http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:28:29 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/14/112829.php Alonzo Mosley (FBI)As with most couples, the movie tastes of Mrs. Mosley and myself vary greatly. It has been a weekly challenge to find films that I think she will be interested in. Occasionally, I will venture from the tried and true genre of romantic comedies in order to present her with something different. So, in considering the films I already know she likes, I'll take Sean Connery from The Hunt for Red October, exciting heists from Ocean's 11 and a British period setting as in Sense and Sensibility. I'm proud to say this combination worked perfectly.Written and directed by Michael Crichton, The Great Train Robbery is an incredibly fun adventure and heist film. Set in Victorian England, Sean Connery plays a high class thief who wishes to steal a gold shipment off of a moving train. For this effort, he recruits the woman he loves (Lesley-Anne Down), a master pickpocket and key forger (Donald Sutherland) and an escape artist (Wayne Sleep). With his team set, he goes about stealing the keys to the vault and then figuring out how to get to it once the train is in motion. There are many complications, but none are too difficult for good old Sean.Like the recent version of Ocean's 11, these people may be rogues, but they're damn charming rogues. The details of the robbery are always interesting and just this side of believable, but it's the people pulling it off we are really interested in. Connery, who with this role continued in his successful bid of shedding his 007 image, became a character similar to Bond but with less scruples. Down does well with her sex kitten role. And Donald Sutherland, who seems to be everywhere these days, has great chemistry with Connery as they argue and scheme.Connery exemplifies the cool-under-pressure ringleader that Clooney also did so well in Ocean's 11. There is a scene where Sutherland, exasperated by the extra security recently added to the train, gives a tirade about how the whole heist is now ruined and asks what Connery's character is bloody well going to do about it. His simple, one sentence answer is definitely not what you would expect. Needless to say, his solution works. You'll just have to see it to find out what it is.I mentioned how the mechanics of the heist are believable enough, and this is remarkable as most films of this type have at least one element that doesn't make sense (i.e. the flyers in Ocean's 11, the final missing painting in Thomas Crown Affair). However, one of the crew does get caught by the police at the end. The reason he's caught is somewhat odd. Unless the chief copper who spotted him had a Ashcroftian level of suspiciousness, there would be no practical reason for him to be suspected. There is a further twist after he is caught that is also far fetched, but these are minor quibbles in such an airtight film.This film is downright fun, and one that is easily enjoyed in repeated viewings. Settle down on the couch with your loved one and bowl of popcorn and give it a try.Eight out of Ten Video37913@blogcritics.org Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:28:29 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/28/090249.php Alonzo Mosley (FBI)Excuse me while I briefly reminisce about my geeky past and bemoan the fate of childhood fixations:What the flying f*ck happened to G.I. Joe?!?!I caught a commercial for the new cartoon series over the weekend. Apparently, the owners of the franchise have decided that since the kids are all into Anime these days, then so goes Joe. The result is a series that barely resembles what most of us remember from the 1980's. Of the original good guys, only three main characters remain: Duke, Scarlet and Snake Eyes. Snake Eyes (Old vs. New) hasn't changed much because, well, Ninjas never go out of style. Duke (Old vs. New) is still the alpha male lead, though he looks more Street Fighter-ish here (In fact, is it just me, or does he too closely resemble another "Duke" we all know and love?).And then there's Scarlet (Old vs. New). Good Night Irene, how the hell can that be Scarlet?!?!I know what some of you are thinking. I mean, It's not like we're talking about classic Disney animation or something. G.I. Joe's basic purpose was to sell action figures, both then and now. So what if they're using giant mechs instead of jeeps and helicopters? The toys will sell all the same. Still, there's something disheartening about people immediately willing to jump on the bandwagon of Anime and completely abandon all that had come before it.And it's not like I have anything against Anime. I personally think Cowboy Bebop is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But there's something to be said for retaining the old because there was something appealing there, instead of immediately jumping into what's trendy in order to cast as wide a net as possible. At least they didn't change Cobra much, but then why would they need to. After all, bad guys in the form of "a ruthless terrorist organization" doesn't get any more topical. Video36979@blogcritics.org Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:02:49 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/14/100037.php Alonzo Mosley (FBI)At the Imperial War Museum in London, they have a vast, stark-white miniature model of a Jewish concentration camp, complete with train and masses of people herded out of boxcars and into buildings. When I recently visited the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C., I saw a similar white miniature. In this one, however, we are graphically shown the four-step process of the extermination: Jews ushered into buildings, forced to strip, gassed to death, and the bodies finally shoved into ovens.As emotional exhausting as the rest of the museum is, this piece got to me most. Perhaps it was because it was three dimensional, and brought forth a reality that even graphic B&W photos could not. Perhaps it was seeing the artist's depiction of the Jews in their death throes, crammed in the underground "showers", their faces twisted into Munch-esque screams, and climbing over each other for some non-existent means of escape. Perhaps it was, in the format of the sculpture itself, how the museum showed the killing of millions as a "process", mechanical in it's execution, as the Nazi's themselves must have viewed it. I think it was all of these and even more that I simply cannot convey in words.So, what in the hell does this have to do with The Dirty Dozen?Well, in the miniature, the Jews being gassed is shown in a cutaway. Above ground, we see a Nazi soldier placing the gas container into a vent that will dispense it to the underground chamber. This tiny detail jogged something in my memory. As those of you who have seen the film might recall, the ultimate mission of the Dozen is to blow up a French chateau used by the German high command and their wives for R&R. Something goes wrong and the Germans, for their safety, lock themselves into an underground bomb shelter. The remaining of the Dozen barricade the door and toss explosives into all the squat air vents of the shelter. We see those in the bunkers fruitlessly pawing at the vent gratings where the explosives sit and we know they will be unable to do anything to prevent their imminent death.When I first saw this scene, the only thing that I remember thinking was how the filmmakers were able to shrewdly include Jim Brown's biggest talent (i.e. running) into one of the last big action scenes. Now I look at those air vents and wonder if the writer wasn't trying to draw some parallels here. Obviously, you're not going to find many people who will mourn the deaths of Jewish prisoners and German soldiers equally, but when you take into account how these Germans were (a) unarmed, (b) trapped and (c) accompanied by their civilian wives, the difference between the two becomes murkier.Perhaps I'm a bit slow when it comes to understanding some film subtext, but it didn't occur to me when I first saw this years ago how "Dirty" referred to more than just how the Dozen weren't allowed to bathe during their training. These military criminals were given a chance to be soldiers again. Not only soldiers, but heroes. And you can sense some of them truly gaining confidence and pride in themselves for the first time in years. Then they were told of the mission, and they realized that they were simply being given the dirty work. They're not needed because of extraordinary talent, but rather because any other self-respecting soldier would find such a mission as noble as shooting someone in the back.Somehow that film is going to have a whole different feel to it the next time I sit down to watch it. Ed: JH Video36152@blogcritics.org Wed, 14 Sep 2005 10:00:37 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/01/142305.php Alonzo Mosley (FBI)In 1957, a young television director named Sidney Lumet was given a stage play to adapt for the screen that was to star a cross section of superior actors. This became 12 Angry Men, one of the finest films ever made. It's certainly one of my all time favorites, and is one of the few DVD's in my collection that I'm in danger of wearing out.Lumet went on to director a number of other classics, including Dog Day Afternoon, Network and The Verdict. Flash forward forty years and we change from a young director whose best is yet to come to an older one whose best is a bit behind him. William Friedkin, famous for The French Connection and The Exorcist, was tapped to direct a new version of 12 Angry Men for the Showtime channel, this time updating the script and adding a lot more color to the cast.I had fond memories of first watching this back in 1997. Having recently purchased a VHS copy and watched it again, I found that I still liked it, though there are some elements that are less admirable upon second viewing. In detailing these, I'm breaking down the films into the two dozen actors featured and comparing each pair that played the same role. So here we go. (Spoilers abound for those who haven't seen either version)Juror #1 (Martin Balsam & Courtney B. Vance) - With #1, also known as the Foreman, we have a pair of very steadfast characters. Both are assistant coaches for High School Football and, though never mentioned, seem to be upstanding family men. Their patience is worn thin in both versions by the rudeness exhibited by #10, and they offers up their position as Foreman to him perhaps with the thinking that presiding over intelligent discourse is going to be rough going with some in this group.Other than this exchange, the biggest moment for this character is a monologue concerning a cancelled football game to #8. The original simply uses this as some slight character development to flesh out #1 a bit more since he does very little arguing in the film. In the 1997 version, the story is lengthened to describe one player who remains on the bench in the rain. Vance strikes an emotional chord of hopelessness in his telling of this story, and perhaps is echoing his position as Foreman over some members of the jury.Juror #2 (John Fiedler & Ossie Davis) - There was a tonal change with this casting. Though it is perhaps not the original's fault, #2 ended up being more of a comic character in the original. Fiedler, who recently passed away, will forever be known as the voice of Piglet in the "Winnie the Pooh" cartoons. Piglet's voice is not an affectation either, but rather Fiedler's own. So when we hear this voice amongst the chorus of jurors in the midst of deliberations, we cannot help but smile a little. Other than this detail, Fiedler effectively plays the role of the wimpy little guy that nobody listens to.The also recently deceased Davis, on the other hand, plays the role more as the "easily dismissed old man", which is the role ostensibly for #9. Of course, Davis is over forty years older in this film than Fiedler was in 1957, so one cannot help but notice the age difference when comparing the two. It should also be noted that Davis exhibits a timidity that Cronyn does not, so there is that distinction between the old timers. Yet as good as Davis is, I have to wonder how much better it would have been to keep the original character concept by casting, perhaps, "Mr. Cellophane" himself, John C. Reilly.Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb & George C. Scott) - It seems that when it came to this pivotal character, the directors and actors had different opinions on how to approach him. In a stroke that seems to be drawn from the modern mentality that audiences need things spelled out for them, Scott's character is very vocal about his estrangement from his son in the beginning. Cobb, on the other hand, reveals this detail quietly in a conversation with #2. Director Lumet lets this information kind of float out and merge with all the other character development that is done in these small preliminary conversations before the first vote. Director Friedkin, on the other hand, emphasizes this moment as Scott bellows louder than Cobb. It is a strong declaration that practically screams at the audience "THIS WILL BE SIGNIFICANT LATER!".The final moment for #3, and for the film, is handled much in the same way. Scott is a little over the top in his performance. Cobb, even while raging, is understated. So is Lumet, as we get a nice shot of the picture that falls on the table as Cobb empties his pockets of notes. He rips up the picture in anger and then is immediately regretful of his action. Friedkin decides not to emphasize the photograph, perhaps from fear that he would be accused of too closely following the original. I suppose it may be unfair to ask even greats such as Scott and Friedkin to match the power of Lumet and Cobb's work, but one cannot help but see their update as a pale imitation of the original.Juror #4 (E. G. Marshall & Armin Mueller-Stahl) - The erudite businessman that is #4 has always been a favorite. Though he is one of the last to yield to #8's arguments, it's for all the right reasons. The other "Guilty" diehards such as #3 and #10 respect #4 while simultaneously not quite connecting with him. Mueller-Stahl's heavy accent reminds one of #11 in the original, but this aspect of the reimagined #4 never comes into play story-wise. As it is, Mueller-Stahl is highly effective in this role and easily the match of E.G. Marshall.Juror #5 (Jack Klugman & Dorian Harewood) - Aside from #10, #5 is the only racial change of white to black that makes an impact on the proceedings (Indeed, the only time that #1 and #2's race are ever an issue in the newer version is when #10 prefaces an appeal to their sympathies with an emphatic "Brothers,"). In the original, Jack Klugman plays #5 as a quiet man of a lower economic class than the rest. Harewood, on the other hand, also plays a character of a lower economic class, but also has his race become an issue in terms of his confrontations with #10. Harewood brings a little more intensity to his role than Klugman exhibited, and does a lot for the tension at key moments in the film.Juror #6 (Ed Binns & James Gandolfini) - A self described "workin' man", #6 is a blue collar stiff who is a decent guy and is willing to reprimand even the fiercest of other jury members when they are rude to #9. #6's defense of the old man immediately marks him as a sympathetic character. Binns and Gandolfini both play him well, though Gandolfini is given an extra scene with #10 which provides a nice humorous touch to the film.#6 is notable for being given one of the more memorable and haunting lines in the script. The line is given to #8 during a casual conversation in the bathroom and remains the same in both versions:Juror #6: "Well, I'm not used to supposin'. I'm just a workin' man. My boss does all the supposin' - but I'll try one. Supposin' you talk us all out of this and, uh, the kid really did knife his father?"In both versions, it's the only argument by any of the other eleven jurors that give #8 pause. Our justice system is a flawed one, but it does work. One of the chief drawbacks is how reasonable doubt could send a killer loose. Though it is often said that it is better to let a killer go free than imprison an innocent man, the choice can be seen as a "lesser of two evils" problem. One can imagine that playwright Reginald Rose thought he would be remiss for not mentioning this fact, and it gets it's the attention it deserves in both versions.Juror #7 (Jack Warden & Tony Danza) - Ladies and Gentleman, the textbook definition of "Jerk". This was more or less Mrs. Mosley's sentiment when we watched the remake recently and it holds true for both versions. Being at the head of the table directly opposite the Foreman, one could argue they are painted as polar opposites: One who takes his job very seriously and one who endeavors to be serious as little as possible.Both actors play the role well, though there is a difference in their final words. It seemed to me in the original that, after changing his vote and being confronted by #11, Warden does not legitimately feel a change in his opinion but rather is tired of it all and wants it over with. Danza, on the other hand, relents and repeats his Not Guilty vote in a way that communicates he really does believe it. My guess is that he became convinced early on that there was reasonable doubt, but imagined that staying with the guilty plea (i.e. the majority) would end the proceedings sooner. Both versions of #6 are reprehensible, but in their own distinct way.Juror #8 (Henry Fonda & Jack Lemmon) - And now to the star of our show. Though this is an ensemble drama, we are immediately put on the side of #8 for a number of reasons. First, by virtue of the fact that we enter the story knowing nothing of the case, we are automatically interested in a discussion of it instead of automatically sending the boy to the electric chair. Second, well, the character is played by Henry Fonda and Jack Lemmon; actors who have both secured reputations through the professional lives as decent men.#8 is a bit more complex than simply a "devil's advocate". As much as we are inclined to side with him, he does not initially make it easy. He does not argue for something noble like innocence, but rather argues for something nebulous like doubt. There are a lot of "I don't know's" and "maybe's" to his speech patterns, and he can sometimes be as frustrating to the audience as he is to his fellow jurors. His is a tough role in the beginning, as it's supposed to be, but his arguments are only half his function. The other half is his ability to stoke the others into thinking for themselves into new directions. This process is part of what makes the character, and the movie itself, great.Juror #9 (Joseph Sweeney & Hume Cronyn) - As I mentioned with Juror #2's description, Juror #9 is the frail old man who almost instantly shares sympathy and respect with #8 and stands by him even amid the shouting down inflicted on him by other jurors. There is remarkably very little difference between the performances of Sweeny and Cronyn. I particularly like that little smile and twinkle in his eye when he says "20/20" to #4. This is wonderful work by both actors.Juror #10 (Ed Begley & Mykelti Williamson) - Here's where we get into the most striking and daring changes made with the new version. In the original, #10 is a white bigot who cannot see past the suspect's race when passing judgment. This culminates in a racist monologue where, one by one, the other jurors turn away from him, ignoring his comments. Begley reacts to this with a sort of sad desperation. #4 gets in the last word as he tells #10 calmly, "Now sit down and don't open your mouth again." #10 then goes to at a small desk in the corner where, when the final vote is called, he nods his head in defeat for "Not guilty". There is a sense that, through the rejection of all the others, #10 has come to some realization about the way he views things. Some might say that such a drastic change in point of view is a little too tidy and quick to be realistic, but that's the movies for you. In the end, it works well enough.When we get to the remake, #10 has been changed to an angry black Muslim who takes a dim view of other races, and perhaps some of his own as well. (See the description of Juror #5). In his diatribe, the monologue is punctuated with swearing (a modern touch that is a bit more realistic. Besides, this is Showtime!) and, more disappointingly, shouts back from the other jurors. When #10 gets to the end of his monologue and #4 delivers the same last line, #10 retires to a corner desk as well, but to brood rather than compose himself. When the last vote comes, #10's "Not Guilty" comes not from a changed man, but a man who simply acknowledges defeat in this small battle. There is no change of heart, but rather a man who has said his peace and refuses to budge in his essential opinions.This change in #10 marks a more cynical take in this remake. An additional set of lines given by #8 as a comment on #6 confirms this viewpoint. When #9 gets flustered, #8 gently pulls him back into his chair and tells him, "He can't hear you. He never will". It's a reflection of a time when things have gotten angrier and more coarse in terms of public discourse and, for better or worse, Friedkin makes special note of it.Juror #11 (George Voskovec & Edward James Olmos) - Again, we see a significant change in ethnicity between the two versions. The original had Voskovec as a German or Slavic immigrant. Olmos, who has sometimes played different ethnicities (and in one instance, played four or five simultaneously in the role of "Gaff" in Bladerunner) than his own, seems to be sticking with a Hispanic character this time out. Both are described as watchmakers and both place an emphasis on politeness.The change in ethnicity is significant. Though the original presented #11 as an immigrant who serves as the idealistic voice of America (and, consequently, it's legal system), the new one retains this aspect and adds another layer. In the original, there were no jurors who shared the race of the defendant (I've actually read the theory that Klugman as #5 could be Hispanic, but I personally can't see it). In this new version, in which the defendant remains Hispanic, we now have a juror in the person of #11 who shares something in common with him. This presents a new dynamic with #10 as his remarks on the defendant now cut into #11 (Hispanic) as well as #5 (born into slums). It's one of the many changes Friedkin made that works very well.Juror #12 (Robert Webber & William L. Petersen) - Aside from his goofy monologues about life in the advertising industry, #12 is defined by not being able to make up his mind and being bullied by #3. His lack of backbone doesn't even draw the favor of #4 when he changes his vote to his side, and he is forced to recognize the seriousness of the situation he's in. The character who starts off as wishy-washy and shallow soon is engaged in the debate along with everyone else, and ends this episode slightly more mature than when he started. Both Robert Webber and William "C.S.I." Peterson do some subtle work here. There are other differences between the two versions. As I mentioned, this one does have a fair amount of swearing as the tensions get high, along with the slamming of doors that was not present in the original. The judge, who only appears in the very first scene, is changed from a seemingly bored white male (Rudy Bond) to an earnest white female (Mary McDonnell). Thought the best version remains the original, I would recommend either to anyone, especially if they have never seen the story before. It's simply too damn good to miss.The 1957 Version: Ten out of Ten The 1997 Version: Eight out of Ten Video35266@blogcritics.org Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:23:05 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/17/092954.php Alonzo Mosley (FBI)One of the coolest things about going to the Jacksonville Film Festival back in May was the chance to see short films in a theater. Prior to that, I think the only shorts I had seen that way were those preceding Pixar films. Anyway, last week the San Marco hosted an Oscar Nominated Shorts Program that showcased eight live action and animated shorts from around the world. Mrs. Mosley and I caught the last showing on Thursday night.Gopher Broke (USA) is a CGI short in very much the Pixar vein with some old fashion Warner Brothers hijinx mixed in. A Gopher on a country road digs a hole in order for some produce trucks to spill some of their contents for his supper. Unfortunately for him, he has competition for the tasty loot. The folks behind this have a lot of fun with the concept and it was a great short to begin the night. Eight out of TenTwo Cars, One Night (New Zealand) is an arty black and white film that's hard to get into, but pays off in the end. Two boys in one car and a girl in another wait while their respective parents visit a bar nearby. One of the boys and the girl get to talking with the boy being rude at first. Eventually, they warm up to eachother and exchange some awkward but sweet words. The dialogue itself, thick with Kiwi accents, is hard to discern some of the time. In fact, Mrs. Mosley and I are pretty convinced the first three or so lines weren't English at all. It eventually grows on you, though, and was worth seeing. Seven out of TenBirthday Boy (Australia) turned out to be my favorite of all eight shorts. A young boy in war torn Korea plays amidst the wreckage of planes and bombed buildings while his parents are away. Near the end, he receives an unfortunate present for his birthday. There isn't much that is spoken here as the boy is alone for most of the film, but the visuals speak for themselves as we put together the back story and figure out what's going on. Incredibly well done and touching. Ten out of TenLittle Terrorist (India) has a Pakistani boy venture into a minefield to retrieve a cricket ball, only to be fired upon by the guard towers and find himself on the side of India. He is given shelter by a local school teacher and his niece while they figure out what to do with him. Considering most of the West's ignorance on the cultural differences in this part of the world, this story had a lot of significance. Particularly with these two countries, between which there is a huge amount of tension yet receives very little press here in the States. Good stuff. Eight out of TenRyan (Canada) (Review re-printed from JFF post) was actually the Oscar winner for Best Animated Short earlier this year. The technical achievement is amazing as the narrator leads us through a mirror and we see characters in terms of their mental states. In the case of the narrator and an older animator he goes to interview, their creative output has been troubled and this is represented, among other things, by thickets of colorful wire that explode from their heads. It's a very surreal piece where the young animator takes audio recordings of his interviews and then reinterprets the interviews with his own visual style. Nine out of Ten7:35 in the Morning (Spain) is one of those films where you immediately want to watch it again to pick up what you might have missed the first time round. The story starts off simple as a woman enters a cafe for some a pastry and coffee, then she starts to notice everyone there acting stiff and rather odd. As the film progresses, and gets progressively weirder, she and we figure out what's going on. All this mystery and nice choreography, too. Eight out of TenRex Steele: Nazi Smasher (USA) is the animated tale of all American hero Rex Steele who, along with his trusty sidekick Penny, ventures across the globe to foil the Nazis in all their nefarious plans. This short has it's tongue practically firmly in cheek as we watch this interpretation of classic Saturday morning serials. I love how these particular Nazis choose to emblazon the swastika one every conceivable item they use (including blowdarts). Funny and over the top. Eight out of TenWasp (UK) is one of those uncomfortable, close to the bone personal portraits that British director Mike Leigh is fond of. In this case, we have a single mom named Zoe who lives a rather destitute existence with her four kids in Dartford. We learn real quick that she's far from a good mother, and she proceeds to justify this snap judgment by bringing her kids along to a bar where she meets an old high school friend. The kids, dirty and malnourished, sit outside for hours while she drinks beer and plays pool. It's a very moving family portrait, and the director successfully makes the mother, if not sympathetic, at least pitiable. Nine out of TenTo Apollo Cinema, who organized this little release, more of this please. We thank you. Video34295@blogcritics.org Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:29:54 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/16/114041.php Alonzo Mosley (FBI)The more I read about the Tragic (and that's "Tragic" with a capital "T") crash of that Helios Airlines Boeing 737 in Greece, the more it chills me to the bone and makes me want to curl up in the corner into a fetal position.You may think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. There's just something about stories like that: a group of people trapped in a place where their fate is very much assured and there's nothing they can really do about it but wait for their death while watching people around them drop one by one. The details emerging from the story build a narrative in my mind that brings me to the brink of depression. No one, and I mean no one, deserves to die as those 121 people did.Those of you who have visited my blogger profile will notice a book called A Prayer for the Dying. It was recommended by none other than Stephen King in Entertainment Weekly and turned out to be one of the most haunting novels I have ever read. Elements of this news story remind me of that book and makes me wonder if I should revisit it soon. I give it my highest recommendation.That's it, folks. No funny ending to this post. Nothing funny to this at all. Books34240@blogcritics.org Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:40:41 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/09/125522.php Alonzo Mosley (FBI)For those of you who saw Spy Kids 2 (You know the one: It wasn't as good at 1 but was leaps and bounds above 3), you might have gotten your biggest kick out of all the creatures that lived on the Island of Lost Dreams. When director Robert Rodriguez created them, he was doing a sincere homage to the works of stop-motion innovator Ray Harryhausen. Ray's legacy has earned him fans across the generations who continue to honor him in current films (thus the name of the restaurant "Harryhausen's" in Monster's Inc.). They speak to the inner kid in all of us.Even in the minor B-films of the 50's, his work stands out as of that done by a grand master at his art. Earth vs. The Flying Saucers and 20 Million Miles to Earth share a lot of traits in addition to both being worked on by Harryhausen. Both were produced by Charles H. Schneer. Both have Thomas Henry Browne and John Zaremba in supporting roles (playing the military brass and the scientist, respectively). Both even have actress Joan Taylor in the female lead role. Both also have ponderous opening narration and extras reacting badly to the fantastic effects they can't see. There are some differences to point out, though.You may have noticed that I haven't mentioned the plots yet, and that's on purpose. Being cheesy 50's sci-fi films, the plot is besides the point, sometimes blatantly so. For the record, Earth vs. The Flying Saucers is pretty much exactly that. There are neato story developments concerning battery operated tape recorders and universal translators, but otherwise it concerns blowing stuff up really good. The aliens themselves are kind of goofy looking in their incredibly rigid spacesuits, but the saucers are more impressive as their simple design and the clean B&W photography shows them off to great effect. We also get to see them destroy historic buildings via sonic rays and, later, by falling out of the sky and plowing into them. Harryhausen has actually said this was his least favorite film. I can see why, but that doesn't mean it's not an enjoyable way to pass an afternoon.The plot of 20 Million Miles to Earth is slightly more complicated. A secret American spacecraft has crash landed near Sicily after a long visit to Venus. With it is a native Venusian creature that the U.S. government needs recovered from the crash in order to further their knowledge of Venus. The creature escapes, and both the American and Italian authorities are in pursuit. The creature, which bears some similarities to the Gorgon at the end of Clash of the Titans, is a fully articulated humanoid lizard, complete with tail. As with many other of his creations, there is great effort to imbue this one with a personality: A lost, confused soul in a strange landscape. The Americans attempt to protect it from the Italians, who want the dangerous creature dead. Near the end, after it goes on a rampage culminating with the Coliseum in Rome, its death sentence is assured. One doesn't have to look far into this film to see how much King Kong influenced Harryhausen when he first saw it as a young boy.The finales, ultimately, are the most significant similarity between the two films. Both end with finely done flourishes, using the historic monuments of Washington DC and Rome as the final stage. The spectacle remains a strong presence in film history that can stand alongside the very best in CGI for inspiring awe and wonder. They serve as the perfect emblem for 1950's Saturday matinees and the joy of sitting in a cool darkened theater with a bowl of popcorn and ice cold cola. From the dinosaurs of Harryhausen to the dinosaurs of Spielberg, nothing can beat that feeling.Earth vs. The Flying Saucers - Six out of Ten 20 Million Miles to Earth - Seven out of Ten Video33893@blogcritics.org Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:55:22 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/03/095411.php Alonzo Mosley (FBI)I'm rarely left this speechless after a film, so allow me to quote another review of War of the Worlds I read recently: Steve, I never knew you had it in you.Indeed, I would have been hard pressed to believe before hand that Spielberg had the cojones to make this brutal a film. Granted, this is the same man who brought terror to the water in Jaws and directed the D-Day sequence in Saving Private Ryan, but this is a whole different area here. I walked out of the theater shell shocked, and it didn't help my state of mind when I saw dark clouds outside that were eerily similar to those above New Jersey in the film. I'm left after the film not able to do one of my conventional reviews, so allow me to touch upon the high points (Here be spoilers):------Show of hands: How many people noticed that Cruise's character works in a high tech machine that stands very high off the ground and picks up objects (kinda like a tripod)? I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to signify, but it was a neat little detail.------It's been said that Steven Spielberg's Jaws, as good as it is, is largely responsible for the Summer movie phenomenon that now dumps oh-so-many big budget travesties into our local theaters every year. The same kind of complaint can be said for John Williams in that, as good a composer as he is, his work has influenced others to simply drown out films in music, leading audiences down every emotional cue. You must give him and Spielberg credit, then, for practicing some restraint with this film. Their faith in the visuals and sound effects have allowed them to draw back and let these elements speak for themselves. A lesser director would have made the horrible mistake of putting in some "exciting" music during Cruise's escape from the first tripod as people are zapped into dust around him. Thank heavens Spielberg isn't one of them.------Spielberg does a very nice circular camera shot around the moving minivan. I know it was probably done with the help of CGI, but I'd still like to see the "making of" when the DVD comes out to see exactly how they managed it.------Way back when, some friends and I rented John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness. The film was by no means perfect, but one concept intrigued me: The reception of grainy video footage ... from the future. The footage is of the front of a church with a dark figure standing in the doorway backed by a flood of light. There's nothing incredibly original or spectacular about this, but the format itself made it seem more real, and thus more frightening.Since then, I've seen this technique used for a solitary scene (Signs) or an entire movie (The Blair Witch Project). It was also this element that drew my appreciation of the Firefly series, when Whedon would purposely have footage of the ship go out of focus and zoom in and out, like someone was on the ground capturing this with a camcorder. One might infer that Spielberg was simply adapting a method that had already worked: Orson Welles captivated the nation in a broadcast with no spectacular visual effects or indeed any visuals at all, just the medium of radio and a straight faced interpretation by his troupe of actors. It worked then and it works now.------I suppose one can never know the effects of mass hysteria until one is in the middle of such an experience. So when we see the scene at the ferry and all that happens there, we sit gaping at the breaking down of the rules of civilization and wonder if this fictional representation could be accurate? The only gripe I had was everyone running for the boat. Seems to me the last place I would want to be when being pursued by agile killer aliens is on a slow-ass boat, made slower by the weight, in the middle of a river. C'mon people, split up!------Acting-wise, Cruise is on a higher level here, registering the fear necessary for the role. The one drawback was near the end when he yells some advice to a soldier. The yell sounded just like his "Red Light. Green Light" at the end of Mission: Impossible, and given the campiness of that previous role, I couldn't help but giggle when Tom did it again. Tim Robbins puts forth menace when his character could have easily laughable. He's helped in his confrontations with Cruise by the fact that he's a full ten inches taller than him. As for Fanning, this is actually the first time I've seen her in a film. She's mature and very good here; close to Sixth Sense good.------Do you get the feeling that Cruise and Spielberg got some serious deja vu while shooting the basement scene? Cruise silently eluding the snake-like surveillance camera personally reminded me of the spider-robots scene in Minority Report. ------There are different ways to terrorize an audience, and one of the more chilling is a scene where people are held captive and absolutely helpless while awaiting their fate. The scene inside the metal baskets underneath the tripod was along these lines and brought to mind The Second Renaissance, Part II segment of the Animatrix DVD. Granted, Cruise saves the day here, but those initial moments will stay with me for awhile.------Spielberg wisely leaves a lot of questions unanswered when it comes to the invaders. Only the scattered and sometimes contradictory rumors are what we and Cruise hear (not counting Morgan Freeman's narration). Do they actually drink blood or is it used for some other function? Can they also use animal blood? What other purposes did they have on the planet? What was with the creeping red vines? Were the vines actually part of the aliens themselves? The biggest question for me was as to when exactly the ships were buried. If we are to believe one character, it was millions of years ago. This leads to the most confusing series of thoughts when trying to make sense of it all. If they were here so long ago, why didn't they take over then? If they needed to wait until we evolved for the purpose of harvesting, then this means they must have done this with other planets in order to survive, which means that they should have encountered the germ thing previously. And on and on and on.Ebert apparently had the same objections, and he gave the film only two out of four stars for it. I think this is way too harsh. A rating this low is only deserved if the film is boring and tedious enough so that you dwell on such inconsistencies while viewing the thing. That was not the case with myself or any of the audience members that I saw it with. We all pretty much held our breath for the majority of the film (well, not literally, of course. That would be messy, and the floors are sticky enough). ------And then there's that happy ending. I suppose we can't have things be totally bleak in a Spielberg film, and I was willing to roll with that. Lord knows the main three characters had been through enough hell to finally have some sun shine upon them at the very end. I've read so many complaints about the plotholes and the ending, but I can't give this thing anything lower than a nine. It's just too damn well made for it to receive anything less. It's an experience, plain and simple. See it in a theater while you can. Nine out of Ten Video33581@blogcritics.org Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:54:11 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/27/131101.php Alonzo Mosley (FBI)Mel Gibson is hard at work on his next project. CNN provides a few interesting details:Gibson is due to begin shooting the film, titled Apocalypto, on location in Mexico in October and is aiming for a summer 2006 release, spokesman Alan Nierob said on Monday.As with Passion, Gibson will direct and produce the Mayan-language film from his own script through his own company, Icon Productions, and he will not appear in the movie.The film's cast will consist of unknown performers native to the region of Mexico where the film is being shot, Nierob said. Few others details about Gibson's project were revealed."He lets his work speak for itself," Nierob said.The story, which Gibson began writing nine months ago, is described as a "unique adventure" set 500 years in the past. Nierob said the title, Apocalypto, was taken from the Greek word for an unveiling or new beginning.OK, so first off we have yet another film done in an archaic language. That's cool with me. The whole Aramaic thing with the last film didn't bother me as it did some others at the time. I respected it and respected him for having the balls to do it.Then we have the title and plot description. The details are thin, but enough can be construed from what is given. "500 years in the past", according to this Mayan timeline, puts us around the Spanish conquest led by Conquistador Pedro de Alvarado. As the timeline phrases it, "What force does not accomplish, disease does. Smallpox, measles, influenza, and other introduced diseases kill about 90 percent of the Maya within a century."So, we have a very powerful and fervent Catholic tackling a period in history where some very powerful and fervent Catholics nearly decimate a civilization. What happened, Mel? Did another studio have a Spanish Inquisition film already in production?Now, Mel is nothing if not shrewd. The Passion proved that. He's not about to piss off all those culturally conservative Christians who now admire him by making some PC film that paints European Catholics in a poor light. Or would he?It all depends on how he approaches the subject matter. As it is mentioned in the article, Apocalypto (which is close enough to a generic LaHaye title to get some pulses racing in the heartland) translates into "a new beginning". That probably is the key to how he looks upon the film as a whole. He'll pull no punches in terms of showcasing brutality (we all know by now that he's capable of this), but he will also probably emphasize how it was all for a greater good in the transformation of South America into a bastion of Catholicism.(Goofy aside: Somebody in Hollywood should make a post-WWIII film starring Harry Belafonte and call it Apocalypso!)So what's my guess for the plot? The Spanish will indeed be bad guys, but it will be portrayed as a force of their political culture more than their religion. The Mayans will indeed be good guys, and they will embrace Catholicism while simultaneously resisting the brutality of the Spanish. They will see this new faith as a step up from their own (We'll see at least one Mayan human sacrifice during the course of the film) and a step towards knowing the true face of God.Now, let's think about this plot in more general terms: A country driven by zealous belief in their God invades and occupies a foreign land. They claim it is for the natives' own good as they seek to change their backward culture for the better. Despite the thousands upon thousands of deaths that result, there is a hope that somewhere down the road a new nation will emerge. Ideally, this nation will change those around it so that the entire region is rebuilding their society upon the foundations of this new faith that was brought to them.Yep. Mel's one shrewd guy. Video33218@blogcritics.org Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:11:01 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/26/105806.php Alonzo Mosley (FBI)Being John Malkovich was really a far more monumental film that even its fans believe. Rarely had a movie as sublimely screwy as this one achieved such widespread success and raves. Spike Jones also joined the ranks of David Fincher as former video directors who proved they really could direct superior feature films. So it is pleasing to see video director Michel Gondry, with the help of Jones' screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, add his name to that list.Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind proves to be as big a mindf*ck for its audience as for its main character Joel (Jim Carrey). He's just ended a long relationship with Clementine (Kate Winslet) and, after visiting with mutual friends, discovers that she has had him erased from her memory by a company called Lacuna. In retaliation, he decides to have the same procedure done. After taking some powerful sedatives one night, technicians from Lacuna come into his apartment to erase Clementine away forever. In the midst of the erasure, he decides against the procedure, but he's having a hell of a time keeping it all from slipping away.Even after hearing of all the talented people involved in this film, I was afraid it might fall under its own trippy weight. I began thinking of the chase scene at the end of Being John Malkovich and wondered if such a concept as running around inside someone's head could survive a full 90 minute treatment. But Gondry knows this is the wrong way to approach the material. Yes, there are funky visuals like people winking out of existence and cars disappearing a slice at a time, but the main focus is on the relationship between Joel and Clementine, as it should be. We quickly grow fond of these characters and our heart breaks each time another one of Joel's memories falls through his fingers.Jim Carrey, once again, has shown that he can act, by gum, when he makes an effort to turn it down a notch or three. Again, we have to really like this guy, and the relationship that he had with Clementine, in order to care whether or not he losses it all. Perhaps I'm particularly touched by this concept since I am terrified of Alzheimer's. Though it is one of the least physically painful maladies, to be stripped of elements that make you who you are is a devastating concept, and Carrey communicates that.At this point, Kate Winslet has excelled in as many kind of romantic roles that exist in film. She's nailed Period Piece Romance (Sense and Sensibility), Hollywood Melodrama Romance (Titanic), Artist Biography Romance (Iris) and even Tragic Tabooed Romance (Heavenly Creatures). With Eternal Sunshine, she can add Quirky Indie Romance to her resume. Her Clementine is one of those messed up yet massively charismatic free spirits. I'm reminded of Roger Ebert's description of Natalie Portman in Garden State as, "one of those creatures you sometimes find in the movies, a girl who is completely available, absolutely desirable and really likes you."In supporting roles, Mark Ruffalo and Kirsten Dunst (as a secretary and technician of Lacuna, respectively) do very well with their subplot. Elijah Wood apparently decided that his first major role after playing a likeable character for so long should be a bit of a creep, which he pulls off. Finally, there's Tom Wilkinson, who seems to popping up everywhere these days in a very wide variety of roles. Jim Broadbent was doing the same thing back four years ago and got an Oscar for his troubles. Don't be too surprised if Tom picks up one soon, as well.When it comes to "Love & Loss" stories, there is loss and then there is loss. This film got so much attention because of it's freaky concept, but it ends up affecting you through the heartbreak and love of it's characters. The movie is truly unforgettable. No. Scratch that. Make that "Uneraseable".Nine out of Ten One side note: The trailer for this film prominently featured ELO's Beatlesque song "Mr. Blue Sky". I checked out the CD shortly after watching the film. I have now been compelled to listen to the song nonstop since then. To quote Captain Benjamin Sisko, "It's in my mind and it's rrreeeeeeaaaaaallllllll!!!" Video33157@blogcritics.org Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:58:06 EDT