves the Moriarty program so it will run forever. This might be the Inception of Star Trek episodes. [smile]

"Parallels" Worf is on his way back to the Enterprise after winning a bat'leth tournament but, after he arrives, strange things begin to happen: a painting in his quarters changes, people suddenly shift their positions, and he remembers things that no one else does. The facts are these: Worf's shuttlecraft passed through a Quantum Fissure (TM), which Data describes as a "keyhole" which intersects other realities, and Geordi's VISOR amplified the effect. Worf has been shuffling between different realities (parallel worlds). This might be the best episode of the otherwise okay seventh season. It's neat to see all the subtle changes that occur as Worf goes from one world to another and the climax features several hundred (!) Enterprises converging in one spot as Worf attempts to shuttle back to his own universe. I believe this episode was the start of the Worf/Troi romance subplot. (Don't worry, it didn't take.)

"Genesis" - Dr. Crusher actives a dormant T-cell in Lt. Barclay (popular guest star Dwight Schultz) which will help him combat an alien flu. The crew soon begins to de-evolve and Data must race against time to synthesize an antidote. It turns out the T-cell is responsible for the mutations - it interacted with an anomaly in Barclay's genetic structure and the resulting disease went airborne. This horror show should've been a two-parter - the story resolves itself in literally the last two minutes, but I enjoy the hell out if it! The make-up effects are excellent: Riker turns into an Australopithecus, Barclay into an arachnid, etc. Gates McFadden (Dr. Crusher) made her TV directing debut with this episode and she is quite adept at creating a haunted house atmosphere.

Andrew’s Response: Those are all good episodes, though I found the Spot poem cloying. I would add "Future Imperfect", where Riker wakes up as Captain of the Enterprise. He’s lost 16 years of memory and has a son, but things aren’t quite what they seem and he has to solve what’s really going on.

Scott's Reply: I thought about "Future Imperfect" though, for some reason, I find that episode frustrating. SPOILERS: I think the difference is, unlike the other episodes where some spatial/medical/holodeck anomaly is at fault and the crew actively tries to solve the problem, this episode is just one big ruse and it's frustrating to watch Riker portrayed as a victim of circumstance.

[+] Read More...

Sunday, March 18, 2012

The Great (film) Debates vol. 30

Nothing defines a character more than the kind of car they drive. Cars is cool!

What is the coolest car on film?



Panelist: T-Rav

The Thunderbird in Grease. Seeing that and the people around it just screams "quintessential '50s" to me; and let's face it, the '50s were awesome. I think it did as much to make that movie what it was as John Travolta did.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Intellectually, I guess Bond's Aston Martin from Goldfinger which I once saw in person along with the Black Watch {think about that for a minute :) }Still, the very first car that came to mind was Steve McQueen's Mustang from Bullitt.

Panelist: ScottDS

The Bluesmobile, as seen in The Blues Brothers. It was actually a 1974 Dodge Monaco. We never find out how the car gets its "magical powers" but the extended version of the film includes a scene where Elwood parks it in an electrical substation underneath the L train. It was Dan Aykroyd's idea that the car would absorb the electrical energy but when the film was running long, director John Landis cut this scene, knowing the audience wouldn't quite understand (nor would they need to). "Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration, don't fail me now!"

Panelist: AndrewPrice

This is really a very hard question as there are so many. There's the Challenger from Vanishing Point, the DeLorean from Back to the Future, there's Christine. . . the list is endless. But in the end, nothing beats the 1967 black Camaro from Better Off Dead.

Comments? Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

Friday, March 16, 2012

Film Friday: After.Life (2009)

I’d never heard of After.Life until the other day. The film bombed in theaters, making only $3.2 million on a $4.5 million budget, and that’s a shame. This is a fascinating movie and is well worth watching. I can’t call it a great film, but it is an interesting film.

After.Life stars Liam Neeson as Eliot Deacon, the owner of a funeral home, and Christina Ricci as Anna, an unhappy school teacher. After a quick intro where we learn that Ricci and her boyfriend Paul Coleman (Justin Long) don’t really get along, Ricci wakes up on Neeson’s embalming table at the funeral home. She’s had an accident and has been pronounced dead. Neeson’s job is to prepare her for burial. But here’s the thing, she’s pretty sure she’s not dead. Neeson assures that she is. He explains that she had a car accident and was pronounced dead by the coroner at the scene. He shows her the death certificate and the wound on her head. She also suffers from periodic paralysis, which Neeson attributes to rigor mortis. But how can Neeson speak to her if she’s dead? He claims he has a gift which lets him speak to dead people.

The big thing this movie has going for it is mood. The whole film is creepy and you never once doubt the possibility that Ricci could be either dead or alive. And best of all, the film achieves this as a genuine psychological thriller, not a modern horror movie. Indeed, it rarely sinks to cheap scares or gross outs.

Neeson gives a strong performance, as I’ll discuss below. Ricci is quite good as well. Long is weak as the boyfriend who can’t shake the idea that Ricci might be alive, but he’s a sideshow. The real heart of this film lies is the question of whether or not Ricci is really alive or dead. And in that regard, this film is thought provoking. Why do we cling to life? Or do we? What would it take to convince us that we are dead? And how would you prove you wanted to live? I would have preferred a little more depth on the answers provided here, but the film certainly raises the questions well.

Beyond that, there’s nothing I can say without giving you a major spoiler warning. This film’s ambiance comes from trying to understand what is really going on and I’m about to tell you, so don’t read on if you haven’t seen the film.

** Spoiler Alert – I recommend seeing this film before continuing. **

Let’s talk about Neeson. Neeson gives a spectacular performance in this film. About three-quarters of the way through the film, it becomes fairly clear that Ricci is in fact alive and that Neeson is some sort of twisted serial killer. What’s interesting about Neeson’s portrayal up to this point, is that you can absolutely believe both scenarios. On the one hand, he comes across as exactly the kind of respectable man who would be a funeral director. He also plays the idea of the “gift” of being able to speak with the dead perfectly and you never doubt that it’s possible he is telling the truth. At the same time, he shows these moments of intense-but-controlled anger, which give you the sense that he could easily build up enough rage to be a killer.

But even more importantly, he gives a genuinely believable motive. I’ve discussed this before, that bad people rarely think of themselves as evil. To the contrary, they think of themselves as justified or even doing something noble, and that’s the case here. Neeson believes that people who don’t value life don’t deserve to have it. And if you listen closely, you will hear Neeson on several occasions offer Ricci a chance to prove she values life by walking out the door to freedom. This is her trial and she is judging herself, only she doesn’t know it.

This is such a strong motive that it both makes the character instantly credible and it helps you understand his methods. He’s not some standard psycho who tortures people because it gives him pleasure. In his mind, he’s executing people who judge themselves unworthy. His fake-death game is the trial. And interestingly, he seems willing to let himself get caught if the person does in fact walk out the door. That is a fascinating motive and it’s highly believable. Not only does this make his insanity “rational,” but it adds the element of risk which serial killers and gamblers view as such a turn-on. Indeed, this feels like a much greater risk than any other movie serial killer has taken because he puts his fate in the hands of his victims.

The writer was also smart to expose this motive slowly. You start to get a sense for it early and with each passing scene it becomes more clear. This makes for a more fascinating film than those where you have a cliché scene where the otherwise-normal killer suddenly rips off their mask and spews their motive in a melodramatic speech because this film lets you discover the motive as you would in real life -- through small hints.

Now, I’ve said this is an interesting film, not a great film. There are several reasons for that. The story itself is great, as is the struggle between Ricci and Neeson, but Long is a rather poor distraction -- he is a standard, irrational “movie” character. But the bigger problem is that while you watch the film, lots of things don’t make sense. In particular, this seems like a rather impossible way for a serial killer to work. He’s basically relying on people to be injured and then for the coroner to mistakenly declare them dead. That’s a hard bit of disbelief to overcome. But here’s the thing, the film actually answers this, it just doesn’t do it clearly enough that most people will realize what is really going on.

When Ricci has her accident, she is actually forced off the road by a white van, not the truck which Neeson tells her killed her. The white van is the same white van Neeson drives at the end of the film when Long has his accident. What is going on is that Neeson picks a target. He causes them to have an accident. Then, because he’s at the scene, he gives them a shot of Hydronium Bromide, which mimics death and fools the coroner. This explains all of the seeming coincidences, like how he gets his victims. It also explains the coincidence of Jack being Neeson’s son and yet being in Ricci’s class and then getting to know Long -- it’s no coincidence at all, he was sent to target both. If the film had given just a little more hint of this, then I think it would have been better received because, as it is, I suspect most people left the film feeling this was all too coincidental to be real.

I also would have liked to see the film explore a bit more into the question of why Ricci wants to live. This started well, but I think the writer didn’t quite have a solid answer other than “because the plot needs it.” So there is a missed opportunity there.

In any event, the interesting take away from this film is Neeson’s character, who is one of the most convincing serial killers in a long time because he truly seems motivated by a twisted sense of righteousness, rather than the usual “just because I’m evil” attitude most serial killers display. And it’s fascinating to watch him toy with fate by offering to let these people leave and then simultaneously letting them judge themselves. It’s an interesting way for him to wash his hands of his dirty deeds.

There is much here to like and to think about. I definitely recommend this film.

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Guest Review: License to Drive (1988)

by ScottDS

Corey Haim and Corey Feldman – a.k.a. The Coreys – were, for better or worse, an 80s pop culture juggernaut. They appeared in several films together, most famously 1987’s The Lost Boys, but it’s 1988’s License to Drive from which I will remember them most fondly. The story of a teenager who tries to get his license in order to attain independence and impress a hot girl is a childhood favorite of mine. It’s fun, it’s rebellious, it’s even a little scary at times. . . and I continue to enjoy every second of it.

Les Anderson (Haim) is 16 years old. He has a twin sister (Nina Siemaszko), a younger brother, and two loving parents (Richard Masur and Carol Kane). He has a crush on Mercedes (a young Heather Graham) and can’t wait to get his license so he’ll be able to take her out for a night on the town. Unfortunately, he fails both his exam and his driver’s test but do you think he lets that stop him? Nope. He steals his grandfather’s Cadillac (which is being kept at the house) and with Mercedes, and later his friends Dean (Feldman) and Charles (Michael Manasseri), takes part in a wild comedy of errors, as only a teenager could do in 1980s America.

I’ve loved this movie ever since I first saw it on television as a kid. There are so many little touches that can be appreciated. For starters, Les and his younger brother actually get along – usually younger siblings in movies like this are annoying brats but not here. Masur is, in my opinion, one of the all-time great movie dads. He’s supportive of his son but strict when the situation calls for it. He doesn’t try to act “cool” nor does he needlessly embarrass his son. He’s also not oblivious, which is one of my pet peeves when it comes to movie/TV parents. Kane is probably remembered for playing Les’ mom thanks to a dinner scene where she scoops a comically-oversized portion of mashed potatoes onto her plate and douses it with ketchup (she’s pregnant, hence the weird diet). Siemaszko plays Les’ twin sister Natalie: an intellectual who’s dating a Communist (Karl, naturally, played by Grant Heslov). This is played for laughs and we see the inevitable results of their relationship when she finds herself participating in a protest which quickly escalates into a riot.

When I mention the film is a little scary at times, I don’t mean in a traditional sense. I would watch it as a 10-year old and think to myself, “Oh, man. I’m gonna have to take a driver’s test one day!” The test sequence is a highlight of the film. Stage actress Helen Hanft plays the instructor – the aptly-named Ms. Hellberg – with an evil grin and garish make-up (the wide angle lens helps, too). We see Les at his computer terminal where he gets nearly every question wrong. Thankfully, he’s off the hook due to a sudden power surge that erases his grade. He’s allowed to take the driving test where his instructor is played with maniacal glee by James Avery (best known as Uncle Phil on The Fresh Prince). Avery’s unnamed character doesn’t use a clipboard or a checklist – he uses a cup of coffee, filled to the brim. If any coffee spills on him, Les fails. Thankfully, Les manages to make it back to the parking lot without scalding his instructor. Unfortunately, in the time he’s been gone, his grades have been retrieved and his license is torn up.

So what’s Les to do? He has a date with Mercedes, who only decided to go out with him in order to make her (much older) Eurotrash boyfriend jealous. He gives her a call and she asks him to pick her up later that night. From this point on, the film becomes a classic comedy of errors and we’re constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop. Les manages to sneak the Cadillac out of the garage, where it plows through some bushes. He picks up Mercedes, who spots her boyfriend at a club with another woman. The Cadillac is towed away and Les gives the tow-truck driver all his money in order to release the car. Broke and embarrassed, he takes a sympathetic Mercedes to a hill overlooking the city, where she gets drunk, and insists they dance on the hood of the car. Les had brought along a mix tape (remember those?!) but the tape player eats it up so he uses one of his grandfather’s Sinatra tapes to great effect. (This film may have been my first exposure to The Chairman of the Board.) Mercedes prematurely ends their make-out session when she passes out, a condition in which she’ll remain for most of the film.

Les takes the car back to Dean’s house where he fixes up the hood (by bashing the underside of it with a hammer). Charles takes a photo of Les and his new “license” (his school ID) and Dean wants Les to take them to a drive-in burger joint called Archie’s. They have an unfortunate run-in with some tough guys (straight out of every other 80s teen flick) and make a break for it. They put Mercedes in the trunk and end up driving though the aforementioned riot where Les’ sister recognizes him. Eventually, they’re pulled over at a DUI checkpoint where Les is forced to admit he doesn’t have a license. In a wonderful use of deux ex machina, the cops are called away to the riot and all seems well, until a stumbling drunk who had been pulled over takes the Cadillac, mistaking it for his own car. The three guys (with Mercedes), in turn, steal the drunk’s car. They eventually catch up with him and Les crawls out one window and through the other and manages to hit the breaks just before the road ends.

I doubt the scenes with the drunk would make it into a film today. Political correctness has robbed audiences of that familiar character archetype: “the lovable drunk.” The man drinks while driving, even cutting up lime wedges on the dashboard, all while the Sinatra tape plays “That’s Life.” What redeems this whole sequence is Dean, who throws the man’s keys away because, after all, “friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” Eventually, the sun comes up and Les drops off Charles and Dean. He carries Mercedes to her door. She thanks him for a nice night and apologizes for being drunk. She can barely remember anything that happened; only that it was like a bizarre dream. Les promises to tell her how it ends, if he survives.

Throughout the night, the film cuts to Les’ parents. Les’ mom is approaching her due date and without the Cadillac, they have no way to get to the hospital. (A friend of mine ruined this for me when he asked, “Why couldn’t they just call 911?”) At one point, Les’ dad goes to the garage but Les had taken out the light bulb and Dad is called away before he can finally see that the car is missing. Les returns the car in the morning and, in one of my favorite movie monologues, Dad just whales on him: “We had a college fund set aside for you! That’s gone now! You had free room and board, two trusting parents, and a social life. All gone! You had a TV, a stereo, a baseball, a tennis racket, a skateboard, a bicycle – all gone! You even had sunlight and a window in your room!”

Mom goes into labor and wants Dad to ride in the back with her. Begrudgingly, Dad tells Les to drive them to the hospital. The gear shift gets stuck in reverse so Les is forced to drive backwards. He even has a run-in with his driving instructor who can’t believe what he sees and spills his coffee. They make it to the hospital and Dad tells Les he’s proud of him and that they can get the car fixed, until a nearby construction crane malfunctions and drops an I-beam on it! Fade to black and pick up a couple weeks later: Les’ mom has given birth to twins and Grandpa shows up. He sees the remains of the Cadillac and laughs. A tow truck shows up with the remains of Dad’s BMW: “I had a little trouble with your car, too!” Dad gives Les his keys: “You always said you wanted a BMW.” Les, of course, prefers a Mercedes, who drives up at that moment. Les gets behind the wheel and they drive off into the sunset.

While the film is not meant to be taken too seriously, we still sympathize with the characters. Yes, some of the events are over the top but everyone is relatable and we can all remember our first driving experience and our first high school crush. While recounting all of the ways Les’ big night is screwed up, I kept saying “Naturally,” to myself. The script isn’t exactly high art but it’s a good example of setting up a basic plot and exploiting the hell out of it. Also, unlike many 80s films, it isn’t too dated. Sure, some of the clothes and hairstyles may elicit a reaction but I believe any teenager could watch the film today and feel right at home. This is also one 80s film where computers and cell phones aren’t missed – at no point are the characters desperate to call someone or look up information!

As an aside, the Commie boyfriend Karl hates cars, believing them to be tools of Capitalist oppression. Dean, on the other hand, gives Les a speech about the importance of a license and the freedom it represents (underscored with “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”). I must admit, even though I’m a bit of a public transit geek – I find the NYC subway system fascinating – when I was living up north, I sometimes longed for a car. “Who would’ve thought a Mercedes could fit in the trunk of a Cadillac?”

Rest in peace, Corey Haim.

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Questionable Trek vol. 6

Did I say that even at their worst, Star Trek films are still worth watching and they have a lot of good things going for them. I probably overstated that.

Question From Scott: “You ranked Star Trek: Insurrection as your least favorite Trek film. Give me five good things about it.”

Andrew’s Answer: Arg. Everything was wrong with this movie from stunning plot holes to just senseless action sequences to the inexplicable conduct. Finding five good things may be impossible. But I’m up for the challenge.

1. I like the casting with a caveat. F. Murray Abraham is always a great villain. Anthony Zerbe should have made a good Admiral. And Donna Murphy could have made an excellent romantic counterpart for Capt. Picard. But there’s a caveat -- they were all wasted by horrible, horrible writing.

2. I like that they filmed part of this outside. The Next Gen always felt too stage-bound to me in that they rarely went to planets and, when they did, they rarely ended up outside in natural light and with cool scenery. This film has some great scenery.

3. I like the huskier design of the Enterprise itself, though I don’t care for the inside and I really dislike the bridge which looks setup for a rock band with competing synthesizer players.

4. I do like the scene where Picard feels younger, as evidenced by his dancing briefly. It’s about time one of the Star Trek films was about the joy of life rather than the agony of feeling old and winding down their lives.

5. I like F. Murray Abraham’s couch instead of a captain’s chair. It’s hard to imagine that in a vast universe everyone is going to buy their chairs and desks from the same Federation Generic Plastic Works. I felt this made the culture seem more real. . . provided you ignore everything else about them.

Ow my brain.

Scott’s Response: I completely agree with you on #1. The supporting cast is way too good to be starring in a second rate Star Trek film like this one.

On your second point, while it is nice to see the crew outside, the Ba'ku village simply looks like a slightly larger version of every stage-bound alien village set we saw in the series: a central building, a few support structures, and a garden. Big freaking deal. Sadly, all the location shooting caused the budget to skyrocket which meant they couldn't outfit the Ba'ku actors with alien prosthetics - it would've been fiscally and logistically impossible, which is why they all look like us. Mr. Plinkett talks about this in his Avatar review - the tendency of an audience to side with the more attractive people in a conflict.

Yeah, the Enterprise looks very good. I have no problem with the bridge, however I do have a problem with the fact that, despite being a big movie with a budget, they still had to redress most of the sets: the crew quarters, sickbay, and the library were all recycled Voyager sets. This film also introduced new dress uniforms... white tunics which make the crew look like waiters!

Oddly, I've never had a problem with Picard dancing to the mambo music. So many fans hate that scene but it's only ten seconds long! Sadly, for all of the other instances of the crew getting younger, they resorted to cheap zit and boob jokes. Yikes. On the other hand, the scene where Geordi sees the sunrise for the first time with his real eyes is nice, if a bit implausible. (Would his eyes really grow back? What happens to his occular implants?)

Ah, the couch. I can tell you're grasping at straws with this one but I'll buy it! Interestingly, one of the original designs for the Enterprise-D bridge on TNG had no captain's chair - it featured a conference table instead.

Andrew’s Reply: Yeah, the waiter outfits are horrible. You would think somebody would have realized that and scrapped them. The village is rather generic and doesn't look particularly lived-in, but then, their culture is phony as well. Plinkett does a great job taking this film apart (NSFW LINK). A conference table instead of a captain's chair? Good grief.

[+] Read More...

Sunday, March 11, 2012

The Great (film) Debates vol. 29

Science fiction is about dreaming big and looking to a better tomorrow, but it's not often very realistic.

What film do you think gives the best representation of the future?


Panelist: Tennessee Jed

I guess I'd have to go with Close Encounters of the Third Kind. We finally have extra-terrestrials visit . . . and they are friendly! Certainly, as a franchise, Star Trek is very positive, but more so in the television shows than in the films, I think.

Panelist: ScottDS

If we're talking about technology and other "cool" stuff, then I would have to say Minority Report. Spielberg and his team really did their research even though some of it still seems a little far-fetched. On the other hand, if we're talking about culture, then I would have to say Star Trek, minus some of Gene Roddenberry's more ridiculous ideas. Humans are out exploring the universe and, while some of our neighbors haven't quite learned to behave, Earth is more or less a paradise. Who wouldn't want to live in a world free of poverty, war, and disease? (Of course, they never tell us exactly how we arrived at that point; only that it took another world war to get there.)

Panelist: AndrewPrice

I'm going with the world of Outland and Alien, which are very similar. I think these films show what the "near-future" will be like, where space is industrial rather than poetic because that's what is likely to happen long before we end up with Earth-like off-world colonies.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

Any of the Star Trek-related movies or television shows. Gene Roddenberry came pretty close to what our world is becoming. When anyone says that Steve Jobs invented the Ipad, they are wrong. It was Gene Roddenberry or at least he invented idea.

Panelist: T-Rav

Maybe it's my natural pessimism showing, but I tend toward Blade Runner more than anything else. Modern society seems hell-bent on dystopia more often than not, and the portrayal of a run-down, decaying civilization in Ridley Scott's film seems to me like a preview of where we're headed with our current leaders and attitudes--a former Soviet republic writ large. Not to mention that at the rate we're making increasingly sophisticated robots, Replicants may make an appearance sooner rather than later.

Comments? Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

Friday, March 9, 2012

Guest Review(s): The Latest from ElfFlix

By the Boiler Room Elves

Along with the majority of people on the planet, the Boiler Room Elves have been on the verge of cancelling their ElfFlix subscription. Before doing so, however, we decided to nestle in for three nights and get our money’s worth.

The first evening, naturally, we watched Gnomeo & Juliet. There’s nothing quite like watching the great gnome actors at work. Truly, they are masters of the craft. But we digress. We are happy to report that Gnomeo & Juliet was light-hearted entertaining fare. (We’d warn you about spoilers, but we’re guessing that you, too, can assume that no modern children’s cartoon is going to end the with 6 corpses littering the celluloid. There is one death, in a duel, but, it’s really kind of funny.) Gnomeo generally follows the classic tale of star-crossed lovers from different gardens. And although it takes some liberties with the plot line, the elements of Shakespeare are all there. In fact, if you know your Bard, keep your eyes peeled for plenty of enjoyable hidden references.

One of the major plusses for Gnomeo, particularly in light of it being a modern children’s tale, is that it did not fall into the trap of including heavy-handed liberal messages. It’s refreshing to see a movie aimed at elflings that not only sets out just to entertain, but to introduce them to the wider world of literature and does so without any sort of indoctrination. With great music by Elfton John and Lady Elf Elf, we Elves can heartily endorse this one.

The next evening we watched a little documentary called Being Elfo, err, excuse us -- Being Elmo. This was an uplifting story about following your dreams and finding success in doing what you love. It tells the life story of Kevin Clash, the man behind the Elmo muppet from Sesame Street. (We know, we know, Sesame Street does the exact opposite of Gnomeo in terms of liberal dogma, but just put that aside for a few minutes.)

Clash grew up poor in Baltimore and was fascinated by what he saw on Sesame Street. As a child, he was already building his own puppets and making up stories with them. As a teen, he endured the ridicule of his peers. But he stuck to it, because he had a talent and a passion for it. Eventually he finds his way to Captain Kangaroo and then to NYC and Jim Henson.

Clash ended up with the Elmo muppet when another puppeteer was tired of it and couldn’t make a workable personality for Elmo. Clash realized that Elmo needed to embody love. Hence, as a forever-3-year-old, Elmo loves nothing better than hugs and kisses. And the world responded in droves.

Ok, fair warning, there is a clip in which the grand Lady O appears. (Ugh.) But there are also wonderfully touching scenes such as when a Make-A-Wish child comes to the set because her wish was to meet Elmo. This had even the hardest, boilerroom-iest of us Elves in tears. The politics of Sesame Street really do not come out in this documentary, and if you can leave it aside, you’ll find a great story about believing in yourself and love.

On the third night, we finished watching Lilyhammer, which is ElfFlix’s first foray into making its own programming. It’s a show about a mobster who goes into the witness protection program and manages to get sent to Norway. (Ahhh, the sweet winters of the north!) We’ve seen people raving about what a “conservative” show it is. We wouldn’t go that far - it does paint a horrifying picture of life in a state-controlled, socialist country, and our hero does exemplify the American free-wheeling, can-do attitude. But ultimately, are our conservative ideals flagrant disrespect of society and law, blackmail, coercion, womanizing, and theft? We thought not. Still, that didn’t stop us Elves from wishing Tony Soprano would just show up and take care the problems in his own special way.

So now, back to the real question - to keep ElfFlix or not? Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous price hikes, or take arms and by cancelling end them. . . to die, to watch no more. . .

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Twelve OʼClock High (20th Century Fox - 1949)

By Tennessee Jed

Produced by Darryl F. Zanuck, this is one of the most highly regarded films to come out of World War II. Nominated for four academy awards in 1950 including best picture, lead and supporting actor, it was selected for preservation in 1998 by the National Film Institute of the Library of Congress for being culturally or historically significant. The production has relatively little in the way of “action” sequences, and what there is consists of actual battle footage from the Air Force and Luftwaffe, creating something of a “newsreel” flavor. Exterior scenes were mainly filmed at Elgin Air Force base in Florida, or Cairns Airfield in Alabama. Ostensibly part of the military genre, Twelve OʼClock High is clearly an unconventional war film. Letʼs take a look at how that helps make for a fascinating movie.

** spoiler alert **

The Plot chronicles some of the activities of the U.S. Armyʼs 8th Air force Battalion that flew bombing raids into occupied France and Germany during 1942. The screenplay was developed from a novel by Sy Bartlett, aide-de-camp to Major General Carl Spatz during the war. Bartlett was heavily involved in the screenplay, providing an insiderʼs view of people and events that adds to the filmʼs credibility. Most major characters represent composites of actual officers from the Battalion.

In the opening sequence, former officer Major/Lt. Colonel Harvey Stovall (Dean Jagger) is in London post-war when he notices a battered old toby jug (philpot) of Robin Hood in an antique shop. He immediately purchases it and carries it on his bicycle to a fictional abandoned airfield at Archbury where he served with the equally fictional 918th Heavy Bomber Group stationed there during the war. This permits him to “flashback” to the events portrayed in the story.

We witness the crash landing of a B-17 “flying fortress” returning from a mission, and find the 918th has suffered high casualties as a result of a strategic command decision to conduct daylight bombing strikes. While this strategy makes it easier to successfully hit targets, it also greatly increases the risk to the bombers from anti-aircraft fire.

Morale is low and performance poor in the 918th, and Group Commander, Colonel Keith Davenport, (Gary Merrill) may be a contributory cause. Although respected and well liked by his subordinates, he has come to over-identify with the men, losing sight of the mission due to his concern for their safety. He complains about his newest orders to his friend, Brigadier General Frank Savage (Gregory Peck,) a staff aide to Battalion Commander, Major General Pat Pritchard (Millard Mitchell.) Pritchard re-assigns Davenport to his staff, replacing him with Savage as new leader of the 918th. He is tasked with “finding out just how much a man can take” in order to obtain “maximum effort” from the men.

Upon arrival, Savage finds his new command in disarray with discipline virtually nonexistent. Setting out to reverse the situation, he focuses first on Air Executive Officer, Lt. Colonel Ben Gately (Hugh Marlowe.) Gately is not only a West Point graduate, but also son of a famous general. Gately is demoted and given “command” of a plane named The Leper Colony, assigned to those who donʼt meet expectations. He is replaced as Air Executive Officer by Major Joe Cobb (John Kellogg.) The other pilots all request transfers, but Savage convinces Stovall, the Group adjutant, to “delay” the paper work, buying him time to win them over. The unit resumes flying missions and the new discipline begins to pay off in improved performance.

After Savage personally leads them successfully on a dangerous mission without suffering any casualties, the men begin to think differently about their commander. Savage is chewed out by his boss because he claims “radio malfunction” as a flimsy excuse for ignoring a recall order during the attack. Savage convinces Pritchard to award a citation to the group. Lt. Jesse Bishop, (Robert Patten) a medal of honor nominee is enlisted to convince the others to cancel their transfer requests. As longer flights continue to become increasingly dangerous, the likable Bishop is killed, followed by Cobb. Savage reinstates Gately as Air Exec., but then slips into his own stress induced disorder as the airmen leave on their next mission.

The Leadership Theme - At itʼs core, this film is actually an examination of leadership style. It has been used by the military and numerous corporations (including the one for which I worked) as a popular case study during seminars on the topic. Most modern academic theories categorize leadership into three broad styles; authoritative, collaborative, or delegating. No single style is always best, and effective leaders must blend different styles based on a variety of factors including the leaderʼs personality, the experience or skill level of the subordinates, and the source from which the leaderʼs power is derived. That source can be formalized organizationally, informal or both.

For obvious reasons, the military is based upon a strict, formalized, authoritative chain of command. General Savage stresses this authoritative style in order to restore discipline, but it is worth noting he wins respect and support from his people through leading by example, a more informal source of “personal” power. Collaborative is a style best utilized when the need for “buy-in” is paramount between parties where no direct subordinate relationship exists (such as between the President and Congress.) The delegating style is often seen where a leader enjoys an advantage of trusted, experienced subordinates.

Another theme expressed is the debilitating impact of extreme combat stress on individuals. Stress can take both a physical and emotional toll, ultimately changing or limiting the effectiveness of even the strongest leaders. In the book The Killer Angels, General Lee tells General Longstreet of the great trap of military commanders. Paraphrasing, he states {to be a good soldier, you must love your men, but to be a good officer, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love. No other profession requires it. That is why there are many good soldiers, but so few good officers.} Many individuals who served in the 8th battalion have commented on the authenticity of this film, claiming most of the scenes and events occurred at one time or another, although not all within a single battle group.

Conclusions - For those interested in World War II, or merely the nature of leadership, this movie is highly recommended, perhaps even a “must see.” At times, the pace is a bit slow, but itʼs lessons are applicable well beyond the military, and create an opportunity for viewers to consider any leader in a somewhat different light.

As an aside, Twelve OʼClock High is an actual term used by military aviators who are communicating the position of enemy aircraft during an engagement. The position is described as the face of a clock with twelve oʼclock being directly in front, while six oʼclock would be directly behind. The “high” would indicate the enemy is at higher altitude. The film was converted to a popular television series which ran for four seasons between 1964 and 1967 and utilized the same characters.

[+] Read More...

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Questionable Trek vol. 5

Even at their worst, Star Trek films are still worth watching and they have a lot of good things going for them.

Question From Andrew: “Scott, You ranked Star Trek: Nemesis as your least favorite Trek film. Give me five good things about it.”

Scott's Answer: Some of these are technical in nature (which is to be expected) but here we go...

1. The acting - while much of the supporting cast, as usual, has nearly nothing to do, Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner are excellent. While I found the idea of yet another Data-type android a little too convenient, Spiner plays B-4 with his usual childlike naïveté. Stewart has some great moments with the villain, played by Tom Hardy who, in turn, isn't bad. He's saddled with some less than stellar dialogue and a director not known being an actor's director but it's clear there's talent waiting to be unleashed. Thankfully, Chris Nolan has turned Hardy into a star on the rise. (We'll all see him later this year as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises.)

2. The opening - this is the first Trek film to do away with an opening title sequence. Instead, we're plunged right into the story of political intrigue in the Romulan Senate. One senator excuses herself, leaving behind a deadly object which soon turns everyone else in the room to dust. Literally. It's actually pretty effective and kudos to the make-up and visual effects departments for starting this film off with a bang.

3. The music - Jerry Goldsmith returned for his fifth and final Star Trek film (and his third to last film before passing away in 2004). For this film, he reuses his Star Trek: The Motion Picture theme (better known as the theme for TNG), his four-note "quest motif" from Star Trek V, and even reprises some his TMP drydock music for a shot near the end in which Picard's Enterprise is seen in drydock. Sadly, we don't get to hear Goldsmith's melancholy theme for the film itself. There are no opening credits over which it can play and the end credits feature a jarring edit which disrupts the flow of the music. You can hear the full theme on the soundtrack album.

4. The visual effects - the Star Trek films always seemed to lag behind the various Lucas/Spielberg/Cameron films in this department. However, by the 21st century, Trek had managed to catch up to its more expensive peers. For this film, ILM was busy so the filmmakers instead turned to Digital Domain to produce the effects. The Enterprise has never looked better, the Data/B-4 duplicate effects are flawless, and the sequence in which the main viewer is destroyed and a crewman is blown out into space is a highlight (and something I'd always wanted to see).

5. The passage of time - sadly, many of these scenes were left on the cutting room floor but, in short, the filmmakers knew this would most likely be the last TNG film so they decided to "break up the family" so to speak. Dr. Crusher is off to Starfleet Medical, Riker and Troi finally tie the knot, and Riker is off to command a starship of his own. Meanwhile, Data doesn't quite understand the emotional impact of these events. There is an excellent deleted scene in which Picard tries to enlighten Data on the subject - how these events signify the passage of time. I only wish these scenes had remained in the film.


Andrew’s Response:

I can’t stand the whole B-4 subplot. I think it’s poorly thought out, doesn’t fit the story, takes the emotion out of Data’s death scene, and I really don’t like the way Spiner acts the character. I do like Tom Hardy a lot and he does an excellent job here, as does Ron Perlman (as always).

I absolutely agree about the effects. These effects are as good as anything out there.

The opening is very solid as well and helps set the tone of this film. Too many of the other films seemed to meander. This one starts like it’s shot out of a cannon.

The other thing I would add, and what I like best about this film, is that this was the first TNG film to feel like a genuine action film. The others tried, but never managed it because they spent too much time trying to give equal time to each of the regular characters and then wrote the plots around those scenes. This film cuts through the bull and spends its time on the plot. And that gives this one a much more intense and film-like feel than the others.

Scott's Reply:

I actually agree with about 90% of what you said. I didn't like the B-4 subplot either. Besides, Brent Spiner was interested in killing off Data because he felt too old to play the role, yet there was an episode in which we found out Data has an aging program, so it shouldn't have been a problem.

On the acting side, I disagree about Ron Perlman. I'm a fan but I felt he was wasted in this movie. However, a highlight for me was Dina Meyer, who I had only seen in Starship Troopers. I thought she was quite good.

I also agree that it's the first TNG film to feel like a "real movie." I attribute this to director Stuart Baird, a once and future editor who has directed a couple of action films (my guilty pleasure Executive Decision and the poorly-written but still kinda watchable U.S. Marshals). Unfortunately, he failed to do his homework and unlike other franchise newcomers like Nicholas Meyer, Baird is strictly a technical director, not a storyteller. He may have brought a sense of scope to the film but at the expense of its head and its heart.

[+] Read More...

Sunday, March 4, 2012

The Great (film) Debates vol. 28

Actresses are a dime a dozen (or 24 for $0.19 cents at WalMart). But good actresses are quite rare.

What actress do you wish would be better known (or “given more prominent films”)?


Panelist: ScottDS

I recently watched a Twin Peaks-inspired episode of Psych (cheekily titled "Dual Spires") and at one point, I thought to myself, "Why isn't Sherilyn Fenn more popular?" A cursory glance at her IMDb page reveals plenty of guest starring roles on TV as well as the occasional movie (including Carl Reiner's underrated noir spoof Fatal Instinct). I guess she's been immortalized for her work on Twin Peaks but in a world where a midget named Snooki is considered an A-lister, it's just a shame that an attractive actress who also happens to be talented is relegated to the back-burner, so to speak.

Panelist: AndrewPrice

This is a hard one because there are very few modern actresses who stand out to me, and usually when they do, it's in a bad way. But I have one in mind: Claudia Black. She played Aeryn Sun in Farscape, Vala Mal Doran in Stargate SG-1 and she was the prospector chick in Pitch Black. These were all great roles and showed she has incredible range. She's also not what you normally get in Hollywood.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

Cherry Jones. She does not do very many films, but is an amazing stage actress. She played The President in the last year of 24.

Panelist: T-Rav

There are few actresses who put me over the moon, but I would like to see more of Rebecca Hall. She was pretty good in The Prestige (one of the few times I thought Chris Nolan did a good job casting a female character) and I liked her in The Town as well.


Comments? Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

Friday, March 2, 2012

Revisiting the Police Academy Movies

By ScottDS

I’m not ashamed to say the Police Academy films were staples of my childhood. I realize these films have a reputation as some kind of cosmic punch line whenever the subject of bad movies comes up, but they still make me laugh. All told, there were six films released between 1984 and 1989 and a seventh released direct to video in 1994 – I’ll focus on the first six.

Police Academy (1984) – The new mayor has instituted an open door policy at the Metropolitan Police Academy and now all of society’s rejects are free to apply. Of course, this doesn’t mean they’ll graduate. Meet Carey Mahoney (Steve Guttenberg), a delinquent who gets arrested for wrecking a car and is sent to the academy as punishment. He befriends his fellow cadets, including – but certainly not limited to – human beatbox Jones (Michael Winslow), human giant Hightower (the late Bubba Smith), the soft-spoken Hooks (Marion Ramsey), and my favorite character, the gun crazy Tackleberry (the late David Graf). He also falls for Cadet Thompson (a young Kim Cattrall), weirds out the amiable but clueless Commandant Lassard (George Gaynes), and becomes a nuisance for Lt. Harris (G.W. Bailey) who takes an instant dislike to him. In the end, after a citywide riot, the band of misfits ends up saving the day and graduates with flying colors.

I can’t deny the film was a hit but looking back at it now, it’s oddly dated in a way the other films aren’t. Many of the clothes and hairstyles reek of “late-70s” instead of mid-80s. There’s also some awkward racial stuff (were people still using the term “jigaboo” as recently as 30 years ago?) and at the end of the day, the film isn’t directed or edited very well. There’s a “stop and start” quality with plot scenes followed by random gags followed by plot again. Many of those gags, including a bit where one cadet has a run-in with the Commandant’s towel-clad wife, simply aren’t constructed very well at all. Also, like many institutional comedies of the period, the film suffers from split personalities: the first half of the film has your standard hijinks and character development (such as it is) while the second half throws in a completely arbitrary conflict. In this case, it’s a riot, which is started when one of our heroes absentmindedly throws an apple at someone. Even the much superior Stripes has a similar problem.

On the plus side, the characters are quite likable. They all come to the academy with their own problems but they eventually learn to trust each other and they prove themselves in the line of duty. And yes, as immature as the film is, there are some laughs to be had. This film started the “tradition” of characters stumbling into a gay leather bar called The Blue Oyster and, for whatever reason, it still makes me laugh. (When I was a kid, I simply assumed some men liked to dance with each other!) “Back in the old days, there were johnsons as far as the eye could see.”

Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (1985) – A vicious gang, led by the eccentric Zed (Bobcat Goldthwait) has taken over the streets and Captain Pete Lassard (Howard Hessemen, playing the brother of George Gaynes’ character) is desperate. He calls in our favorite cadets from the first film and hijinks ensue. Stepping in for Harris is Lt. Mauser (Art Metrano) who wants Captain Lassard’s job. We’re also introduced to Mauser’s lackey, Proctor (Lance Kinsey), and innocent merchant Sweetchuck (Tim Kazurinsky), both of whom will appear in future films. Mahoney ends up getting suspended and infiltrates the gang but we know the cadets (now graduates) will end up saving the day.

I don’t know why but I can’t help but like this movie. Yes it’s stupid but there’s an actual plot, with a beginning, a middle, and an end. Goldthwait is a force of nature and Tackleberry has a nice romantic subplot involving fellow officer Kirkland (Colleen Camp) who shares his penchant for guns and motorcycles. They get married at the end of the film and her crazy family also shows up in the next two installments. There’s a great shoot-out at Sweetchuck’s chandelier store (what other kind of store could it be?!), Jones gets to show off his martial arts skills for the first time, and there’s a funny – and rather un-PC – scene with the two Lassards at a Japanese steakhouse. The humor is still immature and you can tell they were trying to tone things down for the kids (unlike the first film, there are no scenes involving hookers hidden in podiums) but it’s all harmless fun. “You people go about your business or I’ll crack some heads!”

Police Academy 3: Back in Training (1986) – Due to budget issues, the governor has decided to close one of the state’s two police academies so the competition is on between Lassard’s academy and (now Commandant) Mouser’s academy. Mahoney and the gang end up training a new bunch of screw-ups who, in turn, prove themselves in the line of duty. The climax involves a jet ski and boat chase and along the way, we revisit The Blue Oyster and several characters from the previous film, including Zed, Sweetchuck, and Kirkland’s brother, have decided to join the force.

I like this film but it’s an interesting case study: the first film was basic training, the second film was an assignment, so why are we back to basic training again? Perhaps the second film was considered a failure so the studio decided to play it safe? I don’t know, but there are gags in this film that mirror gags in the first film. It’s nice to see Mahoney and the gang share their “wisdom” with the new recruits but there’s really nowhere else for the characters to go, is there? On the bright side, Zed and Sweetchuck make for a funny pair, there are some cool karate and boxing scenes, and there is still some semblance of a plot, though the arbitrary conflict involves some jewel thieves who show up out of nowhere – this might’ve worked better had they been introduced earlier but in these films, the villains are usually an afterthought anyway. “What’s the story here with Fu Manchu?”

Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol (1987) – Commandant Lassard has a new idea: C.O.P., which stands for Citizens on Patrol, a community program specializing in crime prevention. This time, Mahoney and the gang find themselves training civilians, including an adorable gun-crazy old lady named Mrs. Feldman (Billie Bird). Mahoney also has a romance with a reporter (played by a young Sharon Stone!) and the character of Harris from the first film is back. There is also a subplot involving some skateboarding delinquents (one of whom is played by a young David Spade). The climax involves ninjas (!) on a pirate ship and some jail breakers who take to the friendly skies at an air show. Naturally, our heroes save the day.

I’m not crazy about this one. I realize that’s like shooting fish in a barrel but there’s an odd sense of self-awareness on display. C.O.P. has its own theme song which Mahoney and Jones groove to in the car over the opening credits, a hot air balloon is seen with the Police Academy logo on it (it just comes from out of nowhere!), and the main characters are all too good – they’ve conquered their demons and they have nowhere else to go. They’re perfect do-gooders, to whom nothing bad happens. This time Zed gets a romantic subplot, though the rivalry between Mahoney and Harris for the hot reporter’s affections was left mostly on the cutting-room floor. There are also plenty of pranks including another trip to The Blue Oyster and a bizarre scene where Mahoney and Co. teach some of the new guys a lesson. Having said that, the aerial finale is well done. I’ll say one thing about all these films: they all have great stunt work. “I thought you only got contempt of court for opening your mouth.”

Police Academy 5: Assignment Miami Beach (1988) – This time, the gang is off to Miami where Lassard is to be honored as “Police Officer of the Decade.” Unfortunately, they run into some jewel thieves and Lassard mistakes his kidnapping for a procedural demonstration. Matt McCoy steps in as Lassard’s nephew, replacing Guttenberg’s Mahoney as the likeable leading man. He’s a cop in Miami and has a romantic subplot with a fellow officer played by Janet Jones (best known today as Mrs. Wayne Gretzky). Harris and Proctor are along for the ride as well: Harris expects to be named Commandant after Lassard is forced into retirement, but this obviously doesn’t work out for him.

I feel like I’m repeating myself: this film is stupid but it’s all harmless fun. On the plus side, there’s an actual story again and not a series of loosely connected set pieces. We also meet the jewel thieves early on and they have their own scenes throughout the film, instead of previous villains who were mostly shoehorned in during the last act. The leader of the jewel thieves is played by Rene Auberjonois, then best known for his co-starring role on Benson and today best known to geeks for playing Odo on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. He’s too good an actor to be in this film but he’s a professional and he gives it his all. Matt McCoy turns out to be a likable guy though I can’t blame audiences for missing Guttenberg. The climax involves an airboat chase in the Everglades. Hightower ends up saving Harris from an alligator and gets promoted to lieutenant. Amazing… actual character development! “Can we get a couple of those potato coladas?”

Police Academy 6: City Under Siege (1989) – There’s a crime wave throughout the city and our heroes get assigned to Harris’ precinct in an attempt to stop it. The bad guys are working for a shadowy figure who turns out to be the mayor (the late Kenneth Mars), who’s involved in a multi-billion dollar real estate scam. Matt McCoy returns, there is no romantic subplot, the characters use a computer for the first time, and the climactic bus/cherry picker/monster truck chase is actually pretty good. Jones gets to show off his Jimi Hendrix impression, Proctor and Harris share a funny scene on a window washing platform (guess what happens), and there are scenes that take place in the sewer that are reminiscent of The Third Man (the director’s words, not mine!). One can do worse than to pick this movie. It’s just a lot of kid-friendly fun and I know I cracked up at a scene where Harris falls through a hole in an armored truck and is forced to run when the truck accelerates. Of course, I was seven years old at the time. “He feels sure that they will bring these scoundrels to the – you know, to the court thing.”

This was the last Police Academy film till the seventh one, subtitled Mission to Moscow, was released in 1994. Don’t go near it! There was also an animated series in the 80s and a syndicated live-action series in the late 90s, starring Michael Winslow, Joe Flaherty (!), and a bunch of nobodies. I’ve seen bits and pieces and it’s just more of the same, but geared for the Saturday morning crowd. There are rumors of a possible remake and, at this point, I expect nothing but if they manage to convince some of the original cast members to return, then I might be tempted to check it out.

If we’re influenced by the movies and TV shows we grow up with, I suppose my younger brother and I could’ve done much worse! (Yes, we taped the first film off of network TV – our mother was strict with R ratings.) I should also mention that these films are apolitical but the basic idea – a bunch of screw-ups who better themselves and work to restore law and order – does seem to lean in a general rightward direction.

[+] Read More...

Thursday, March 1, 2012

TV Review: Game of Thrones (revised) (2011-????)

This article posted at Big Hollywood (LINK).

With Season Two of HBO’s Game of Thrones starting on April 1st, this is a good time to review the series to give you a chance to catch up. You may also recall that I reviewed this before and didn’t like how it had started. Well, I’ve changed my mind. To bottom line it, Thrones is a gripping series, but you have to give it time to grow on you.

Game of Thrones is based on the book of the same name by George R.R. Martin. This is part of his epic fantasy series called “A Song of Ice and Fire.” First published in 1996, Thrones won lots of awards in 1997 and has since been turned into several games. But it wasn’t until January 2011, after HBO announced the series that the book finally hit the New York Times bestseller list.

The series stars Sean Bean (Ronin, LOTR) as Lord Eddard “Ned” Stark, and it revolves around the political intrigue which surrounds his family and several rival families, most notably the Lannister family. One of the producers has jokingly described the series as “The Sopranos in Middle Earth,” and in some ways that’s a good way to describe it. Indeed, the show involves murders, plots, betrayals and family rivalries. And like The Sopranos, the show is highly unpredictable. People you don’t expect will get killed. People you trust will betray their friends. And your opinion of the characters will change over time.

Nobody highlights this better than Tyrion Lannister (Peter Dinklage), the dwarf brother of Queen Cersei Lannister (Lena Headey from 300). Dinklage plays Tyrion as a vile, arrogant monster of a human being. He’s also a bit of a joke. But as the series progresses, Tyrion becomes much more sympathetic and, strangely, he earns your respect despite his evil behavior. In fact, Dinklage steals the show and Tyrion easily becomes the most compelling character.

The plot is Sopranos-like too. It is complex, nuanced, and there are a great many characters. This is why I cautioned you above that you need to give this show time. There are several major storylines and then a half dozen additional minor storylines, and it takes a couple episodes before the show develops a rhythm. Once it does however, the show does an excellent job of keeping all these different stories moving and gives you lots to care about.

I would not, however, compare Thrones to Middle Earth for several reasons. For one thing, the sets, while excellent, are not fantasy sets. You will not see incredible castles and stunning landscapes. Instead, you get a more “historically accurate” feel from this show, i.e. lots of wood construction, furs, torches, and a “brooding ‘til ye can’t brood nay more” atmosphere. There are fantasy elements, but up to this point they have been rather few and far between. In the east, where the last survivors of the albino Targaryen family have fled, there is the prospect of a dragon. The Targaryens are seeking the help of the Dothraki, a group of barbarians led by Khal Drogo (Jason Momoa of Stargate Atlantis and Conan), and have in their possession dragon eggs. In the north, you have an incredibly large wall, guarded by the Night’s Watch, who are tasked with keeping supernatural creatures out of the realm. These creatures apparently thrive in winter, and winter in this world can last for an indeterminate number of years and is extraordinarily cold.

I also wouldn’t compare this to The Lord of the Rings because Thrones is cruder. For one thing, the dialog in Thrones has a more modern cadence to it than LOTR. Also, there is a lot of swearing in Thrones. I’m not averse to swearing by any means, but it feels anachronistic and unneeded here, and the show could have been stronger without it. The same is true of the sex. There is a good deal of sex in Thrones, and while I have no problem with sex on film or television, it feels gratuitous here as few of these scenes add anything to the plot and they go on far too long. It feels at times like the writer/director wasn’t sure the audience would entirely buy into the story and wanted to give the audience something else to keep them tuning in. And that’s too bad because I think the time could have been better spent dealing with the complex plot.

So, to sum it all up. The sex and swearing may turn some people off. The lack of fantasy elements so far may turn others off. The difficulty in getting into the show may also stop some people. BUT.... I recommend looking past all of that. This is a solid show with fascinating characters. It builds suspense very well. It will surprise you repeatedly. And it holds a lot of promise that it will just keep getting better and better.

Finally, let me make one point. This show is truly innovative in a way. Up to now, most fantasy films have been of the “farm boy goes on quest” variety. This is one of the first to reject that formula and instead present a more complete fantasy world, where you delve into political and familial relationships. These aren’t cardboard characters playing pre-determined roles on a specific quest. These are complete people struggling to make the best of the world around them and overcome whatever challenges they face. This approach feels much more original, offers more to work with as a series, and I would venture to say, this is the future of fantasy.

[+] Read More...

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Scott's Links February 2012

For those who don't know, Scott roams the internet far and wide. Because of this, he supplies interesting links to Big Hollywood every day. I've asked Scott to give us a list of the best links he finds each month and a quick synopsis of what's behind each one. Check these out. . . share your thoughts!

How Stanley Kubrick shot his own Newsweek cover

No director will ever have greater control over his films, his marketing, or his image than Stanley Kubrick. This article tells the story of how, in the winter of 1971, Kubrick managed to get his Newsweek cover photo shot by his own people on his own terms in his own house. Lucky guy.

The physics behind your favorite sci-fi theme songs

I'm always interested in people's favorite songs (or films, novels, etc.) and what, if anything, they have in common. It turns out that many of our geek-friendly film scores - including many of my favorites - have something in common: "the perfect fifth." (Sorry, Andrew, they don't mention The Black Hole!)

Looking back at The Phantom Menace rumor mill

Remember 1999? Bill Clinton was president, we were all fearing Y2K, and Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace was released. Needless to say, rumors of a Star Wars prequel had been circulating for years and this article revisits some of the more outlandish predictions. Charlton Heston as a Jedi?

61 things we learned from the Armageddon commentary

Take it away, Ben Affleck: "I asked [director] Michael [Bay] why it was easier to train oil drillers to become astronauts than it was to train astronauts to become oil drillers, and he told me to shut the f--- up, so that was the end of that talk."

10 undervalued Woody Allen movies

I've seen almost every Woody Allen movie, though this list is not complete without his wonderfully charming 1996 musical Everyone Says I Love You. The ending sequence, which features a group of all-singing all-dancing Groucho Marxes and Woody Allen and Goldie Hawn dancing along (and above) the River Seine is magical.

5 reasons Firefly was lucky to get cancelled

Interesting article which I totally agree with. Had the show lasted, the studio execs no doubt would've ordered Joss Whedon to make it more "accessible" for mainstream audiences, thus alienating the fans who would've made it a hit to begin with. It's quite the paradox.

From 2009: The hidden conservative streak of 30 Rock

Yes, I'm a huge fan of this show and I realize it's a big target, considering who stars in it and the network it airs on. But the show can be surprisingly even-handed when it wants to be. One of my personal favorite episodes makes a complete mockery of NBC's "Green Week" and another episode guest stars Carrie Fisher as a 70s-era comedy writer who: a.) is still fighting "the man" after all these years, and b.) is a poor trainwreck.

5 NC-17 films that wore their rating proudly

It's a shame the NC-17 rating is frowned upon, especially since there are plenty of R-rated movies that get away with graphically torturing people, but if you have too much nudity, it's the end of the freaking world!

Movie special effects you won't believe aren't CGI

As I'm fond of saying, CGI is just a tool and it should be used wisely. Many directors don't know any better but the culprits are usually the studio execs who are convinced that's what people want. This article looks at some awesome FX sequences that were done sans CGI.

Hedy Lamarr: "most beautiful woman" by day, inventor by night

I still think this is the coolest story: I've never seen a Hedy Lamarr movie but in the 40s, she helped develop a technology for the war effort that became the precursor for today's wi-fi and cell networks. "That's Hedley!" [smile]

Last night's listening:

The late Leonard Rosenman's score for Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home is definitely the odd one out in the Trek musical canon and many fans (including me) have always had mixed reactions to it. My opinion improved last December when Intrada released the complete score, remastered with extensive liner notes and alternate cues, including two long sought-after pieces: an alternate version of the main title in which Rosenman reprises the theme to the original series, and the complete version of "I Hate You" which blasts from the punk's boombox during the bus scene, making this the first Trek soundtrack album with an Explicit Lyric warning! (You don't hear it in the film but the F-word is used at the end of the song.)

[+] Read More...