Five minutes watching... Dune

I don't watch a lot of movies because, well, at this point I just don't. A lot of movies and television of late have become more niche oriented and just plain horrible, and I'm trying to be productive, and also write this thing (second draft) and moreover I have a ton of video games I bought on sale I still want to play so there. So, I watch a movie or a little TV when I get a chance. Go figure. 

So I watched Dune. All two hours and thirty-five minutes of it.

It was....ummm, er.

Boy am I jaded.

Maybe it's because I first experienced Dune more than thirty years ago and unlike a quite few books I still own, I've never gone back to it. It was one of those things you were supposed to experience as a nerd in the eighties, so I did. A whole bunch of it didn't make sense to me back then, because I was young, and because it went in a wholly different direction of the big 'Stars' types (you know, Wars & Trek), I used to read everything back then so it got lost in the shuffle. Later on I would grow to appreciate the type of world-building that Herbert did here, but at the point in my life I indulged I wasn't there yet. Now comfortably aged, but not immune to nerd pressure, I tuned into my HBOMax and gave it a look.

I know a story as dense as Dune is hard to bring to the big screen. it's got a lot of backstory, side plots and intrigue wrapped in little pieces of lore that a veteran sci-fi reader gobbles up like candy. So the reality is you have to cut out a lot of what makes the story the story to get it down to your standard movie run time. And even though this went long, the director still put too blunt a blade to this thing. Trying to be inviting to someone new to the story without throwing too much exposition at them early was a great idea, but handled badly, and so they've unfortunately crafted a film where most viewers are are going to miss pieces without repeated viewings (which again given the length of the film probably is unlikely) or doing some homework. As it is I suggest you at least go read the Wikipedia entry for the story so you'll understand why a bunch of stuff is happening.
 
so, SPOILERS from here on out. 

The film suffers from three things really: Long slow 'Lawrence of Arabia' type establishing shots coupled with long pregnant moments before something happens, the set decorator's complete lack of imagination and the missing pieces of the story. Well, four things really, but let's tackle these three first.

Dune is supposed be this epic tale of an Empire, while most of this part of the tale takes place on the desert world of Araakis, sole source of the melange...um, spice. To convey the grand scope, we're 'treated' to several large stately set pieces and ceremonies early in the film to let you know the Empire is big, space ships the size of small towns rising and all that, then sweeping shots of backgrounds and open space when they reach Araakis. This is where I think the film could have benefited from a widescreen format. I saw it at home, maybe in the theater it's aspect ratio is better. But most of these shots are either the city (framed badly and unimpressive CGI) or the sparsely populated (read: empty) shots of the desert. We get shot after shot of this. It just does not work, and at times with it's very less than convincing CGI makes it look like it was shot for television. I know establishment shots are needed, but I'm of the opinion they could have removed or cut down some of these less than grand ones and added in more story, did a bit more fleshing out or adding in some other subplot.    

Which bleeds really into the second issue with really most sci-fi films, in that all the set decorators seem to think everyone who ever owned a spaceship is a minimalist. The outfits and costumes worn by the characters were nice, but the sets were barren, empty spaces bereft of decoration. Big blocks of empty space. Just nothing. Empty. That it sparsely populated doesn't help, but empty just feels wrong. Oddly, the last time I saw someone consider the a sci-fi story as an actual place was The Fifth Element, where the spaces looked lived in. By like people. This does not do that.

And finally, the missing pieces of the story. Again, as I've alluded to earlier, it would have helped had it been made clearer that Duke Leto knew that the Emperor granting him reign over Araakis was a trap, but one that he could not refuse. Or some of the interplay between secondary characters that hopefully will show up in "Part 2" since that's confirmed now. Having Hawat show up aiding the Harkonnen makes no sense because we missed a whole subplot where he suspects Paul's mother of betraying Leto. There are a lot of things going on in this story that had to be cut to make time for ...long shots.

Which brings us the fourth problem.

So, um, Dune was a white savior story? Huh.

Now, I saw the first version, back with Sting, on something ages ago. HBO, Cinemax, something, but I remember that the native Fremen in that film were just a bunch of dudes from central casting. And I didn't really get that deep into the book, so I didn't make a connection at that point either. To be honest, this didn't even crystalize for me until the last five or ten minutes of the film, during the fight scene. I should have gotten it earlier during Paul's visions, but nope. You know, I don't even think that effect was intentional, more along the lines of semi-awareness woke-type thinking of "wouldn't it be a bit silly if we cast a 'Nordic' look for people of the desert?" But then that gets us here, which is equally problematic. But then, the book is from the 60's, written by a guy mostly likely raised on Tarzan movies. Go figure.

Which presents a major issue for the second part. Because while the white savior aspect was hard to spot in the first movie, that aspect will be front and center in the second. Paul the chosen one, and all those brown people. Wow. Didn't we just have this issue with GoT a few years ago? Apparently we've learned nothing.

Barkeep. Just a coke and some chips. Thanks.

Five minutes watching The Incredibles 2

I don't watch a lot of movies. I don't really have time. And I go to the movies even less. Something about Sporty, but that's a whole other issue. So the rarity of which I go, means on average I've spent about five minutes watching every movie made. It's an existential thing, don't concentrate on it.

I've noticed that this blog is becoming very pop culture oriented as of late, partly because I'm trying not run up my blood pressure spending an hour a day ranting about politics - and an hour would be cutting it short - and partly because my social calendar is currently on back alley life support. But in the meantime, I saw The Incredibles 2. And I'm feeling some kind of way about it.

Maybe it's that it took 14 years for less than 10 seconds to pass, or maybe I wanted the fight with the Underminer to last longer, or that the start of it causes one or two continuity questions that took me out of the flow for the first few minutes. Exactly how long was it in the first film between when they beat Syndrome and Dash's track meet? But as soon as that part fell away and the film got back to what made the original such a great story - superheroes as people not archetypes - it picked up immensely. The dialogue is crisp, funny and on point, the music was reminiscent of the first in it's coolness and the visuals are just well, incredible. I was a little leery at first when they trotted out the old role reversal trope - Incompetent Dad learns About his own kids - but it works here.   The kids are the kids - Violet is "having an adolescence" and Dash needs less sugar, but the best character in the whole film is baby Jack-Jack, who just keeps things bopping along. 

But the film makes me think about things not really film related. The first film fresh and new, but also in a way fairly typical. While the whole family was well thought out and had roles important to the story, it felt like Mr. Incredible was the focus. We met him first, followed his career from hero to insurance company drone, tagged along with he and Frozone freelance heroing, in his first foray to the island, working out, going to see Edna, meeting the villain. Bob is a prisoner in the secret hideout before the family dynamic even really starts to unfold. And we didn't really think about it because that's what we're used to seeing. But here, the story takes it's first turn when their benefactor chooses Elasti-girl as the new face of heroism. Just for insurance reasons he assures Bob, but he chooses her nonetheless.

And which point the film turns its focus to Elasti-girl and never really lets go. New bike, new costume (for which Edna is gonna kick her ass when she sees her) and new adventures centered on the female hero, not the male. It's as though they anticipated the mood of the country. Bob struggles with new math, Helen saves the day. Bob watches the baby. Helen devises a plan. Bob struggles with advising about teen age relationships, Helen goes on a mission. To his credit despite his deep need to be in action gnawing at his insides, Mr. Incredible rises to the occasion of being supportive and just being a plain ole dad. The film feels like it reverses the original, with long stretches of Helen and the occasional check in on Bob. It makes me wonder why I my initial thought was that's odd, when it really isn't and shouldn't be. Elasti-girl is the star - deal with it.

I mean, I enjoyed Wonder Woman, and the men played sidekicks if not just background fodder for Diana's actions. There have been the occasional drama I've sat through where the men were more scenery than characters that were pretty good. A woman focused film is not that unusual, at least not among the stuff I enjoy. I've parsed through my thoughts on this: I expected more Mr. Incredible because... he was the lead in the first film? I have a cultural bias? A film that's not explicitly about women should feature men more prominently? I'm a wee bit sexist? Maybe a little bit of all of the above. But at least I'm aware of it. I think.

So other than a few continuity issues at the beginning, I thought it was well paced, with slower periods that allowed the characters to act like people and not just a constant series of explosions or twist thrown at you ever ten minutes to keep things interesting. It's a film I thought was never going to happen, it was all interesting dammit. The returning characters were great - Edna is still one of my faves, and the new characters have possibility. I like them. I wonder if they realize now there HAS to be a third one? This one though, it's long but good, but if you don't like the characters or enjoy watching them grow, it's gonna seem like forever. But I think you'll like watching them grow. 

MCU, I still see you.

Ramblings Post #346
Sometimes a change of medium is good. I have only ever read ONE of the Harry Potter books. Okay, it was like the first 100-125 pages. Not doing that again. But translated into film, the story came alive for me. And now we live an age where a great deal of what I read years ago, what I used to imagine was alive has come alive - on screen. Marvel you have a fan in me. And having read the aforementioned source material I know this eternal truth : In the Marvel Universe - the only person who ever stays dead is Ben Parker.

So. Infinity War.

I understand that people were upset at the ending. I actually saw one photo of someone being carted out to an ambulance. Wooo. Big stuff. A lot of non-comic book people are confused, hurt and feeling some kind of way about it. Honestly, I figured they'd end it on the finger snap, but then I guess some of the dramatic effect would have whooshed over non-comic readers heads. And I know a lot of MCU fans are hurt because the director did say that what happens here is permanent.

I'm going to give those who didn't see it yet a couple of more days while I figure out what I'm going to say about it. There is a lot to unpack. Changes I mean, from the source material. A lot to unpack.

From the first Avengers - but it could be now...

You know, they probably shouldn't have left off the sub-title Part 1. Just sayin.

Barkeep, pour me up one for my "dead" homies. 
 

Going to the Movies...maybe.

Rambling Post #344
I like movies. As you may have read if you read anything about my past, like on this blog, yeesh, I've written a few scripts and have a few story ideas of my own. And one day, lord willing and the creek don't rise (and I can scrape together a few hundred bucks I don't owe anyone) I'm going to make something. Technically the few hundred bucks if for some good lunches and one of those director chairs, but a man has to have standards.

I caught the trailer for "Sorry to Bother You" this past weekend, and I'm interested. It's a film out this summer starring Lakeith Stanfield from the hot show Atlanta and Oscar nominee Get Out.

Yes this looks silly, but then that's on purpose.

I found the trailer both incredible and troubling. It was incredible in that it looks like a pastel infused explosion of just on the edge of reality semi-ideas, that's been dropped in a blender with generous dash of ridiculous, served through a sugar straw with a side of that sticky icky icky. It looks fresh, different, as if it touches on social issues and yet is still just plain funny. And troubling because once again, it looks like Hollywood has shown us the whole damned movie in two minutes. The trailer looks like it shows everything but the end! I think I know most of the story at this point - Down and out guy, love life and home life rocky. Gets job. Discovers secret to job. Advances up the ladder using the secret. More money, different problems. Guy has to make a decision about his life and...profit? (Sorry, underpants gnomes joke there.)

I can't be the only one this irks the crap out of.

The premise looks interesting. The hero Cassius, who lives in his uncle's garage is desperate to get something started. He lands a telemarketing job and learns very quickly from a co-worker that to be successful he needs to find his "white voice." If you're not a minority, you're probably not familiar with the concept of a particular voice for a particular situation, but this is a very real thing. the white voice he finds - which you hear in the trailer - is the whitest. And from there, things take off. Along the way to wherever this is supposed to go, the hero meets a broad and eclectic cast of characters on a trip through a only slightly weird version of the world of the average professional. Kinda.

Express yourself

Now, I've watched enough movies with insane premises - I used to watch a lot of late night TV and at one point USA had a show called Up All Night which made you wonder if you were hallucinating as a young teen. This film looks like something from someone who watched a lot of TV like that, but still has a social conciseness. And if they don't that's okay too.

Promotion Time.

Let's go to the movies. Well, maybe. Let's see how this all plays out. I am excited though.

Barkeep. I'll have whatever the man in bowler hat is drinking. Yes, I'm a bit scared, but you only live once.

Five minutes watching - Black Panther

I caught the Black Panther this past weekend, and if you didn't see it in IMAX or REAL 3D or whatever that I was I saw it in, go see it again. You know what, go see it again anyway. I mean it was like it literally leapt off the screen, like I was standing there. Also, pay for the good seats up front, the one I had was leather, with wide arm rests and the whole thing reclined. I could have slept on that thing. Oh, yeah, the movie. Duh...

John Romita Jr's art was the best

It's a good film. It's a much a better adaptation of the source material than I expected and not quite as many plot holes as their could have been. And while it's not the first big budget movie to star a black person (thank you to Will Smith for holding the line all those years) it is the first one to surround that black lead with a majority black cast. The lead was black, the supporting cast was black and I still bet that if it comes up for an award somehow one of the two white characters will somehow get nominated while the others are forgotten. But it made a whole bunch of money this weekend, so I'll be mad about that when it happens.

For those that don't know, the Black Panther was Marvel's first black superhero, created in the mid-60's and actually predates the activist group with the same name. In a huge step for 1960's civil rights,  the character T'Challa is depicted as not only equal to the Marvel Universe's most intelligent, including Mr. Fantastic Reed Richards and Iron Man Tony Stark, he's also many orders of magnitude more wealthy. This incarnation of him grants most of mental acumen to his sister, but it doesn't make him just a muscle guy. He's noble, thoughtful and a man built to lead a nation.

From here on mild SPOILERS...both for the movie part and in the quasi political part that come after.

The film is pretty well written despite some critics I've heard who thought it meandered a bit early on. A lot of the scenes at the beginning are setups or background for things that happen later, so they only make sense later. For instance, the opening sequence from 1992 which threw a lot of information at us really fast that we weren't paying attention to, but what's said there changes the whole movie later. It almost encourages multiple viewing, which pretty good for a film about a superhero.

I also really enjoyed the visual of Wakanda, with it's wide open savannas and rural feel, juxtaposed against the Afro-futuristic version of a metropolis. But the scenes at The Great Mound seemed gaudy and those where T'Challa wandered the streets felt unnecessarily cramped. For the budget I would have tried for something a bit more airy for the urban shots. For the mining, I just would have started over, something less candy-like. But mostly the city, the interiors, the technology all came together to feel both fantastic and still a little grounded. I really liked the mix of tradition and contemporary, though not always in the costuming.

A couple of the story turns were a little too quick for my tastes and as with most superhero films the timelines are hopelessly ridiculous. Seriously, Erick took a Cessna from South Korea and turned up in Wakanda the next day? With a body in tow? And then everybody just fell in line? But comic logic not withstanding, and although the ending seemed rushed, I mean like they really should put those pieces they had to edit out for time back in, it was still a damn good movie.       

Now, to the quasi-political part of my review (sigh)...

After watching the film on Sunday I decided to read a few spoilered up reviews. I tried to find a few by black people because after seeing the revelry I wanted to know what the thoughts were. First was the guy who equated T'Challa's victory with respectability politics. Then came the folks who thought Erick's Death before bondage line was poetic, a new age "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees" sort of thing.

But it was the people echoing terms used by people who want them dead, various "Hotep" brothers, who  finished off my weekend by proclaiming Erick Killmonger was right. If I remember correctly the Killmonger's plan was to give Wakandan weapons to his personal definition of oppressed peoples around the world and start a series of revolutions. Sort of global civil war that would more than likely leave millions dead. Right..., no. That some people could reach this conclusion indicated to me some deep seated personal anger as well as a clear lack of scope outside their own purview, a through misunderstanding of what they'd just watched, and a failure to understand exactly how revolution works.

Let's go in reverse here so I can close with my main point. A revolution is NOT the purge. (I'm using one movie series to explain another movie series, yeesh) If you've never seen one of the Purge movies, the premise is one night a year all bets are off and you can do what you want to. The next morning, everyone shrugs off the night's "festivities," grabs an espresso and goes in to see if their boss survived. I hate to disappoint those who want immediate change via violence but that's not how it works in reality. In reality you get each little tranche of revolutionary with their own little version and frequently conflicting victory conditions blowing the bejeesus out each other for...sometimes years. 

Second, if you had payed attention in CAP AM: CIVIL WAR you'd realize that T'Challa's offer to save Erick at the end wasn't automatically just to later incarcerate him for his crimes. Erick with his clouded perception of the world and how it worked made the assumption that the Wakandans would treat him like, well, a black American. Thus he chose unwisely. T'Challa indicated in CIVIL WAR he was through with vengeance and stopped the man who killed his father from committing suicide. Why wouldn't he have been willing to take in a misguided cousin? This is a man who'd just cursed out his dead father for leaving that same cousin behind. The same man who took (or would take) in the Winter Soldier to rehabilitate him. Whose to say where Erick could have ended up. People who watched the film and saw revolution thwarted or respectability affirmed lack the vision and, the last item, scope. 

Side note - Why did T'Chaka leave his brother N'Jobu's body in Oakland? And why would leaving the son keep the up the lie that Wakanda was a third world state? And why didn't young Zuri clean house afterwards, opening all the panels and such? These are plot holes, hopefully answered in Blu-ray extra footage, and I'm on political now anyway. Sorry.

But the last part of my diatribe, the lack of mental scope is the most important part. Further, Erick was raised in America believed like most black Americans do that if we're both black it doesn't matter that I'm from Oakland and you're from DC, technically we're on the same side. But that's not how people from one of the 54 countries on the African continent think. There is a reason there are countries and tribes. I'm even going to completely discount N'Jobu being in the wrong from jump, as he instead of making his case to his brother for providing assistance instead actually sold out his entire country by assisting Klaue in stealing the vibranium to being with.

Further, Erick believed that Wakanda was being selfish by isolating itself instead of helping the oppressed people - particularly black Americans. But that's just it -  Wakandans have never been oppressed. It's part of their mythos - Never conquered, Never colonized. Where was this racial empathy supposed to have come from? Even worse, T'Challa had already indicated privately that he was starting to see Nakia's point of view about sharing a bit of their prosperity. And much like his father, Erick instead of making his case and subsequently finding this out, decided his way was the only way.

The people who think Erick was right need to step back, just like he couldn't.

In the end, T'Challa's actions will upset the world in ways Erick's "let's set all on fire" plan never could. It might even be dare I say it, a better plan. One without destruction. Without death. And sadly to some, without anger.   

In the end, good movie. Very good movie. Go see it. Again.

Five Minutes watching Star Wars: The Last Jedi

I don't watch a lot of movies. I don't really have time. And I go to the movies even less. Something about Sporty, but that's a whole other issue. So the rarity of which I go, means on average I've spent about five minutes watching every movie made. It's an existential thing, don't concentrate on it.

I don't usually do the most contemporary of movie reviews. I like to watch something three or four times before I try to wrap my whole brain around what the director was trying to say. This however is just shy of garbage so I don't really think any more money needs to be spent. I remember trying to talk some guy on twitter out of a tree over what he thought Cinema Sins was gonna have to say about this movie. I swore to him it was all in jest. To him I say: Dude, I was wrong. Cinema Sins is gonna have a field day. I mean shooting fish in a barrel. My god, the jokes write themselves.

[Spoilers from here on out. And some foul language too]

You ever get the impression you could write a better script than someone who got paid thousands of dollars to so? Post Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Marvel Cinematic Universe why the blue fuck are you shooting "cultural touch-point" film series without an overarching script already in place? Why are there so many holes in the plot? Why wasn't the whole nine hours of new trilogy shot at the same time? That last is particularly troubling. I mean, this is Star Wars, how do you not shoot the whole trilogy as a single movie then split it? And why are these fools proud that they don't know where the story is going? Jesus. And what they finally produce feels too much like an official bootleg  - as The Force Awakens was a reheated New Hope, now the Last Jedi comes off like a knock off Empire Strikes Back. I've already seen this movie. When I was twelve.   

But I digress.

So much, so much wasted.

Let's start at the beginning. First question: How many deck guns are on a Dreadnought? And how big are they? But let's not get into that now, so let's just say Poe is the man and BB8 is the droid and a single X-wing could take them all out. Snicker. You would think there would put extra protection on the vulnerable areas after the Death Star debacle and all that. But anyway.. um, why are the bombers so slow? Why are there even bombers? I realized watching it the idea was to invoke the idea of World War II bombing runs for tension, but in space the bombers should have been as fast as the X-wings. And it's space kids, not the German hinterlands. Why would the bombs fall into the minor gravity well caused by any of these ships? Ugh. This is just basic right here. After this they just kind of lost me. But I'd already paid for the ticket...

Completely on a different track, why 30 years after Vader and Palpatine go down is it the Rebels vs the First Order? Didn't the rebels win in Return of the Jedi? The crawl in The Force Awakens said the "resistance" had the backing of the Republic. And in film time, a few hours have passed since the first movie. I mean Rey was still holding out that light saber for god's sake. Maybe a few days. Now they're the last 400 people. WTF? I'm thinking wouldn't the series have been better served by making it the Republic vs some Radical order who wants to return to the old ways of the Empire? No so much the heroes are the underdog story, again, but the opposition as a kind of space terrorist organization. Here the bad guys have got Super Star Destroyers and the people with the backing of the Republic are using third hand space junk. 

Back to the film. Why was the Rebels ship not fully fueled? You're planning an escape and after the first jump they're already talking about fuel issues. Or was it? A ship that size should have been able to jump several times I would have thought. I mean they jumped to the middle of nowhere, a second jump had to be possible. And once they realized they could be tracked through hyperdrive, why didn't they scatter? That's like a basic escape the police tactic and yet this crew hung together long enough to get picked off until down to one ship.  I realize again this was an attempt to build some tension much like the reboot of Battlestar Galatica, but that was a series not a movie, they had time to explore build character. Not even gonna ask why this fleet is so small or why since the First Order just blew up some planets in the last movie their allies are on the Outer Rim and not closer.   

Now, I must have gone to the bathroom for this part, but how did Finn and Rose get off the ship? In a hyperspace capable ship? That apparently no one saw launch? I mean the bridge crew and all of them. Think on that for a minute.

I'm not even questioning how Leia made it back to the ship. The Force is the Force. It just is. Deal with it.

And now to Holdo, in her emergency battle gown. Far be it from me to mock her just because she's a woman, my problem is she is terrible at command but everyone wants to overlook it. Yeah, I'm serious. Let's go over it. She only has the job because the Resistance's entire leadership is wiped out by the bridge strike. She has a little reputation because Poe's kind of impressed and he decides to try to help. So, in their desperate situation does she even attempt to get buy-in from her subordinate? Nope, she belittles him. Because that's what people in charge should do.

But Poe was a hotheaded pilot who'd just got demoted, she didn't owe him anything her defenders exclaim. Only they're mistaken. Poe was a hotheaded HERO who'd just recently blown up the First Order's super Death Star who'd been just demoted by a even bigger HERO, General Organa for a mistake. He wasn't a nobody, he was a key part of the resistance who'd found the missing map to Luke Skywalker and who still held sway with the pilots even after the misguided dreadnought attack. He asked what the plan was and the Vice Admiral believing she had Leia's clout just went at him like it was personal. That should have been a pull his ass into a closet and tell him the plan to get him on to her side moment. She knew he was a hothead and just sneeringly said fuck you I'm in charge. That's just bad personnel management. Had she handled it properly it would have meant there would be no mutiny attempt and Leia's actual plan would have worked. Instead, the vice admiral's stubbornness and lack of ability to read the situation or her personnel are what caused the mutiny, the plan to get out and the deaths of many on the smaller ships. But yeah, she was a great. Ha.   

All that however does not diminish her kicking in the hyperdrive through another ship though. That was pretty cool.

The ending had too many issues for me as well, at once harking back to a New Hope with its out of nowhere Millennium Falcon appearance. And I'm confused, what exactly were the tiny little salt skimmers supposed to do against a cannon the size of a football field? How long was it supposed to be before help came? Hours? Days? Other than Luke's supreme fakeout the ending was just shy of pure grade-A bullshit. It setup nothing, it created no cliffhanger, it just kind of ended... huh?

While I think Abrams is an ass who doesn't understand how to make a hero movie, I'm not sure what to make of Rian Johnson, who apparently doesn't know how to make a hero movie either. Guys, let me explain it to you slow: We don't go to the movies to watch the heroes die, we go to see how they'll win. I may be in the minority, but a hero dying doesn't add weight or add character to the story. The noble sacrifice is just as much a cliche as the bulletproof good guy. It's a popcorn movie, not Shakespeare, make it a damned popcorn movie already. This was a lame attempt to give literary heft to cardboard characters. Hey, Hollywood, we like cardboard characters for popcorn movies!   

Let's hope the Lando movie is more like this.

I got a bad feeling about this...

Ramblings Post #311
I miss my youth. When I used to watch movies and just enjoy the story, or in some cases, the special effects because the story sucked, or yelling at the screen because yes, I was one those people. Now, when I watch a movie I'm concerned with representation, stereotypes, cultural slights, and how I would have done it. All that and the popcorn is like $12. Which may explain why I don't go to the movies like I used anymore. Well, there are other reasons too, but all that right there.

Ghostbusters Classic

I watched the Ghostbusters trailer, and... it wasn't funny.

Or, maybe I'm just not getting the jokes.

As I've written before, I was skeptical about this whole project from the start, but since I think Melissa McCartney and Kristen Wiig are funny, I was willing to give it shot. Said offer of said shot has since been rescinded. Maybe it hurt that the film trailer makes it sound like a sequel, while the actions on the screen make it feel like a remake. Or that right this moment it looks like the people behind it didn't understand the original movie. Or that I heard that the original actors making cameos had them shot as both the original characters AND as random strangers. Which means they don't know what film they were making or marketing. That does not bode well.

And I said explicitly that really hoped the Black woman character wouldn't be for all intents and purposes a "Wanda Zedmore." By that I meant the fourth wheel addition of the non-scientist character. In the original, the black character is just a guy who from his first line of dialogue clearly indicates he's in it for the pay, but he isn't portrayed with any of the stereotypical attributes one might expect. He's just a guy.  He contributes, he has a few good lines... it's almost an every-man character.  Well, the black female isn't Wanda Zedmore, as then she would have had more dignity. This character is a blatant Hollywood stereotype, the classic loud black female "with a dip of sass" comedy character that I really thought we were past since shows like Black-ish exist now. In the trailer alone she hits the Stereotype Trifecta- "from the streets," Cadillac, and Jesus. To say that character just looks bad is an understatement. Shouldn't the idea of good roles for women extend to women of all races? Why couldn't she be a scientist and one of the other characters have been the NY native?

Or maybe, maybe it's just that I'm missing the jokes. That "hat or wig" snippet was just...odd, and the few other attempts at comedy I saw seemed forced. But it is truly possible the jokes weren't meant for me. I've watched comics who were women do routines that had half the audience rolling on the floor - the female half.  There are jokes that men find funny, and jokes that women find funny. It happens. Or New Yorkers find funny but no one else. Or Jewish people find funny and no one else. So the idea that I'm not getting the jokes as a very real possibility.  But, and this is a very large but, if you're making a film, based upon the idea of appealing to the nostalgia of its original, mostly male audience, to ensure its financial viability, while also trying to bring in a new female demographic to assure its profits, shouldn't the humor be more universal? At least in the trailer?

Or is the idea that this New Ghostbusters, which apparently has made a point of showing women on both sides of the camera, just not intended for men? Do women turn out for sci-fi comedy? Bad sci-fi comdey? Considering the the standing ethos of the Modern School of Thought on Trailer Editing, the idea that the film has better jokes so you really have to go see it is a bit far fetched. Women deserve their own good film roles and lead opportunities, but um, what happens if the comedy isn't funny? And in today's political environment, how sexist will I be for having that opinion?

Barkeep. I need a MAN drink. So make it pretty, and fruity, and with one of them little umbrellas. And put some powdered sugar on the rim. 

Crossing the Uncanny Valley

Ramblings Post #301
Technology is both a wonderful and cruel thing. It can ruin industries by making them obsolete, and turn others in almost comedic gold rushes. And what we'll come to realize in time is that constantly moving forward isn't always the best plan, if only because we're human and we need a bit of structure to hang our lives on. Until then I'm going to suggest that society strap itself in real tight, because it's gonna start going real fast for a minute. Don't forget your goggles.  

We will reach a point when we finally cross the Uncanny Valley. Then Hollywood will need to be very, very afraid.

When I was kid I used to read a comic called American Flagg. Well, to be honest comic was the wrong word, because it was the first book I read where the villains had motivations other than your comic basics, i.e., world domination, petty revenge or the next big score. It was the book that introduced me to political heroes that weren't so much heroes, more like people just trying to make sure they can get a decent breakfast the next morning. But why this is relevant is that the main character was a guy called Reuben Flagg, a former television star who had been replaced because they could computer generate his image so convincingly that nobody noticed. That day is fast approaching. There is a shot at the end of Iron Man 3 where RDJ wasn't available, so they digitally created a Tony Stark and added him in. Not Iron Man, Tony Stark, the human person. And we didn't even notice.

Fifteen years from now, the we'll be able to regularly digitally create actors and put them in anything we want. Actors will have their images leased for whole films or a television series, not just how you see past stars sometimes in commercials now, artistically re-cut to fit the limited available motion. Desperate actors may even sell their avatars outright. The enterprising estates of some 50's and 60's actors means we may even get to see Cary Grant and Scarlett Johansson in a new romantic comedy. And then someone, probably in a garage somewhere in Oklahoma will figure out how to do it for cheap with stolen profile information.

And, then we'll get these... bootleg remakes of films not intended to be remade. And I'm willing to bet that some them, with fan perceived plot holes fixed and filled with fantasy casts will be traded around baseball card style on private networks and at the various Cons. One or two might even be converted into actual films, the rough edges smoothed out and the sound fixed because Hollywood has a way of taking good ideas that start other places and capitalizing on them.

This future is so golden, I almost can't wait.

(Note: I didn't make any of these images, but they inspired this post. The idea of a couple of these, just like wow!) 

About this Superhero thing...

Ramblings Post #289
Peter Parker is Spiderman. Period. I know the kids really like Miles Morales, but let’s just keep our heads here people. For a less iconic superhero I might be okay with a change – see all them damn Green Lanterns – but Spiderman is more than a suit and powers. He’s the original hard luck hero.  The hero with bills. With great power comes great responsibility. And there are just some stories that should not change. Omigod, I cannot believe I just wrote that.

I love comic books.

I started reading comic books back when they cost fifty cents and every plot didn’t involve tearing the universe asunder or a galaxy spanning conspiracy. Back when Spiderman was referred to as “your friendly neighborhood Spiderman” and good and evil were a bit more cut and dried. And I was more of a Marvel guy than a DC guy as well, as I thought them more grounded. Even so, I moved on from the big titles to smaller ones as I grew older, the smaller titles usually less grandiose in their ideas of what villainy might be, where every scheme didn’t involve global domination. I’d still pick the stalwarts though from time to time to stay current – Spiderman, Batman, Wolverine, the occasional mini-series or trade paperback. I dabbled more than anything.
But as of today I think a little movie success has caused them folks at Marvel to lose their minds.

In setting up their new Once a year super crossover “hey, let’s get you interested in a another character so you’ll buy that book too!” you got to be kidding me jeez not again with this crap again Spectacular, they’re going to so far as to stop printing thirty three regular titles. Sigh. I’ve never really been one for the retcon – the comic book writer habit of rewriting years of established history to fit the story they came up with last week – but this is one for the books. (that pun was not on purpose.) Reading through the promo I’m not even sure how it all fits together, and I'm not even sure I want to find out.

I bought the first Secret Wars series, which made sense to some degree, taking all the top end superheroes and facing them off against the high end super villains away from the billions in destruction they would have surely cause on Earth. Okay, it made comic book sense. It gave us Venom and Carnage and new character arcs. The second Secret Wars kinda made sense as well, the impetus behind the first Secret Wars coming to Earth, although it might be better executed with the broader scope writers of today are afforded. But this monstrosity of crossover, I'm like really? This is a complete and total exodus of the idea of subtle and nuanced for the grandiose demonstration... which if you're paying attention will be undone three years from now in another grandiose demonstration. I understand crossover pollination, but damn. I'm scared to go the Comic Book store and get caught up in this mess.

It's like the Hollywood mentality is taking over comic books and not the other way around. Comics are a hard medium to write for, as the characters are so firmly established. And the nature of the medium means the world can't be at stake every month, you have to build up to things. Film by comparison is short, picks and chooses from the canon what it wants to use and seemingly necessitates the spectacular with every outing. This is both tiring and messy for the fan to watch even as we're excited to see our favorites come to life. And now it seems like those film directors who didn't understand the characters they've been handed are infecting the writers and editors who were passed down the characters they were supposed to care for that we've come to love.

I want comics to get back to stories that developed character and involved small things, or at least didn't involve extra dimensions and six different clones every issue. A little skirmish. Every battle need not be World War Three in fifteen pages to be interesting. Maybe I got spoiled. Or maybe I just need to stick with the independents and the small stories.

Just one more Spidey though. I can quit anytime.

Barkeep. A mixing bowl, a spoon, a big box of Rice Krispies, some sugar and milk. Seriously.

Ferguson, Missouri 2014 (2)

This is a political post.

I don't really go to the movies, because a) I really don't want to go alone and b) I be broke. But I do take a few minutes every few weeks to read up on the reviews, so that eighteen months from now when it ends up on cable, I'll know what I'm getting into. By the way, why hasn't the Avengers made it to cable yet? Even FX which is where Thor ended up for some reason. But I digress, this isn't about those movies, it's about a movie I read the review for, or rather a premise from that movie that I think could have been used...and still might be used...for something other than YA romance...stuff. 

The film is If I Stay, which is based on the novel of the same name and is about a young shy cellist who has been in car accident, falls into a coma and has a series out of body experience/flashbacks. She reviews her life where she's found the perfect teenage boyfriend who just gets her and listens to  pleas for her to just wake up.

My idea is to adopt the premise, the flashback/out of body experience part to the story of a young black man who has just been in an incident with the police and now is in the hospital or dying. To me, and I say this without having read the original story or seen the movie, but to me I think that properly used by another filmmaker this premise has the opportunity to show a conflicted character on all sides and tell a much more socially relevant piece of fiction.

Here is my idea. Open with the scene of the incident. It's all flashing blue lights, bodies moving in the dark, before we focus on the body of the black man in the street. Then the title comes up.

At the hospital, we get the cliche race through to ER, and we see the main character's face, and the camera then pans up to the same face, as the character's spirit watches the activity surrounding his body. We see him flashback to his first day of high school then to maybe to Sunday morning with his parents at church.

His "spirit" visits his mother and father who have gotten the news, and their expressions of rage and anguish. We flashback to see him arguing with mother. His father making suggestions at odds with his own plans for the future. The flashback continues to show him doing silly, possibly illegal things with friends - smoking, underage drinking. His "spirit" listens to his mother tell his grandmother what has happened.

He flashes back goes to his childhood, where you see him interact with grandmother and extended family, children at play, adults socializing. This leads into a seen of him socializing with friends now, then plays back to him at the playground as a child.

His "spirit" visits his friends, some of whom lament his situation, others who feel he deserved it. He visits the neighborhood, hearing how people he didn't even know thought of him. He flashbacks again, but this time to the start of this day. To moments with his girlfriend, with his friends. We see him basically living the life of an ordinary teenager. 
 

I don't have the whole thing fleshed out, there would be a lot more flashbacks, his spirit hearing the police officer describe the scene, hearing his friend talk about the same scene, etc. The idea just struck me earlier today as how to expand the original premise, but give both sides of the story in a generally palatable dramatic format. The whole idea of the film is to show the main character, a young black male, not as a thug nor as a choir boy, but as a whole person. And to show that one person's version of events can differ from another person's version, and that those differences are important when a life hangs in the balance.

And yes, this idea was prompted by my thoughts on Ferguson, which I'm having trouble expressing. Next week, I'm going with light stuff, not because this isn't relevant, but because my mind needs to be somewhere else for a minute.

Five Minutes watching: The Big Bang.

I don't watch a lot of movies, because I don't have time. But at the end of day of work, then class, then reading for the next class, and writing down what I wrote so I can remember it all, I'll turn on one of them pay channels I have for just such an emergency and catch five minutes of something.



This review is not to be confused with the television show the Big Bang Theory, a show which I've actually found to be at times ridiculously enjoyable despite it's now strained original concept. No, this is about the movie, The Big Bang, a film trying very hard to be noir, is about a world weary detective, a missing woman, the mob, hidden diamonds and the Higgs-Boson particle. Yes, that Higgs-Boson particle.

It stars Antonio Banderas, Sam Elliott, this guy who had to be seven feet tall, with cameos from Bill Duke and Snoop Dog. I don't think ever saw the inside of a cineplex. One night I saw the trailer online and thought it looked interesting, well, if it's on don't change the channel interesting, so when it popped up on Encore the other night I decided to tune in. That it was on the Black oriented Encore channel I found strange, until I sussed out Encore's version of black includes every movie starring a non-white person.

But I digress. The film, how can I describe it? You ever see a film that would be good if they remade it, and when they remade it they actually put some effort into it this time? Yeah, this was that movie. Because the story was actually only 30% Hollywood re-hash, the cutesy physics angle and associated wordplay wasn't' too cutesy, and I honestly didn't figure out the twist until the characters did. The down sides? A weird, supposedly arty, slantly camera angle that got annoying after a while, bad acting, and the special effects at the end could have used a bit more polish.

It's a film that if they remade it with George Clooney or Sam Worthington, better. And I don't mean a re-write, I mean a word for word - shot for shot remake of this, it would be amazingly good. Or keep it ethnic and use Terrance Howard, Chiwetel Ejiofor or Idris Elba. Even Mos Def who can act when he wants could have pulled it off. Some of the trouble was Banderas, whose wandering accent made pieces of dialogue and the whole voice over thing hard to understand, and whose acting left a bit to be desired. Like if he had tried actual acting.

Seriously, ramp up the production values by 20% (or use darker sets) and you might actually have a good movie here. As it is, it's the kind of movie you watch only because the trailer was good, and once you've started watching it you just want to see the end. It's not Shakespeare, or even anything close. So if you're not doing anything else.

Red Tails - a film rationale

Ramblings Post #179
I love a good movie. Well, let's quantify that because I love some pretty dumb ones too. I love movies that suck me into the story, or make me wish I was the star. Or even better make me forget for a few minutes the world around me. And is funny. But not stupid. Okay, I don't know what I like until I see it. And then some films still have to grow on me. I'm not even sure why I wrote this now.


For the last two decades, in a Hollywood heavyweight has been struggling to bring a story to the big screen starring Black heroes of World War II. Now, frustrated to the point of action beyond all movie making logic, he has gone out on a limb and put up his own money (a big filmmaker no-no) to get made a fairly large budgeted big screen adaptation of the story of the Tuskegee Airmen. And by doing so, he has accidentally put the idea of black film-making at risk because if a film by someone like him, an icon of nearly three decades of cinema, can't turn a profit here then the bulk of black films will be relegated to whatever Tyler Perry or the rapper of the minute wants to give us and bargain basement labor of love indie films. And nobody wants just that as the whole of black cinema.

Yet black women are talking about boycotting it.

Are kidding me? Did the "if this doesn't work nothing else even gets a chance" discussion even get acknowledgement?

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a big George Lucas fan. But his explanation of the whole system and why Hollywood is reluctant to make movies starring black characters shouldn't be dismissed because we don't like it. After all, he as well as anyone would know. To many studios he's money in the bank, so he should have had it easy. Instead, it took in twenty years and he's still going it alone on this one.

And black women are talking about boycotting it.

The two primary reasons I've seen today are "why support this and not an indie black film (Pariah)" or the "the movie doesn't have a black female love interest" so it must be writing black women out of history.

Pariah, for those of you who don't know, is a small indie film about a young black girl coming to grips with own sexuality in the face of her friends and family. I've only seen the trailer, but it looks sensitive and poignant, a lovely exploration of a young girl finding who she is in a world that might not accept her. But in Atlanta, it's playing at ONE location. People who like this film should rejoice in George Lucas's film. Why? Because if Lucas is successful, then movies like Pariah might be able to find a wider audience.

The other argument is one a bit more visceral. In the film, one of the black actors has a Italian girl friend (in Italy), so along with no major white hero, there is also no black female love interest. This I realize touches a nerve. However, the answer is the same for the first argument. If this film is successful, then those films that follow can include more and broader roles black actresses.

We've fallen into the instant gratification concept to hard here, in that instead of getting this victory we've become intent on "righting a wrong". Does Pariah deserve a wider audience? Yes. Will boycotting Red Tails get it one? No. Do black actresses need more roles in Hollywood? Yes. Will boycotting Red Tails and causing the first major black film in years to fail make that any easier? No. So why boycott?

No, that's a real question.

Because I don't get it. Black cinema will survive no matter how Red Tails does, but this idealistic martyr concept won't advance any black filmmakers agenda, only hinder the opportunity for what is to come. And opportunity is the heart of the matter, for without that we are nothing. And for the record, I'm probably going to buy a ticket to Red Tails and then not go see it, just support the idea that black people can be heroes on their own.

Black people can be heroes? Well, that's just a "horrible" message to send anyone.

Barkeep. Something smooth.

Quick Film Review - Surfer, Dude

I don't watch a whole lotta movies, I don't really have the time and most of the films emanating from Hollywood reek of a blandness or sameness, stamped with the mantra that a big star and more explosions equals success. Or the drama is contrived and plausibility factor is in the toilet. So last night, after class and after reading a little for next week (finals are around the corner and I'm nervous) I turned on the TV to give me brain a break and found...well, this odd movie....

I've looked it up on IMDb and found that all told, the film grossed around $50,000, which makes it an epic flop considering someone invested millions to make it. But it's not that bad a film, considering the fact the for most of it...well, 95% of it, the lead Matthew McConaughey is bereft of shirt. That alone should have made it unwatchable, but it wasn't.

The whole movie is about a guy who is supposed to be the world's greatest surfer: cool, smoked out, barefoot and basically living the life we all dreamed we'd lived when we were much younger. He makes money off casual endorsements of stuff he uses and really doesn't focus on business, just the waves. Only his loose casual contract has has been bought out by a guy who wants super cool surfer man to be on his surfer version of a reality pay per view show and record his moves for a virtual video game. The hero isn't interested, he just wants to surf. So the evil corporate guy cuts off super cool surfer man's existing money until he signs up for the whole program...just as the waves in the Pacific stop well, waving. No waves, no surf. And super cool surf man can't live without surf.

Throw in lots of gratuitous nudity (that Surfer TV house is the greatest party house ever), massive quantities of illegal substances, the prerequisite cheesy romance storyline, and some surfer zen and you've got...well, a mess. But a very likable mess.

I clicked over a little after the start and found myself fascinated. I figured I would turn the channel in a few seconds, or go to bed, but found myself wanting to watch a few more minutes, and then a few more. And I kept waiting for him to put on some clothes! Or at least change his shorts. It's not a bad little tale, visually it looks like just a cut above your average B-movie/straight to video affair. It could have been a stylized indie statement of life and whatever else those kind of storytellers want you to see, but there isn't enough angst or weight to this movie to pull that off.

I wish I could say, after watching this, that Matthew McConaughy is an underrated actor whose looks distract from watching him act, but I would be lying. McConaughy just plays a character who is essentially himself. Which might make this his best role ever.

I'd watch it again. Maybe.

Movies I love for no reason at all

Ramblings Post #14
When you run out of things to talk about in a blog, or news article or any regularly posted or updated thing, and just need to fill a void, you pull out a list. They're simple to do, you make it about damn near anything, and if you're lucky, somebody takes it as gospel and suddenly you are and AUTHORITY on something. I don't think this list is going to make me all that much of an authority, AND once I considered the amount of time I actually put into it, a regular post would have been easier.

There are movies I like, I mean really like, and for the life of me I cannot fathom why. Some of them old and dusty with era dated celluloid mildew, practically transparent in their fakery, some of them utter tripe loaded with cardboard characters, cliche ideas and cookie cutter plots to the point where you guess the next line and getting it right most of the time, and yet others well written, artfully acted and directed.

Well the last not so much, something about most "Oscar worthy" performances irk me. How hard is it embody someone with a sense of nobility and angst in a period costume? I mean the corset alone elicits half the feeling you need for a character whose life is laced with pain. But make a psychotic loon in white face paint transcend his original ink and paper incarnation - thanks Mr. Ledger - and you've done some acting. Some of the other choices the Academy has made over the years baffles me.

But I digress.


One of my favorite films of all time is Smokey and the Bandit. Yes, I an African American male love this tale of rednecks in fast cars riding through the countryside. There are parts of the movie I can quote verbatim. Big Enos and Little Enos really should be revisited as characters. One weeknight it came on TMC or Showtime at midnight (you cannot watch it on regular TV, ever!) and damned if I didn't watch it until Junior screamed "Daddy, whose going to hold your hat?"

Conversely, I also love The Princess Bride. I don't know why but I do. Something about Ingio Montoya and Fezzick, and the way the actors spoke what had to sound even to them like hilarious lines with straight faces. It comes off as a better comedy than a lot of films that try to be hard to be funny.

And I'll watch Armageddon again and again. It is utter hero worship garbage, badly written and poorly acted by a cast of actors who I've actually seen act and apparently just didn't give a damn, and I love it. And say what you want, when the character Chick's ex-wife finally tells there son that the man on TV about to try to save the world is not some "guy" but his father, you tell me it doesn't pull at your heartstrings. Sure it's cliche as hell, but damned if it doesn't still work.

I think I've admitted here, and I'm truly ashamed to say it, I can sit through the entire Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. Even after it veers off and jumps from suspension of disbelief into "just go along with it because it look great and cost a fortune to shoot", I will still watch it. The "cuttlefish" scene is one of the most badly written and great to watch scenes in recent history. If Captain Jack Sparrow isn't one of movie's great characters, I don't know what the qualifications are.

I have the movie channel package on DirecTV so when I get a moment away from the books I can veg, not that Turner Classic Movies isn't my go to on a rainy Saturday morning.

Speaking of that, as far as old movies go forget Casablanca, which I do love don't get me wrong, but I also love Bogart in We're No Angels (1955), which on screen really looks so set piece fake you can feel two guys of screen drinking coffee under the sound boom. And Cary Grant is at his best in the woeful Operation Petticoat (1957) and the utterly hilarious and also horrible Arsenic and Old Lace. (1944) I shudder to think one day they'll remake the William Powell's thinly veiled ode to drinking, The Thin Man (1934) with somebody goofy, like David Spade.

Man I do love a good bad movie. I actually own most of these, but I do need to by that Burt Reynolds. I really do.

Now don't get me wrong, I can watch Ratatouille again and again, but that's actually a good film, so that doesn't count.

Barkeep, what do have that's so bad it circles back around the good?

Quick Film Review - Why Did I Get Married?

This weekend, on opening weekend, I went and saw Tyler Perry's latest Why Did I Get Married, the next in his line of feel good uplifting stories of the Black Experience. I was originally going to see it at Atlantic Station, but I forgot about the Taste of Atlanta and so I dashed up to Phipps. I now remember why I prefer Atlantic Station.

Mr. Perry's world seems to inhabit the same world of the black romance novel, where everyone is well off, well educated and articulate. Well, almost everyone. My favorite character, Tasha Smith's feisty Angela is the black woman I know. Obviously educated and accomplished, but more than willing to unleash if provoked. As much as I want to be mad that the characters lives seem so plastic, I'm kinda glad they're not portrayed as the bad stereotypes. But is there no middle ground to the black character? Either they've made it to the top, or hustlin on the side. Where are the people in the middle?

(In the interest of full disclosure I've had a thing for Tasha Smith since I first saw her in NBC's Boston Commons in the mid-90s)

I won't go into the story, you had to have read it somewhere...four couples get together for their annual retreat, this time in Colorado, only to have the secrets and issues they've been repressing bubble to the surface. This is my take on it: Janet Jackson is stiff at times, Tyler Perry has written himself the Jimmy Stewart/Good guy role, and Richard T. Jones comes across so unabashedly vile it's almost fun to see just how far he can take it. Smith and Jones characters and performances spice up an otherwise bland bit of celluloid. It's a Tyler Perry movie, so you know it will all work out in the end, but that's not why you go. I laughed, I cried, I was shocked, and watched Sporty suck in a breath when man candy hit the screen. So it wasn't perfect, but it was good.

I'm thinking, the good people in Hollywood may need to turn to look at the Perry Method and learn a trick or two. This is the third incarnation of this project, from stage play to filmed version of the stage play to feature film. Having already found out what works night after night, all Perry has been doing with existing works is put the last bit of Hollywood polish on them and he's got gold. In an industry that prides itself on milking every formula and is struck with sequelitis, you would think they would appreciate the "just do it over with a new sticker" concept that's putting the butts in the seats.

One last point. I realize that the film wasn't pre-screened for the media, but Filmcritic.com doesn't have a review up 72 hours after release. And for the #1 film in America? It's a shame.

You need to go see it. Good film.

Barkeep - Maker's Mark and a dash of Ginger. Yeah.

Quick Film Review - Goodbye Uncle Tom

A friend of mine, in effort to help me understand real racism, loaned me a copy of a film he described as the "real deal" concerning slavery. It would "touch me, move me, and give me a new outlook".

This film was Goodbye Uncle Tom.

The film is now part of the Mondo Cane DVD series, shot by Gualtiero Jacopetti and Franco Prosperi in 1971. It's cinematic treatment of slavery is extremely different from all other slave epics -- Roots, Mandingo, Beloved. Shot in a pusedo documentary style it shows modern film makers traveling through time to see slavery up close and personal. Shot in Haiti, it depicts graphic slavery, including copious male and female nudity, rape, auctions, beatings and any other unpleasant slavery related act it can conjure up.

You ever have a child come up to you and show you a picture they painted, and you get all funny and tell them how good it was. It's gonna be like that.

I watched it cold with no build up, so I went in with minimal expectations.

I'm going to suggest that if you are a homosexual or bi-sexual racist sadist with a scat perversion in the mood for rough dark meat, then this is the film for you! I can't think of anyone else I would suggest sitting down to see it.

After a scene straight from a redneck or a black militants dream of 20 or so slaves running around a plantation dining room, we go to a cargo ship and arrival procedures. From there to traders and disenfranchised workers to mammys and the like, all the while treated to overdubbed historical texts recited by actors without a trace of irony. The film is exploitation at it's worst. A scene described as heartbreaking appeared almost silly to me, a much maligned shot of small white girl leading her "pet black boy" around by his collar as she frolicked in a field. The later stages of black power rallies didn't even appear to have a basis, as did the blood fantasy ending.

Watching I'm not sure what the purpose is. I looked online and the original filmmakers stated that wasn't a message film, they wanted to show what was going on. It's been called the "most racist film in history", and watching the banality of it unfold was almost funny. Maybe I need help. The people who seemed most proud of it, as I researched this farce, were those black militants who wanted it seen calling the films "based on historical facts".

Maybe it's just me, but I think we can do better than this. I think anyone can better than this. They tried for a African Passion Play...and ended up with nasty soft porn. Bad nasty soft porn.

Barkeep. Just mix some shit in a glass...I need to get this taste out my brain.

My Movie

I mentioned earlier a film I was working on so I'll clue you in, in case I ever finish the script (75-80% done), get funding and take some time off from the regular job to shoot it, you can say I used to read that brother's blog and know the whole story and I wonder if he'll loan me some money.

I won't.

I've been fascinated with film and filmwork since I was little. In school we once took this weird aptitude test that told us what skills we had and what we were best suited for. It turns I have the skill set for every other job in the world except the two I wanted, one of which was working in film. That may have been the magic moment, well that and my parents getting cable.

I directed my first short at Summer Camp, and have some some small acting on the stage as well. Nothing heavy, light stuff. But in front is a little gaudy, fun...but gaudy. And so in college I decided that what I really wanted to was direct. And finish one of the six or eight writing projects I started.

Enough backstory...onto the film.

It's a small film, I'm figuring in the neigborhood of $25,000 to shoot and that includes buying the cameras. In essence a quick four day shoot, the second half of the last being reshoots and the like. Basically a talking heads flick, it's designed to be shot in one room so I don't even need to worry about sets or locations. It's topical and written for a broad audience, as well.

Pretty slick, eh?

I'd tell you more, but that's how you get Armegeddon and Deep Impact in the same year. The big issue now is funding. I had a friend who was going to pony up the cash, but I lost contact, now I have a professional fundraiser who may do me a favor. I'm working on it.

So if I get the money, and I ever tell you more I rememeber to once it's in the can, look for me!

Hey, barkeep...Jack and branch water. No ice.