New for 2017

Thank you for all the new traffic!

Like many blogs, this is collecting dust on the internet, as the author somehow managed to land a job writing sports (!!) on another site.  Geek output remains necessary.

Look for more regular content on this spot (once a month or more) on different goings-on, particularly with missed movies from 2016, and the upcoming geek explosion of 2017 (provided these things are not made illegal).

Also I've been really busy with Skyrim and Borderlands 2.

Neither Geek Nor Not Geek

The very best vacation I ever took was to Disney World.  I was eleven.

The very best vacation I ever took that I planned myself, as an adult, was to New Orleans, LA.  I was 26.

And as an adult, I always wanted to go back to New Orleans, not just for the drinking and debauchery (note: I never experienced any debauchery), but for the people, the sights, history, tours, and FOOOOOD.  So much fun.  Different after 2005 (I have not been back since the hurricane), but still a living city and one I always enjoyed more than any other location in the south.

Then, I met Jenni.  Jenni's favorite vacation of all time (that did not involve dinosaurs) was going on a cruise ship, specifically with Princess Cruises.  She had tried another line, but vastly preferred PCL... and upon her recommendation, we saved up, got a great deal, and have just returned from a 7-day cruise to Alaska.

Now I know someone else's vacation photos are not always the most interesting experience, but for my own memory, and to perhaps sell YOU on it (both of my dear readers), here's a rundown.  Not the most geekly/nongeekly experience, but not ALL vacations can be to comic-cons and the movie theater, alas.

PROS:

1) Getting to see Alaska.  I'm not used to describing scenery as "beautiful," because first of all I'm a dude, and second of all it's a bunch of fucking dirt.  But I was blown away driving through Northern California for the first time (also at about 26), and Alaska was even more impressive than that.  It's all too easy to use phrased like "snow-capped mountains," and "glacier-carved rocks," but it's an entirely different thing to see these things in person.  No photograph can do them justice.  It's like having sex, you can read all the manuals, see all the pictures and/or videos you like, but NOTHING can do the actual experience justice.  That and bacon.  Some things just need to be seen/experienced to be believed.

2) The fucking SHIP.  Holy crap, there was so much to do.  Food, swimming, art gallery, drinking, live shows, live music, movies, the VIEW.  Rocking with the waves for ten hours straight was definitely a new experience, and three days back and my legs still aren't used to a steady floor.  But damn if that wasn't part of the charm.

3) The people.  When you put that much planning into a vacation... it's not like you're going to run into locals on the ship who are annoyed you're there.  99% of the people were damn glad to be there, the staff was friendly and excellent at their jobs, they're just there to bring you stuff and chill out, man.  They're seeing the world, too.  And the other passengers... most all friendly, happy to be there, and just as eager to learn about the sights and sounds, too.  And then there's just staring out at the ocean.... for all the vacation destinations at home and abroad, being surrounded by water is definitely unique for any type of vacation.

4) The ports.  We stopped at Ketchikan, Juneau, Skagway, and Victoria BC.  Each has something unique to offer, Ketchikan was so/so (more on that in a moment), but Juneau was a perfect mix of small town and wilderness.  Plenty of mountains, regular amenities, nice people, and shopping options beyond just the regular tourist crap.  Skagway was far smaller, but we did get to see some wilderness there, going ziplining fifty feet above the ground, between trees.  Highly recommended, by the way, provided you can go hiking for an hour without needing to sit down and pass out.  The jumping is easy... the hardest part was getting up the side of the hill.  But then you're surrounded by giant trees, with clear views of mountains and some train tracks on the side of said mountain.  Pretty fucking impressive.

5) The FOOD.  We ate nowhere but on the ship (though we did take a one-day cruise from Vancouver to Seattle before we started, and Ketchup Flavored Potato Chips (unique to Canada) are fucking TERRIBLE)... where was I?  Too many parentheses, but the point is, the food was fucking delicious, plentiful, and included.  Some room service items had a tiny room service charge ($3 for pizza), but most all included and spectacular.  I'm actually quite sad that no one put a napkin in my lap before dinner tonight.


CONS:
1) Only a couple hours in each port.  Ketchikan is tiny, a little fishing town, there's tourist shops but not much else, so there's nothing there you couldn't get at every other port (which is probably why this one was first).  There's not much town to see beyond the few blocks of the tourist area, but the scenery... nice.  Juneau I could have spent a week in.  Skagway, tiny as it is, the same.  Small rural streets, with wooden planks at the sidewalk, just like in an old west town.  Granted, it would probably be quite different with a foot of snow on the ground, but look!  Mountains!

2) Crowds.  Embarking and disembarking in Seattle was a mob, but no better or worse than getting on an airplane, or more accurately a sports stadium.  On ship there was less of that, everyone off doing their own thing, in their cabins, it's actually quite thinly populated (or seems so) except at the beginning of the first day, the end of the last day, and getting off the ship anywhere in between.  Other than that, chill as hell.  Easily a con that can be overlooked.

3) Motion of the ocean.  I don't get seasick, but as stated, after ten hours of that... whoa.  I actually didn't mind so much in bed, and if I just got irritated by the motion, a nap actually helped.  Jenni, on the other hand, spent a couple days getting adjusted... it's definitely not like flying.  But after a while, for me anyway, it got charming... "Oh look, time to take a shower.  Better learn how to do it at a 15-degree angle!"

4) Price.  We got a great deal-- a GREAT deal-- but it's still four figures.  Granted, this is a family of four, but I'm new to the whole family vacation thing, and I'm used to going on vacation for $500 tops.  This was definitely not that.  But hey, at least I didn't have to get scanned naked.

5) Length.  A week?  PSHAW.  By day six we were all winding down and ready to be home, shower in a space bigger than a shoebox, do our laundry (though there IS laundry on the ship, but who wants to do laundry on vacation?), but as I got off the ship on day seven, I just wanted to do it all over again.  I'd walk more of Ketchikan.... I'd drive more and shop more in Juneau.  Skagway I'd take more pictures, talk to the staff, schedule more sightseeing/activities.  And Victoria, well... I only got an hour there, and it's definitely a city that appreciates looking good instead of just being functional (I'm looking at you, Every City in Texas).  Plus I didn't get to try the raspberry raisin Orange Crush, or whatever the fuck that was...

.... IN TOTO, the pros far outweigh the cons.  By a WIDE MARGIN.  Oh, and the DJ in the nightclub was a fucking moron, but he played requests so that can be overlooked.  Is it New Orleans?  No, but nothing is... it's still a floating village, interesting people, fun and entertaining all hours of the day.  Worth the money, worth the time, I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

And the more friends, the better it is.  Hint, hint.  :D

Spring Horror

Great Caesar's Ghost!

NOT GEEK
"Evil Dead" was exquisite.  We show up at a location, establish no one will be leaving, and start killing people one at a time.

Is it a slasher movie?  No.  Something starts happening to these... not kids, exactly, since it's established they're all in their early-to-mid 20's.  First one starts to lose her mind, then they all do.  There are knives, needles, smashing, trashing, vomiting, bleeding, cutting and DEMONIC POSSESSION (not in that order), and it's exactly what the doctor prescribed.

There's a certain bored familiarity with slasher movies, in that we know what the threat is and what it's gonna do, and it's just a question of if our characters can avoid that threat to get to... wherever safety is.  "Evil Dead" is important, and great, because you don't know WHAT the fuck is going to happen.  Evil spirit?  What the fuck are THEY capable of?  Well, whatever the fuck the filmmakers say they are, and that's more and more right up until the final scene.  It keeps you on your toes, it will surprise you, it WILL make you jump sky-high.  Worth seeing on the big screen, and in a year or two, if you're considering the DVD.... take hold of it, watch it, and think "Damn, I shoulda seen this in the theater."

GEEK
This is the exact same movie as the 1981 original, but with a budget, and a few minor differences.  At the theater, the girlfriend mentioned the original and someone nearby was completely unaware that such a thing existed.  It's just as well; the scares are there, but they remain completely different animals.

To enjoy "Evil Dead" (1981), you must first get past the non-existent budget.  If you can do that (not all casual viewers can, or want to), then it doesn't matter that one of the actors is a young Bruce Campbell, it's just an enjoyable low-budget horror movie that doesn't always make sense, but hey, lots of people die and the special effects are pretty good for the money.

"Evil Dead 2" is as much comedy as it is horror, and the continuity with "Evil Dead" is marginal at best.  Sure, you can argue that Ash brings his girlfriend Linda make to the same house as the first movie, but WHY THE FUCK WOULD HE DO THAT.  They're separate animals, enjoyable but not really a continuing story.

"Evil Dead" (2013) has a plot.  Mia is there to detox.  It's an intervention, they're all going to be out at so-and-so's mom's cabin in the woods, away from society, to help their friend through this difficult time in her life.  Of course, there happens to be some remnants of "witchcraft" in the basement......

One of the hallmarks of any movie, smart or dumb, is "If you think about it later, does it make sense?"  I mean, sure it makes sense in the moment, it happened "because," but what about later?  If not, the movie falls apart, you probably won't watch it again (Transformers, Phantom Menace), but if so......

Well, despite the movie devolving (and I use that term with respect) into blood and death in the final act, the filmmakers actually CARED enough to give a reason for all this.  Where did the Book of the Dead come from?  It's never explained, but nor is it explained in the earlier movies.  It just IS, the schoolteacher among them gets curious (he's a schoolteacher! he likes to read!), then none of them believe the recovering junkie, because she's a recovering junkie.  THEN THE BLACK CHARACTER DIES FIRST.

.... This is a horror movie standard, to be sure, so that goes firmly in the "not geek" section.  ON THE OTHER HAND, I turned to my girlfriend during the movie, who is an avid gamer (hence our love), and said "They killed the cleric first.  Smart move."  Because the first to die is (oh, btw, spoilers, sorry), also the nurse.  Not that a nurse could have patched up what happens after that (oops, severed arm!), but it's still a wise tactical move.  After that, every kill seems to be a kill of opportunity by this demon or whatever it is, up to and including as many references to the original as possible.  The opening shot of the movie, practically, has someone far in the distance, silhouetted by fog and shadow, who appears to be carrying a shotgun and a chainsaw.  Who it is turns out to be a minor character of no importance, and it's all in a flashback sequence before the story gets started, but they filmmakers CARE.  They care enough to drop in references without making them obvious or contingent on knowing the original, like when Stan Lee or Lou Ferrigno show up in an Incredible Hulk movie, or Leonard Nimoy shows up in the Trek reboot.  Hey, if you cheer at the Book and Shotgun on table in the big reveal there in Act I, good for you.  If you don't know the image, it's not important, and doesn't detract from the movie at all if you don't get the reference.

.........  1993 was TWENTY GODDAMN YEARS AGO, and they even used three words that summoned the evil, and they WEREN'T "Klaatu Verada *cough cough*."  They actually sounded creepy (though for all I know they could have been Latin for 'fabric softener').  They weren't referencing something else, they were just words in a creepy, creepy book.  Mission accomplished.

.... Except the ending.  Good luck explaining all the dead bodies to the authorities, (character or characters who survive).

PART THE SECOND
Go to the library or bookstore right now and buy a copy of "John Dies at the End" by David Wong.  It's horror comedy in the best way, one moment you're in awe of the creepy or disgusting images you've just read on, the next moment you're laughing at the next dick joke.  It's a great read: fun, creative, original.

"John Dies at the End" the movie, directed by Don Coscarelli (Phantasm, The Beastmaster, Bubba Ho-Tep) is a waste of time.

It starts off fine enough, a little rushed, but the voice of the author is there, and the humor, and the randomness.  It gets iffy from there almost immediately, as the "creepy Jamaican" from the book is now just a really good looking dude with dreadlocks.  You know, someone who would NOT be out of place at a party of 20-somethings.  No thought put into THAT sequence, but maybe they'll pick it up again after--

Nope.  The entire fun of the book is the interactions between Dave (your narrator) and John (his best friend who constantly gets him in trouble / can always be counted on to save the day).  That interaction was completely gone from the movie.  John was barely in it, becoming a plot device instead of an actual character.  Characters who weren't these two, got even less development.  Every single female character is a pale white girl with long straight black hair, making them difficult to tell apart.  In fact, John and Dave are the same body type, making them ANOTHER two nondescript white guys... now, these two actors ARE quite good, and very nearly save the movie, but they can't overcome (1) a director who hasn't read the book, and (2) a movie that blows all its money in the first half.

Look, the zombie and monster effects were great for the first bit, but the movie goes off the rails when whatsisname (a white guy named Justin, which is unimportant), the gangster wannabe, gets possessed (is a word I'll use for simplicity's sake) and kidnaps everyone.  In the book, there's a reason for this: He takes them all to Vegas for his own nefarious purposes.  In the movie, they driving five minutes to the mall, at which point no explanation is given why he needed to bring all these people to the mall.  One of them, yes, but how did this possessed guy know THAT was the right person?  Okay, even if he did have powers to know this, why the fuck did he bring everyone else, INCLUDING JOHN'S DEAD BODY (spoilers: he's not dead for long).  This makes no sense,  and jumps over about 200 pages in the book, neutering all the best lines, and failing to execute the lines that DID make it in.  In fact, the opening narration ("The terrible secret of the universe") is explained later in the book, as to WHY this is the terrible secret of the universe.... in the movie, it's never referenced again.  It's a non sequitir.  Sure, these few pages in the book are funny, and the director wanted to leave it in, but the director hasn't actually read the book so has no idea of the context or what's going to make sense.

The thing is, I could pass all this off as the low-budget director of "Phantasm" simply not knowing (or caring) how to make a mainstream movie.  He can experiment with his cute little low-budget effects, but at a certain point you have to start playing with the big kids and make a movie people WANT to see, or you're going to get your toys taken away. He flirted with mainstream-ness with "Phantasm II" and "Beastmaster," but then stubbornly refused to do anything anyone wanted to see, casting the same sorta-good actors in "Phantasm III" which was never even released theatrically.  Thing is, it was actually pretty good (Phantasm IV is unwatchable), but nobody gave a fuck because he cast the entire movie with his friends.  That was the end of his career, until....

"Bubba Ho-Tep" WAS incredible.  It had great actors (Bruce Campbell and the late, great Ossie Davis), an explained plot, a beginning + middle + end.  The effects were cheap, but when wielded by a director who knows how to hide that, and build tension, the whole thing can still work.  How the director of THAT movie directed "John Dies at the End" is beyond me.  Lines are delivered wrong, random scenes from the book are cobbled together into a nonsensical series of events, and then I think there's a big explosion (which is telegraphed so clearly you'll be like "no way is that plan going to work," and then it happens exactly the way the minor character explicitly stated it would).... then the movie peters out.  The book also explains how the title relates to the ending.  The movie doesn't even know what its title is.

The short version is this: You knew the "Last Airbender" movie had problems when the director of THAT piece of shit swapped nationalities of the entire cast before the movie even went into production.  There was no reason to do this, he just did it because he wanted to make a terrible movie, and make a change just to be an egotistical douchebag.

In "JDATE," the director swaps genders of the dog.  Why did he do this?  Why is the dog now male instead of female?  Does it contribute to, or enhance the plot or events in any way?

No it does not.  It's just an arrogant, douchebag of a director jealous of a writer who is more talented than he is.  He wants to put his own stamp on the material (which has exactly one legit scare, all the rest from the book are simply left out), and in doing so, has made a movie not interesting or watchable.  I had the luck of seeing the DVD, so I can tell you that the deleted scenes are actually the best ones in the entire movie.  A few of them are actually very funny, one of them is straight-up creepy, and the last is just a character monologuing, but at least is helps advance the plot in some way.  All cut.  For no reason.  (and don't say "for pacing."  What pacing?  I watched the movie.  WHAT FUCKING PACING?!).

Because Don Coscarelli is incompetent, and "Bubba Ho-Tep" was an anomaly.  Which, by the way, is also based on a story, written by someone more talented than Don.  Note to authors: When at all possible, write your own screenplay.  Or at least be in the room.

On a 1-4 star rating:

Evil Dead: 3.5 stars (would watch again)

JDATE: Zero stars (was going to set fire to my copy, but Netflix gets touchy about that).

Motherfuckin' Potpourri

1) I haven't written since before "The Hunger Games," but after nearly a year in release there's nothing more to be said.  It was surprisingly adequate for a director with only three movies under his belt.  Lenny Kravitz was wasted (as in, he should've been given more to do).  The director did not trust his own camera work, and would frequently cut away from something really interesting... the finale made it look like the entire games took place in a holodeck, and sending the contestants all together in the same shuttle, only to enter the field from different rooms, makes absolutely no sense.  RE: THE BOOK.  IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.  (though the twitter controversey was worth a headshake or two).

2) Let's just jump right to it: JJ Abrams directing Episode VII.  That means the same man controls both Star Trek and Star Wars.  NO.  NO.  NO.  NO.  NO.  NO.  NO.  This is not okay.  As geeks we should rail against it.  As "not geeks" we should not give a single FUCK, because the only non-SW or ST things JJ has directed are (1) Mission Impossible 3, (2) Super 8, and (3) Lost.  Two of the three were total shit.  Discuss amongst yourselves.

It'll be adequate, depending on the screenplay.  Except for the fact that they have no story other than the one written by Timothy Zahn.  (Heir to the Empire).  Were any of us really clamoring for a sequel to "Return of the Jedi?"  No.  No, sir, we were not.

3) The Dark Knight Rises.  From a non-geek perspective, it was quality entertainment with some grand characters and the style we've come to know from Christopher Nolan.  From a Geek perspective, it was disappointing and a kick in the teeth.  Look:

The ending of "The Dark Knight" raised many a possibility.  Now he's not a mysterious crimefighter-- he's a vigilante, on the the run from the cops.  This will make his job harder, this will truly test him.  Four years later (and ten years later, in the context of the movie), we find out that... Bruce Wayne handled it by.... DOING NOTHING.  This is the worst possible option.  I recognize that Nolan probably didn't want to direct any more of these, if indeed he even wanted to do the third.  But while the movie was fine, the premise was a cop-out.  And Bane's death was incredibly, incredibly anti-climactic.  Also Batman died.  I don't care what Alfred saw in the restaurant-- it was the same restaurant from earlier in the movie, and there's no way he walked into it on accident.  It was a fantasy sequence, and in making it real Nolan is essentially saying, "That's the whole story.  Riddler?  Penguin?  Superman?  None of that shit happened.  He fought Joker, Bane, then he died."  No, fuck you, he didn't.  Read a comic book.

4) "The Justice League."  ... There are two kinds of superhero movies.  "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," and "Batman Begins."  The fact that anyone even uttered the words 'Ben Affleck' should answer you pretty fucking well which category this will be in.

5) The Man of Steel.  I don't care how good the trailer is, it was directed by Zack Snyder.  And while I will forever be wowed by his visuals in "Dawn of the Dead," he has become so lazy since then, his every movie has been underwhelming and embarrassing.  And before you mention "300," go back and watch it again.  Take a drink every time you hear Gerard Butler slip back into his Scottish accent.  If you finish the movie sober, I will give you $1,000,000 dollars.  And no, you can't cheat by muting the entire film.  I tried that once, and I passed out from masturbating.

6) The Avengers.  WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

7) DAT.  EVIL DEAD.  TRAILER.

8) The Amazing Spider-Man: Andrew Garfield has no screen presence, and Marc Webb is a music video director who got lucky.  I feel about it like I felt about "Batman and Robin" ... yes, there are people who will like it.  These people never read a comic book.  History is on my side here, people.

BUT THEN AGAIN, WE ARE LIVING IN A WORLD WHERE THE SAME MAN CONTROLS BOTH STAR WARS AND STAR TREK.

The state of being a geek is........... bad.  Even with that White House response to the Death Star petition.  Let's one of us make a billion dollars and buy back the rights to something, eh?

.... oh, and I know there's no trailer for the second Wolverine movie, but do we really want to live in a world where THAT gets a sequel, and "John Dies at the End" isn't even playing in theaters?  C'MONNNNNNNNNNNNNN.......

*Warning, this blog makes references that not even Google may know, you have to be a GEEEEEEK

The Phantom Menace Corollary

cor·ol·lar·y

 [kawr-uh-ler-ee, kor-; especially Brit., kuh-rol-uh-ree]

1.

Mathematics . a proposition that is incidentally proved in proving another proposition.

2.

an immediate consequence or easily drawn conclusion.

3.

a natural consequence or result.

.
.

As a film student, George Lucas wrote and directed one of the seminal sci-fi movies of the 20th Century, THX 1138.  Some would argue that it was merely a rip-off of "1984," but this was a film not from a novel, but for a solely cinematic medium, and a visually striking dystopian tale regardless of any parallels that can be drawn to other works.  It's not exactly a popcorn movie, but it's pretty original by even today standards, to say nothing of the year it was released (1971).

In 1973, Lucas directed American Graffiti, about his experiences growing up in Modesto, California.  A slice of life from his youth, the film was a critical and commercial hit, helping star Ron Howard make the transition from child star to Serious Actor, and at the same time catapulting him into opportunities to direct.  There was not a single CG-shot in the entire film, because CG had not yet been invented.

In 1976 Lucas shot Star Wars, which was released the following year.  The script was whittled down from a much larger, epic saga, a story which included the events of what would later become all three movies, if not six, if not more.  It was edited, re-written, re-submitted, until ultimately a version existed (the final draft that would become the movie) that the studio was happy with, even though they didn't really want to make the movie anyway.  Sci-fi wasn't exactly big business back then, but what the hell, he'd just directed a huge hit (Graffiti), so make it work for the money, and you can make your silly little passion project, George.

Everyone pitched in.  Little humorous moments suggested by Lucas's wife at the time, ad libs by Harrison Ford, and I'm sure acting advice by the coolest motherfucker in the room, Sir Alec Guinness.  If the studio did not like the actors, did not like the script, did not like the footage, this movie would not get made, regardless of Lucas' two prior feature-length movies, one of which was a school project.  Much like The Sixth Sense, Alien, or The Godfather, here are n00b directors who must prove themselves to the studio.  If the movie isn't good, or at least successful, the director can kiss his/her career goodbye.

So.  Lucas took advice from all sides, and made the version of Star Wars we all know and love.  The movie was a huge hit.  He got more money to make the sequel, The Empire Strikes Back, and hired a renowned sci-fi author (Leigh Brackett) to help write the script, and hired his old college professor Irvin Kershner to direct.  The movie was an even bigger hit, and one could argue, better than the original.  Their feedback was essential to the final version of Empire. Other writers and another director were brought in to flesh out The Return of the Jedi, and that was that.  Three hit films, and Lucas did not direct again from 1977.

Until.....

Twenty years later.  Now, if you're working for Lucas in 1977, and he says, "What if we made Han's sidekick a cute little 3-foot-tall furry dude," or, "What if Han shot second?" ... well, he's just your buddy from college, or perhaps the director of this shitty B-movie sci-fi film that you're convinced is going to bomb... you're going to tell him exactly what you think, which is that those ideas don't work.  And, as mentioned above, that's what people did.  Pages and pages have been written about this movie: writers, actors, producers, family, friends, everyone was a team player and everyone contributed, for the best possible version of Lucas's vision.  Lucas wasn't shy about taking ideas and I hope we can all agree that the 1977 version is the best possible version of the movie.

Now, again: Pretend you're working for Lucas in 1997, the year Phantom Menace was shot.  Lucas says, "Hey, how about we have a big, goofy caricature named Jar Jar who gets into wacky hijinks!"

I tell you exactly what you do.  You're working for George Lucas, one of the most revered names in Hollywood (Howard the Duck notwithstanding). You have a good job working for LucasFilm, or perhaps ILM.  You make a comfortable living.  So, you do what any other employee would do: You get your assignment, and you animate Jar Jar.  You give your boss what he wants, and then you go home.

What you DON'T do, is say, "George, that's fucking idiotic.  What if we did (insert literally any other idea here) instead?"

Because you don't talk like that to a boss.  It's show BUSINESS, after all.

And The Phantom Menace became a piece of shit, shocking and horrifying Star Wars fans the world over.  While it grossed a huge amount of money on its release, (1) so did everything Michael Bay ever made, and (2) It's thirteen years later and we all know that The Phantom Menace is a piece of shit, justifiably mocked by most anyone over the age of five years old.

"The Phantom Menace Corollary" is an easily-drawn conclusion, stated simply that "following marching orders does not mean you're doing good work."  Simply doing your job and collecting your paycheck, while certainly we all do need to be employed and be able to support ourselves, is not always the best thing for a person, for their bosses, or for the culture they love, work, or play in.

I have friends who work in the video game industry, and The PMC holds true there better than most anywhere, except for obviously the movies.  The boss will not listen to anyone but the boss, so there is no collaboration.  Either through stubborn-ness, or just sheer market research, the boss will stick to that plan right up until the moment it fails.  To speak out against it is sheer foolishness-- you'd just be replaced by someone who does as told.  Not that it would even occur to any of us to quit a job like that-- assignment, execution, completion.  The end.

I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do with the PMC, but I know it when I see it, and I think you do, too.  From Indiana Jones and the KOCS to Men in Black 3, to every Tomb Raider game in the last ten (fifteen?) years, this is just sort of what we're stuck with.  We can't quit, because we need the job, but we can't offer our input, because we don't want to get fired.  And our masters seem to be getting dumber.

Personally I'd like to take the power back, but continued efforts to tell stupid people they're stupid have proven unsuccessful.

I'm looking at you, George.

Two Experiences, One Thumb

As you snicker at the title, keep in mind that it's very difficult in this day and age to name a body part without some sort of sexual connotation. Kidney, maybe... or spleen. I reserve "two spleens up" for horror movies, and there haven't been any ones of those since 1973. NO, SAW DOES NOT COUNT. GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN.

Okay, maybe there HAVE been some since 1973. Just not very many. That's a whole other blog and one I'm not prepared to go into until something interesting actually comes out.... Speaking of which: Horror parody idea. Green-screen night vision view of a couple sleeping in the bed... as the door next to them opens by itself... to reveal.... a fat man in a red suit (rendered black by the green tint), delivering presents to all the good girls and boys. ... Title? ... "Paranormal Nativity." You can use that, I just want my name on it. Bonus points for Jesus cameo.

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK
Two movies this week, because it's been thin for a while... I won't even address the Oscar nominations, because any world where "The Help" is a Best Picture nominee is a world I want to set on fire.

"The Artist" (dir. Michael Hazanavicius)

He of the director of the "OSS 117" movies, which are like a way more hilarious Mad Men. Misogynistic but lovable. Like your granddad. See the original sometime.

Anyway.

The Artist is a silent movie about the end of silent movies. George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is the biggest silent movie star in the world, everyone loves his movies, and everyone (save for a co-star or two) loves him. He is married to an indifferent wife, has an adoring dog, and is the very epitome of happy... until he meets Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) by chance, on the red carpet at one of his premieres. They make an impression on one another, and in fact meet again when she's an extra on his next film... and there's something there. Something neither of them quite understand, but he's married, and she's (as it turns out), destined for stardom... in talkies. Their paths go very different directions. It's a silent movie but the language of silent movies is explained readily within the first few minutes, using camera angles, visual tricks, and even sound (well, the score) to accentuate the important and leave the rest in the background. After five minutes, you won't even notice it's a silent movie... except when the film calls attention to it. Which it does, because it's brilliant like that. I laughed. I cried. I marvelled in awe at the sheer thinness of John Goodman. And the music is pretty happenin' too.

For all the mediocre movies nominated for Best Picture this year, "The Artist" has to be at the top. It's not condescending (like "The Help"), and it's not so artistic as to render it inaccessible to anybody wanting to just watch a good movie one evening ("Tree of Life"). Best movie I saw in 2011, even though I technically watched it in 2012. I'll grade on a curve.

NEXT:

Haywire. (dir Steven Soderbergh)

WHO THE FUCK IS GINA CARANO?

Did you watch the remake of "American Gladiators" on NBC a few years back? The one with Hulk Hogan as one of the hosts? If not, skip to the next paragraph. If so, Gina Carano was "Crush," one of the female gladiators, and attacked her opponents with what can only be described as... bemusement. I saw an episode where the ref called her on one of her rule violations, and though she wasn't a large woman-- in fact, quite petite and adorable-- she DID just get done mopping the floor with this chick, knocking her off the platform within the assigned 30 seconds or whatever. She responded to the judge in this high-pitched, girlie little voice.... 19 seconds after doing horrible ultra-violence. I had a Crush on Crush, but I want to make it clear that I do not anymore because I have a beautiful girlfriend who studied martial arts and is a former competitive power lifter. And quite frankly she'd probably call dibs.

So, when that show was cancelled, Carano went back to her, I shit you not, Mixed Martial Arts career. Wiki her. Pro-record, 7-1. Steven Soderbergh saw her and said, "This lady should be in movies."

Now: Let's make this abundantly clear. Based on the above, Carano is a mixed-martial arts competitor and has no acting experience. It shows. Her line delivery is flat (not completely, but about 80% of the time), and her facial expression seems to have a default setting of "amused smirk." But name one other action star who can act. Schwarzenegger? Statham? Okay, Bruce Willis I'll give you, but he was an actor before he was in action movies. The rest of their shtick, beat people down, the end. Steven Seagal was a world-famous action star for the duration of the 90's, and he couldn't act his way out of a perforated paper bag. Acting isn't important. Can your action star kick ass?

Gina Carano takes out Channing Tatum (who can't act either, so maybe he's in there to make her look good), Magneto (Michael Fassbender), and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor). Utterly obliterates them. In action movies, inexperienced directors will just shake the camera a lot so you can't really see what's going on-- Soderbergh sits back, keeps everything in-frame, only cuts away if the actors move out of it. It's shot beautifully, the fight scenes do not have music. That really is her, in a real fight. Not every punch lands, not every move is clean. But when she pulls a reverse on Tatum, puts him in a submission hold, and breaks his arm... you believe it. That guy's going to the hospital. And that's the first five minutes of the movie.

As a geek, I don't think Soderbergh knocks it out of the park every time. He's very, very good at working with actors, but he's only as good as his scripts... you can't polish a turd, and Ocean's 13 was what it was (I didn't hate it, but it couldn't hold a candle to his Ocean's 11). One review I read said it wasn't experimental like some of his more out-there work... I disagree. Lem Dobbs wrote it, a longtime Soderbergh collaborator... and while he has some mainstream movie credits, he also wrote or co-wrote "Dark City," "Kafka," and "The Limey" ... the latter two of which were directed by Soderbergh and were firmly in the "artistic" portion of his resume. Alternatively, the opening and closing credits are in the same style as "Ocean's 11," so you make the call. The film jumps around in time, plays with flashbacks, has a bare minimum of explanation for certain plot points. In "Ocean's 11" or "Out of Sight," you know what's going on at all times. In "Haywire," you only know Carano's Mallory and Ewan McGregor's Kenneth used to be a couple because one of them lets it slip several minutes into their first scene together. Or because you read it first in some asshole's blog. Paying attention is rewarded. Not paying attention just means you'll jump in your seat when suddenly a boring talking scene explodes into smashed furniture with no warning whatsoever. Then someone probably get handcuffed or shot.

Four out of Four stars on "The Artist."

Three out of Four on "Haywire," if only because Carano could've sold it a little better. But Schwarzenegger, Statham, Seagal and even Chuck Norris didn't exactly hit it out of the park on their first movie, either. So.... suck it.

NOT FUCKING GEEK

"The Artist."

Hadn't seen a silent movie in forever. This is a good one. Girlfriend t'weren't sure going in, but loved it as the credits rolled. Plus the leads were cute as shit.

"Haywire."

What other fucking action movie are you going to see this month? Red Tails? One for the Money? Fuck George Lucas and fuck Katherine Heigl. It has Ewan McGregor being evil Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender, doing some fassbending, and Michael Douglas being smug. In six months you can buy this movie on DVD and throw it on at any party, in between Statham movies, and say, "Haywire? Oh yeah, it's fun. Pretty obscure though. Most people haven't heard of it."

..... hmm. Geek/Not Geek? Crap. Is "Geek/Fucking Hipster" taken? I apologize to my legions of fan.

"The Artist" could go next to "Slumdog Millionaire" or "The Hurt Locker," for tiny little obscure movies that won Best Picture, just by being that outstanding.

"Haywire" goes next to "Way of the Gun," for really entertaining action movies with famous names attached, but got shit for publicity anyway.

Latest possible next installment: The Cabin in the Woods. No, nothing on TV has excited me lately. Watch "Community" wherever you can stream or order it.

May God bless Allah, may Allah bless God, and may both bless the United States of America.

Play ball.

Live Tweeting Twilight 4: The Twilightening

My first instinct when I knew I'd be taking my girlfriend to "Breaking Dawn" was just to live tweet the entire thing out of sheer ornery-ness. Then I remembered two things: (1) It's rude to tweet in a theater, and I am not a douchebag, AND (2) Only like three real people actually follow me on Twitter.

ELAPSED NUMBER OF SECONDS INTO MOVIE BEFORE JACOB TAKES HIS SHIRT OFF: Ten. It's literally in the opening shot of the movie.

At this point, I'd like to remind my loyal reader that I have never read any book by Stephenie Meyer (I literally did not notice it was Stephenie, not Stephanie, until I watched this movie), nor have I watched any of the movies. I knew there was some fighting and some shirtless dudes and the bad guy from "Tron Legacy" was also occasionally the bad guy here, but other than that, this was my first foray into the world of Team Edward vs Team Jacob vs Team Abercrombie vs Team Fitch.

Some observations:

1. To be fair, Jacob does not appear shirtless again for the entire movie. Sort of once for a half second, as a special effects, but only because:

2. Jacob, and his family of homeless racially-neutral-possibly-mostly Native Americans, must have a HUGE clothing budget. He's constantly shredding his clothing so he can turn into a werewolf, then has another comfortable, stylish shirt on the next time we see him. At one point, he even kicks over his motorcycle. How is he paying to repair this? Does he have a job? Does the wolfpack work down at the Jamba Juice? These are things I need to know.

3. The first time we see Jacob, after the opening shirt-rending scene, he emerges from a forest. As he is fully clothed, we must assume he walked on two legs. Where the hell did he park? How did he avoid getting his clothes jacked up by the forest, especially in "Washington," in what I presume is the springtime? And if he did park somewhere, why does he act all weirded out when he thinks he hears a noise from the forest behind him? He JUST walked out of there. Was he worried somebody was fucking with his bike? Then why does he kick over the bike later in the movie? Had they fucked up the paintjob, and now it's ruined? This DOES seem consistent with his character, I must admit.

4. Kristen Stewart is not a shitty actress. Everyone be nice to poor, misunderstood K-Stew. She was good in "The Runaways," and she was good ten years ago in "Panic Room." She has the skills. It's just awkward to do things with scenes like,

Bella (who is pregnant): I'm so happy I'm pregnant.

Jacob (who half an hour ago said he couldn't see her again): It's not human. You don't know what it is.

Bella: (who excelled in school and plays chess with her new husband as a way to pass the time) I'll be fine. I'm tough. I will survive a half-vampire baby that is already making me visibly ill, and will quite possibly tear out of my stomach like that movie "Alien," which I didn't see because if I'm 18 in 2011 that means I was born in 1993 and all the good Alien movies came out before then.

Jacob: I can't watch you do this. I'm leaving. I can't see you again. (20 minutes later, he totally does)

Other actors of note: every female vampire. Both Bella's parents. Pattinson is given absolutely nothing to do, but he does look suitably tortured all the time. Why is he tortured? I have no idea. Probably because of all those people he killed.

Wait what? Literally, second scene in the movie:

Bella: OMG, I can't believe I'm 18 and about to marry my 150-year-old boyfriend, which is SEVEN TIMES OLDER THAN ME. Totes for realz.

Edward: No, wait, you don't know everything about me. Even though the wedding is tomorrow, I'm dropping this on you now. Remember the whole basis for us falling in love? Me being peaceful and vegetarian and shit? I'm a fucking liar. I killed people. Often. Totally dudes that were gonna kill people, but I can't prove that, because this all happened fifty years before you were born.

Bella: I'm sure they were all bad. Enjoy your bachelor party! Bye-ee!(falls asleep)

5. Ladies. Have you seen the movie? You've been fantasizing about your wedding all your life, I bet. Those of you who are married, I bet you secretly wish you could have another one, just to feel like a Princess. Now, given all that going on in your head.... do you know which hand you wear your wedding ring on? Yeah? .... BELLA DOESN'T. Watch that shit. It jumps hands like five times.

6. Jumping back to early in the movie, at the wedding...

JACOB: Well, he's gonna murder you and turn you into a vampire. Oh well, that sucks. But as long as you're happy.

BELLA: OMG, totally not yet. We're gonna fuck on our honeymoon, shit's gonna be HOT. Totes.

JACOB: He's a vampire. Ten minutes ago you saw one carrying an entire tree over his shoulder. To say nothing of three previous movies. If he fucks you, his orgasm might quite possibly blow your head off.

BELLA: THAT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, JACOB. I'M EIGHTEEN, I DO WHAT I WANT.

EDWARD: (who had just left to dance with someone, but has now reappeared suddenly) I say, kindly back away, what what.

JACOB'S POSSE: (one of whom I'm sure jacked up Jacob's bike) QUITE RIGHT, WHAT WHAT. LEAVE BELLA ALONE. SHE'S SO PRETTY AND YOU ARE CAUSING FROWN LINES.

JACOB: Bella, fine. Whatever. I can't see you anymore. (runs off into the forest)

EVERYONE: JACOB, LEAVE YOUR SHIRT ON!

JACOB: NO!

7. Vampires. There's Edward, then there's blonde-wig guy, who's on Nurse Jackie. Then there's big-forehead girl, who was on Grey's Anatomy a few seasons back. Then there's short pixie-cut girl, who actually seems to have a fun character to play. Then there's big beefy stupid-looking guy, who probably fucked the director to get the part, except he's so dumb he doesn't know where his penis goes. Then there's random vampire chick who hates werewolves and that's all she ever talks about, then Edward hands her the baby at the end anyway, because there wasn't a basinette handy, I guess. Then... THEN... there's the other guy. Other blonde dude, I think he's attached to pixie-cut girl in some way. THAT GUY. He got paid for an entire movie and says three words. HOW IS THIS FAIR.

SCREENWRITER: Here's your scene for the day. I know you dressed up in costume for the wedding scene, but you totally get to talk this time.

THAT GUY (Who I'm assured is Jackson Rathbone): Possibly.

SCREENWRITER: JUST LIKE THAT. Say your line JUST LIKE THAT.

.... srsly. That's his only line in the first 110 minutes of a 117 minute movie. In the final minutes, I think he says something like, "Not anymore." Not even a complete sentence. But two words definitely. I'll bet he pulls all kinds of tail with that kind of street cred.

8. The closest thing to an action sequence is when the vampires and Jacob hole themselves up in their fortified compound (in fucking FORKS), and they're all slowly starving to death because there's no blood... except Jacob is not starving to death because apparently vampires keep cheeseburgers and protein shakes. Anyway, Jacob stages a brilliant diversion to distract the surrounding werewolves, so 2-3 vampires can escape and get more blood. ACTUAL DIALOGUE FROM THE MOVIE:

Jacob: Did They make it out?

Edward: Yes.

... HOW DOES EDWARD KNOW THIS? Was he watching with binoculars? Well, no, he was too busy staring at Bella. Do the vampires have cell phones? Well yes, because Bella makes a call on Edwards earlier in the movie. ... IF YOU HAVE A CELLPHONE, WHY NOT JUST CALL FOR HELP INSTEAD OF SENDING THREE GUYS OUT THROUGH A PACK OF WEREWOLVES? Are these the only six vampires in the entire world? That's not very convenient. Their fetishes must be very boring, headstrong teenage girls who excel in school and have absolutely no interest in bettering themselves in any way, only landing a husband.

9. Bella has a baby. It's horrific. You can't see anything, but they have to rip her dress for an emergency operation. Once that's over, the dress has mysteriously healed itself. VAMPIRE DRESS.

10. Bill Condon directed this movie, who is also the director of "Gods and Monsters," a movie about the gay director of the first two black-and-white Frankenstein movies... and also "Dreamgirls." Seriously. This guy has Oscars. So. How did he do with the material, a book that most people said was unfilmable?

With the exception of the plot only moving forward because Bella or Jacob must occasionally do things that no human being could possibly choose ("It will kill you!" ... "That's my choice!" / "If you don't let me kill her, I'll kill you!" ... "I'mma go hide in the woods like a BITCH!")

... yeah. With those exceptions, the photography, pacing, acting (except for Jacob, who CAN'T), sets, costumes, are all great. The characters are mostly legally retarded, but that's not the fault of the director, only Stephenie Meyer. And the people who buy her books.

WHAT IS THE PLOT OF BREAKING DAWN?

A plot is typically something involving (a) a complicating incident, (b) rising action, (c) climax, (d) denoument.

For this movie, (a) the complicating incident is.... um. Hmm. Well, the movie starts with Jacob seeing the wedding announcement, and immediately taking his shirt off... 20 minutes later the wedding is over. So that's not it. Is it the pregnancy? No, that's halfway through the movie. Is it Jacob taking his shirt off? Yes, I suspect so.

(b) rising action. Nothing happens for the first half hour, except the wedding, which is all just wacky hijinks and a broken bedroom set. Bella has two bruises. I bruised my girlfriend more than that while playing Halo. Fucking amateurs.

Then Bella is pregnant, and everyone's all freaking out. Vampires don't want this, werewolves just don't want Bella to die, because she's so pretty, or something. Jacob has much angst over taking his shirt off.

(c) Climax? Uh... the baby is born. Jacob decides not to kill it, because apparently he is extremely sexually attracted to 5-minute-old infants. Also Bella dies. Except not really.

(d) Denoument... the werewolves decide not to kick Jacob's ass, because you do not fuck with a man who is sexually attracted to 5-minute-old infants. And that's it. Bella wakes up as a vampire, and the movie ends. What was resolved? Uh... Bella lost her virginity. And Jacob decides to keep his shirt on.

ELEVEN:

BOOK PUBLISHER: Hey, so, what do you want to name Bella's baby?

STEPHENIE MEYER: I'm going to name that precious little girl..... RENESMEE. As a combination of Renee and Esmee.

BOOK PUBLISHER: That is the stupidest goddamn thing I ever heard. Even your fans will think so. Don't call her that.

STEPHENIE MEYER: I'M STEPHENIE MEYER, MOTHERFUCKER. I SOLD FORTY MILLION COPIES. SUCK MY MOTHAFUCKIN' DICK.

.... and that's my review of the movie. Hugz?

xoxo

PA13

p.s. (twelve: i love my girlfriend and wanted to do something nice for her. brought her flowers, took her and her ten-year-old son to see this movie. he was bored to death, slightly scared during birth scene. girlfriend kissed me a lot and later at home totally asked me to take my shirt off. everyone wins. except Jacob, who is still a virgin. Hugz?)

Harry Potter: The Last Relic of the 20th Century

Initially I was content to keep up with movies and/or TV shows, or really any media, but eight years of a Republican Administration totally ruined the economy, and since it takes 2 years for a movie to get made, things are still pretty iffy on the Hollywood side. Even things I was excited about beforehand... now, it's like, "Eugh. I was excited about Tron Legacy? I hope my unborn children never read these."

So things sort of stalled out after Thor, which I suspect will retain a certain limited rewatchability in the coming years (albeit not the first 20 minutes of it)... Kenneth Branagh is not coming back for the sequel, so perhaps we'll have some modest improvement there come 2013. In the meantime, what's a geek left with?

The Avengers is next summer, as is The Dark Knight Rises. Cowboys and Aliens comes out later this month, and the Joss Whedon co-scripted Cabin in the Woods finally landed a release date this October, two years after it finished filming.

But first, a paragraph about Joss Whedon:

A lot of people will rant against his particular oeuvre of work, and as much as that annoys me, I'm starting to realize they're well within their rights. Shows like "CSI" (or indeed, anything with Jerry Bruckheimer's name on it) are designed to appeal to the largest number of people possible, but I daresay those people will never love that thing as much as they love their favorite book, or favorite, say, car. Joss Whedon is happy to say he appeals to a niche audience, and I'm ready to let him. Because he has said, and I've quoted (paraphrased) this here before, "I'd rather make something 3 million people love, than something 30 million people like." Granted, he probably won't apply that to The Avengers, but he's still pretty nerdy.

You know who else is nerdy? Harry Potter fans.

If Star Wars fans are dorks for dressing up like Chewbacca and Slave Leia (hopefully not at the same time), then Harry Potter fans are dorks for dressing up like Hermione and Severus Snape (actually, there's a mash-up that totally works). And their last movie is coming out in a week.

NOT GEEK

I've seen the first Harry Potter movie, then 3-7. As this is the non-geek section, I don't know that I could even include the books here if I HAD read them (I haven't), but a shitload of fantasy-literature has been rushed to the bookshelves because of this series, and I've read a small sampling of it. The movies I've seen were all entertaining, if some felt a bit rushed. Also then you have people behind you as you walk out of the theater, saying, "YOU KNOW, THE REASON HARRY'S FRIEND BEAUREGARD KENSINGTON WAS WEARING A POSEY IN THAT SCENE WAS BECAUSE HIS PARENTS WERE BOTH MURDERED BY DEATH-EATERS ON A TUESDAY, AND AS A RESULT HE CAN NO LONGER DIGEST LACTOSE. IT'S IN THE BOOKS. THE BOOKS ARE SO MUCH BETTER. YOU SHOULD READ THE BOOKS."

If you like the books so much, read the books again. If any book you have ever loved has ever been turned into a movie, it got screwed up. You know it, I know it, the American people know it.

A "niche" market means something is made for a small group of people who love a thing. In movies this is called a "cult" following. A small amount of people love this thing and will fight for it, but Hollywood can't make any money off it. You know what we call that in the publishing industry?

A "book."

There are so many books, that EVERY book is a niche market. Even something like "The Da Vinci Code" still sold less copies than the last Ke$ha album*, and that thing was on the best-seller list for a year. Because if it's in hard-cover, you plunk down $30 one time, and it's your book. You own it. You can lend it to a friend, and re-read it for free as many times as you like.

And somewhere someone in Hollywood is saying, "What a stupid business model."

Movies, on the other hand, are made to appeal to the highest number of people possible, and therefore make the most amount of money possible. This is why a small art film might make $5 million it's entire theatrical run, and your favorite mainstream movie might cap out between $50 to $150 million... and then Transformers 3 made $200 million its first week. Because any brain power is removed, and it's just explosions for no reason. ANYONE can enjoy that.

"But Warren," you might say, "Transformers 3 IS my favorite mainstream movie."

To which I respond, "Get the hell off my blog."

So, anyway, to tie this up: Every movie made from a book is dumbed down not because the director is stupid (though in the case of Harry Potter One and Two, he was), but by design.

You know where shit is less stupid? Other than in books, I mean:

GEEK

In 2001, when the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's and/or Philosopher's Stone came out, that was the only thing that happened to a successful book: You make a movie of it. You hire a director who has directed something else that made money (in this case, Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire), you hire a screenwriter who has written any movie, ever, put out a press release to make people excited about casting, and there you go. Guaranteed income, just because your movie has "Harry Potter" in the title. Who CARES if it's good? IT'S HARRY POTTER. IN MOVIE FORM. OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.

(this same unexplainable phenomenon is why Smallville was on TV for ten years).

Now, I'm not hating on Harry Potter. Like my Non-Geek counterpart, I enjoyed movies 3-7 very much, enough to keep going back to the theater for each sequel. They're not all created equal, but they're all still a good time at the movies. The first film made enough money, and the books sold enough copies, that 7 movies (or now 8) were all but guaranteed. Because, again, in 2001, a popular book got made into a movie. The end.

But now it's 2011, and something has changed over the last decade. Sure, we all had 500 channels in 2001 as well, but so have we seen the advent of actual long-form literature get turned into something other than a TV movie (yes, that happened once too, but even that capped out at 4 hours or so, unless you were "Roots"). The book "Darkly Dreaming Dexter" was turned into a 13-episode first season of "Dexter." The book "Dead Until Dark" was turned into the first season of "True Blood." And so on. Game of Thrones. Even "Flash Forward." Serialized television has become the next big thing, because even though shows like "CSI" and "Law & Order" remain popular, there is a growing interest in televison shows where you can actually see character development, rather than just wait 60 minutes until someone says, "The character named (blah) killed the victim by (insert ridiculously complicated, scientifically impossible explanation here)." Snoozeville. Pass the remote.

Another book series that (sort of**) got turned into a TV show was the "Dresden Files" series by Jim Butcher, a story about a licensed private investigator in modern-day Chicago, who also happens to be a wizard. In fact, he's the only person listed in the phone book under "wizard," and thus his client base can be pretty eclectic. The first book in the series was the authors first novel (the same can be said for J.K. Rowling), but while Harry Potter was designed to stop at book 7, "The Dresden Files" releases its 13th full novel this summer, amongst short stories and novellas published in other compendiums. The style is similar to Harry Potter in only one way:

These stories cannot be contained in a two hour film (and also magic... okay, two ways. But that's it).

In a movie, you have 3 acts... 5 acts if you can keep your audience interested. Person A received a goal, they spend the middle of the movie chasing said goal, there is a showdown at the end of the movie. Sometimes it's circuitous, like in Bridesmaids, where there was no set goal, only a list of shenanigans until the stated goal was eventually reached (the wedding). But while some books are designed to take place in two hours (say, for example, any heist novel), some books are episodic and work better as such.

The Sookie Stackhouse novels are one example (now "True Blood").

"Harry Potter" is another.

So is the Lord of the Rings, but Peter Jackson has a stranglehold on that, so let's bring this back to Harry Potter:

I'm watching Deathly Hallows Part I, and they get to the bit where Harry, Hermione and Ron have to infiltrate the such-and-such bureau of magic (yes, I KNOW it's called the whatever, HUSH). You know, the joint with the horizontal elevator. In the movie this entire sequence takes maybe 10 minutes, 15 tops, and I was told it's much longer in the book.

Unfortunately, the first movie came out in 2001. Had the book been optioned in 2011, Harry Potter would be a 13-episode series on Showtime or HBO.

And the sequence in the bureau of magic would have been an ENTIRE EPISODE. Take the actors playing the kids, give them the week off, and their human-disguises walk in before the opening credits on their undercover gig. At any second they could be found out, they have time to nearly be caught in so many more situations, and rather than a quick "OMG!" in the middle of the movie, you have the climax of 58 minutes of cable TV ending with Harry standing up and saying, "YOU SHOULD NOT TELL LIES!" ... then they run. They dash for the exit, with Voldemort's cronies fast on their heels. They reach the exit just as the bad guy dives for them..... BOOM. Closing credits. See you next week for another exciting episode.

That's the way it should be, because while 8 Harry Potter movies take up maybe 16-17 hours of entertainment, a 7-season TV series means (1) each book is now one 13-hour movie, and 13x7 = 91, and (2) All that shit you're so pissed off that they left out, but forgave them cuz you understood it had to be movie-length? All that's back in. Then a three-month summer vacation. Then back next fall for Book Two.

Because Making a movie from a book is SO last century.

A fleshed out story with characters you love can now exist on television, and not just in the form of Lucy getting into another wacky adventure every week. They change over time, and "Mad Men" winning a best-drama Emmy for 3 seasons running is a good indicator of that... as were the 3-in-a-row best comedy wins for "30 Rock." Sure, it's wacky and often low-brow (not that there's anything wrong with that), but the characters changed over time, in both shows. You're rewarded for watching each week. Back in the 80's, the only time a character changed on Who's the Boss or Miami Vice was when somebody had a baby, or got shot, or was having a contract dispute behind the scenes. Nobody is going to buy 8 seasons of "Who's the Boss" on DVD. At least I hope not. What a disturbing thought.

Anyway, my entire point here is: This is why I didn't blog out X-Men: First Class. Though technically the source material was not one book, it was many, that entire movie felt like it was one 13-hour first season of a TV show, hacked up and crammed down into a 2-hour movie. And that actually made me mad. Because what was left over was STILL that good.

I'm gonna find me something non-movie related to bitch about.

But have fun at Harry Potter 7.5, and if we're real lucky and eat all our vegetables and say our prayers, maybe we'll get a 7-season TV show remake in 2025, after Rowling's next book bombs, and TV-special effects catch up to what "Avatar" had to offer.

Because, I mean, seriously. Do you REMEMBER the special effects in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone? What a bunch of crap.

xoxo
WGH

p.s.
*Yes, I'm sure if you googled the numbers, Ke$ha didn't outsell the Da Vinci Code, because no one is buying books or CDs anymore. No one buys Ke$ha CD's in France, for example, while TDVC sold 40 million copies worldwide. But even with such a big seller, people who loved that book FREAKING loved it. I worked at a bookstore the entire 2 years it was on the best-seller list. Nobody ever came in and said, "Stop what you're doing, I HAVE to find Season 3 of 'House' on DVD."

**"The Dresden Files" TV show in no way resembles the books. The lead character has the same name, both are wizards, both are set in Chicago, both had their parents die in mysterious circumstances, and both have a female cop friend with the last name 'Murphy.' That's it. Everything else has been changed, and for the worse, which I guess is a given when you're a TV show executive-produced by Nicolas Cage.

Total Thor-Fest

NOT GEEK

It was a fun movie with the right amount of explosions and funny one liners.

That's it. That's all I have to say about it. Sometimes one side has more to consider than the other.

I give it a B, B-, depending on how much CGI BUGS the SHIT out of you.

GEEK

The director is Kenneth Branagh. Marvel made a big deal out of this and they were right to do so, because he's a Name. Not a Name in the sense of "He's a good film director" (he isn't), but simply a Name in the sense that.... you've heard of him, he's famous enough to generate buzz. Comic Nerds might not even cry foul because Branagh the Director has domain over a separate Nerd Kingdom: Shakespeare. So internet buzz was genuinely positive, or at least optimistic.

The problem with this, and I called it at the time too (did it still count if I didn't have a blog?), is that Kenneth Branagh hasn't had a commercial hit, OR a good movie, since before Clinton was President. He is not good at this. What little success he DID have came when he was in a relationship with the ethereal, expansively talented, Oscar-winning Emma Thompson. A woman who left him when he nailed Helena Bonham-Carter (hindsight, much?). ET went on to win an Oscar, KB went on to direct no-budget Shakespeare adaptations for Showtime. I've seen them. They are visually and conceptually below average. "As You Like It" literally lays there like a bloated corpse, daring you to poke it with a stick.

After the overblown, much-hyped, mediocre-received "Hamlet" in 1996, he didn't direct anything for four years, no doubt to lick his wounds and figure out what other pretentious, self-serving project he wanted to work on next. In 2000 and 2006 he did two other Shakespeare adaptations (Love's Labour's Lost, and As You Like It, respectively), the first of which had a higher budget than the second, neither were memorable nor interesting to look at. The acting was adequate, but that's what happens when you get good actors. Under no circumstances should you rent these from Netflix. Even if you're a fan of interesting Shakespeare productions (which I am), neither of these are good. This is a failed director trying to get a toehold back into the industry.

And so someone listened, and gave him "Sleuth" (2007), a movie which is only kind of not very good on its own, and then a complete failure when held up next to the original with Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier. AND YET THEY GAVE HIM THE THOR JOB ANYWAY.

All of these movies were bad, Branagh's last that was a big hit was "Dead Again" in 1990, which was 21 years before Thor. You know, when Chris Hemsorth was seven.

Anyway, in failing to be concise yet again, the upshot is this: Kenneth Branagh is a shit director. He might be able to direct theatre, yes, he seems to have a knack with actors. But that is only one small part of film directing, a job which also includes shot selection, lenses, depth of field and length of shot, all of which Branagh has proven time and time again that he is no damn good at, and he has shown no progress in getting any damn better. He simply doesn't care.

THOR: The first act of this movie is wasted. It opens on some humans in the desert, who then run into Thor. Then there's a brief flashback that shows how Thor got there, and this brief flashback goes on for 45 FUCKING MINUTES. It is the entire first act of the movie, and CGI is layered onto it like the producers never saw a single movie after "The Phantom Menace," they commit every sin except for a main character MADE of CGI (wisely, they make the head of CGI-bad guys an actual actor in makeup. This works spectacularly well and creates the only bit of menace in the entire overblown battle sequence). Watching cartoons bounce off each other for 45 minutes is uninteresting if you've ever played a video game in your life. It is every bit as awful as the first act of Spider-Man 3. Thor, Act 1: F.

Finally we get back to Earth. Character development actually begins here, and despite the films terrible track record up to this point, Branagh actually stands back and lets his actors emote, in a movie where they are not required to. Portman seems genuinely concerned, yet distracted by her work. Hemsworth seems bold and douchey, yet distracted by his lust for glory. And Tom Hiddleston as Loki bothers to give his character layers, when other action movies would just have him walk in and recite plot points. The jokes fly quickly, there's no one character just to be comic relief. The humor is situational, and it works. When it's time to get serious, everyone gets serious. The production design is quite lovely. The costume design is so lazy it looks like the non-Vikings just put on whatever was in their closet and went to work. Act 2: A.

The last third of the movie has a lot of shit blow up, which is fine, but then Thor goes back to Asgard and shit blows up there too, and it's all CGI bullshit and despite the city/planet looking absolutely fantastic, you're basically left with CG characters beating each other up on a CG rainbow bridge. I don't fucking care. The interesting stuff happens between the actors, and that's what any geek will be talking about the next day. Not Geek? You may not mind the CG so much. I am a geek, and I was there for Spider-Man 3. Sam Raimi made many an enemy that day. Act 3: B-.

Hollywood movies know that as long as they finish strong, the audience will be happy and recommend the movie and maybe even see it again. The first act can be as weak as anything, as long as there's gigantic set-pieces in the end. Branagh doesn't have a lot of Hollywood muscle so probably had to do what he was told; Jon Favreau had insisted on models and such for the Iron Man movies, the Marvel execs probably just wanted a big CG movie to feel like they were doing their jobs. Well, they got their way, and it made the movie worse. Congratulations, you're a producer.

On the side:
Five credited screenwriters:

WRITTEN BY: Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz and Don Payne
STORY BY: J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Prostovich

Broken down:
Miller and Stentz worked on "Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles." When that got cancelled, they went to work on "Fringe." Their geek cred is unimpeachable.

Don Payne used to work on "The Simpsons." When he eventually left that, he wrote "My Super Ex-Girlfriend." It is my theory they brought him in to add jokes.

There's nothing about the screenplay I find off or flawed, my only problem is that Branagh rushes through the entire first act as if he has to go to the bathroom, tilting the camera for no reason and point it at talking shots when he should be shooting reaction shots, and vice versa. Shooting a high-budget movie is NOT the same as shooting a low-budget play. The flaws in the movie lie solely with him; the writers are great. Online buzz say this "Thor" is closer to JMS's Thor in the comics, and I guess that seems to work out okay. Ultimately it's probably out of his hands, though: Prostovich wrote the script back in 2002 for a production that never got off the ground; its doubtful much of his script remains, but they probably had to credit him for legal reasons. JMS, presumably, didn't have much more input.

So from a Geek perspective, that's where we're at. But the thing is, I have a feeling... by the time Captain America rolls around, we'll have forgotten. All that we'll really remember is the "Not Geek" perspective, and that's all anyone can ask. If we're getting the Huge Stack o' Marvel Movies, like we were promised, they can't all be perfect. They just have to be good enough to (a) interest the casuals, and (b) not piss off the hardcore fans. And since there are no hardcore fans of Thor, this was the safest one to trust with a green director.

Onward to Cap, and then The Avengers.

Victory to Marvel, death to Michael Bay.

Art vs. Commerce vs. Explosions

I wanted to do another 'Game of Thrones' thing, but two in a row seems overly... gushy, plus there's other stuff in the world going on. Also it's Friday and even though it's not noon yet, I want some damn chicken and waffles.

NOT GEEK

Reception was decidedly mixed for "Kick Ass" last year, and a review in a local newsweekly cited this and "Hanna" with a very good point: Young girls ARE the new action heroes because adult male action stars are practically expected to walk into the first scene, kill fifty guys with a paper clip, then drive a car off the top of a building while it explodes in the background. If the protagonist is a teenage or pre-teen girl, all of those actions can still manage to be surprising, emotionally effective, or (still) shocking, while for an adult male it's just... rote.

Despite knowing better than to see "Tron Legacy" JUST because of the soundtrack, I did notice the words 'Chemical Brothers' featured prominently on every poster for "Hanna" and had to wonder if the studio thought the group was SO mainstream that it would really sell that many more tickets (probably they did, but no it didn't work). The trailer was confusing as shit. I watched the trailer again after I watched the movie and STILL didn't understand where the trailer was coming from... it made Hanna look like the bad guy. The people cutting the trailer did not know what the fuck they were doing, and the studio exec who said Yes to it also did not know how to do his or her job. These things will kill your movie faster than a racist lead actor.

The action? Ranged from the mediocre to the exceptional. The acting? All top form. The soundtrack? I dug the shit out of it but I know that that genre isn't for everyone. Still, it was bouncy as fuck, and used subtly... there was literally no score for the first 20 minutes of the movie or so, and then it's slowly brought in via feedback and sonic noise.... but then it begins, just as the plot does. BLAM. Well, there's no going back now......

Not to overuse the word, but it's an exceptional and fun time at the movies. It's a highbrow action movie, which shouldn't scare you away: It respects the intelligence of the audience, instead of editing out character in favor of blowing shit up. Also Olivia Wilde tweeted that she loved the movie, which pretty much closed the deal for me.

Because I am a whore.

GEEK

WHAT YOU DIDN'T SEE ON THE POSTER BUT I WOULD'VE LOVED TO SEE:

"From the director of 'Pride & Prejudice' and 'Atonement'."

I mean, really, can you get a better recommendation for an action movie than that? My geek side and non-geek side agree: the trailer was fucking terrible, and that's how theatrical runs are murdered, though the good ones will resurface on DVD. But imagine if the trailer hadn't been cut by someone who was a drooling idiot, and had featured "From the Director of...."

I am a firm believer in the fact the Director makes or breaks the movie. Not the producer-- they are the money, and impose certain economic limitations, but do not make creative decisions (at least never any good ones) ... and not the actors, they are simply talking meat sticks. And yet most Americans can name 328548594058640 actors and about three directors: Spielberg, Scorsese, George Lucas. Maybe Christopher Nolan and James Cameron too if you're really into it, and while I admit most of us are busy and don't have time to be glasses-pushing virginal fatties like me (5'10", 130 lbs, for the record), there ARE names worth remembering, instead of dumbing it down to "From the director of..." in a trailer, or even more retarded, "From the producer of...." or "From the studio that brought you...."

Or my new personal favorite, "This movie uses the cameras that were used in...."

I am the biggest film geek walking the planet, and even *I* don't give a fuck what cameras you used to shoot the movie. Also studios are way too full of themselves, "From the studio that brought you...." is like buying a Ford Escort under the promise of, "From the car company that brought you the Mustang....."

But arrogant rich assholes is an entire different media feed. Back to what's at hand:

"Hanna" won the title for Best Unproduced Screenplay back in 2006, not a list I regularly follow but it's important that these things get made into good movies. Another screenplay garnering such kudos was "Hancock," which was then turned from the original good script into Generic Shitty Will Smith Vehicle #937. And in case I haven't mentioned it here before, Will Smith is an egotistical douchebag. Fuck Will Smith. He hasn't made a good movie since 1997 and people still line up to suck his dick. We as a people need to get over our debilitating Will Smith addiction.

Once again, back to what's at hand:

The dialogue is efficient while not exactly quotable, tells a constantly interesting and slowly revealing story. It doesn't talk down to the audience, you're rewarded for paying attention, the emphasis is on the characters and who they are, not just the next set piece. I've always felt that every generic 90-minute action movie is just a 2-hour drama that got whittled down for simplicity. Imagine if "Heat" had all the talking scenes taken out... you'd be left with something like "Jumper." Lots of exciting things happening and guns going off, but nothing to latch on to emotionally. No, I did not just compare DeNiro to Hayden Christensen.

Joe Wright is the director, he of, again, Atonement and the oh-my-god-I'm-male-why-is-this-movie-awesome Pride and Prejudice. Saw them, loved them, yet still didn't feel obligated to see "The Soloist," and it's not relevant to "Hanna" at all, anyway. When it's time for action, you know it, and it's clearly motivated. When there's no shiny object to distract you for an entire half hour, the characters and plot remain interesting and riveting enough to keep you watching.

The cinematography is gorgeous, and Joe Wright knows how to compose a shot, while occasionally faltering on an action stereotype or two, at other times he'll completely confound expectations and throw you for a loop. The chase scene amongst the shipping containers dropped my jaw as much as the first time I saw the car chase in "Bullitt."

Essentially if you're a big fan of CSI, you will fucking hate this, because whenever I catch a minute of that while flipping channels, I effectively feel lobotomized by the oversimplification and talking down to the audience. Everything is spelled out for you like you're a child, because otherwise you might change the channel to something simpler and more condescending, like Fox News. It warms my heart and puts poetry into my soul to know that Intelligent, Well-Crafted Character Pieces are slowly, from around the fringes of society, making a comeback.

So in that sense, it's from the same age as "Game of Thrones" after all. You are rewarded for paying attention, learning the characters, feeling what they feel.... and not fucking around in the kitchen until you hear an explosion and dash back to the TV to see what's happening. It will actually keep you rapt from start to finish.

And if it doesn't, well.... David Caruso still has a job. But something like "Hanna" can actively move the genre forward, while CSI, Law & Order, or The Expendables just tow the line of the tired status quo.

26 Things I Learned from 'Game of Thrones' Episode 1

--If you like a woman, fuck her from behind. Whores are for missionary and cowgirl.

--It doesn't matter what kinky shit you're into. The royal family has you beat.

--It doesn't matter what you saw. If you desert your post, your head is forfeit.

--If your mom tells you not to climb something, DON'T CLIMB IT.

--It is acceptable to call the King fat, so long as he calls you fat first.

--All dwarves are bastards in their fathers eyes.

--Yes, you can have a dog. Provided you walk it, clean up after it, train it, and bury it if it dies.

--If the King asks you to go somewhere, you fucking go. If the Prince asks you how old you are, run for your fucking life.

--There is no Dothrakian phrase for "Thank You."

--If less than three people die at a Drogo wedding, it is considered a boring affair.

--Having 40,000 sexual partners is acceptable, provided it wins your brother his throne back.

--If the dead people are not where you left them, do not go looking for them.

--The penalty for interrupting public sex is half your entrails.

--He who passes the sentence must also carry it out.

--Once the man next to you has begun fucking a whore from behind, it is common courtesy to allow him to finish before taking your turn. If you interrupt him, no one may re-enter the whore until one of you is dead.

--Let me give you some advice, bastard: Never forget who you are. Wear it like armor. And it can never be used to hurt you.

--If you live in a castle, and you hear two people having sex..... ignore it.

--If you are not sure about the quality of your breasts, your brother will give you his honest opinion.

--If you're 10 and learning to be a man, don't do it anywhere near your tomboy older sister. Also, relax your arm and don't over-think it.

--In the absence of black people, the man in the darkest cloak dies first.

--If you are female and under 18, you are either good at sports, or a vacuous shallow whore. There is no in between.

--Everyone manning the Wall is a red-shirt Ensign. Jon Snow is the only exception.

--If you are walking in the forest and the man you're facing suddenly looks at you in a frightened manner, do not look at him questioningly. Drop to the ground immediately and question it later.

--The carriage is for the prince and princess. Kings ride a fucking horse.

--Fossilized dragon eggs are still pretty.

And finally,

--If you are a European actor, you will grow up to do quality work like this. If you are an American actor, you will be cast as an extra in "Transformers 3."

What If You Spent $50 Million on a CGI Man Taking a Shit?

SUCKERPUNCH
(2011, "directed" by Zack Snyder)

GEEK / NOT GEEK

It's kind of difficult to comment on the movie, without just writing, "Terrible," and clicking the submit button. To write a good comment, one must write WHY it is terrible... but where to begin? If someone came into your home, and took a shit in the middle of your living room, would you need to explain in a calm manner, three reasons why the person was wrong for doing such a deed? No. You'd toss them by their ear out onto the street, left with the unenviable task of having to clean up. Perhaps you'd even call the police.

If, on the other hand, you spent $50 million (or whatever the budget was; it was too high, in any event) to have someone take a CGI dump in your living room... is that any better? There are three actors in this movie, and only three: Scott Glenn, Jena Malone, and Carla Gugino. Four, if you count Jon Hamm, but he's not in the movie long enough to matter. There are these three, and everything else is there to talk until it's time for another special effect. Jena Malone isn't even required to do any of these things (i.e. act), but because she has actual experience as an actress, bothered to create a character and reflect an emotional state during the 'story.' Everyone else just showed up, put on the costumes, and talked until the director said 'cut.' Vanessa Hudgens should have been a clue.

Even if the story is awful, unmemorable, or predictable (Suckerpunch is all three), other Hollywood movies may rely on memorable action sequences or visuals. In a movie roughly 100 minutes long, these action sequences take up roughly five minutes of screen time. Then Snyder detonates an explosive in New York. Again.

It's not so much that Zack Snyder hates audiences, it's just that he's incredibly naive, like a 12-year-old suddenly given the keys to his dads liquor cabinet. He wants you to like a character, he makes them female and puts them in a low-cut top. He wants you to hate a character, he makes that character a rapist or molester of children. He does this again and again; these appear in every movie he's ever made, save for his first (and best) film, Dawn of the Dead, which was written by someone else entirely. Someone who understands subtlety and character development. Realize, too, that I'm saying this about a movie where a smarmy rich dude accidentally chainsaws his most recent sexual partner.

Whatever fancy visuals made it to the trailer for Suckerpunch, the movie is this: Zack Snyder wrote a script with his camera-man, and it is neither funny nor exciting. It's a 100-minute demo reel, and considering this is his fifth movie, he really should have actually created something with weight, by this point.

I went in with low expectations (especially after his shitty cover version of Watchmen and a movie about CGI owls that was so bad, even the trailer couldn't give it life), expecting that even if the movie rose slightly above these expectations, I'd have something to show for it. I paid half-price for a matinee, and not only do I feel ripped off, I feel physically violated.

I'm not going to call the police, but I am going to be mad for a week, because even though I've cleaned my floor, the smell lingers on. 3/10.

I Will Not Apologize for Disliking Halo

NOT GEEK

I suck at video games. I used to be good-- when the NES was still a thing-- but then I got distracted for a few years by college and girls and learning to drive. Also beer. Suddenly I pick up a controller again and I'm supposed to know complex military tactics. Fuck you. THAT'S why I have Uno and Pac-Man on my XBox.

GEEK

The XBox has been in my apartment about two years, and the games I have enjoyed most, INITIALLY (I stress that point), are....

1) Wet
2) Borderlands
3) Left 4 Dead (both)

I am aware-- Anyone who knows anything about games, knows that "Wet" sucks. A hardcore gamer here in town told me it reminded him of John Woo's "Stranglehold," which I then checked out just to see if the comparison was apt. Strangehold came out when I was still working at Borders (so 2004-5 roughly), and by 2010 standards, it was pretty crap. Your character hit more targets only if you were jumping through the air in slow-motion. That got repetitive and boring after five minutes. I quit the game after ten and sent it back. "Wet" was exactly like this, except you could also run up walls and do flips. That only took about 10-15 hours to tire of, or maybe I kept expecting boobs.

Borderlands was spectacular, with a levelling system, and a crazy variety of guns that actually forced you to think about what you were going to keep vs. drop. I played it for like a month straight, then I went back to start again with a second character, since you're given four to choose from. The second time through, it felt boring and frustrating, because I'd already beaten all those levels, and it took so long to level up. So.... I went back to my original character. Soon after, I don't know if the game got too hard, or if it reached the upper limits of my skill, but I had to quit. Still, really, really fun up until that point.

I don't play Halo, because going online, it's even harder to find a good game than it would be on a PC. I've beaten 1 & 2, but Halo seems to be more about the culture than the individual gameplay. It's all about going online and playing versus other people in an arena mode, and I spent college doing that with Counterstrike (which had a superior vs-mode, because it contained actual objectives, not just 'kill or be killed'). Halo online is just point and blast. It reminds me of Quake. Which was also repetitive and dull.

Left 4 Dead is more co-op, which I appreciate. The game's AI decides whether or not you're getting a grenade here or more ammo there, so after over a year I haven't tired of it.

The gaming industry is more interested in safely making lots of money, than being innovative or creating something interesting, but ultimately they'll have to listen to the geeks-- not the accountants-- if they want to remain successful. For every big, stupid, shallow money-maker like the "Bayformers" movies, it's always something with actual thought put into it, that drives the genre forward and spawns new creative ideas for both the artists, and the consumers, to enjoy.

I'm not going to claim "Iron Man" or "Batman Begins" were great intellectual achievements, but in the case of the latter, literally no one previous had ever had the balls to take the comic book genre so dead seriously, and make a movie as dark as they could. It worked. Because it's all about taking risks.

"Call of Duty Five: Modern Warfare Seven: This Time With Grenades 3" is not taking a fucking risk.

There's a reason Pac-Man single-handedly spawned this industry in the first place. And to do so, it didn't need an online option to let your friends play as ghosts.