Not for the easily offended, 1977′s The Kentucky Fried Movie was the first cinematic outing from the writers who brought us Airplane!, David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker. Composed of a series of vignettes that take on, well, almost everything, the movie feels like Saturday Night Live writ large… boisterous and free of television network censorship. With copious nudity and bad language, The Kentucky Fried Movie shocks as much as it entertains (if you have a delicate sensibilty).

I, of course, have no such sensitivity, and think it’s quite funny… though, as a film, it’s wildly uneven and the humor is definitely low-brow. There’s a sense of “We can’t believe we’re getting away with this” to the whole proceeding, and they throw gags at the audience with no restraint. The highlight of the film is an extended segment that is parodies 1970s Kung Fu action movies called “A Fistful of Yen.” It’s great, and a trial run for the type of extended genre parody that the ZAZ team did so well for over a decade (though the jokes mocking Asian accents were tired even way back in ’77).

The Kentucky Fried Movie was also the second film directed by John Landis (the poster for his first film, Schlock, appears in a theatre window in an early scene). We can see in this film an early preview of the type of minimalistic directing that became his signature (he locked his camera down more often than not). It is also the first film that features his runnng joke, the film-within-a-film “See you next Wednesday” (here presented in ‘feel-a-round’). Landis also cameos as a morning-TV show producer who tries, unsuccessfully, to restrain a gorilla played by Rick Baker. Other notable cameos include Bill Bixby, Henry Gibson, George Lazenby, Donald Sutherland, and the Zucker brothers themselves.

Is it coincidence that I followed up revisting Psycho IV (which features an extended Landis cameo) with this film? Actually, yes, it is… but the coincidence makes me think about his filmography, and what might have been… He followed up this film with Animal House, The Blues Brothers, An American Werewolf in London. and Trading Places… all fine films. Then, the helicopter accident happened… the accident that killed Vic Morrow and two children on the set of Landis’ Twilight Zone: The Movie. After that (and for a long while) Landis spent more time in court than he did making films, and the movies he did make during and after that time were… well, to be kind, let’s just say they didn’t match the quality of his previous work.

Heavy thoughts when reviewing such slight fare such as The Kentucky Fried Movie, but the mind goes where it goes… and I can’t help but hope that we still have one good film yet to come from the mind of John Landis. At any rate, The Kentucky Fried Movie is an amusing work that is a fine waste of time. If you haven’t seen it, seek it out.

It seems that nowadays everyone on the Internet has been posting a list of their favorite films. I blame Roger Ebert, who recently updated his top 10 list in a much-viewed column. Since I’m a lover of cinema (and also hate to be left out), I’ve compiled my own list. It is, like all such lists, a personal one, as it should be – movies that provoke a strong reaction, whether it’s love or hate, often doesn’t have a broad appeal. My list contains some “obvious” choices and some not so obvious ones… As I said, it’s my list and I like different things than you.

20. Scrooge: A movie I will be revisiting in my Neglected Cinema series, Scrooge is a musical adaptation of A Christmas Carol and I absolutely adore it. It features the amazing Albert Finney in the title role, and he pulls off one of the best performances of the role ever. Even while singing!

19. Blue Velvet: Oh, where to start. It was this movie that introduced me to the universe of David Lynch, and it was the perfect way to start. It is one of the great films of the last century, and one that haunts me still.

18. 2001: A Space Odyssey: A perennial favorite, 2001 was the first movie that I studied, and I still have a ragged copy of the Making of 2001 paperback I must have read a dozen times. As Blue Velvet sparked my interest in the films of David Lynch, 2001 made me a rabid Kubrick fan, and for that I am extremely grateful.

17. Vertigo: I love this film, and I think it’s the best movie Hitchcock ever made… Though as you will see I prefer a couple of his other films more. Jimmy Stewart’s performance is a marvel, an acting studio into itself.

16. Casablanca: My favorite “studio” film, because it just works so perfectly. The script, the acting,the cinematography, the directing… It’s just a fantastic reflection of a system long gone.

15. Star Wars: No, not Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope, it was Star Wars when I saw it in 1977 and it will forever be Star Wars – the one, the original, the imperfect blockbuster that changed everything. It took SF out of the B-movie ghetto and made it respectable for top talent to play in this “space”.

14. Psycho: I just love this movie, the first true slasher film, and the way that Hitch pulls together all the moving parts with such aplomb… It looks effortless.

13. The Ruling Class: Peter O’Toole plays the heir to an English estate, a man who will soon inherit immense royalty and prestige. He’s also mad as a hatter, and thinks he’s Jesus Christ. Another movie I will be revisiting soon, The Ruling Class is a dark comedy so black it borders on the ultraviolet. It’s also a musical!

12. Manhattan: Woody Allen’s masterpiece. The best written, best directed, best acted, and best shot film he ever did.

11. Goldfinger: It’s THE Bond film, the template that was replicated and imitated so many times over the past four decades. It’s the movie to pull from the time capsule in a thousand years to reply to historian’s when they ask, “Why was the world so crazy about James Bond?”

10. North by Northwest: Hitch has three movies on my list, and my favorite of the three has to be North by Northwest. It just crackles with energy, and modern blockbuster directors should be forced to sit and watch this film before they start work on any movie. It IS the modern blockbuster, only it’ what the blockbusters SHOULD be – filled with great characters, dialogue and acting. And speaking of blockbusters…

9. Die Hard: The best Christmas action movie ever made, Die Hard is another movie that should be viewed by every director in Hollywood at least once a year. “You want to do an action movie, pal? This is how ya do it!”

8. Singin’ in the Rain: When I think of the word “joy” I think of this movie. Depressed? Down on your luck? This movie will lift your spirits by the time the credits roll.

7. Alien: The most simple premise ever – a haunted house in space – became a classic film, thanks to the fantastic performances, the brilliant directing of Ridley Scott, and the incredible design work of Syd Mead and H.R. Giger.

6. Raiders of the Lost Ark: I have nothing to say except I just love the film, flaws and all.

5. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: Star Trek is a special love of mine. Not all of it, mind you… I love the original series, and some of The Next Generation… And that’s about it. The pinnacle, the best Trek ever… Well, that was KHAAANN!

4. Chinatown: “Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown.” The best script ever written, the best performance Jack Nicholson ever gave, and one of the best movies ever.

3. Citizen Kane: No, it’s not #1, like in so many other top 10 film lists, but it’s close. A masterpiece, a film school in a box, and the best thing (unfortunately) Orson Welles ever did.

2. Jaws: If I had to choose only two movies to watch for the rest of my life, Jaws is definitely on the list. Immensely rewatchable and incredibly entertaining, Jaws just works flawlessly.

1. The Godfather: Some say that Apocalypse Now is Coppola’s masterpiece, and I disagree – Apocalypse has always left me… Well, cold. The Godfather, however, is the film that put him on the map and the film that I consider my personal favorite. I have run out of superlatives, but I don’t need any anyway. The Godfather’s greatness is self-evident and undeniable.

So, there you go, my favorite films. I have plenty of runner-ups, including Network, The Dark Knight, The Incredibles and The Shawshank Redemption… And I reserve the right to revise my list from time to time.

Now, some useless trivia:

My favorite studio: Paramount, with five in my list (4 of my top 6)
My favorite director: Alfred Hitchcock, with three films in my list
Favorite film decade: The 70s, with eight films in my list released in that decade.
Favorite genre: Drama
Number of best picture winners in my list: 2
Number of films my list shares with Roger Ebert’s (current) Top 10 list: 3

I remember when I first read they were making a sequel to Psycho, I shook my head at how wrong-headed the idea was. Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho was an amazing, ground-breaking film that started the entire slasher genre. The fact that the next slasher film wasn’t released until ten years later (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) just reflected how ahead of its time Psycho was. How could they make a sequel?

When Psycho II came out, it got average reviews but did enough business to spur yet another film, Psycho III. I caught both films on home video, years later, and was unimpressed. Both Psycho II and III had their moments, but the gas had clearly run out by the time the credits rolled on the third film.

So, why did they go ahead and do a Psycho IV? Because they had a pretty good script, that’s why. Written by Joseph Stefano, the screenwriter of the original film, Psycho IV presented the back-story of how Norman became Norman, with a well-cast Henry Thomas playing the young Norman Bates. It pretty much ignores the two earlier sequels, and I think it works as a far better sequel to the original than both those films combined.

Produced for Showtime, the film has a TV-movie budget that feels limiting, but the performances are what makes the film noteworthy. Anthony Perkins plays Norman today, as he recounts his past to a radio show host doing an episode focused on patricide. Warren Frost, noted character actor best known for his role on Twin Peaks (and father of writer/producer Mark Frost) plays the psychiatrist character from the original film who is a guest on that program… after he treated Norman he became somewhat of an expert on mother-killers. Both Frost and CCH Pounder, who played the radio host, did solid work here. And Perkins, who by this point in his career had no other work than playing variations of Norman Bates, gives his all in one of his last performances.

The real standout work here, though, comes from Thomas and Olivia Hussey, who played Mother Bates. Thomas plays Norman like a tensed muscle, and when he loses control he is more than a match for the elder Perkins. And Hussey is beautiful and disturbing at the same time… abusing and loving Norman almost simultaneously.

It’s far from perfect, of course… A subplot with Bates planning to kill again doesn’t work very well, though one can see why it is necessary to rachet up the drama. Seeing Henry Thomas in the “Mother” outfit so often is… well, it just doesn’t work for me. And the violence in the film is unsubtle and gory, where some finess would have more appropriately reflected the “classic” Psycho aesthetic.

Three more things to watch for: First is the extended cameo by writer/director John Landis as the producer of the radio show. Second is the absolutely wonderful set decoration that makes the Bates house look brand new in the flashback sequences – it never looked better. And third, Norman’s alias as he calls into the radio show – “Ed” – is a great in-joke for fans who know the inspiration for the original Robert Bloch novel.

As I rewatch this (ironically, on the anniversary of Alfred Hitchcock’s death), and note that Hollywood is not only making a movie about the filming of the original Psycho as well as a new anthology TV series called “Bates Motel” (featuring a young Norman Bates), I am once again reminded that the entertainment industry has seen more original days. That they are again revisiting Psycho reflects just how iconic this story and the character of Norman Bates is… but after watching Psycho IV, I wonder what more, if anything, can be brought to the table.

Psycho IV: The Beginning ends with hope… hope that Norman can find some peace in his old age. I think that is the right way to leave things. Let Norman Bates rest in peace.

As we have seen, from this unique look at his life story… he’s been through enough already.

I hate narration in movies.

It’s usually completely unnecessary, and in those rare occassions when it works… well, that these occassions are rare is proof enough. The Two Jakes, the 1990 sequel to the film noir classic Chinatown, starts out with narration. Jack Nicholson as Private Investigator JJ Gittes tells the audience what he does as he photographs a couple in the act of lovemaking over the opening credits. The dialogue has that same crisp writing style that screenwriter Robert Towne brought to full bear in the original. But here… It’s telling the audience things the filmmakers think they can’t figure out by themselves… which is the exact opposite of how the original worked, with that brilliant clockwork plot that unwound elegantly.

I rewatched Chinatown last week, excited over a new bluray remaster that made the movie look brand new. It’s frequently listed by film critics as one of the top 100 movies of all time, and justifyably so. It’s a fantastic film, and the script by Towne and the directing by Roman Polanski is pitch-perfect. Revisiting the original film made me wonder about its 1990 sequel, the film that left me cold the one-time I saw in in theatres in 1990. The film left me cold back then, but that was a long time ago… could it have been better than I remembered it? A revisit was in order.

Now, after having watched it again, 22 years later (!) I can definitively say that it is better than I remembered, but it still leaves me cold. It’s a film without drive or a reason to exist.

Unlike the original, this film is directed by Jack Nicholson, and, while Jack does his best with the material he is given… he’s no Roman Polanski. His shots have no energy, and even scenes that are supppossed to be dynamic and exciting are aloof. He directs the movie like he acts – super-cool and detached from it all. To his credit, though, his performance in the film is nuanced and subtle… a big difference from the majority of his work in the 90s.

The plot involves real estate, oil, murder, and a ghost from the past… a ghost in the form of Katheryn Mulwray, the daughter of Faye Dunaway’s character from Chinatown. It is as convoluted as much as Chinatown was linear and crisp… And that is the main problem that The Two Jakes can’t overcome. It’s not Chinatown. And everytime it invites comparisons to the original in its plot and tone it rings hollow.

A key reason for my response to this film for is something very personal. When Chinatown ended, it ENDED. There is nothing after that ending that makes me want to see what happens to any of these characters later, because it was absolutely satisfying. Tthe story has been told, and nothing else needed to be said. It’s the same reason why Gone With The Wind didn’t need revisionist sequels, or Citizen Kane 2 was never made… Great drama is like that, it’s self-actualized and complete. To follow up Chinatown… Well, The Two Jakes is a story that doesn’t really need telling, much like The Godfather III, a movie Paramount released that same year.

Like Gittes’ interrupting narration… The Two Jakes is unnecessary.

When I was watching Chinatown last week, I had the horrible thought that someone would come up with a prequel based on the hints that Towne drops in the film, a movie about what happened to Gittes when he was a cop in Chinatown doing “as little as possible”. In today’s remake and sequel crazy Hollywood, such an act would tempt me to burn the whole place down. The Two Jakes is the best arguement against such an idea, and one of the movie’s core concepts is, ironically, both the perfect evidence and an accurate indctment of itself as well.

The past is best left alone.

Some images from the film:

What do you get when you combine Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Russian literature, and the Marx Brothers? You get the movie Love and Death, a delightful surreal meditation on death. And wheat.

I’ve always been a fan of this particular Woody Allen film, mostly because it is Woody at his most absurd. I reference the Marx Brothers quite deliberately, as the movie as written could have easily starred those great comics with very little rework. Woody, in scene after scene, is clearly playing the Groucho part, commenting on the action as it happens…. and Groucho’s attitude combined with Woody’s nebish sensibilities makes the movie absolutely hysterical.

Equally funny, and pulling her weight in equal measure to Woody, is Diane Keaton. She is just fantastic here, playing Sonja, someone who isn’t far removed from Woody’s when it comes to attitude and characterisation (and if there’s any criticism to be made of this movie it is that you can exchange Woody and Diane’s dialogue in most scenes and it wouldn’t make a difference – they’re basically the same character). Her existential ramblings and philiosophical dissertaions are delivered with aplomb, and she makes the most of the material she is given.

Two other performances are noteworthy: James Tolkan as Napoleon is quite good, as he races to create the Napoleon pastry to counter the rumored Beef Wellington (Tolkan is best known as Strickland form the Back to the Future films). Second, Harold Gould plays a jealous lover who challenges Woody to a duel, and is terrific in every scene.

As per the plot… well, it’s just an excuse to tell jokes, really… which is not a bad thing at all. The movie is clearly structured to amuse first, and make sense second, and that’s fine by me. It’s also a movie that rewards anyone who has a deep knowledge of Russian literature and Bergman films… it’s a comedic response to Bergman that will have a more serious “sequel” in Woody’s later film Stardust Memories.

At any rate, if you haven’t seen Love and Death, do so… and if you don’t get all the references, crack open a book more often.

I have two John Carpenter movies on my Neglected Cinema’s list. Why two Carpenter movies? Primarily because I am a fan of his work, but also because if there is any list of the great modern-era directors that is underrated and underappreciated, John Carpenter should be on the top of it. His work is not only consistently good, but he is one of the few modern directors who really “get” horror. Not the “torture porn” that horror has been associated with in recent years, but genuine, “holy shit!” horror – films that get under the viewer’s skin. Films that, when they work, are deeply unsettling.

Carpenter has made some misteps and misfires with some of his movies… but which director hasn’t? He still has a pretty good batting average, and if you had to choose between a John Carpenter film and, say, one from Wes Craven… Well, give me John Carpenter every time. And when you have Carpenter writing, directng AND scoring a film? Well, I’m all in. And one such Carpenter film is Prince of Darkness.

I remember watching Prince of Darkness on opening day in theatres, 25 years ago (!)… and getting frightened out of my wits. It was the first Carpenter film I ever saw in theatres, and it’s the perfect medium for a Carpenter film. In the dark, alone… with that pounding music and dry directing style…. a style that today’s “found footage” horror filmmakers have a lot to thank for. The movie, especially the ending, rattled me. And it lingered.

But before we get to the ending, let’s cover the beginning. We get a prolonged credit sequence, intercut with scenes that set up plot of the movie. A priest passes away, and we soon find out that he is a keeper of secrets… including one very big one. Basically, Satan’s FATHER – “the anti-God” – is imprisoned in an ancient chamber in his church… and it’s time for him to come out.

The core supporting cast is a real highlight, with the great Donald Pleasence playing the priest who brings a group of science students together to monitor, and then try and stop, the Anti-God from breaking through to take over the Earth. The rest include a Big Trouble in Little China reunion of Dennis Dun and Victor Wong, who shine in the moments they are given. Alice Cooper plays one of the many homeless people who are possessed by you-know-who in his attempt to get out (and, looking at the film with today’s sensibiltes, having homeless people as “zombies” comes off as pretty darn insensitive, by the way). Some of the other actors, though… well, they provide servicable performances. Most are not on screen long enough to either shine or sufficiently annoy.

Jameson Parker is the hero/lead, and if there is any obvious weak link in this film, it’s him. He’s just… not Kurt Russell. I usually hate to compare actors, but when I look at Parker’s understated performance in the film… He’s just not got any screen presence at all. He’s a TV actor, on the big screen. And the movie suffers because of this.

Once all the characters are gathered together to study whatever is imprisoned in the basement of the church, it becomes your typical Hollywood “ten little Indians” plot… they start dropping like flies. Only, instead of the typical slasher movie death, most of them are taken over and become (like the homeless people outside) pawns of the Anti-God. Along the way there are plenty of creepy moments, and Carpenter uses bugs, maggots, cockroaches, and worms with great relish. If you have a low tolerance for such things, then you’ll probably not have a fun time at the movies here.

A great subplot of the movie involves everyone in the church having the same dream… which we are lead to belive is a transmission from the future, beamed into their subconscious, warning everyone of what is to come. Which dovetails nicely into the film’s ending… I won’t spoil it, but basically it’s a very bleak one, with one character basically setup to bring on the End Times… because he wants to save the woman he loves. It’s a dark joke, and typical Carpenter. We are our own worse enemy in Carpenter films, and any good that we have will inevitably be corrupted and destroyed. He is a nihilist, and an auteur with such an attitude hardly makes films destined for box office success… which makes me sad. Because Carpenter had… and has… a unique voice.

And we need more movies from people with unique voices.

Carpenter considers this movie a “spiritual sequel” to his previous film The Thing, and is the second of his “Apocalypse trilogy”… with the third film being In the Mouth of Madness, the aforementioned second Carpenter film on my Neglected Cinema list.

What can I say? I’m a sucker for apocalypses…

Here’s some spooky images from the film for ya:

I'm looking at this question semi-scientifically. 

When you look at the 10 "best" of anything, you have to look at the characteristics of that "thing" and then find examples where every identified characteristic is exemplary. For movies, I think the key characteristics to look at are:

• Story/Plot
• Acting
• Directing
• Music
• Cinematography

The following films are absolutely top notch in all of the above:

• Jaws
• Citizen Kane
• The Shawshank Redemption
• Chinatown
• Casablanca
• The Godfather
• Die Hard
• North by Northwest
• Alien
• Lawrence of Arabia

Are they the best movies of all time? I'd say yes, and the reason I didn't swap out other films (such as Star Wars or The Dark Knight) was they had slight deficiencies compared to films I included (The Dark Knight had some plot problems, for example, and Star Wars has some acting that is not quite top shelf)

See question on Quora

“Pleasure – the inevitable byproduct of our civilization… The tragedy of our time, my young friends, is you may get exactly what you want.”

When I was pulling together a list of movies to view or revisit as part of this series, I knew that Head had to be on the list. After I found out that a member of The Monkees, the kind and talented Davy Jones, passed away today, I naturally moved it to the top of the list. And boy, am I glad I did.

Head was made in 1968 by Monkees co-creator Bob Rafelson, when The Monkees’ popularity with audiences was in decline. They could have gone two ways with the first (and only) Monkees movie – play it safe to try and reignite their popularity, or go balls-to-the-wall counter-culture crazy. Luckily for us, they chose the latter, and the results is the most surreal film featuring a faux-pop band ever made.

I would describe the plot but the primary point of the movie is there isn’t one. Head is not a typical film, with a beginning middle and end: it is a series of vignettes that are only loosely connected (and in some instances there is no cohesive tissue at all). It is also, obviously, a musical, with many of the vignettes representing some of the first music videos ever made (much like the limited musical numbers in the series were). The film at times plays as a parody of an episode of thier show as well as a parody of… well, The Monkees. Check these lyrics out:

You say we’re manufactured,
To that we all agree,
So make your choice and we’ll rejoice
In never being free.
Hey, hey, we are the Monkees,
We’ve said it all before,
The money’s in, we’re made of tin,
We’re here to give you more…

The idea that the band could go along with this, to openly mock themselves as a “product”… well, it took some massive cajones. And I’m pretty sure it didn’t make the executives of their music label very happy. I can’t imagine any mucial artist today doing something this bold (Prince did something similar years back, primarily to get out of his contract). The band members portray DANDRUFF in one scene, for pete’s sake…

The movie was written by Rafelson and Jack Nicholson – yes, THAT Jack Nicholson – who cameos in one scene with Dennis Hopper (both were making Easy Rider at the time). Other cameos include Teri Garr, Victor Mature, Annette Funicello and Frank Zappa (and look close for a young Toni Basil). It was the first collaboration between Rafelson and Nicholson, who went on to make Five Easy Pieces and four other films together. I put Head on equal footing with Five Easy Pieces – and yes, I can imagine many film crititics scoffing at the very thought as I type this.

It’s all a glorious mess, mixing different genres and cliches, and predates the similiar surreal comedy of Monty Python and Saturday Night Live. It was ahead of its time and is quite entertaining… and it also bombed at the box office. Why? Partially because The Monkees were on the decline already, and also because of a very odd ad campaign made it hard for anyone to understand what the movie was about in the first place – you know, like those ads for John Carter that have come out recently. I think the primary cause for its failure was because of audience expectations… the movie’s tone and humor was a far cry from the very safe prime-time series viewers had come to expect. It has grown in popularity since its release to “cult movie” status, though it is still barely noted by film historians and deserves both more attention and some critical acclaim.

Additionally, the movie also produced a fantastic soundtrack, one of the Monkee’s best albums. Highlight tracks: “Circle Sky”, “Porpoise Song”, “Daddy’s Song” (written by Harry Nilsson) and “Do I have to do this all over again?”

Finally, as I rewatch this and see Davy Jones give it his all, I really can see why so many female fans (and some males) were attracted to him (and why Gene Roddenberry cloned him into a Russian ensign on Star Trek). He has an energy, a talent, and a passion that is youthful and absolutely true. They don’t make them like him anymore. One scene, in particular, is a showstopper:

Rest in peace, Davy.

So, everyone, do yourself a favor – Go watch Head.

Some more images from Head:

I love movies, and I’ve always had a specific affinity for movies that aren’t incredibly popular or well known. There’s something about seeing and enjoying an obscure film that makes me happy. It’s like finding a rare jewel in a box of costume jewelry.

To that end, I have started up a new section here, one that I intent to fill with retro-reviews. I will revisit some obscure movies that I love, as well as watch some films for the first time. All are films that fall into the semi-arbitrary grouping that I’ve labeled “Neglected cinema.” I hope you like it.

Here’s the list of 80+ movies I plan on watching and writing about here (I’ve written about some of them already):

On February 23rd, 1989, Laura Palmer died.

And we all heard about it.

That’s the date, in the fictional world of Twin Peaks, that the high school homecoming queen met her end… The pivotal event that was the moment that triggered the core narrative of the classic TV series. It was a series that I was, and am, an obsessive fan of. I love the show, warts and all, and it has been my pleasure to let some of the people involved in the series know that in person. I’ve written about it before, and if things work out, I’ll be writing about it again… A lot.

The series lasted two years, and then… They made a movie.

It’s been almost two decades since the world’s first prequel/sequel, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, was released in theatres. Realizing this fact made me feel really old, and it also made me wonder if the movie still “holds up.” Thankfully, it does, as I was recently able to purchase and watch the film on blu-ray.

“Blu-ray?!”, you may be thinking, “I didnt know was out on blu-ray?!” Yes, Fire Walk With me is finally available in high definition… if you live in Australia of the United Kingdom, that is.

Here’s some thoughts on the film, this video release, and some screenshots. There be SPOILERS here, so if you haven’t watched it before, please STOP reading right now and watch it. And if you have never seen Twin Peaks before, then I am even more adamant that you stop reading and watch the show THEN the movie. It’s a great series and you don’t want it to be spoiled by the likes of me.

(Though my friend George insists that the proper way to watch it is to stop the film the instant the Welcome to Twin Peaks road sign appears, then to watch the series all the way through when Laura’s killer is revealed and dies, and THEN watch the rest of the movie. Haven’t tried it, but may someday.)

The Movie

I have long contended that Twin Peaks is the spiritual sequel to Lynch’s earlier film Blue Velvet, and I think that you could show both fils to someone with no previous exposure to the TV series and they would not have any problem considering them as thematically aligned and linked. Both films feature a beautiful woman tormented by a demon. Both feature the woods as a character, and both films tear off the thin veneer of civilization off to expose the darkness that dwells beneath it.

Is Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me as good as Blue Velvet? Nope, but neither is Wild at Heart, or anything else that Lynch has done as a filmmaker. But, after rewatching it, I can say that it is definitely better than many people claim it is. It is an unflinching and powerful movie, a series of scenes that are disturbing and amazing at the same time. One scene, involving an uncomfortable dinner table conversation between Laura and her father (the amazing Ray Wise), reminds me of similar uncomfortable conversations I myself have had with my own father in the same context… and that familiarity makes it even more uncomfortable to watch.

The movie, focused on the last seven days of Laura Palmer, starts without showing Laura at all… Instead showing what happens after the body of Teresa Banks is discovered, in a small town that is the dark doppelgänger of Twin Peaks, Deer Meadow. A real treat is to see Special Agent Chet Desmond (played by Chris Isaak) deal with the people of this community, knowing that it is far removed from the friendly quirkiness of the locals we saw in the series. After we learn more about Teresa and her life, and Desmond mysteriously disappears, we are suddenly removed from that story and brought back to Twin Peaks, and we see that last week in all its uncomfortable detail. Many of the events in the film were referred to in the series, and as a fan it’s fun to “connect the dots” to these previous moments.

I won’t discuss the various surreal aspects of the film, nor will I provide or attempt any anaylsis or theorizing on my own. Suffice it to say, if you know what David Lynch likes to do in his movies, you will see plenty of it on display here. It’s quite a ride.

While it’s a powerful piece of work, it’s definitiely not perfect… So let’s cover what I consider its two main flaws.

I have to say that the biggest problem with the movie is with its lead. Sheryl Lee does her best to make us care for Laura Palmer, but the dramatic contrivances of the plot (the aforementioned references in the TV series) forces her to come off in many scenes as… Well, kind of a bitch. It’s not that she doesn’t play all her scenes with passion and give her all… but I have to say she probably would have been better if she had more experience as an actor. With a couple of more acting jobs under her belt she could have had the wisdom to underplay some scenes, to better affect. Ironically, watching her work reminded me of another actor, in another favorite film: George Lazenby, in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Like Lee here, Lazenby gave a heartfelt performance that was… Good, just not quite great enough for a lead performance.

There is another deep flaw in the film – there is no whimsy, and very little of the quirky humor we saw on the show. This was a core part of the TV series’ “tone”, and I think the lack of this turned off many of the series’ fans when it was released. What we got on TV was a dark, quirky mystery with interesting characters… What we got in the movie was a David Lynch film, one that started out with a dramatic shot of an ax destroying a TV series, an obvious message to the viewer that this wasn’t a TV show anymore. The thing is, as the old saying goes, “ya dance with the one who brought you,” and by being so divergent, and so dark… Well, the movie didn’t live up to some viewers expectations.

(Some “inside baseball” stuff, here: over 17 scenes were shot with the many series regulars we did not see in the film, and these scenes were cut over, reportedly, “running time concerns.” I’d wager that these scenes just didn’t align with the darker tone of the film as well, so they were cut for thematic reasons.)

So, final thoughts: Fire Walk With Me is solid film that fits well in Lynch’s filmography, one that doesn’t get the critical atention it deserves. I’m very happy that this new blu-ray release will have people (at least in some countries) revisiting it and the town of Twin Peaks once more.

The blu-ray disc

It’s a beautiful anamorphic transfer, and looks as good as it did when I saw it in theatres years ago. It has no extras except for the electronic press kit (EPK) that was made and released at the time the film came out, Transferred from 3/4″ video tape, these series of interviews and scenes look good considering the source material. The previously mentioned 17 scenes that were cut from the theatrical release, alas, are not included. Additionally, while David Lynch films traditionalliy does not have DVD or bluray chapters, this release does. Finally, the trailer is only available in the EPK and is not in HD or anamorphic.

Pictures

Here’s screenshots of the movie, the EPK and the packaging.

It was at Dragon*Con 2009, a HUGE convention in Atlanta, GA. One of my all-time favorite filmmakers, Terry Gilliam, was there, promoting his (then new) movie The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. 

 Terry Gilliam had a panel on Friday afternoon, in a HUGE auditorium. Imagine a football field, with Terry Gilliam on stage in the end zone, and me standing behind a microphone on the opposing team's 30 yard line. After talking for an hour, he opened the floor to questions. I was the first person in line. 

I told him how much I loved his first movie, The Fisher King and asked him if he had any interesting anecdotes about the making of the movie. No sooner had I finished speaking, when…

He looked confused, and my heart sank. Oh, crap, I’m one of THOSE guys – asking an obnoxious question the panelist doesn’t want to answer.

But that wasn’t it – “I’m sorry," he eventually replied, "I could barely hear you – the sound system is very bad. Can you come closer?”

“Sure,” I quickly said, and proceeded to walk all the way  from the back of this VERY big room to the front of the stage, skipping like Pied Piper (as I was leading a couple of dozen questioners behind me). Terry then got up from behind the table he was sitting at on stage and he leaned down towards me, hand on my shoulder.

Before the thoughts OMGIMSTANDINGINFRONTOFTHOUSANDSOFPEOPLE WITHTERRYGILLIAMSTARINGATME had a chance to race through my mind my comedic instinct kicked in.

I started yelling, with him standing less than three feet away.

“I SAID I WAS A BIG FAN OF THE FISHER KING!”

He started giggling, and if you have ever seen lengthy interviews with Terry Gilliam, you know he’s a giggler. He repeated my question to the audience.

“HE’S A BIG FAN OF THE FISHER KING!” he screamed, cupping his hands to yell through them.

“IT’S A GREAT MOVIE!”

“IT’S A GREAT MOVIE!” Gilliam repeated, giggling some more.

“YOU SHOULD ALL SEE IT!” I said, turning to the audience. Again, Gilliam repeated me.

Before I spoke again, it dawned on me I was now doing an impromptu comedy bit. With Terry Gilliam. From Monty Python. In front of an auditorium of thousands of people.

O. M. G.

“DO YOU HAVE ANY INTERESTING ANECDOTES ABOUT THE MAKING OF THE MOVIE?” I finished asking/shouting.

“DO I HAVE ANY INTERESTING ANECDOTES! GOT IT.” And at that, he raced back to his seat and his mike and I sat down in the front row.

Because of that, ALL of the people asking questions were then able go to the front of the stage and ask their question to him in person, even after they fixed the mike and sound system. Many of them came over and thanked me for "breaking the ice" and letting them have their own special moments meeting Mr. Gilliam. 

I saw Terry later that evening, and he said, smiling after he recognized me, “that was fun.”

No, it was more than that. It was awesome.

See question on Quora

When is the last time you got legitimately excited about a new movie or TV show? When you had a moment where the idea of seeing the premiere genuinely got your energy level up? If you’re like me, it probably happens a lot less than it used to. My reaction, more often than not, is ‘Meh.” And a lot of people are having the same reaction. TV audience levels have been declining for years, and the number of movie tickets sold are down considerably over just three years ago. Not many people seem to be excited about what Hollywood is putting out.

So, why is this happening? Is Hollywood in some sort of creative dry spell? Far from it: I think we are in a feast of riches. Most summer blockbusters aside, the movie studios have released some great movies over the past few years (in all genres), and television is in the middle of a golden age with dozens of great and highly entertaining shows. A core reason for declining sales and viewers, I think, is that we as a culture have lost something: scarcity.

We used to have four TV channels. One newspaper. Hardcover books, paperbacks, and magazines. No computer, no Internet, no home video, no video games. So when a new movie came out, or it was the new “fall season,” it MATTERED. It was a real event for people, and when it was truly new and different, when it was a movie like Star Wars, or a TV show like Twin Peaks… it captured our imagination and made us excited. Not just because it was so new and different, but because there was NOTHING ELSE to compare it to. It was unique. There was only ONE Star Wars, though rival studios quickly tried to copy its success. There was only one Twin Peaks, because it was lightning in a bottle – the mix of the right talent, bonth on and behind the camera, to make an exceptional experience (and the copycats came out for that as well).

Now… Well, we are basically DROWNING in ways to spend our time. On my desk in front of me now is a laptop, an iPad, and an iPhone. Using just these three devices, with a combined weight less than a recent hardback book I bought, I can access thousands of videos, web pages, books… not to mention the 6500 songs and dozens of movies already on them that I can listen to or watch at any time. And with the advancememt in mobile devices We now carry the equivilent of a thousand Libraries of Alexandia around with us, in the palm of our hands.

There is no more scarcity of content, there’s an abundance, and… well, such abundance has changed us. We no longer HAVE to see a movie the opening day… we can always watch it later, cheaper, on our cheap high-definition TVs. And when you have two hundred channels on TV, and the ability to record any program and watch the entire season in one sitting… You don’t have to catch the newest “hot” show when it debuts. And many marketing companies still don’t get that things have changed, and the old ways of promotion don’t work when content is constant and the percieved value of that content is low.

(Though some savvy marketing types have been paying attention to how social media can be used as part of their campaigns – chatting “real time” about a show as it happens is one of the few compelling reasons to watch something live.)

Supply and demand has hit content, hard. Movies, TV shows, magazines, books… the value of all these things is the value that we “assign” it with our interest and our dollars. And prices are dropping, a lot.

The smart creative types know this, and approach the situation in different ways I personally think James Cameron as a writer and director is WAY overhyped and overrated, but the fact that he only does one movie every 8 years or so makes whatever he creates an EVENT. George Lucas, on the other hand… well, he’s more merchandiser than man, now. He’s contributing to the abundance by selling Star Wars in any way he can… and while doing so, he makes the original film he made much less “special.” Now, it’s just another product to sell. That’s his perogotive, of course, but he’s diminshed something that was very valuable to a lot of people by doing so.

Why are the British detectives and spies portrayed as more sophisticated than Americans in our movies? Three reasons I can think of.

First, the genres and the archetypes of said genres both come from the United Kingdom, in an age where men were cultured and sophisticated. I refer, mainly, to James Bond and Sherlock Holmes. They are cultured, intelligent and homo superior – they enjoy the fine things of life because that is what men of high class do – and the fact that they are so erudite makes their American counterparts look crude in comparison.

Second, the American detective genre is hard-boiled, not cultured… Mike Hammer, Sam Spade… the detective in America is not cultured but aggressive and as rough as the coarsest sandpaper. They are not “consulting detectives” who live in a flat but working guys trying to earn a buck. They reflect the working stiffs who read their stories.

Third and finally, spies in American fiction have been portrayed repeatedly as either bad-ass mofo’s or as gray government employees. The emphasis has been on action or the complexities of the “real world” spy business in American fiction, and neither emphasis leads itself to “sophistication.” You rarely see American spies have the type of “exotic adventures” that the British spies do – and when I say “british spies” I mean, basically, James Bond.

See question on Quora

He was crestfallen.

The actor John DeLancie was standing in front of an auditorium filled with hundreds of people. It was August 2011, at the official Star Trek convention. Best known for his role of Q in Star Trek: the Next Generation, he had just name-dropped the TV series Breaking Bad. DeLancie had just appeared on that show in it’s second year, playing the father of a recovering drug addict. He was nominated for an Emmy for this work. It was an amazing performance, on an amazing show.

None of the people in the audience had seen it. Except, apparently, me.

Because it wasn’t science fiction. It wasn’t Star Trek.

“Any of you watch a show called Breaking Bad?” he had asked, and when only one person – me – clapped… he shrugged, and then said, sadly, “You should watch it… It’s a good show.” He then moved on to another topic.

That moment… And the idea that all these people were so obsessed with one thing – Star Trek – make me sad, too.

We are living in a golden age, and available to us in an instant is any number of amazing works. Some of the best television ever is being produced, not to mention the huge library that has come before. We have some fantastic films that are being made… They just aren’t always in your local megatheatre. Writing, art, design… We have a gets of riches available to us, sometimes at the click of a mouse.

So, to come to my core point: don’t limit yourself. Explore, try new things. Open yourself up to things that are outside your comfort zone.

Learn. Live. And love more than just one genre or show. Yes, Virginia, there is more to the world than just Star Trek.

I’ve been spending my copious spare time recently catching up on movies I’ve missed. Here’s some quick thoughts on four of them.

Fright Night
This remake of the original Roddy McDowell vampire flick was a pleasant surprise. It’s a wafer-thin piece of popcorn entertainment that I enjoyed quite a bit. Well performed (I especially liked David Tennant’s work here as “Vampire Hunter” David Vincent) and well paced, it’s a fun movie.

Attack the Block
Another surprise, this low-budget SF film from the UK about street hoodlums fighting aliens had me cheering. A fantastic movie that absolutely delighted me.

The People Vs. George Lucas
This documentary on the rise and fall of George Lucas (fall being the view of many fanboys who feel Lucas “raped their childhood”) is the perfect companion piece to the recent Star Wars blurays. Much more than fans complaining, it gives voice to the love/hate relationship people have with Lucas and his greatest creation.

World’s Greatest Dad
The oldest movie in this mix (it came out in 2009) and the one I liked the most. Directed and written by Bobcat Goldwaith, and starring Robin Williams, the movie is absolute genius, with Williams playing a father who has to deal with… Well, I won’t say anymore, because anymore will spoil it. The less you know about this movie before you see it, the better. A black comedy so dark it borders on the ultraviolet, this was one of the best films I’ve seen in the past year.

A purely subjective list, obviously… here’s mine.

Singin’ in The Rain – The best musical, ever. It is pure happiness in cinematic form. It’ll cure what ails you!

The Godfather – The best movie, ever. It’s flawless.

Citizen Kane – The second-best movie, ever (sorry, Orson, but Francis wins!). It’s a complete film school in a box.

Star Wars – The original and the best (and no. it’s not “Episode IV: A New Hope” – when it came out it was just Star Wars).

ALIEN – The best “haunted house in space” movie ever made. Scary as hell.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan – The best Star Trek movie, ever. And a damn good movie as well.

Scrooge (the 70s musical) – A personal favorite, and one of the best holiday movies ever. And (in my opinion) the best adaptation of A Christmas Carol, ever.

A Christmas Story – “Fra-ge-lay! Must be French!” One of the most quotable and funny holiday movies ever.

Raiders of the Lost Ark – A fantastic film, and I can’t count the times I’ve watched it. Just great fun.

See question on Quora

I was at a newsstand here in Sydney last week and was surprised to find a really cool magazine, the first issue of a series that allowed you to build a super-detailed 1/8th scale model of the Aston Martin DB5 from the James Bond classic Goldfinger. Only a couple a problems:

• It’ll take 85 months to get all the parts.
• It’ll cost over $1700 in total.

Suffice it to say, I’m not subscribing. I’m such a Bond fanboy I did pick up the first issue though, and it’s quite well designed and produced. Here’s some pics:

I’m an Apeophile.

That’s what people call fans of the Planet of the Apes movie series, and it’s a crappy name. It’s worse than “Trekkie” as a descriptive term – that could be considered derogatory by some fans, but at least its descriptive and indicative. “Apeophile?” Not so much. And in this fetishistic day and age, it could be interpreted in ways that… well, aren’t flattering or helpful.

Nonetheless, and whatever term you deem to use, I’m a fan of these movies. They are high-grade B-pictures that are entertaining and also dare to tell stories that have sad, bad endings. Heck, the second movie ended with the Earth blowing up. They still hold up, 30 years later.

When I heard that there was going to be yet another Planet of the Apes movie, I was trepidatous. I had gotten my hopes up a decade previous, when the first word that Tim Burton was making a new Apes remake… a movie that fans of the series like to pretend never really happened. So, as the saying goes… once bitten, twice shy.

I shouldn’t have worried, because Rise of the Planet of the Apes is one of the remarkable wonders of this year – a movie that is absolutely aligned with the tone of the original films and yet one that is completely modern and entertaining in its own right.

I won’t go into the details of the plot because, well, I’m lazy… and if you want plot summaries, you can go to wikipedia. I will spend time focused on some key aspects I found noteworthy. First I have to applaud the work of the great Andy Serkis as Caesar. This movie, like the last three of the originals, need a strong actor in the lead role of the lead Ape. The late great Roddy McDowall was Cornelius, then Caesar in those movies, and Serkis is more than a match in his take at the character. At this point I nominate Serkis to play every main character in every new movie from now on. Even through the veil of motion capture technology, his acting shines through.

The second key thing I appreciate was how the filmmakers were bold enough to transition Casear to the main character of the film in the second act. The safe move would have been to continue to focus on the character played by James Franco, the “father” of Caesar. They didn’t do that. In a move similar to what Hitchcock did in Psycho, they shift focus to Casear and it could have failed completely if the effects and the acting didn’t work. Thankfully, it did, and the movie works far better than I expected it to be. We CARE about Caesar, and the pathos surrounding his birth and life makes him a character we root for. A remarkable achievement.

Finally, the thing I liked the most is that they had numerous references to the original films, but these were not slavish fan service references that distorted the story for a minority audience – they were grace notes, little touches that made long time fans smile but would not get in the way for the average moviegoer.

So, in summary: it’s a fine piece of entertainment, well done and a worthy addition to the pantheon of summer films and Ape flicks. Much more than the aforementioned Burton film…

Here's some of the factors that come into play.

A key one: Shatner has lived through lean times in the past (post Trek he ended up doing TV commercials for margarine)… And so when the work comes, he grabs it and does it. Those lean times makes you appreciate the work when it comes. And makes you hungry for more.

Second, he's a driven personality. I've known people who works with the Shat and when he works he works really really hard. He gives it "all he's got, Captain." He and I share that – the idea of "relaxing"… well, other people do that. He can't stop working. He'll stop when he's dead.

Third, he's a pro. He shows up, hits his marks, does his lines, and will draw an audience just because of his history and what he has done. The industry knows that and they respect professionalism (as well as the "draw an audience" part).

Finally, he has changed over time. Once a leading man, he has transitioned into a character actor as well as (as needed and when appropriate) a semi-characture of himself… he does what he thinks is necessary to keep working, to keep moving forward. He's a smart talented man.

See question on Quora

I watched Captain America last week, and as you may have noticed by my earlier review I enjoyed it – it was quite entertaining, but in one respect I was also a little troubled by it. I noticed that the energy weapons the Nazis… oh, sorry, they need to sell action figures… “Hydra” used destroyed their victims in a puff of light and smoke. I noticed the same thing in Transformers 3, and Green Lantern, and.. so on.

This is not only a symptom of our culture but also a very very bad thing for movies.

I think it started with Spielberg’s War of the Worlds, where the Martians dehydrated their victims and instantly turned them to dust with their heat ray. In War of the Worlds, the idea was framed well – the harrowing nature of the horror was put into the proper perspective through the reaction of the main character. Tom Cruise played someone who was covered in.. well, dead people. And it was horrible. And, while there was an obvious 9/11 allegory… Hollywood missed the point, and saw an easy way to get around the rating system so they can sell more wholesale carnage to more ticket buyers.

This is cartoon violence, writ large. Just imagine if they had shot the end of Chinatown, or The Godfather, this way. The rival families to Michael Corleone are simply vaporized, or Faye Dunaway’s character simply disappeared when she was shot in the back of her head. Yeah, it wouldn’t have worked. Because the violence was real and true and horrific and necessary.

Conflict is the heart of drama, and there has to be consequences. If you create a story where the dead just “disappear” then you don’t have any weight to the loss. The old saying of “one death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statistic” is now the new norm when it comes to movies. Personal tragedies need not apply. Blockbusters must raise the stakes continuously… and when you remove the personal from the story, and just show CGI-driven violence and vanishing corpses… you fail as storytellers.

There is an astonishing interest in zombies right now. The sociologist in me asks “Why?” I think I may have hit on the reason. The show “The Walking Dead” isn’t about zombies at all, it’s about those we leave behind. It’s about the bodies. Bodies that come back. We are haunted by death, scared (literally) to death of it, because it will come to all of us in the end.

We need to know that. It helps us appreciate what we have to relish the life we are living right now. Some of us are aware of that fact. The ascent corpses in our entertainment makes us embrace stories that put death in center stage. Many… most, I think, in America… they want escape. Provocation, ideas… need not apply. I state this not in judgement but in simple observation.

We’re afraid. We see the news and the unemployment rate and the constant wars and we’re scared. And we want to get away, to escape.

Thus, the absent corpse of our blockbusters. The preponderance of superheroes at our cinemas. We are what we watch… and it’s a sweet comfort to many of us when we see death as a vanishing poof of smoke.

It isn’t that. Not by a long shot.

When I returned to the states for a while last month, I put aside time to catch up on some movies. It being summer, this means I mostly watched superhero and action films. I’ve already wrote up my thoughts on Transformers 3, and didn’t have time to properly review the other two films I caught, Green Lantern and X-Men: First Class. Green Lantern was so dramatically inert that I couldn’t muster the energy to even consider responding to it with a review. To the contrary, X-Men: First Class was quite entertaining but I thought spent too much time in slavish fan service sub-plots rather than focusing on Magneto and Xavier’s story.

So, with a batting average of .500 (I also thought Thor was quite good) I approached, with some trepidation, the Captain America movie. Cap was never my favorite super hero (those tend to be Spider-Man and/or Batman, depending on my mood), but I’m also a sucker for all things World War II, so I was keenly interested. The story of Captain America is one that, in the wrong hands, could go really really wrong… He’s the superhero version of Horatio Alger, who never forgot his roots and loves his country with a whole heart, warts and all. If that love of country was played to heavy-handed it could come off as jingoistic, and if moviemakers try to change the core of the character then they will lose the essence of what makes him work.

So… did it work? Absoultely. Far far better than I expected it to. In fact, it may be the best Marvel superhero movie yet, as you could take the superhero aspects out of the film and it would still be a rousing piece of entertainment. It’s the spiritual sequel to director Joe Johnson’s earlier superhero movie The Rocketeer – when Captain America comes out on video I plan on a personal double feature. It has heart to spare, powered by a starmaking performance by Chris Evans. It has a hyper-real version of WW II, powered by technology stolen from the world of Thor. It has great character moments, especially between Evans and Hayley Atwell who plays love interest Peggy Carter. It has the Howling Commandoes, Marvel’s ragtag fighting unit that in the comics were lead by Nick Fury. It has a rousing score from Alan Silvestri, his best since Back to the Future. It has a fantastic performance by Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull. It has amazing effects and action sequences. it has…

OK, have to stop now, otherwise I’d be gushing for another 1000 words. Just see it. If you love solid entertaining filmmaking, you won’t get a better example of it than Captain America.

So I finally got around to seeing Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon.

It was definitely a movie. it certainly exists in that form. And it does a great job… existing.

If that response comes off as an extremely generic one, I apologize – but that’s the reaction I had. I was entertained… somewhat… by the visuals and the last 45 minutes definitely threw a lot of stuff at the audience. Whatever the movie cost (probably more than the GDP of Guatemala) it certainly wasn’t spent on catering or luxurious trailers. The money is there, on the screen. I gasped at a couple of shots, I’ll admit.

But, kinetic energy aside, the movie is… just… meh. I didn’t hate it (that reaction was reserved for the second film, which is an abomination against all right-minded and free people) and didn’t love it, flaws and all (which was my reaction to the first film – sorry, I’m a Transformers fanboy). I just… didn’t care.

There’s a tactic in screenwriting and movies called “raising the stakes”, when you ratchet up the threat to the protagonist – it’s a by-the-books approach that when used well really really works (Best example in my opinion: Die Hard). This movie “raises the stakes” in such a way that, well, the sheetrock that covers the screenplay falls off and the framework of rotten wood is clearly visible. And I won’t even mention the number of times that Shia Labeouf’s character is about to die when, OUT OF NOWHERE, someone comes to save him. I think it was 4 times… I lost count.

I could spend some more words describing the plot and the details of Transformers 3, but why bother? My reaction is muddled indifference. If you like the movie, good, I’m glad you had an entertaining experience. If you hate it, nothing I can write will feed your anger.

Like the fourth Indiana Jones and many other sequels/remakes/sequels/retreads before it, this movie is an unambitious product of a studio system afraid to take chances and create new, interesting (and financially risky) films. This is what happens when multinational corporations play it safe, and the only anger I can muster against it is that so many other better films could have been made for the 40 quadrillion dollars that Transformer 3 cost.

Sigh.

The streak is over.

Cars 2 isn’t a bad film by any measure. It’s visually dazzling, it has some fine action set pieces, and it has a breakneck pace that is far from boring. It also features a witty spy plot which is right up my alley. It’s just not as good as we expect it to be, and that is absolutely unavoidable: Pixar has created masterpiece after masterpiece, and have made films that are beautiful works of art and also incredibly moving and entertaining at the same time. They have done it so consistently, and with an ease and grace that makes it look effortless. Until now.

Half-way through Cars 2 I noticed something – my sons were disinterested. They are disinterested a lot – they are boys, after all – but this was the first time they had ever been disengaged with a Pixar film. Ever. My youngest son even fell asleep two-thirds of the way through… in an afternoon matinee.

Why? I think I figured it out. Cars 2 is a stunning and beautiful technical achievement, but it’s like the confections you buy at the snack stand before the movie starts. It’s all sugar, no substance. Empty calories. It’s exactly what some critics said that the (under-appreciated) Speed Racer movie from a couple of years ago was – pyrotechnics with no heart.

They were wrong about Speed Racer – that movie has plenty of heart – but the same reviews could be used today for Cars 2 and be a lot more accurate. There’s no heart. Cars 2 is the anti-”Up,” the opposite of everything that made Pixar movies great – a commitment to characters and a compelling story. Cars 2… well, it’s not bad. It’s just not very good, either. It comes off as a movie made to sell a lot of toys, and that’s the only reason it exists, really. I’m sorry, but Pixar… you’re better than that.

At least, I thought you were.

There are two protagonists.

The first is clearly Marion Crane, who we invest our emotional energy in as she attempts to steal the money and start a new life with her boyfriend Sam Loomis. Then… after a shower that goes very very wrong…

The second protagonist takes over and drives the narrative. That protagonist is Norman Bates, and it is one of the great shifts ever in film. We follow Norman as he cleans up, hides the body, and continues to try and "cover" for his mad mother. We were already sympathetic to him after his conversation with Marion in his office and the audience continues to "root" for him up until the end.

Since the "spoiler" ending is now common knowledge, the film's denouement doesn't have the power it did upon the films release – Hitchcock and writer Joseph Stefano created a film where the audience both cared for a thief and a psychotic murder. An incredible feat, groundbreaking at the time.

(A better question may be "who is the protagonist for Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace?" Because there's not really one in that movie…)

See question on Quora

With all due respect to the surveys, the best action movie of all time is Raiders of the Lost Ark. It has the best script, the best action sequences and the best action hero (besides James Bond) of all time (let's not talk about that fourth movie, OK?). Number one, no question, no comparison.

See question on Quora

It's not one movie, but three: I nominate the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

You have romance, fantasy, swordplay, drama, suspense, visual effects, and you also have classic literature (being an adaptation of the classic J.R. Tolkien work). It's the perfect date movie. Heck, it's THREE date movies!

See question on Quora

Best movie trailer of all time? Was going to say the extended trailer for Psycho, but then I realized that in space, no one can hear you scream.

The teaser trailer for 1979s ALIEN is just fantastic. It tells you very little about the plot, but it's riveting and scary as hell. It got a lot of seats in theaters filled and would still do so today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z…

See question on Quora

Actor Peter Falk passed away today at the age of 83.

I’ve had the chance to meet many actors and “famous” people in my time, but never had the chance to meet Mr. Falk. If I had I would have thanked him for the many hours of entertainment he provided me, both in his seminal role of Lt. Colombo as well as his featured performances in movies like It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, The Princess Bride, The In-Laws, and much much more.

I would also have thanked him for his long-time friendship with one of my favorite actors, the late Patrick McGoohan, who Falk featured on many episodes of Colombo (McGoohan the last “guest villain” on the last Colombo ever). If there’s an afterlife, hopefully those two are now together, as we saw them in the last scene they filmed together: sitting together, having a drink, and reflecting on the life they have lived.

Rest in peace.

Final Draft is the industry standard and top notch… If you're on a budget and want to dabble, I suggest that you try Scrivener for the Mac: http://www.literatureandlatte.co…

It has some great features for building out a story and it also can export to Final Draft format. I use it all the time for structuring out something I'm writing.

See question on Quora

The answers are obvious.

Flash Gordon. The best of the best, the one that rules them all.

"Flash, I love you, but we only have 14 hours to save the Earth!"

"No, no, not the boreworms!"

Do I need to say anymore?

TIE: Escape from New York or They Live

"I heard you were dead."

"You're the Duke, the Duke of New York!"

"I came here to chew gum, and kick ass. And I'm all out of chewing gum."

Highlander

"… it's better to burn out than fade away!"

"There can be only one!"

See question on Quora

Working on a long-term contract in Australia has some benefits. Besides the temperate climate, fantastic people, and copious amounts of top-notch sushi and beer, we also sometimes get some movies before the rest of the world does. This was the case this week with Marvel Studios’ newest release Thor, which had it’s world premiere last Sunday at a downtown Sydney theatre that is just two blocks away from my office. I didn’t go (found out about it as it was happening) but I made certain to see the movie as soon as I could… which was today.

Before I tell you what I think about it, two things you should keep in mind. The first, and this should be obvious to anyone who knows me and reads my ramblings here, is that I’m an unabashed and unapologetic geek. I make the guys on Big Band Theory look normal in comparison. The fact that I appear somewhat normal in public (and also speak to attractive women without being drunk) I credit to good genetics. Add my inherent geekness to a second fact – that I am a big fan of the Thor comic book, especially the work of Jack Kirby and later Walt Simonson on the title – and, well, you may sense some perceived bias in my take on the film. End of disclaimer.

Thor as a movie is far far better that I expected, though my expectations were dramatically lowered by a subpar marketing effort. The movie is being marketed as… well, I don’t know what it’s being marketed as. Is it a fantasy-adventure? Is it a super-hero movie? I don’t blame the marketing department, because they really have a tough job because Thor is kinda… well, it’s Thor. He’s an Asgardian God who is banished to the land of mortals and has to learn lessons in humility and responsibility before he regains his power. Try and package THAT idea to the world.

The thing is, as a movie, it works far more than it should. For that I credit the fairly simple linear storyline, the exceptional directing of Kenneth Branagh and a great cast, especially (Captain Kirk’s dad) Chris Hemsworth. He’s an Australian actor who is very well known for his TV work here (that, and the fact that it opened just before a big five-day holiday weekend, is the reason the premiere was here). He’s very very good in the title role, and it would have fallen apart if he wasn’t so strong. Anthony Hopkins is also fantastic as Odin but the real standout for me is Idris Alba as Heimdall. He was fantastic in the miniseries Luther and steals every scene he is in. If Hemsworth had his start-making turn in his small part in Star Trek, then Alba has his here. He’s an actor I will watch in whatever he does.

Visually, the film is a real treat, and the scenes in Asgard and the world of the Frost Giants are just beautiful. To see the Asgard of Jack Kirby and Walt Simonson come to life… well, for a fanboy like me it’s just fantastic. I felt the same feeling of awe and wonder as I did seeing The Lord of the Rings movies years ago – the world I imagined as a child vividly brought to life. And that’s the thing – this movie is really Lord of the Rings meets Marvel comics… as it should be. There was always a touch of Tolkien in the best Thor stories, and some of the worst Thor stories are where he’s stuck on Earth… Much like Superman, when you have a character of such power that he can do, well, ANTHING… it’s far better to pit him against a cosmic threat than an earthly super-villian.

And George Lucas, please take note: THIS is how you create amazing worlds – incredible CGI with real, practical (and gorgeous) sets.

Is it absolutely perfect? Nope. I think the middle dragged and the work of Natalie Portman just left me cold. She’s basically playing… well, Natalie Portman, and comparing the work here to her Black Swan performance and you wonder if they are even the same actress. And can someone PLEASE tell these guys how to shoot a fight sequence? The big fight on Earth near the end could have been SOOO much better (and it was building to be EPIC), but instead it was a quick melange of CGI and visual effects. Oh, well.

Three other highlights (and I’m trying to avoid SPOILERS but this may be percieved as such, so look away now if you want to be surprised): The cameo of the star of a recent Academy-Award Winning Best Picture as the “eye in the sky”, which sets up his performance in the upcoming Avengers? It made me squeal with joy. Yes, it was total slavish fan service, but I still loved it. Secondly, the tease after the credits is not as ‘OMG 11!’ cool as the Thor teaser at the end of Iron Man 2, but it is a nice hat tip to the upcoming Captain America movie AND Avengers film. Finally, the cameos from Walt and Louise Simonson as well as Stan Lee (all of whom I’ve been lucky to meet in real life) was a nice touch, especially Stan’s line. Yes, Stan, it worked.

All in all it’s not as good as the original Iron Man, a film that I think is the best Marvel adaptation ever (save for the final underwhelming battle sequence, which Thor also suffers from). But it’s quite good, and definitely worth the ticket price.

Of course, I’d love to see a sequel, purely set on Asgard, where Thor, Sif and the Warriors Three have to go on a quest to save… or find… well, something. Maybe to destroy the Ring of Power in the fires of Mount Doom…

I'm this close to saying Goldfinger, but then the obvious answer becomes apparent.

Ernst. Stavro. Blofeld.

He built the best supervillian lair, ever (hollowed-out volcano), he had not one, but THREE great schemes (cause WW III, brainwash beautiful women to release toxic death, and blackmail the world with a diamond-powered laser), and he lead SPECTRE, which was behind the plots of three additional Bond films. And worse of all, he killed Bond's wife, Tracy!

He's also Bond's Moriarty in the original novels (where he killed Tracy there, too!)

No contest, really.

See question on Quora

He's fitting in. He's a spy. If he wears tactical gear all the time he'd stick out like a sore thumb.

Look at the James Bond films, and when Bond gets into fights. He's either in public being chased or chasing someone, he's being ambushed in a room (or a train car, or an elevator, or a stairway) or he's been caught and trying to escape. When he is going into a situation where he is not caught unprepared he usually dresses appropriately (see For Your Eyes Only, Live and Let Die, On Her Majesties Secret Service, etc.)

One more thing – It's also a sign of the times and the people Bond associates with. Back in the 1960s and 70s men wore suits all the time. Additionally, Bond investigates people that are usually in the upper echelon of society and, well, he has to dress well to associate with such people.

See question on Quora

Not knowing the current ownership/rights around Fire Walk With Me, I'm pretty sure that if one man wants it released it will be. That one man is David Lynch, who has been historically opposed to the idea of a "directors" or "extended" cut to any of his films.
Peaks is near and dear to his heart and my sense from reading interviews with the man is that FWWM – and Peaks – is done.

The next best thing isn't that bad though – we have the film, and if you are really curious you can find the final shooting script (which of course has all the cut scenes) online. It helps fill in the gaps from series to film, and it's filled with some of the Peaksian eccentric characters that are sorely missed in the film.

I made the mistake of reading the script before watching the movie way back when it was released so I was very disappointed at some of the omissions – don't make the same mistake I did, watch the movie first (after you watch the series, of course) and then read the script.

See question on Quora

I can't say anything more about Avatar and Titanic than has already been said except this: they are as thin as paper and manipulative as hell. Very very overrated.

Have to also reinforce that The Social Network is way overhyped and overrated. This is a TV-movie-of-the-week script shot for the big screen, with some nice directing, editing and cinematography. That's it. I've seen it twice and I'm still wondering what the hype was about.

Finally, and absolutely, my pick for the most overrated movie ever is the Academy Award winning Forrest Gump. What an overwhelmingly wrong choice that was – it beat Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption, for pete's sake! If life is like a box of chocolates, this movie is a box filled with candy corn. Empty calories, corny sentimentality and an absolutely awful message ("success is luck"). It's just average at best.

See question on Quora

I propose six films:

Scrooge. This musical adaptation of A Christmas Carol has great music, a fantastic performance from Albert Finney, and is an incredibly entertaining film. If it was made a decade earlier, it would be a classic. Now it's a footnote.

Targets. The first film from Peter Bogdonovich, it stars Boris Karloff as an aging horror star (basically, he plays himself) who has to deal with the real life horror of a serial killer/sniper.

The Conversation. You have Gene Hackman. You have Francis Ford Coppola. You have one of the best explorations of paranoia ever filmed. And, while incredibly appreciated by film critics, it's been forgotten by most of the public. An absolute shame.

The Fisher King. Directed by Terry Gilliam, it stars Jeff Bridges and Robin Williams and I was lucky enough to meet Mr. Gilliam last year and tell him how much the film meant to me. It is fantastic and mostly forgotten.

The Ruling Class. Peter O'Toole as Jesus Christ AND Jack the Ripper. And it's one of the most damning indictments of British culture ever. It's a dark comedy so dark it borders on the ultraviolet. Did I also mention it was a musical?

The Ninth Configuration. The follow-up to The Exorcist from William Peter Blatty, this film is MASH in a military insane asylum, with some too on-the-nose Jesus metaphors. Still, underrated.

See question on Quora

Vertigo: Hitch's masterpiece can come off as cold to some on first viewing. Watch it again. The film is an amazing character study, and the ending is absolutely devastating.

2001: A Space Odyssey. Again, cold at first viewing (to some), but watching it more than once reveals some amazing subtext, irony and meaning. It's also beautiful.

Moulin Rouge! An amazing film, but the modern songs may be jarring, as well as the editing and directing style. Watch it again, and you will see that the film is not only good but incredibly entertaining and underrated.

Citizen Kane. Duh. Watch it once for the directing, watch it again for the dialogue, the again for the performances, and again for the cinematography… It's a film school in a box.

See question on Quora

Bond was in his late thirties in the books, but if you look at references in the first book Casino Royale he has to be in his mid-40s at least (he was noted to be an experienced gambler before WW II).

The definitive age reference is in the novel You Only Live Twice. He tells Tiger Tanaka he was born in the Year of the Rat, which was 1924. So Bond was 40 in 1964 (the year the novel as published). As only two books from Fleming came after that, you have the age as being between 35 and 42(ish).

See question on Quora

Some say that shaking “bruises the gin” which suppossedly affects the taste and that you should NOT do it (and the Bond in the books and film Casino Royale drank gin martinis, not vodka). I’ve found that is a bunch of rubbish – it makes no difference at all.

The real thing that shaking does is break up the ice more, which results in a more diluted drink (and the original recipe for the Vesper, AKA the “Bond martini”, has three measures of gin and two of vodka – a LOT of alcohol for one drink). So maybe Bond, being on a mission, knew he needed to not get TOO drunk while on duty.
Or maybe it was a simple affectation. I think the latter is more likely.

See question on Quora

This is the reason I love Quora: questions like this. And the person who asked you to post this question, he wouldn’t happen to have the last name “Blofeld,” does he?

At any rate, you have to look at three factors: the type of super villainy you are up to, the support network you have, and the details of your evil plan. If you are up to super-destructive villiany then you need to look into a location that is either A) mobile (like an oil tanker or a submarine) or B) far away from the target area (like a space station). If your villainy is rather low scale and/or lame (like drug trafficking or stealing water) then you want a compound close to infrastructure that supports it (highways, pipelines, airports, etc.)

If you are a super-villain with a huge support network (like SMERSH or SPECTRE) then the sky is the limit (see aforementioned “space station.”)

Finally the details of your plan is important. If it involves controlling the world’s media, then you can hide in plain sight (like, you know, Rupert Murdoch). If it involves controlling mankind’s hearts and minds with electronic devices, then you probably want to be situated near Silicon Valley (like, you know, Steve Jobs). And if you want to launch space ships into orbit then the Amazon or a hollowed out volcano may be your thing (like, you know, Richard Branson).

Just remember, those who fail to plan super-villainy, plan to fail. And when you see James Bond for the first time, do the smart thing: SHOOT HIM.

See question on Quora

Great spy movies involve some key aspects of real life espionage: subterfuge, observation, and paranoia. Spies pretend to be alerting they are not, observe their subjects and then act to gather information on their subject or… In some instances, to eliminate their subject. So, using that criteria (entirely defined by yours truly) we can eliminate most of the Bond films (sorry, 007).

I say The Conversation covers the second and third criteria very well, and The Comstant Gardener has aspects of all three. I'd say that Smiley's People is quite good, too.

May I throw a spanner in the works by throwing in the great and classic TV series The Prisoner? The "sequel" to the classic show Secret Agent Man, The Prisoner is a "post-modern" spy show that uses paranoia and spy movie tropes to create a unique and interesting series.

See question on Quora

When it comes to James Bond scores, you have to separate the soundtrack (the music that plays over the whole movie) and the title song (which plays over… Err, the titles).

James Bond soundtracks have had many different composers, with John Barry (who passed away in February 2011) and David Arnold the two composers who did the most. John Barry created the famous "Bond sound" with soundtracks to the early Bond films and his best soundtracks were Goldfinger and On Her Majesty's Secret Service, with The Living Daylights an exceptional score later in the series. David Arnold did most of Brosnan's Bonds and his best score was to Casino Royale.

My opinion: Goldfinger and Casino Royale are tied, with OHMSS coming in a close second.

See question on Quora

Some candidates:

Planet of the Apes. Yes, I know, it's a cliche and a punchline now, but the final shot of that movie shocked and surprised audiences and it's still one of the best movie endings ever.

The Godfather. The last 10 minutes are amazing, because it is all about the characters: Michael's rise to power, realized… And how everyone reacts to what he does.

Citizen Kane. What is the measure of a man? Sometimes it's what he's lost and can never get back that makes him who he is. The final reveal of what Rosebud is, and what it represented, is one of the great endings. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

The Usual Suspects. Who is Kyser Soze? Again, a mystery revealed brings a great resolution to a great film.

One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest. Chief's escape from the institution is one of the most wonderful moments of cinema.

It's a Wonderful Life. George Bailey, finally appreciating the whole of his life – warts and all – running through the streets wishing everyone "Merry Christmas!" – well, it don't get any better.

Chinatown. The best unhappy ending, ever. The bad guys win… As they so often do.

Vertigo. Hmm, another Jimmy Stewart performance. This time, Stewart is the opposite of where he was when he played George Bailey. Here he is apoplectic and obsessed and… Well, no spoilers, just watch the movie.

See question on Quora

"Better" is in the eye of the beholder. A movie is both a collaborative effort and the vision of a director – a good director can work from a bad script with top-notch actors, a good editor and a fantastic cinematographer to make an entertaining movie… Or they can make a bad movie. So, you can evaluate the movie as a whole or you can look at the elements that make up the movie.

To me, three of the earlier Star Trek movies are great movies, full stop, where all the elements just click and work. They also happen to be Trek 2, 4, and 6 – which is where the famous "only even numbered Star Trek movies are good" cliche came from. I also think that the new reboot/sequel/prequel Star Trek is a great movie, where everything (well, except some of the contrived plot points that "brought the crew together") worked. The fact that no one viewing the movie had to have any knowledge of the original show was also a major reason it was successful… But that's not the question, so…

In summary, I'd say it's not better, just a different take on the material that worked very well. Most of the original movies are just as good… But just not all of them are (again, look for the even numbers).

And of course, Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan is the Citizen Kane of Trek. This is an absolute fact that cannot be denied by any sentient beings who appreciate Star Trek.

See question on Quora

One of the benefits of the 14 hour flight to Sydney is I can catch up on movies that I had been unable to see due to my work and family commitments, thanks to in-seat entertainment center. Here’s some quick thoughts of what I watched:

Greenberg

Well, I know what movie Hal Ashby would be making today if he was still around – Greenberg. An interesting character study about a man played by Ben Stiller who is uncomfortable with – well, everything. So many independent films tend to be pretentious and overwritten – this was, thankfully, not so. Not great, but very good. Stiller almost makes up for the Focker movies with this performance. Almost.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

I REALLY wanted to like this movie. I totally get the tone that they were aiming for and I appreciate the effort and the talent involved… but it just did not work at all with me. It’s not a bad movie by any means… it just left me cold. I guess I’m too old, or not in the target audience, or something. Oh well.

The Social Network

As I am very familiar with the story behind Facebook, I was not as impressed with the film as so many others are. I appreciate the writing by Aaron Sorkin and the directing of David Fincher but to me it feels… well, small. It’s has more of a TV-movie vibe than a movie – and it is lacking a true protagonist to empathize with and root for. It just feels detached, empty… much like Mark Zuckerberg.

Inception

The best of what I saw… engrossing, involving and with a lot simpler plotline than many make it out to be. I actually have seen this twice now – and yes, I appreciate the irony that the first time I watched it I was on a plane for LA to Sydney. Not as “rewatchable” (and I don’t think it will age as well) as Christopher Nolan’s previous epic The Dark Knight, but still a rousing piece of entertainment.

Oh, and the top falls at the end.

Before this latest trip to the land Down Under I got stuck in LA for a day, so I did what all smart people stranded in the land of movies did… I turned tourist, with the help of my lovely friend @televixen. Here’s some pics, including some shots of stuff from the newest Star Trek movie being displayed in the Hollywood Museum downtown (look, it’s the Medical Tricorder!)…

“You made a time machine… out of a DeLorean?!”

In more news to make me feel like an old, old man, I note that today is the 25th anniversary of Back to the Future, a movie that is a perennial favorite of mine (heck, I even like Back to the Future II). In celebration here’s Tom Wilson (who played Biff) singing his Question Song…

Now make like a tree, and get out!

I really really wanted to like Iron Man 2.

Iron Man was one of the pleasant surprises of two summers ago, a popcorn flick with depth and character, a blockbuster with a beating heart – the heart of Tony Stark, who we grew to like and care for, in spite of himself… a character who matured and grew into a responsible citizen of the world.

Gee, Tony, what happened?

All the growth in the character in the first movie is negated in the first 10 minutes of the sequel, where we get the impression that all the character growth was driven by his ego, not his altruism. He’s “privatized world peace” but this is all talked about and not shown – a cardinal sin in a visual medium such as film. When he talks about it, he feigns humility, in a way that is obviously egotistical. Tony is even MORE self-centered at the beginning of the movie than he was in the first film.

Why?

I think it’s a serious question, and one that lies at the heart of the problems of Iron Man 2. There is no reason for Stark to “revert to type” and the only reason that is given (he’s being poisoned by his own cybernetic heart) is cloying and rings false. At the end of the first film, he is an empathetic character. In this one, he’s a self-centered jerk who‚’s dying, and ends this movie… as a self-centered jerk who is no longer dying. Iron Man 2 is like a TV episode – it puts characters in dramatic situations and then resets the status quo at the last (ten) minutes.

Another frustration (not complaint – again, I WANTED to like the movie) is that Iron Man 2 is plot driven, not character driven. Things HAPPEN to the characters, they don‚’t drive the plot (Tony Stark spends a considerable amount of the movie doing, well, nothing). The most active Tony is in the first half of the movie is… well, he decides to drive his own race car in the Grand Prix.

Again, no “hero‚’s journey” here. And can we PLEASE stop having daddy issues in your movies, Hollywood? Seriously.

I could write abut what worked, and there’s a lot that does work in the movie (Sam Rockwell and Mickey Rourke do good work with some thin material, for example). But, in the end the movie generated no emotion in me – I just didn’t care about what I was watching, and so I don‚’t have any energy to give this movie faint praise. Movies are emotional journeys, when done right – they are “turn off your brain popcorn movies” when done wrong.

Well, if you‚’re a “turn off your brain and enjoy” kinda guy, then pop some corn if you’re so inclined – Iron Man 2 is the movie for you.

I wish it was the movie for me.

I recently had the great pleasure of re-watching Citizen Kane, one of my favorite films, with the added pleasure of watching it while I listed to Roger Ebert’s great commentary track. Ebert, as many of you may know, has had cancer surgery that resulted in the loss of both his voice and his ability to eat, so it is a great gift that we have for posterity this commentary from him on one of the greatest films of all time.

As noted above, Kane is a favorite, though not THE favorite… I have to say that Chinatown and The Godfather tend to alternate in my personal top spot, depending on my mood and whatever I had just re-watched. But Kane is up there, and after watching it again I have to say that I understood the central character far more than I had ever before.

Charles Foster Kane, in many ways, is a man-child, someone who was thrust into greatness based on luck: his mother inherited a deed to a mine that resulted in unexpected riches. He stood fast on principles in his youth, then quickly and simply compromised them for his own selfish reasons.

But Kane was not just selfish – he was impotent. In four parallel scenes he is not in control of what happens to him. When you look at the beginning his fate is decided for him by his mother. After he is given to the banker Thatcher to take care of him, you see a boy enraged at this disruption and separation, and he attacks Thatcher. In the last one (when his wife Susan leaves) he breaks out in complete impotent rage… just like he did against Thatcher, only with a full life’s worth of rage behind him.

He has grown old, but he is still incomplete… he has searched for something to complete himself his whole life, collecting artifacts from around the world. But the closest thing that does so is a sled that reflects a distant memory of family, home, completeness. Of his mother.

He dies, alone. And we empathize with him, because that is one of our common fears. No one wants to go alone.

I also think that Kane is, in many ways, like our own country – young, with great opportunity… and eventually, in many ways, corrupted. It was no accident that the original title of the film was “The American.”

One quick, final note: I also recently watched the fantastic documentary on the great writer Harlan Ellison, called Dreams with Sharp Teeth. Ellison, unlike Kane, has never compromised on his principles (and this has hurt his career in many ways). Whether you like him or not (and if you don’t like him, be careful, he may sue you), he is consistent. And, like Kane, Ellison’s wife’s is named Susan.

The same as mine.

Comparing myself to the two “characters,” I aspire to be more like Ellison… but am afraid, every day, that I am turning into Kane.

As I write this, I just finished watching James Cameron win both best director and best picture awards for Avatar at The Golden Globes, a semi-phony awards ceremony that is still seen by some as an indicator of chances at the more legitimate Oscar ceremony. When he won best director, Cameron very honestly stated that he “expected Kathryn to win” – referring to Katheryn Bigelow, the director of The Hurt Locker, one of my favorite movies of 2009.

He should have. Because, while The Hurt Locker is a brutal and real depiction of people in an incredibly stressful situation – defusing IEDs in Iraq – Avatar is one of the most thin sloppy and false movies I saw last year. And I’m not talking about the CGI, I’m referring to the characters and plot. It’s thin as gruel, Saturday-morning television stuff. As South Park so aptly parodied it early this year, it’s “Dances with Smurfs”, played in large IMAX-scaled size. And in 3D!

Do I hate it? No, I’m frustrated by it. I’m disappointed by it. I like James Cameron, but more as a director than a writer. This was an opportunity lost, because Cameron refused to accept that he is NOT A GOOD WRITER he did it all by himself, and he needed help (much Like Lucas realized as he was writing the last Star Wars prequel). There is not one moment as I watched the film that I cared or sympathized with any of the characters on screen. Movies are about association and empathy and I did. Not. Care.

Is it stunning? Absolutely. Is it award-winning, for the visuals alone? Yes. Is it good, to me? No. To me it is Transformers 2 with a slightly better plot and better design and cinematography. As technology advances, and the visuals we see in it become commonplace and better filmmakers and writers realize than now anything can happen, I suspect it will not age well.

Yes, it is making a quazillion dollars. Good. It’s the closest thing we have right now in theatres to original SF, and I hope that Hollywood sees this and takes a chance on adapting some GOOD SF to theatre screens, like, well, anything Baen publishes right now. Or maybe that great Harlan Ellison I ROBOT script he did two-plus decades ago. They’d have to rename it, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the Will Smith movie.

Anyway, I know there are people who LOVE Avatar. And I’m happy for them. Movies are, like all art, received as personal experiences – you take something, or you leave it. You love it, or you hate it. For me, Avatar is a brilliant technological achievement without any real characters I care about.

It is a pretty, empty box.