You can’t go home again – X-files: I Want to Believe

I have an odd relationship with the X-files. When it first started out on TV I resisted it’s siren song. A co-worker was a huge fan and she kept trying to get me to watch it, but the commercials I saw just didn’t pull me in. My wife (girlfriend at the time) watched it infrequently and enjoyed what she saw, but I still didn’t care to see it.

I actually saw about half of one episode, (early season 3 episode with a young man who can control electricity). Coming in halfway and not getting set up, the whole thing seemed silly. I wrote off the show. And then a about halfway into the same season I caught the episode “Pusher”. The story was simple, a man has the power to persuade others just about anything he wants to. It’s not mind control per se, but it was a tool he could use very effectively – even convincing someone to take their own life. He ends up facing down Mulder and the episode was very effective. It was tense, the acting was good and the script was solid. I was hooked and continued to watch the series and pick up the VHS episodes.

I watched up until the movie, “Fight the Future” came out. I was seriously pumped for the film and found it disappointing. I picked up the show when it came back the next season, but missed a few key episodes. When I was able to watch again, I was lost in regards to the overarching story. I stopped watching and never really got back into it.

Eventually I revisited the series on DVD and found it just as entertaining as I remember, but with some elements that were so 90’s it hurt. Most of it had to do with the general feeling of paranoia and grimness that seemed to permeate the episodes (helped in great measure by the Vancouver locations). While the 80’s always seemed to be colorful and loud, the 90’s were dark, dirty and aggressive. Something the “X-files” seemed very much in tune with. Seen out of that light, it comes across a bit trendy at times. The core stories and acting are still very good, but some of the trappings are less appealing.

So I was surprised that the long rumored second X-files film was green lighted. In most cases nostalgia takes about 20 years to kick in completely. This means that X-files still had a few years to go before it could really jump on that bandwagon. The problem is that the stars and crew aren’t getting any younger and I suppose the idea was to strike while everyone was still willing and around to do it (and not make it look too silly with senior citizens chasing down UFOs).

Still, I couldn’t shake the feeling that this was a bad idea. The first X-files movie, while entertaining and part of the over-arching story never really captured my imagination (even on repeat viewings) as a solid film. It still felt like a television episode blown up for the big screen, but not quite measuring up. Star Trek had similar issues with it’s Next Generation films, especially “Generations” and “Insurrection”. The extra something needed to make them feel big screen worthy is missing.

I was afraid a second X-files film would fall into the same trap. And in a way it did. I know everyone was hoping for a success and possibly a string of movies with this being the genesis, but it ended up being something that disappointed the hardcore fans and didn’t generate enough interest for new comers. The plot does not revolve around some of the more sci-fi or monster elements. Instead it seems to be a simple serial killer investigation. Supernatural elements appear, but they don’t’ drive the case the way they would in the television series. It’s an interesting new direction, but at the same time it doesn’t feel like the X-files.

It’s been a few weeks since I saw the movie and I’ve had some time to think about it. What I think we ended up with was an epilogue of sorts. It was a summation of two people’s lives (and the acting is still solid with plenty of good moments for Mulder and Scully). They seem different from how I remember them (but I never saw the last few seasons), but it seems fitting in a way. They’ve evolved just as I have and this case brings up some pain for both of them. In a way it was interesting to see that dynamic work.

As I mentioned in my blog about the first season of the show, one of the reasons it works so well is that the characters of Mulder and Scully are well thought out and well matched. They create their own tension and support and to see it at work in a new story was the highlight of the film. But in the end I couldn’t help but feel that it was a bit hollow and a too late (or too early) to really capture what it needed to. There is a sadness to the film, but I think it also reflects on how I felt when it was over. Sometimes, you just can’t go back.

What did you think of the new X-files film? What did you think of the first film? Have you had the experience of a revisit to something you enjoyed in the past and were disappointed?

The Exciting Conclusion? – Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith

George Lucas finally ended his Star Wars movie series in 2005 with “Revenge of the Sith”. For many fans it was a mixed blessing. We finally got to see just how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader, but we had suffered through disappointment to get to this stage of the story.

I’ve seen this film around five times now and it does not improve with age. Many of the issues I had with the previous prequel films are in full bloom here. You’ve got horrible dialogue, poor pacing, questionable character development and spectacle over storytelling.

The biggest problem with this movie is the fact that it doesn’t really perform as a grand finale. Compare this movie with “Return of the King” or hell, even “Return of the Jedi”. “King” ties up all the loose ends, delivers it’s climax of good triumphing over evil because of a sacrifice, and then gives us downtime with all the characters to resolve their stories in a meaningful way. “Jedi” brings about the destruction of the Empire, the final confrontation between Luke and his father, and the confirmation of the romantic love between Han and Leia. Sure the Ewoks show up and make everything furry, but the emotional impact of “Jedi” somehow manages to triumph over the hairballs.

“Sith” has to give us the end of the Jedi, the rise of the Emperor, the creation of Darth Vader, and set in motion events of “A New Hope”. On the surface it succeeds, but the emotional impact of these events is pretty feeble. For me the only thing that really works is the last third of the film, where the betrayal of Anakin is in full swing. After Samuel Jackson makes his exit, the movie kicks into high gear and we watch as Anakin makes the decisions that will change him and his world forever. It’s effective because he is trying to do the right thing (in his twisted way). It also works because McGreggor’s performance as Obi Wan. The betrayal actually looks like it is affecting him (even if he goes over the top in a few moments).

However the end of the Jedi is no where near as sad as I anticipated it would be. I suspect that this Is because of the way the Jedi have been handled in the previous episodes. Their dialogue and their performances (for the most part) have been too stiff and formal. In addition we haven’t really seen them doing what we are told they do. The guardians of peace and justice just never seem much more then a bunch of robed guys who’ve been duped and manipulated since the first movie. When things go badly for them, we feel bad because they put trust in Anakin and because the music is sad – not because they will be missed. Did anyone feel bad when Mace Windu was killed? If you did, was it anything close to the way you felt when Han Solo was frozen? The connection isn’t ever built.

When half the movie resolves the conflict of the Jedi against the Sith, and it isn’t effective it makes the movie that much weaker. Anakin’s struggle has to carry the movie, and while it ends up being a success – it is really only a success in comparison to the storytelling failures of the first two films. “Sith” is the best of the three, but it could have been so much more. There should have been a serious emotional connection for something that was supposed to be devastating. In the end, we are only interested in seeing how this movie leads into the next three – the better trilogy.

What is your opinion of “Revenge of the Sith” or the new trilogy in general? Am I too hard on these movies and just need to sit back enjoy the eye candy they provide? Are you like me and secretly hoping that George doesn’t revisit “Star Wars” in an official way again?

Nobody does it Better - The James Bond Legacy

As most of you know, I'm a fan of the James Bond series. I enjoy the movies, I've read several of Ian Flemmings novels, listen to the movie scores and I've posted a few blogs about the books and the films. What makes this series so appealing to me? Well there's the classic mix of danger, girls, exotic locations and fun. Who can say no to that? But there is something else that has fascinated me ever since I really got into James Bond (oh I'd say back in the early 90's), and that is the legacy behind it.

The James Bond films have been in existence since 1962. Think about that for a moment. You've got currently 22 films with the same character, the same basic formula and a huge fan base for nearly fifty years. And that's just the movies. The books have been around longer. James Bond is a type of touchstone for Western culture (and it's crossed into several other cultures in other ways as well). His theme is one of the most easily recognized pieces of music ever. His name is recognized by just about everyone on the planet. And these aren't huge life changing movies with deep meaning. At the least they are basic comic book films and at the best they are well made thrillers. But they entertain and that is their biggest advantage.

There's a book out there called "The James Bond Legacy". Sadly it's out of print, but if you ever get a chance (and you are interested in movies and the idea of a James Bond legacy) pick it up. Authors __ and __ go into detail outlining the creation of James Bond from book to screen and then the development of this character into something more - an icon of entertainment. It covers all the films from "Dr. No" (1962) to "Die Another Day" (2002). It was printed before Daniel Craig took over the role, but it covers the first 40 years of James Bond in film and offers it's view on his enduring popularity.

What is amazing to me as you read the book (and look at it's gorgeous full color pictures) is that James Bond was really a product of the 60's. Hell, you can tell that by just watching any of the old Sean Connery films. They are a lot of fun, but they definitely capture the spirit of the time. Where the series really becomes fascinating is how it starts to adapt to survive the 70's (Roger Moore had a lot to do with this), evolve to stay relevant in the 80's (a new director brings Bond back to earth and Timothy Dalton opens the door for a more realistic portrayal of the spy), and when the 90's roll around you see how "Goldeneye" straddled a line to take James Bond into the new decade and keep a bit of the old and inject the new and wrap it all up in one movie. It's a fascinating read and the writers keep the pace moving showing how the changing world demanded changes in James Bond.

It even allowed me to appreciate some of the films that I never could get into like "Diamonds are Forever" and "Live and Let Die". Sure those aren't my favorites (and will probably never will be) but at least I understand what the creators were hoping for and why audiences loved those movies at the time (for the longest time "Diamonds are Forever" was the top grossing Bond film - even over "Goldfinger"!)

So for anyone who gets a thrill when the James Bond theme kicks in, I recommend checking out this book.

What do you think of James Bond? Do you have a favorite James Bond film (why do you enjoy it)? Do you prefer your Bond film more over the top or more edgy? Do you have a favorite actor in the leading role?

More Pulp Fiction - The Grindhouse

I was able to catch the complete version of "The Grindhouse" thanks to a free preview weekend. I had missed this in the theatres and had heard that the two films of this double feature had be released separately on DVD. So when the opportunity presented itself to see both films the way they were presented in the theater, I jumped at the chance. What I ended up seeing where two movies that gleefully dove into a world of over the top violence, exploitation, and just plain stupid grin movie making.

The first film, "Planet Terror" is your basic zombie film. You've got a group of survivors battling their way out of the zombie infested world using various guns, explosives and makeshift weapons. What makes it any different? I goes out of its way to make you feel like you are watching a beat up old 70's flick, with bad acting, bad dialogue, ultra-violence and completely ridiculous circumstances. The characters here aren't really well rounded, but all of them are big. Why have just a plain old go-go dancer when you can have one that loses her leg and gets it replaced with a rocket launching machine gun? Yeah I cant' think of a good answer to that either. Director Robert Rodriguez is obviously having fun pushing things as far as he wants and then pushing a little more. This is a bad movie, but one that knows it and quite frankly wants to be bad. You're supposed to enjoy it because it is so ridiculous and stupid.

I really enjoyed it, but I was in the right frame of mind. I could easily see this film coming across as too self conscious and having most of the fun drained out of it, because the director feels he is so damn clever to have thought this up. My argument would be that the pervading tone of the film was just one of pure entertainment - nothing deep, just a grimy, gory, and stupid good time.

The second film, "Death Proof" takes a slightly different path. It wears its exploitation roots on it's sleeve, but attempts to make a solid movie within the confines of a low budget look. It's directed for Quentin Tarantino, so you know what you're in for. The story revolves around two sets of the girls. The first group gets together at a local bar and run into a gent who goes by the name of Stuntman Mike (played perfectly by Kurt Russell looking every bit the like the burnt out stuntman). Mike seems to take a liking to the girls, but they ignore him as the old timer who is more fun to flirt with, but not go much further. Well Mike does want to go further, much further. When he get's behind the wheel of his heavily modified "death proof" car, he shows the girls how much he does like them.

The second set of girls seems to be getting set up the same way, but the only trick is that Stuntman Mike might have just met his match. These girls all work in the movie industry and two of them are professional stuntwomen. As he escalates his little game, the girls start giving back as good as they get - and now Mike's found the tables turned on him. Just how far are these girls going to go to show him what happens when you mess with a stuntwoman?

What's interesting about this movie is that it's about 90 minutes long, but feels like it drags in the beginning. Some of it is Tarantino's typical dialogue. If you like his style, then you'll love this part. If you think he gets bouts of verbal diarrhea, well the first half of the film really suffers from it. I fall in the middle. I think I see what he was doing with this section. He sets up Stuntman Mike and his preoccupation with the first half. This creates some serious suspense in the second half. Part of it might be the girl’s characters in the first half aren't as interesting as the girls in the second half. Either way, once the second half kicks in with it's car on car mayhem, you'll find yourself sitting closer and closer to the edge of your seat. The ending is fitting and segues into the typical great closing song over a Tarantino movie's credits.

In the end, I found both films to be a trashy good time. They had a similar feel, but were different enough to make it a nice evening of pulpy entertainment. If anything Rodriguez and Tarantino are very well versed in this type of film making and enjoy it as well. I also think that Rose McGowan has found her niche. She's really good in these movies (I'm not typically a fan of hers). If only we could keep Tarantino off the screen. He appears in both movies and his "acting" is so distracting that I kept wishing he'd wander off screen and get lost.

It's tough to make trashy movies well. Most good trashy movies weren't trying to be trashy and stupid and just ended up that way. But that’s the topic of another blog…

Did you see either film in the “Grindhouse” collection? Did you like one over the other? Did you see them together or apart? What do you think of “trashy” movies?

Poised on the Edge - From Russia with Love (Film)

Most fans of the James Bond films have thier favorite actor, favorite film and usually one or a couple they tend to really dispise. Most causal James Bond fans enjoy most of the movies, even if they get a bit dumb. What's interesting is that the film series has lasted nearly 50 years and shows no signs of stopping. With "Quantum of Solace" hitting theaters, we got our newest James Bond, Daniel Craig, saving the world, getting the girl and fighting ruthless villains again. I haven’t seen it yet, but if the sequel keeps the same tone as "Casino Royale" (the 2006 version, not the overly psychedelic 1967 version), then I'm going to enjoy it.

I decided to pop in the second James Bond film adventure, just to see where the series was going back in 1963. Here's a quick synopsis. James Bond (Sean Connery) finds himself on a mission to pick up a Russian cipher clerk, Tatiana (Bianci) and her top secret cipher machine. All he has to do is bring the machine, with or without the girl, from Istanbul to London. M and Bond are pretty sure it's a trap, but getting their hands on a Russian cipher machine is too good a prize to pass up (and the girl's a looker too). Bond arrives in Turkey and quickly finds himself caught in the middle of a feud between Russian and the British agents. After a series of narrow escapes he makes it onto the Orient Express with Tatiana and the cipher machine - unaware that they are being shadowed by a sinister agent from SPECTRE.

In the grand scheme of things "Goldfinger" is usually remembered as the first true Bond film. It had girls, the gadgets, the villains, the over the top adventure, and the sassy brassy style that seemed to encapsulate the 60's and the spy craze. In a way it's true, "Goldfinger" was the first really big Bond film. But "From Russia With Love" was the first complete Bond film. It has all the elements that "Goldfinger" had, but is missing one thing - the fantasy that took over the Bond series. "From Russia With Love" is the last gritty Bond film to reach theaters until 1969 with "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".

This edginess makes "From Russia With Love" feel more like spy thriller than a fun comic book ride. James Bond is actually in danger in this movie and the script carefully sets things up from the beginning making the audience feel that James Bond may actually get killed. The pre-credit sequence sets things up very nicely (the first time a pre-credit sequence is used in a Bond film). In it we watch as James Bond is pursued in a garden surrounding a large estate. The killer moves with deft skill behind Bond and succeeds in strangling him with a wire that slides out of his watch. It is revealed that "Bond" is actually a fake, but the killer is very real.

Eventually the killer is revealed to be Grant, an assassin for SPECTRE. He follows Bond all around Istanbul, watching, and waiting. During the course of the film, Bond finds himself in peril (as happens in these films) and even over matched. Grant will appear and save Bond's hide without revealing himself. The audience is even more intrigued. Why do this if he has been trained to kill?

When Grant finally confronts Bond in the Orient Express, the audience feels the tension. We've seen Grant kill Bond once (even if he was fake) and we've seen the control that Grant has had over each situation. Now he has Bond where he wants him and Bond is outmatched. This is the type of scene that is missing from "Goldfinger" and "You Only Live Twice", two of the more popular James Bond films featuring Connery. The danger is very real here, and then things explode with a visceral violence when Grant and Bond finally engage in hand to hand combat. This is still considered one of the greatest fights in the James Bond series. Of course Bond has to survive to appear in "Goldfinger" so we know how it will turn out, but this climactic battle works because of the careful build up of Grant and the way the story plays out.

Director Terrance Young helmed "Dr. No", "From Russia with Love" and "Thunderball" and each of these films are actually more like spy thrillers than the over the top adventures that people usually associate with James Bond. These are my favorite type of James Bond films, where the edge is real and the danger is high. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", "For Your Eyes Only", "The Living Daylights", "License to Kill", parts of "Goldeneye" are the other films from the first 20 Bond movies that have this feel. Of course the 2006 "Casino Royale" had this edge in spades, keeping Bond off guard for most of the movie. It's nice to have the thrilling back into the James Bond series, but it's always been there even as far back as 1963.

Do you prefer you Bond movies more thrilling or more fantasy? What do you think of "From Russia with Love"? What is the best example of building tension that you can come up with (books or films)?

Scattershot Narrative - The Right Stuff

One of my favorite movies from the early 80's is "The Right Stuff". In some ways it's a bit of a forgotten film. I rarely ever see it on lists of great films from the 80's and yet I still hear the main theme from the film in movie trailers. It's lasting legacy may be a single short scene. For those of you who've never seen the film, it covers the very beginnings of the Mercury Space program as part of the race to get a manned space craft into outer space before the Russians. The movie starts with a sequence of events involving test pilots attempting to break the sound barrier with faster and faster planes. Then it follows a few of those test pilots as they selected to attempt to survive the enormous amounts of tests required to prove that they are capable of being America's first astronauts.

The single shot that most people remember from the film has the camera at the end of a long hallway. Walking toward the camera are the seven Mercury astronauts in full space suits. The main theme swells as they walk toward us, slowly but with determination. These are men who are ready to risk their lives for their country and because they live to tempt fate by riding a rocket into the unknown. I've seen this same shot repeated countless times in other movies. Usually they add some slow motion to make things more drama. In fact the use of slow motion has become necessary for any long shots of a team walking down a hall to triumphant music, that I am always surprised that it doesn't happen in "The Right Stuff".

One of the reasons the film may not be mentioned very often is that its actual narrative is not clearly defined. The first third of the movie deals heavily with test pilots and breaking the sound barrier. The test pilot at the center of this portion is Chuck Yeager. We watch him become the first man to break the sound barrier and then see his reaction as other pilots appear and continue to go faster and faster. The movie switches gears when Gordon Cooper shows up and we follow him and his fellow astronauts for the rest of the film. Often times the movie will return to Yeager watching the astronauts on television or listening to their exploits on the radio.

One of the final sequences takes place at an enormous (and surreal) celebration of the space program moving to Houston. All the Mercury astronauts are there and they seem to know that for the moment the entire world revolves around them. The film jumps between this celebration to Yeager deciding to borrow a test plane to attempt to go higher into the atmosphere than anyone has ever gone before - without a space craft. Yeager's adventure in the jet goes from thrilling to terrifying, and all this is cut into the celebration with its cheerleaders, fan dancer, BBQ and shmoozing. It's a very odd moment, placing these two story-lines with and almost against each other.

The film then ends with Gordon Cooper being launched into space and for that moment "becoming the fastest man alive". The end titles roll. I'm always surprised that the story just seems to end there. It wasn't until recently that I discovered that the unique thing about all these men is that they attempted to journey at the fastest speeds possible and by themselves. After the Mercury program, astronauts never went into space by themselves. This connection makes the film tie together a bit better (and explains why Yeager is in the film).

As the movie stands you end up wanting to see more and actually become annoyed when one story line seems to push the other out of the way. You could have made a great movie about Chuck Yeager and you could have made a great movie about the Mercury astronauts. Instead we get a very good movie about both of them. It's this strange decision to tie the two together that never really works for me. I can see how Yeager's story influences the astronaut’s story. It's clear that these test pilots were the right men for the job, but the ending of the film seems like its trying hard to put Yeager’s connection with the astronauts back in.

So why do I enjoy the movie so much? It's got a great cast: Sam Shepherd, Ed Harris, Scott Glen, Fred Ward, Dennis Quaid, Barbara Hershey and a ton of excellent supporting players. The look of the movie captures all the early NASA footage I've seen as well as the mood of the early 60's and the intensity of the cold war rivalry. Bill Conti's score works pretty well in the film. It has a very early 80's feel to it at times and that can conflict with the 60's look of the film. For the most part, you are pulled into both story lines. The ending is the only thing that feels like a let down. It's sudden and doesn't feel like it wraps up either Yeager's story or the astronauts story.

What do you think of "The Right Stuff"? Have you seen or read an example where two different story-line actually work in a movie? Do you have a movie you enjoy that seems to get missed on "Top" lists?

Killer Application - Rope

Alfred Hitchcock is known as the master of suspense. Many of his films hinge up on a murder, or an unjustly accused victim. He builds suspense in his films by keeping the audience wondering when the murder is going to occur or when the hero on the run is going to get caught. Throw in some deadly obstacles and a double cross or two and you've got some solid suspense entertainment.

I've tackled Hitchcock twice before. In Suspicion we have only the heroine's point of view to guide us. She begins to suspect her charming husband of being something more than he appears to be. The tension builds on this suspicion. In Psycho, Hitchcock provides us with the woman on the run, and keeps us wondering if she'll get caught. Then he murders our "lead character" and closes the movie with other characters walking into the spider's den. This is a bit of a hybrid, half hero on the run: half waiting for the murderer to strike.

"Rope" is a different type of hybrid. The movie starts with the murder: a young man is strangled right in front of the camera. The rest of the film is contained in the apartment where the murder has occurred and the where the body is still hidden. The two murderers host a party, placing a feast on the chest where the body is hidden. The party guests include the father and aunt of the deceased man, his fiancée and best friend. Also invited is the old professor who was a favorite teacher of not only of the victim, but of the murderers.

This macabre setting acts like a pressure cooker. The murderers are so confident and smug that they don't believe they can be caught, and that what they have done (with the murder and the party) is actually a work of art. They tempt fate, and the notice of the very observant professor (played by the always solid Jimmy Stewart), but guilt starts to take its toll on one of the killers, threatening to ruin the whole work.

The audience is now waiting to see if the killers get caught, at the same time we get to find out more about them during the party. And as the party continues we find them deplorable, arrogant and (Brandon especially) a bit deranged. There is a logic to their reasoning, but it's a logic that seems to come from people who think they are better and smarter than everyone else. The audience wants them to get caught by the end, but the old professor is now in very real danger, trapped in an apartment with two killers, who admire and fear him.

"Rope" is often considered an experiment in Hitchcock’s filmography. All the action occurs in the apartment, and Hitchcock goes further by attempting to make the whole movie appear as if it has been filmed in on continuous shot. The illusion is interesting and it required the actors to be comfortable with performing the entire film in long takes. There is very little editing at all, but the camera is not locked off. It moves almost constantly, following the characters around the apartment, peering over shoulders and looking around doorframes. Anyone interested in camera work should check the film out for that alone.

Hitchcock stated that he wanted to create a filmed version of a play, something that was locked off to one set, but that allowed the freedom of movement that a film would offer. It's interesting and yet at the same time it hurts the film. Despite all of Hitchcock's efforts the film ends up feeling stagy. Some of the actors play very broadly (especially the killers) and while that would be fine on the stage a bit more subtly would have done wonders for the film. In the end, the tension is built, but not to the heights of the more masterful Hitchcock thrillers.

What I find interesting from the story point of view is the fact that the killers are the main characters in the film. We can't sympathize with these men, they are too arrogant and sociopathic to really like. The cold calculation of the act of murder and the party are intriguing, but after establishing their motive (they do it to prove a philosophical point), the audience is more engaged with the cat and mouse game. Will they get caught? If so, what will happen? Will the teacher, who exposed them to the philosophy they cling to, attempt to stop them or understand what they are doing? It's an intriguing set of questions, it's too bad the execution doesn't elevate these to a more surface level.

Have you seen "Rope"? What did you think of it? Have you read a story or seen another movie where remorseless killers were the main character? How did the creators attempt to make you sympathize with them, or were you just waiting for them to get caught?

Huge Horror - The Giant Gila Monster

Sometimes I wonder about what makes some people scared. I had a teacher that said that all fear was based on fear of death. Even stage-fright was based on performing so poorly on stage that the audience will rush you, strip you naked and then hang you from a scrim light cord. Yeah, I had my doubts about that one. But fear of death does seem to be the main cause of terror in horror fiction. Most books and movies put the perils in mortal peril and then you read about them trying to escape one way or the other.

What influences these terrors can come from what the writer of the story fears. For example, are you scared of clowns popping out from under your bed and pulling you into a knife filled embrace under the bed - don't watch "Poltergeist". And while fear of clowns (or of heavily made up humans trying to make you laugh) makes some sort of sense, you have to wonder about the inherent horror of "The Giant Gila Monster".

Now the Gila Monster is a lizard and some people hate reptiles of any kind. On top of that, the bite of a Gila monster is very poisonous. Ok, that's scary. And if you make a Gila monster HUGE then you've got dangers from being stepped on, or tail swiped or even being bitten half (poison followed by being severed in twain! That's really scary). So you see the potential for horror, right? Well kinda.

In the hit film "The Giant Gila Monster" the horror of the idea isn't translated well into existence. First off the low budget of the film made it impossible to show the Gila Monster actually on the screen with any humans. So instead of the stop motion wizardry of a Ray Harryhausen creature - we get a regular sized Gila Monster walking across model train sized sets. And these are obviously sets, or model train sets - whichever was cheaper. Sure our giant critter gets lots of close ups, and cut aways, so it appears he watching the action. But you can tell he's just looking for a quick way off the stupid plastic hill and find a rock to hide under.

When the movie tries to get the poor stunt lizard to interact with anything it's hilarious - not scary. He knocks over a model train, which gets an overlay of screams to create realism. All it really does is confirm that the sets are model train sets. He pops his head through some balsa wood to make it look like he's terrorizing a barn dance (you end up feeling sorry for him. You know some human just shoved his head through balsa wood). In my favorite scene from the movie, a toy truck is shown driving down a deserted road. Cut to Gila Monster. Cut to driver humming to himself, wondering if he'd get his tanker truck full of gasoline back to the gas station in time. Cut to the Gila Monster. Out shoots his tongue! Cut to the driver. Eyes bug out and he lets out a scream. The camera tilts crazily. Cut to a toy tanker truck on a fake road falling over and bursting into flames. One of my friends asked, "Did the Gila Monster destroy the truck with its tongue?" Yes... yes it did.

So, were the creators of the film delusional? Did they think that the Gila Monster's tongue was so horrible that it would terrify the multitudes? Did they have larger ambitions than their budget would allow? Of was it just a quick cash grab to make this movie (and "The Killer Shrews" ) to slap on a double bill for a drive in?

Yeah I pick option three.

But I can see how a giant poisonous lizard could be terrifying.

Do you have a favorite cheesy monster movie? Can you think of a way to make a giant Gila Monster scary? Would this same story have worked well in a short story or novel form? Have you seen this movie (with or without the help of Mystery Science Theater)?

Say it all by saying nothing - 2001: A Space Odyssey

Usually when a list is made of some of the greatest films of all time, "2001: A Space Odyssey" ends up on it.  You always see it on a list of the best sci-fi films of all time, and I've even read some reviews that declare it the greatest movie of all time: period.  I'm a fan of the film, I think it's very well made and served as inspiration for several other films from things as silly as "Mystery Science Theater: The Movie" to the Japanese animated film "Akira".

But there is a flip side to all this adulation.  I've met several people, especially when I worked at the video store, that absolutely hated the film or at the least found it to be very boring and lacking in substance.  Arguments against the film include: it's pretentious, the bookend sequences don't have anything to do with anything, there are too many shots that glorify special effects over story telling, the basic story is so simple that it could be told in 30 minutes - Kubrick stretches it over two hours, the music is too annoying to allow the viewer to focus on the film.

One of the things the movie does - and this is what splits people the most- is that it keeps everything very ambiguous.  The movie is presented primarily in visuals, sound and music. It seems to shy away from direct narrative.  By reducing the narrative to images, sounds and music the message of the film is not focused, it becomes this nebulous thing.  This accounts for the amazing variety of interpretations of the film.  I've heard people say the movie is about alien life guiding our evolution.  I've heard it's about the way man evolves because of technology.  I've heard people say it's about God's guidance of man kinds journey into space.  None of these things seems very alike.

Part of the issue is the fact that black monolith is never clearly defined.  Great importance is placed on this image, signaled by the music (which overwhelms most of the other sounds) and the way the monolith is usually filmed - it towers over the other characters, and seems to cause them to look up toward it.  But what is that monolith?  The only clues you get are related to the context of the monolith's appearance and the events that follow it's appearance.

What it comes down to is what you think of this ambiguity.  Does the fact that the director doesn't seem to take a stance mean that he is being obtuse on purpose?  And if he is being obtuse does that make him pretentious?  Or is "2001" a perfect example of sloppy film making?

When it comes to the last question, I can say that if "2001" isn't anything, it's sloppy.  It is very controlled, and the amount of detail, the editing, the selection of shots and angles shows that this a film maker who had a definite idea that he was trying to get across.  If that idea was ambiguity itself - well that's another thing all together.  I enjoy films that make you think, that don't give you all the pieces and let you decide what the narrative or even the theme are.  "2001" is one of the best films to offer that type of movie experience.  David Lynch offers his dark vision of the inner journeys of his characters (especially in "Eraserhead" and "Inland Empire") and he is often accused of being obtuse and self indulgent.

When it comes down to it, I don't think "2001" is ever going to fall off those lists.  It is a unique film and a pioneer in many ways and for that alone it deserves praise.  For those of us who enjoy the ambiguity, we'll always find ourselves returning to space and another viewing of that black monolith.

What are your thoughts on “2001” - great film or overrated critic bait? Do you think that if a director (or writer) leaves things ambiguous that it makes the pretentious or lazy? What do you think the greatest sci-fi film yet made should be?

You don’t know Bond - Thunderball (Novel)

I really got into James Bond in the early 90's. I think it had something to do with the hype surrounding "Goldeneye", but I'm not sure I really remember. I had seen some James Bond movies, but they never completely pulled me in. But around the 90's it became my mission to watch all the James Bond films up to "Goldeneye" and in order no less. I did it and it was a lot of fun. A few of my coworkers at the video store also got into the movies and we often discussed our favorite James Bond films and actors. See what happens when throw a bunch of movie geeks together!

I determined at that time that my favorite Sean Connery James Bond film was "Thunderball". Sure lots of people say "Goldfinger" is superior, and you can argue it till the cows come home (where did those bovines get to anyway?). For me, this is the perfect retro-fun Bond film for a summer day, and it gets yearly play at my house, much to my wife's chagrin (she's not a Connery Bond fan).

It took me a while to get my hands on the actual Bond novels by Ian Fleming. For the longest time they were out of print in the US. I actually picked up four of them when I was in England and have the snazzy British covers. I grabbed "Thunderball" because of my fondness for the film - and boy was I surprised. This isn't James Bond as I knew him. Of course it was foolish of me to think that the movies didn't change things here and there, but for the character to be so different - well it was a shock.

As a novel, "Thunderball" is solid entertainment. The movie follows the book pretty well, but actually makes some plot changes that smooth out some of the rough edges of the book For example, in the novel, Bond is sent to the Shrublands spa because M is on a crazy health kick. He encounters the dangerous Count Lippe there, but the only reason Lippe is at the spa is so he can mail the ransom note from SPECTRE. The movie actually makes the spa a staging ground for the whole theft of the bomber. This allows Bond to be closer to the action than he knew, and it makes sense to use the spa as the staging ground with the agent recovering from his plastic surgery there.

The book has a very dry British sense of humor, one that is counter to most of the goofy humor seen in the Bond series (mostly in the 70's with Roger Moore's take on the character). The opening is especially funny with Bond aghast at M's obsession with health. The Bond of the novels is a hard drinker, frequent smoker and a man who doesn't care about his personal health, only because it doesn't make sense to - he's probably going to get killed on his next mission. He might as well live it up. Bond's reactions to the spa treatment and the fact that he actually does feel better after it's completed are well written and amusing.

The novel also spends lots of time describing the SPECTRE agency and it's leader Blofeld. A whole chapter is dedicated to Blofeld and his history. This is interesting stuff, but in the scheme of things, it doesn't fit into the story so much. Blofeld isn't the direct menace in the novel - that goes to Largo. As a whole, all the characters are much better developed in the novel. I especially liked the personality of Domino, the lovely and ultimately trapped woman. Her dialogue with Bond and discussion of the picture on a pack of cigarettes gives us a clear insight to her, and makes the ending a bit of a rough one.

It was the portrait of James Bond that was most remarkable. He was much more realistic in the novel. He's a damaged man, one that really doesn't like his job, but at the same time is too good at it to do anything else. He is a predator that dislikes the kill. It's a strange contradiction and it makes him much more interesting than most of the film incarnations. He is lucky and will use his luck to his advantage whenever he can. He also makes mistakes and pays for them, or worse someone else pays for them. There is an undercurrent of anger to him, and it's something that really came through in Timothy Dalton's portrayal of the character.

Of course the movies are always a different beast. James Bond is synonymous with escapism and fun. A serious, angry and cold character is not going to appeal to the summer crowds. And so James Bond adapted for the times and for the films. Connery plays him with an edge, no doubt about that, and it's especially there in "From Russia with Love", but for my money only Dalton has really matched the portrayal of James Bond as he is in the books.

Outside of the fun of comparing the two stories in different media, the book is a good summer read. Fleming doesn't move the story along too quickly, but he does create some great moments of intrigue and action. Really the last third of the book has the most action, with the rest of the novel working as a casual lead in. The pace picks up at the halfway point, but only a bit, What's interesting is that the movie has the same problem. The novel is not the best of Fleming's Bond books - check out "From Russia with Love" or "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" for those, but "Thunderball" is still a good time.

Have you had a chance to read Fleming's Bond novels? Do you think such a major change of character was needed from the novel to the film version of James Bond? Do you have a favorite Bond film? Why do you like it so much?

Fantasy’s Dark Side... for kids! - Spirited Away

It is rare that I travel outside my local sphere to catch a limited release for a movie, but when the opportunity came up to see "Spirited Away" in a theater, I made arrangements and went. This Japanese animated film was created by Hayao Miyazaki, often considered to be one of the greatest living creators of animated stories. His work is immensely popular around the world, but has yet to find popularity in the states. Disney has obtained the rights to his movies and have been releasing them (and others by his studio) in theaters and DVD.

I remember recommending the film "Spirited Away" to many of my coworkers when it came out on DVD. In the end I did get a few people to see it. Some enjoyed it, but weren't as enthralled with it as I was. One person in particular came back to me and said, "That was one F-ed up movie. That was for kids!?"

The basic story goes like this, young Chieko (around 6 or so) is moving to a new home in a different city. One the way there, her family stops at a mysterious, abandoned, amusement park. They find an amazing restaurant with tons of great food, but no one around. The parents start eating, but Chieko is afraid they'll get in trouble. She wanders around the amusement park and sees something startling - it looks like a ghost. She runs back to her parents and finds that they have been turned into pigs. Suddenly Chieko is trapped in a strange world filled with mythical spirits, witches, living soot-balls and dragons. She is forced into servitude by the witch who runs things but is determined to find a way to find her parents and change them back into humans, before they become a main course.

This movie was made with a sense of wonder and love the marvelous and unreal. It is filled to bursting with strange characters. Some of them, like the witch Yubaba, can go from unusual to terrifying at the drop of a hat. Some of the spirits are cute, like the ones that look like newly hatched chickens. Others are just plain bizarre, like the turnip spirit. Miyazaki mixes the weird with the wonderful, creating amazing settings, intense action scenes, and his masterful use of flight. I have yet to see an animator capture the exhilaration of flying like Miyazaki does.

Since the movie deals with ghosts, witches and the terrifying possibility that Chieko's parents might stay in the form of pigs and get turned into a meal - it has a dark edge. I believe that Miyazaki is targeting that age where kids are still afraid to be on their own, but need to begin to feel secure by themselves. They need to know that there are dangerous things out there, but they also need to think on their own and realize that the choices they make affect others. This is a lesson I think some adults need to learn.

I highly recommend "Spirited Away". It has top notch animation, great characters, wonderful music, and solid voice acting for the English dub. If you haven't seen it, give it a try, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. For what it's worth the Academy of Motion Pictures gave the film an Oscar for best animated feature. Some have called it a Japanese take on "Alice in Wonderland" and I can see that - but more along the lines of the original book and not the Disney-fied version.

Have you seen "Spirited Away"? What did you think of it? What makes a film appropriate for kids? How scary is too scary?

“Mediocrities everywhere... I absolve you.” - Amadeus

I rewatched "Amadeus" again and I've got to say, it is still in my short list of all time great films. So much of the movie works so well, not only to convey an interesting story, but to create such a great character as Salieri and to delve into so many different themes. In addition, the DVD version contains the director's cut, which adds a couple new scenes and fleshes a few more out. Most of the added footage actually enhances the movies and it's themes. This is the way a director's cut should be (for another great director's cut, check out Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven").

One of the themes of this film deals with mediocrity, something that Salieri is striving to avoid. He's a good composer, but he never seems to be able to achieve anything "great". Instead of accepting his limitations, or working to improve them, he lets his jealousy of a musical genius, Mozart, drive him to become a despicable nasty human being.

This is something I think all artists struggle with. As a writer I can admire the skills and success of Stephen King, J.K. Rowling or Neil Gaiman. I can dream of becoming as big a hit as they are. I can set them up as my goal, or at least learn from their stories. What I don't want to do is become Salieri. But in the back of my mind I might wonder, "Why do I have this desire to be great, if I don't have that level of talent?"

Of course Salieri is also convinced that a higher power is attempting to stifle his pursuit of happiness. I know a lot of writers who believe in the power of luck and feel that being in the right place at the right time has a lot more power then actual talent. I guess that if you are bent on success in the publishing industry, that could be a solid observation. But personal success, or at least feeling good about your writing should be something we strive for as well. Can we be happy with being the best writer we can be? Do we have to be the most successful writer we can be? Are they tied?

Maybe the key is to accept your skills, hone them, keep trying and enjoy your life and your writing. This is one of the main things that Salieri never grasps. He's so jealous and bitter he doesn't enjoy the riches he has, the fame he obtains, and the admiration of others. He is a popular composer, one who has the ear of the Austrian Emperor - but he doesn't care. He wants to be something he can not and it destroys him.

Do you think mediocrity is a demon to be feared? Is there line between admiring a famous artist and coveting their skill? What did you think of "Amadeus"?

Struggling to find the words - Mishima

I recently watched a fascinating film about a famous Japanese author: Mishima. Fans of films that are more on the artistic side and that are subtitled should seek this movie out. it’s got great acting, superb camera work and an interesting story.

The movie attempts to show you a full picture of this writer, by showing you his biography (shot in black and white), scenes from his stories (in a vivid surreal color) and the final day of his life (shot documentary style). These elements are interwoven and set into four pieces each dealing with a different theme: beauty, art, action and the combination of the three.

One element of the movie struck me. Mishima was obsessed with words and using the correct words to express himself in the purest way possible. For him beauty was purity. Beauty could be represented in art. Therefore art had to be pure, and the more pure the art the more beautiful it was. Unfortunately he began to struggle with his writing, finding it harder and harder to achieve his goal of purity.

Now Mishima comes across like a writer who wants to create art. Most of us just want to tell stories and have people read them. However, I also think that each writer has a bit inside that wants to create something lasting. Maybe for something to last, it has to be beautiful and pure.

In the current world of publishing, writing is a business. There is little room for art and beauty. Most of the time, something is beautiful because it is different and new. Different and new doesn’t sell books. However most writers still feel the thrill of creation, the action of writing to make a story come to life. That gives us the thrill.

What do you think of art and beauty in writing? Is it something that writers should aspire to, or is it something that can only be done in personal writing? Or is telling stories an art that is not as appreciated as it could be?

To write or not to write. That is the question - Hamlet

I watched the epic "eternity" version of Hamlet, directed by Kenneth Branagh. At over four hours, it’s a lot of Shakespeare to take in. However, I watched it with the director’s commentary on to find out more about Branagh’s decision to make the film and why he chose to approach it the way he has.

I’ve seen the film a few times before and have enjoyed it well enough. Some things about it still bug me, and it does seem to drag in places, but on the whole it’s a true spectacle. I doubt we’ll see a Shakespeare production like it any time soon. When the film was made, Shakespeare was big in Hollywood. Branagh struck while the iron was hot and created a unique film.

However, I got to wondering about Shakespeare in general. Why do these plays endure? Why do people keep performing them? Why does every decade have at least one solid Shakespeare film released (the 90’s had at least six)?

Is it the stories themselves? Some of these tales, if broken down to their basics aren’t anything new. "Romeo and Juliet" is a tragic love story. "Hamlet" is a tragic revenge story. "Much Ado About Nothing" is romantic comedy. "Henry V" is a hero’s journey with an epic war at the end of it. Nothing really new there. However, there is something deeper. Shakespeare’s characters are a real draw. Many actors harbor a desire to perform Hamlet. Why? Because his character is so puzzling. People love to see Hamlet performed to see how the lead will approach the character. Is this Hamlet really insane, or is he just acting insane? The most interesting proof of this phenomenon is the fact that Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa made three film adaptations of Shakespeare’s work. These were not direct translations, but stories inspired heavily by the plays. It’s the characters that makes these versions work so well even in Japanese. Need proof, check out "Throne of Blood" "Ran" or "The Bad Sleep Well".

On the other hand there are those who love Shakespeare’s words. One of the reasons Branagh wanted to do the "eternity" version of Hamlet was to allow the full text to breath live into the characters with words. Shakespeare had the mind of a poet, one that was very skilled at selecting just the write words in the right combination of rhythm to give the listener a strong emotion, vivid image or just a delightful sound. This is why many feel that Shakespeare can not be appreciated if it is simply read, it must be seen and heard to get it’s full impact. Many times these people also abhor any changes to the text.

When it comes down to it, I think it is a combination of the two, Shakespeare’s intricate and compelling characters and his amazing use of language that keeps him so popular in the whole world. The first time I heard the story of "Macbeth" is was hooked. The first time I heard the words "To be or not to be" in context of the play "Hamlet" I was intrigued. To this day, Shakespeare’s stories and words inspire and entertain me.

Do you think Shakespeare is still a valid story teller or is he a relic? Do you think his words or his characters are the key to his success? What is your favorite play and why?

Broken Beginning - Star Wars: Episode 1

It had to happen sooner or later, I have to give the Star Wars prequels a little hate. I just watched "The Phantom Menace" again, with the help of Rifftrax. This is an audio commentary provided by a couple of the performers of "Mystery Science Theater 3000". You synch it up to your DVD and they basically mock the movie as you watch.

Now this film has plenty of flaws, but I want to focus on some of the basic story telling ones that I noticed, especially with the help of Mike and Kevin. Episode 1 has a ton of moments where exposition is dropped into the story, slowing down the action to a crawl. This makes the first half of the movie drag for what feels like three hours. The pod race speeds things up a bit (mostly because of the visual effects). Then come the scenes in the middle with the Galactic Senate and the Jedi Council. These scenes deliver important story elements but are so dull. The final section of the film on Naboo feels very forced, as if Lucas was attempting to mirror the ending of "Return of the Jedi" (with three climaxes occurring at the same time).

Compared to the ending of Jedi, this one does have nearly the same punch. In Jedi we are invested in the characters. We care about the fates of Luke, Leia, Han, Lando and the rest of the rebels. In "Phantom Menace" we don’t really have an emotional connection to the characters, we don’t really know what’s going on too well (many people are still puzzled by the end battles who hopes to accomplish what), and the stakes are vague (trade disputes).

All in all "The Phantom Menace" isn’t a well scripted tale. I think Lucas found himself in a strange position attempting to deliver important set up information, deliver new visuals and attempt to create a compelling story. For me the visuals are the only things that worked.

What do you think of the script of Episode 1? Do you think the film delivered a good story or could it have used some work?

Fear of Yourself - Perfect Blue

One of the more interesting movies of the 90's was the Japanese animated feature, "Perfect Blue". The story follows a young idol singer Mima. Mima decides to leave the popular girl group Cham and attempt to start a career in acting. Some of her fans don't take kindly to this. They become enraged when sweet, cute Mima poses for nude pictures in a fashion magazine and appears in a savage rape scene in her first film. In addition, the pressures of acting, the uncomfortable feelings of shooting the rape scene and finding a fan web site that seems a little too dedicated to her life starts getting to Mima. She isn't that strong of a girl to begin with and these events start to push her into a world of paranoia and guilt.

Then the murders start.

What works so well in this movie is that we are only allowed to see Mima's impressions of events. As her world starts to fall apart, we are there with her, seeing the strange illusions she sees, and realizing the terrifying possibility that she might be killing people and not even know it. Director Satoshi Kon, keeps the audience and Mima off balance till the final five minutes of the movie.

The main fear at work here is the fear of self, something executed as far back as "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". More recently this fear was exploited in David Lynch's "Lost Highway" and Christopher Nolan's "Momento". In "Perfect Blue" animation makes this fear even more acute. Mima's world is torn down literally, with animation allowing the director to create images that would be impossible in a life action setting. Kon would go on to warp reality in his later works "Millennium Actress ", "Paranoia Agent" and "Paprika".

What are some works that you've encountered that use fear of self as the instrument of horror? What techniques are used to make this type of story work (of what was done that made it not work at all)? If you've seen "Perfect Blue", what did you think of it?

Stephanie Plum vs. Superman! - One for the Money

I experienced two origin stories in close succession and it provided me with a nice glimpse of how to do handle the origins of a main character in two different ways.

In one corner we have the film version of "Superman" (1978) directed by Richard Donner. The film is split into three distinct parts. The first takes place on Krypton. This tells the viewer where Superman came from and what his possible mission was. The second portion shows him as young man growing up on the Kent farm and coming into his powers. The final section is his first major adventure against Lex Luthor and breaking one of the laws his father set down.

This movie is actually mostly exposition, especially in it's first section. In a way these stories are interesting to watch, but don't really have a drive to them. The third section is driven by Lex Luthor's plot and Superman's interaction with Lois Lane. Overall the movie is effective and for a long time was considered one of the best adaptation of a comic book character to the screen.

In the other corner is Stephanie Plum and her origin story in "One for the Money". The book only gives us a little bit of exposition, telling us that Stephanie is broke, has been laid off and is getting desperate. We get a bit of her history with Morelli (which comes into play later). The minute she becomes a bounty hunter and attempts to track down the rogue cop the story is cooking. What is great about this book is that Stephanie's actions, dialogue and reactions give us plenty of backstory and explanation. The book moves along at a brisk pace, keeps you entertained throughout and covers the basics of character introductions along the way.

So there you have it, two ways to bring the origins of a character to life. Which way do you think is more successful: starting the story at the beginning of the character's life and going into a brief first adventure or giving the reader the adventure and revealing elements of character as you go? Was Richard Donner's approach in "Superman" dictated by the fact that he was making a movie and it was based off a comic book? Was "One for the Money" handled differently because it was a book?

How Long Can You Look? - Freaks

So I finally got a chance to watch the 1932 classic, "Freaks". I found it to be an unsettling experience. It wasn't particularly scary, but I was unnerved at the use of actual people who were born without limbs, conjoined and a myriad of other variables. It wasn't that I was disturbed by them physically (OK, maybe I was a little bit), but I felt uncomfortable staring at them. I was staring at them because Todd Browning's camera was staring at them, inviting the viewer to look long and hard at these people.

Now I normally attempt to treat all people the same, no matter what they look like. Staring is not something polite people do, and this movie made me feel less then polite. Still the overarching story is plain, the sideshow folk are more adjusted and fun loving than the "normal" people in this movie. In the end the bad people are punished and people without limbs crawl in the mud.

Still this got me thinking about horror in general. One aspect of gross out horror is that it forces you to look at something you would rather not see, or something that you would hope to never see. The camera focuses lovingly on those moments where flesh is pierced and living flesh is turned dead.

However in this film, the camera is pointed at humans who are shown to be just like you and me except for their massive physical differences. Is this supposed to be horrifying? Or is the horror from the way the beautiful people treat the sideshow folk? In a way I found the movie to have a mixed message. This film is usually classified as a horror film, and the image of these sideshow performers crawling through mud armed with blades and obviously thirsting for blood made me feel that I was supposed to be disturbed by them. Instead I was cheering them on! Go FREAKS!

In the end I appreciated Todd Browning's skill behind the camera. I appreciated the way the story moved quickly and created some interesting characters. But I was unclear on the horror. If there is one thing a horror movie should be clear on, it's the idea of what scares you.

Was Browning trying to make his own version of a gross out movie? What was he daring us to look at? Where do you stand on gross out horror films and books? Is there more skill in the gross out shock or in the slow creeping dread?

We don’t Suspect a thing - Suspicion

Alfred Hitchcock is known as the master of suspense. This title has been earned from his numerous films outlining murders, the macabre and mystery. Of course he also directed a film named "Suspicion" staring Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine.

There is an interesting combination of things that makes this movie live up to it's title. Cary Grant is perfectly cast. He had already been playing the suave playboy for a number of films. So when you see him in this movie, you are immediately drawn into his charming and somewhat roguish qualities - just like Joan Fontaine is. As the movie progresses you begin to suspect that Grant may not be all that he appears. The casting is a masterstroke because the audience already likes Grant before he even shows up on the screen. In addition Grant plays the part with an expert balance of charm and darkness. You are kept off base the entire film, not knowing for certain if he is lovable or just plain evil.

To play off of him, and to draw in the audience is Joan Fontaine. She is the naive woman, who keeps seeing just enough to keep her suspicious but not enough to condemn her husband. Her innocence makes her a likable character but also allows the audience to feel superior to her - we know what's really going on... don't we?

In addition to the characters Hitchcock uses excellent light and shadows, and clever black and white photography to keep the suspense going. If you haven't had a chance to see the film, check it out and see just what techniques Hitchcock uses.

What movies, books or television series have you seen that execute suspense perfectly... or what have you experienced that tried hard, but never seemed to pull it off?

Disney’s Ultimate Fairytale Princess - The Little Mermaid

When it comes to animation there are few that can top Walt Disney in his skill to create an entertaining story, brilliant animation and music. Over the years the quality of Walt Disney's animation has waxed and waned. We've seen some cinematic triumphs and some stinky duds.

The story I wish to focus on is 1989's, "The Little Mermaid". It was the culmination of a type of story that Walt had been struggling with since his first animated feature: the princess tale. Obviously "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was his first crack at the story and while the movie is a classic and a marvel of animation, it looks a bit rough compared to his later works. Disney returned to the idea again with "Cinderella". What is interesting here is that the movie is really less of a showcase for the princess as it is a highlight for the supporting cast. The prince barely gets any screentime and there is little chemistry between them. This was improved with Disney's final attempt "Sleeping Beauty". Here the Princess Aurora seems to be a bit flat, but Prince Philip (the first prince with a decent name) is fleshed out pretty well and we get a great villain with Maleficent. The music and animation are wonderful, but the story seems a bit too familiar. Maybe it's because it's the third crack at it.

"The Little Mermaid" manages to give us a solid princess with Ariel, a good leading man with Prince Eric, and one of the best modern Disney Villains, Ursula. The animation is pretty detailed but lacks the polish of "Aladdin" or "The Lion King". But the movie has it's own look, one that works completely in it's own world. The songs and score are classic and fit well into the story. As it stands this is the best showing of a princess in a Disney movie and the best telling of the classic Princess tale. Sadly Walt wasn't around to see this version of the film. However it did usher in a new age of Disney animation and bring a lot of little girls back to the grandeur of the Princess story. It also showed everyone the potential to tell a great entertaining story in a medium that had been in decline in America.

Do you agree, or do you think Disney actually told the best version of the story later or before?