Art of Animation – Miyazaki

Since “Ponyo” was released on American shores this past summer, I decided to revisit a book I had about Hayao Miyazaki, ironically called “Hayao Miyazaki: Master of Japanese Animation”. It gives a nice basic overview of the man’s career up to the release of “Princess Mononoke” in 1998. So it’s a bit dated. In a way it was a neat look back at the type of book that would be released before the internet really took off for all things Anime and a time when most of Miyazaki’s work hadn’t been released in the states. Reading now was a bit odd, because the bulk of it is synopsizes for movies that are readily available. But back in the late 90’s only three of his films were available (uncut) in the US market, “Princess Mononoke”, “Kiki’s Delivery Service” and “My Neighbor Totoro”. It is the history of his animation work as well as the creation of his own studio, Ghibli, that makes this an interesting read– if not covered in a lot of depth.

But why should anyone care about Miyazaki? Japanese animation is pretty prevalent now and it’s impact has crossed over into much modern American animation. For one thing Miyazaki is actually a master storyteller in the animated medium. Just looking at his filmography and you can see a wide variety of topics: a comedy adventure film about a thief with a heart of gold, an epic post-apocalyptic legend, the story of a young witch trying to make it on her own in a big city, the war of man against nature staged in a mythic samurai setting, and the tale of a little mermaid who nearly destroys the earth. What is amazing is that all the films are successful and a few would be considered gems in anyone’s career.

Comparisons between Miyazaki and Disney usually occur. Miyazaki strikes me as less of the showman and more of a storyteller. The writer of the book actually compares Miyazaki to another famous Japanese director, Akira Kurosawa of “Seven Samurai” fame. That does seem to fit a bit better. Miyazaki picks his stories with care and makes sure that even in the simplest story a couple of key themes are realized. One of these themes seems to be man’s place in the world with nature. This has been a key element since his first independent film “Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind” and continues twenty some odd years later into “Ponyo”. For some, and this includes me, it comes across a bit preachy, but if you look at Miyazaki’s main conceit, it isn’t that humans are bad and nature is good. It’s more like humans are a part of nature – neither above or below it. Humans must understand that when they harm nature they harm themselves. “Nausicaa” and “Princess Mononoke” show this most clearly, but “Totoro” and “Ponyo” have elements of this as well.

One thing that Miyazaki does excel at is making his character relatable and human (even if they aren’t strictly speaking human). This is something that Disney seemed to loose it’s grip on in the late 90’s and that Pixar quickly figured out. Nearly all the main characters in a Miyazaki film connect with the viewer on some level. We’ve all been the new person in a situation, or felt like we’ve been put into a situation we weren’t ready to accept, or just dealt with losing a friend because they move away. His use of animating the world around the characters in a way that allows us to view it as they do works wonders.

One of my favorite moments of this is when Kiki, the young witch looking for a place to set up her new life, flies into the city for the first time. Up to this point Miyazaki has kept things moving at a measured pace, keeping motion leisurely and relaxed. But the minute Kiki gets into the city everything is in motion. There is noise all over the place, and Kiki nearly ends up run over by a bus. The anxiety is perfectly captured in the animation, facial expressions and music of the scene. Kiki and the audience wonders if she’s just stepped into something way bigger than she is.

I could write reams about what Miyazaki does right in his films. But I urge you to check out one of his films if you haven’t already. Different people will need different starting points. Those who enjoy a bit more mythic and epic feels to their stories would probably want to start with Princess Mononoke or Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind which could fall into fantasy or sci-fi respectively. Looking for something more along the cute and harmless route? I suggest Kiki’s Delivery Service or My Neighbor Totoro. Enjoy Alice in Wonderland and want to see a darker Japanese version, Spirited Away is perfect for that. Love WW1 airplanes and screwball comedy, Porco Rosso is the movie for you. Jules Verne more your speed, Castle in the Sky is the one for you. Looking for a modern day fairytale: check out the “Little Mermaid” inspired, Ponyo. The only one I don’t have a category for is Howl’s Moving Castle. It’s very much like a fairy tale, but has an old world feel to it. Visually it’s amazing. But it’s the one place where it feels a little off in the story department.

My favorites? “Spirited Away” amazes me each time I watch it. Visually stunning, a solid story and an excellent score to boot. My second favorite would be “Kiki’s Delivery Service”. The movie fits the definition of delightful. Kiki’s a great character and her struggles in the second half of the movie will appeal to just about anyone who feels they have a talent, but also feels that they’ve lost touch with it. The movie never fails to make me smile.

Ever seen any of Miyazaki’s films? Do you have a favorite? Do you think animation can be used to tell a story with impact, or is it only a place for kids entertainment?

Check out a blog about Spirited Away and it's take on fantasy here.

Devil in the details – Avatar

One of the common complaints against the movie “Avatar” is that the story is nothing new. Or to put it a little more harshly, the story was completely stolen from “Dances with Wolves” or “The Last Samurai”. Well as most writers know, there are only so many variations of stories that can be written. Ok, so maybe James Cameron and company could have fleshed out some of the plot points a little more – made things a little less obvious and included some genuine surprises. But they did succeed in one element that is just as important as crafting a solid story (and yes “Avatar” does have a solid story, even if it is derivative).

For the last half of “Avatar” to succeed on any level we have to believe the characters. And as simple as they are, we do believe them. There are three foundation characters. If they work than you’re 50% of the way there. With a firm group of supporting characters, even the most familiar story can generate excitement and emotion.

Jake Sully is introduced to us in the first moments of the film. He’s our lead as well as our guide into the world we are about to see. Cameron does something interesting with him. Jake is a disabled vet, a type of character that immediately generates sympathy. We know from his first lines that he’s still has the marine mentality, but that he genuinely seems like a good guy. Not only is the character immediately sympathetic but the loss of his legs actually create key character points as well as a few plot points.

In addition, we see that Jake is pretty open to learning, which is essentially what drives his initial interest in the Avatar program. He learns quickly and has a strong desire to do so. This is what ends up triggering his growth as a character. He learns to see the situation from both perspectives and then make his choices based on that view. Luke Skywalker has a similar experience in “The Empire Strikes Back” where he is eager to learn, but must see the world and it’s situations from more than one perspective – something he doesn’t master till “Return of the Jedi”.

The other two key characters are Neytiri as the teacher/love interest for Jake and the antagonist Colonel Quaritch. Both hit the familiar beats in the story that we expect them to, but at the same time they are kept realistic and interesting. Neytiri’s dedication to her people and her world are clear and provide the viewer and Jake with the lessons needed to survive on Pandora. From Jake she learns to see things as he does, and in the course grows to care for him.

Then there is the determined Colonel Quaritch. His story about his first day on Pandora not only provides us with a bit of environmental information, but also develops Quaritch. There is a rage inside him and I think that scar on his face is the obvious embodiment of that rage. He hates Pandora for what it does to him and the men under him. He is determined to show Pandora that he will not be defeated. His focus on Jake as an embodiment of the force of Pandora, as well as viewing him as traitor sets up the conflict. It also doesn’t hurt that Quaritch is a competent soldier who is every bit as dangerous as he claims to be. The final showdown between the two men is intended to be thrilling and because of the set up it is.

Examining the story from this point of view makes it a bit clearer how important the characters were to making the movie effective. Sure we’ve seen these tropes before, and we are even familiar with the path they will take, but when they are done right, even easily identifiable roles can be entertaining.

What did you think of Avatar’s characters? Can you think of another example of where a plain story was enhanced by good character execution? How about the opposite?

Check out my review of Avatar here.

Is this a horror movie? – Poltergeist

“Poltergeist” scared the hell out of me as a kid. I didn’t see it in the theater, but I did see it at a friends house. He was a horror fan, and I wasn’t quite into the genre yet. He felt this would be a good movie to start with, and so popped it in. I have to say that the scene where the investigator rips his face off was probably the most horrific thing I’d seen in a movie at that point.

After watching the movie again this year, my wife turned to me and said, “You know, this isn’t really a horror film. It’s a family drama”. This reminded me of the second time I saw the film with my buddy back in the late 80’s. We didn’t like it because it wasn’t like “Creepshow” or “Nightmare on Elm Street”. And that is what most people think of when they think Horror. Well that and the countless “Saw” films that seem to be plaguing us.

Truth is, lots of things can be considered horror. I’ve covered a few opinions in this blog (including Stephen King’s look at the genre in “Dance Macabre”), but for me “Poltergeist” works with one of the most effective types of horror – the fear of the unknown.

The reason the movie still works and rises above some of its dated special effects is because of two key elements. The family is introduced in a way that makes them very familiar. They remind you of your neighbors or yourself. In fact the trailer goes out of its way to say how normal the house in “Poltergeist” is. “A normal town, with a normal neighborhood, and a normal house… except for one detail”. This normalcy does two things. It makes the family relatable and it shows that these aren’t super heroes, just average folks. Contrast this to “The Haunting” where the house is a towering mansion, or even “Dracula” where the heroes at least have Van Helsing and his key knowledge. Here, the family is on their own facing something they can not explain.

And that is the other key to “Poltergeist”, the forces at work in the house are powerful and unknowable. You can’t reason with them, because you can’t communicate with them. Some don’t seem to want to do more than move things around the house, and others seem bent on taking Carol Anne into their world. Logic is thrown out the window and there seems to be only two options – fight the unknown or run away. And the Freeling family would have run away if Carol Anne hadn’t gotten sucked into that brilliant vortex.

To add to the horror you’ve got the two forces summoned to combat it: science and magic. The ghost researchers are obviously the scientific weapon. They come in and try to figure out why’s and how’s. They feel logic and documentation can solve this mystery. Quickly they are assaulted at all sides and the weakest of their number is driven away from the house (after he hallucinates that he tears his own face off – I’d run away too). This unknown force can not be quantified and the researchers end up doing little more than catching some great evidence on tape. But they realize that they are overmatched and turn toward magic.

Enter Tangina, the short and shrill psychic who’s able to contact Carol Anne and even figure out where in the house the portals to the other world are. At first Tangina seems to be the solution and it makes sense: use magic to fight the unknown. Humans have been doing it since the dawn of man.

Notice one key thing – Tangina does not go into the portal herself and rescue Carol Anne. She’s prepared to do it, but instead it is the mother, Diane, who enters the unknown world and comes back with her daughter. This works with the main theme of the film, of facing the unknown. The family, who we have become connected to must face the danger by themselves and even if they have help of science and magic, they must make the sacrifices and take the risks.

Well it all turns out well, with Carol Anne being rescued and the worst of the horror just giving Diane a streak of white hair. Tangina even declares the house “clean”. But the movie isn’t done yet. In a final defiance – the forces go right back attempting to take Carol Anne again. Magic was not effective. The researchers are gone, so even the reassurance of science is nowhere to be found. Even dad is far away - just mom and the kids and house full of malicious forces. The horrors are unleashed one on top of the other and things go bad very quickly. But it is the family that fights and escapes. Notice that all the members of the family show up by the end of the film, even the teenage daughter who was staying with a friend manages to show up just as the house is destroying itself in it’s unknowable fury.

The last image ties the knot. The family is together, exhausted and shaken, but together. They check into a motel room and push the television out of the room in a moment of dark irony. As the credits roll, Jerry Goldsmith’s score goes into a lullaby, ironic and maybe over cute. But stay till the end when the demonic giggling kicks in. Nice ending.

“Poltergeist” has a lot of great things going for it. Personally I wouldn’t have shown as much of the ghosts ands the powers as they did in the film. Horror of the unknown works better when it’s intangible. And since it’s the effects that are dated, these things could have been avoided with a less “in your face” approach to the story (See the 1963 version of “The Haunting” for a good example). But aside from that its power lies in the set up and in the execution of the story. A family drama? Sure it is. The family as a whole faces the forces of the unknown and survives. But the horror of the unknown is the other key. “Poltergeist” wouldn’t be as effective without either part.

What do you think of “Poltergeist”, solid horror film or over-rated special effects movie? Would you call “Poltergeist” a horror film or does it straddle a line? Do you have a favorite haunted house film?

Dark Demented Noir – Lost Highway

David Lynch has been one of my favorite directors since the end of the 90’s. I remember seeing a scene from “The Elephant Man” when I was a kid. In it the nurse sees the unfortunate man, and his image terrifies her. It was filmed like a horror scene and it scared the hell out of me.

As a kid I also watched “Dune” because I loved “Star Wars” and my dad brought home anything sci-fi related. Needless to say The Baron terrified my sister and I found it to be the most disturbing sci-fi film I’d ever seen. I know others feel the same way for other reasons. :-)

I can’t remember if I saw “Lost Highway” before I got pulled back into David Lynch, or seeing that movie was the cause – but I do know I saw it and the film impacted me profoundly. It was surreal horror in a way I’d never seen before. Lynch had captured the feel of the nightmare, and in doing did something that I had rarely felt – he scared me.

Most of the time, horror movies are gross and don’t do much more than startle me. But there are the rare films that use atmosphere to build horror, and the first half of “Lost Highway” does it very well. I heard the first 40 minutes described as a pressure cooker, with you feeling certain that something horrible is going to happen, but you wait for the other shoe to drop.

Now if you haven’t seen the movie, I’ll tell you right now, most people leave the film immensely confused after the first viewing. The first forty minutes move very slowly, and many find them boring. The next hour or so seems to be a completely different movie and the final fifteen to twenty minutes are screw with your sense of narrative so much that confusion is the only resolution. To be honest this isn’t good story telling.

Now, this provides a bit of an issue, if Lynch doesn’t tell an effective story than “Lost Highway” fails as a movie right? Correct. But if Lynches goal wasn’t to tell a story but create an effective and horrifying atmosphere that creates mixes an uneasy and uncanny feeling in the viewer, then his goal is met. To be honest I don’t know what he was trying to do in this movie, and if I got a chance to ask Lynch, he wouldn’t tell me. His favorite reply to that question is “What do you think I was trying to do?” For him it’s more entertaining to hear what others make of his work.

So maybe he’s just a snobby guy who has a very good eye behind the camera and knows how to create nightmare visions on the screen. But he does this in such an effective way that many other filmmakers have used his techniques to great effect – and especially in horror films.

Lynch’s follow up to this movie, “Mulholland Drive” is a better film. The story makes a bit more sense, (once you piece it together after multiple viewings) and the style seems more assured and concise. The pacing is quicker and fits the mystery of the film.

But “Lost Highway” is primarily a horror film dressed as noir. Shadows and light play huge parts in the film. Lynch utilizes sound and music in such a way as to disorient and horrify the viewer. Early scenes seem to have eerie silence, or undulating rumbles as if the world is waiting to close over the main characters. The house of the characters is always in shadow and hallways seem to stretch into a dark oblivion.

Lights are used in ways that seem to be perfect. Flashing white-blue bursts signify power and a moment of change. Brilliant headlights bath nude bodies in the desert. And the red light of a jazz club illuminates the face of a man who feels suspicion and rage building inside him.

Haven’t seen it and curious? Let me tell you a bit about the premise of the first part of the film. A couple living in modern house seems to be having a strained relationship. There is no sign of understanding or passion between them. One day a video tape is left on their porch (movie was made in 96, so no DVDs). The tape shows a slow pan of the front of their house. The next day another tape arrives, showing the same thing, but after a burst of static, it now shows the inside of the house, from a very high angle, almost as if it was floating in the air. It moves down the hallway and into the bedroom right over the sleeping couple. They are so disturbed that they call the police, but the detectives are unable to find any evidence of a break in. Later on the couple is at a party, and the husband meets a small pale man with no eyebrows. The man claims to be in their house, “right now”. He hands his cell phone to the husband, who dials his home number, and the man answers, even though he’s standing right in front of him.

Seriously, it’s one of the most surreal and messed up phone calls in movie history. And that bit of the uncanny starts the unraveling of reality for all the characters, and only gets darker from here on in. If you are familiar with Lynch’s other work, “Twin Peaks”, “Blue Velvet” or “Wild At Heart”, you’ll know what to expect. But this film is darker, perhaps the darkest of his movies (although I still haven’t made up my mind about “Inland Empire” yet). But in my mind, it’s the closest we will get to a David Lynch horror film and that’s why it’s one of my favorites for Halloween viewing.

Seen “Lost Highway”? What did you think of it? David Lynch: skilled film maker or insane pretentious “arteest”? Can a movie or novel be successful if it only accomplishes mood, but fails in telling a cohesive story?

Simply the Worst - Monster A Go-Go

How do you define the term, "a bad movie"? Is it something that doesn't entertain or enlighten you? Is it a movie that failed in it's objective (a comedy that wasn't funny, a thriller that was dull)? Is it a movie with bad acting? A movie that had a story that was told poorly? A movie with grand objectives but without the power to pull it off (usually because of budget)? Or was it a movie that did a combination of all these?

I've always enjoyed movies that just didn't quite measure up. The more ridiculous the result the better. When I was a kid I would often rent "Yor - The Hunter from the Future" or "Ator the Fighting Eagle". I have a place in my heart for "Tron" and "The Black Hole" as well as some of those overblown historical epics from the 60's, especially the goofy Italian sword and sandal ones. Sure most of my favorites were the fantasy and sci-fi movies, but that just feeds into love of genre story telling.

Then I discovered Mystery Science Theater 3000 and my perception of bad movies changed. Sure they did movies like "Pod People" a goofy Spanish/French co-production that tried to rip off E.T. and a slasher movie (yeah it makes about as much sense here as it does to see it). It was 80's and extremely odd and I loved it. There was "Cave Dwellers" the sequel to "Ator - the Fighting Eagle, with an even smaller budget and worse acting. Loved it! But then I started to see other things. Movies so poorly made that I was in awe of their power. The most famous of the bad is "Manos - The Hands of Fate". Yes it's pretty horrible but there are worse.

For me the nadir of filmmaking is something called "Monster A Go-go". The name is great, and promises a certain type of entertainment - maybe a 60's dance comedy with some kind of stupid monster chasing kids around. That would imply that some kind of entertainment was present. But this movie actually sucks the entertainment from everything around it - kinda like The Nothing in "Neverending Story".

What makes this film worse than the others? Well there are so many things wrong with it, I find it difficult to know where to start. There is a plot. A man goes into space, comes back as a monster and kills people. Scientists and the military try to stop him. In the end the universe corrects itself, time and space warp, and the man is OK and nothing really happened. Yeah, the old "reset button" cheat. Strike one! This is about as deplorable a storytelling device as "And it was all a dream".

Next, the movie is filmed in, what can be described as, grey and lighter grey (as opposed to black and white). There is a blandness to the shooting, the angles and the execution that actually makes the film duller. Even a few scenes that provide slight moments of unintentional humor (the murdered scientist's painful mug, the pitifully small space capsule, the party scene) are nearly wiped away by surrounding scenes of endless talking about the plot and what the characters are plotting to do about the plot. It's these scenes that are the killer. A perfect storm of dullness catches you and drains the joy from anything around it.

The "a go-go" part of the film never occurs. The film never goes anywhere. Even in the exciting finale the director manages to slow everything down with endless stock footage shots of some kind of fire department exercise. There is more talking and talking and talking - dialogue that is so banal it is nearly indescribable.

Then there's the ending. Nothing really happened, the monster (what little screen time he does have) never existed. Sorry to bug you folks - our bad. Um yeah, bad is the word.

I think the major issue is that this movie has no soul, no fire to be made. Even a horrible film like "Red Zone Cuba" has some spirit behind it. There was a message there. "Pod People" tried to be entertaining with its cute alien and murdered teens. Even "Manos" tried to be frightening. "Monster a go-go" maybe started life as a monster film, but it was never finished. Then when some producers need a second feature for a drive in, they picked up this footage, filmed some more and slapped the title on. They didn't care, and I wonder if the original director cared either. The overwhelming apathy fills and coats the movie and runs off it in waves. The effect is complete boredom for the viewer and possibly a desire to slip into a world where something like this doesn't exist. My wife has never ever seen the whole movie. She falls asleep every time and when I ask her about it a week or two later - she can't remember a thing about it. And she enjoys bad movies too!

Well that's all well and good Roman, but you said Mystery Science Theater introduced you to this film. So they must be there mocking it, making it safe to view. And that is the most horrible part of all. Try as they might - it's not enough. This is one of the least funny episodes of the show I've seen. It has it's moments, but there is so little for them to work with that the quips don't seem to hit, the riffs fall limp and the energy is drained from them. I never thought any film could defeat them - they attacked "Red Zone Cuba" with relish and did a wonderful job with it. I used to consider that the worst movie I'd seen. But this "Monster a Go-go" did it. Nothing can stand in it's way to either drive you to sleep or make drain you of all desires and leave you an empty shell.

It's almost fascinating in it's badness - if you can stand to watch the whole thing.

What is your candidate for worst movie you've ever seen? Have you seen "Monster A Go-go"? What did you think of it? Do you not understand the lure of the bad movie? What makes a movie really, really bad?

A Tale of Two Revisits Part 2 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture

The date for the release of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" (TMP) was set in stone and no force on earth could change it. Come hell or high water, it was going to be released the December 1979. Paramount wanted the movie to be a hit and they figured they had to have a holiday release to pull it off. Director Robert Wise pushed as hard as he could to deliver a watchable movie on time. But in the end, editing was rushed, effects scenes weren't complete and the sound mix was never perfected. Still the movie hit the theaters on time and the loyal Star Trek fans saw the movie again and again.

Contrary to popular belief, TMP wasn't a failure. It made money, mostly based on the repeat viewings of dedicated Star Trek fans, and enough single viewings by the curious and those who were hoping for something along the lines of "Star Wars: A New Hope". I know my family went to see it, because I was a huge Star Wars fan. I vividly remember getting some kind of fast food promotional thingy with a starfleet iron-on and a game to find "The Real McCoy". But in the end, the movie disappointed fans and new comers alike. It picked up the name "Star Trek: The Motionless Picture" and other cute aliases.

Jump to 2001 and several things have happened. The Star Trek movie series had unleashed a serious dog in the form of "Star Trek V - The Final Frontier" and by comparison, TMP didn't look so bad anymore. Enough time had passed so that some perspective was allowed. For all of its faults TMP was probably the only movie to attempt to really capture the awe and enormity of space exploration. While later adventures focused on the crew and their dilemmas (for some solidly entertaining movies), TMP had a serious theme at its core - one about concept of humanity. It looked like everyone involved in the project just reached a little too high and missed the goal.

Paramount watched carefully and saw that the Star Wars Special Edition campaign worked very well for George Lucas and Fox. They were ready to release the film on DVD and Robert Wise was available to revisit the film. They offered him the chance to go back and rework TMP into the movie he intended it to be. He was given a special effects budget and access to unused footage and sound effects. Initially the revamp was going to get a theatrical release, but became the flagship offering for the first Star Trek movie on DVD in a two disc set.

What are the results? In my opinion: it is a better movie all the way around. It moves faster, it has a greater overall impact that resonates deeper than the previous cut was able to. The strange thing is, the changes are pretty hard to detect. The biggest change is the pacing. There are still some moments of slogging in the middle of the film but they aren't nearly as bad as they used to be. The updated effects shots fit pretty seamlessly into the existing footage. You have an extended background here, some new shots out of a window there, and improved visuals with the V’ger entity that give you a real sense of its size and power. This ups the ante at the end of the movie, and makes the stakes for the crew of the Enterprise very clear. The new footage here and there clarifies some points and actually gives Spock a full character arc.

This doesn't mean that movie is perfect. Improved? Definitely. But there are still some issues that could not be solved. This is still a slow moving movie. It was intended to be one and that hasn't changed. It was going for more of a "2001: A Space Odyssey" feel, over the action and adventure of "Star Wars". Some of the acting is lacking in areas. The costumes still look pretty goofy (and the whole muted look of the Enterprise is just odd). The basics of the plot haven't changed and I know that some people were annoyed by the fact that the story was very similar to a couple of episodes from the original series.

With that said, I think Robert Wise was able to improve his movie and please most fans at the same time. None of the changes harm the film, and even if a favorite scene got cut, the DVD has all the edited footage (and unused footage that was left out in the first place) on the second disc to peruse. I haven't really run into any Star Trek fans who were upset with the Director's cut. Some still don't like the movie, but feel that it was improved overall.

In the end, I’ve always been a sucker for the original cast of Star Trek. I enjoy the movies and this one is pretty nostalgic for me. I'd enjoy it without the changes, but the new cut makes for a better film, and one that even people who disliked it the first time around, may find value in now. I think "Wrath of Khan" was a better movie all around, but for me TMP is still a classic sci-fi adventure.

What was your first impression of TMP when you first saw it? Did it change with a viewing of the director's cut? Comparing this directors cut to Lucas' new cut of Star Wars - which one benefited the most?

A Tale of Two Revisits Part 1 - Star Wars - A New Hope

Back in 1997 George Lucas decided that it would be a good idea to revisit his Star Wars trilogy and do some clean up. This was done to save the 1977 film which had deteriorated much more than anyone had expected. But it also gave Lucas a chance to fix some of the things that had always bothered him about the movie. Because of budget and time constraints (not to mention inventing and perfecting special effects to make the movie work), several things about the film just never worked for him. A perfect example is Luke's landspeeder. In the original, you could clearly see the mirrors and even the smudging that was needed to hide the wheels under the vehicle. In the Special edition, he was able to digitally remove the wheels, mirror and smudging that had been jokingly called "the force field" to give the illusion that the landspeeder was hovering over the sands.

But George also had another motive in mind. He was planning for his prequels and he wanted to see just how much he could alter a film with special effects and have the audience accept it. He knew his new movies were going to have scenes were nothing on the screen was real - basically animation. And if he was going to mix these scenes with actual footage of real people on real sets or on location, he wanted it to be accepted.

So he dug up his old unfinished footage of Han and Jabba meeting. He added some more scenes to Mos Eisley. He replaced aliens in the cantina. He reworked Han's confrontation with Greedo. He practically redid the entire end battle with computer generated starships.

The results were a mixed bag with most fans. Some people felt that "their childhood was raped" by the changes. The most hated change was the whole Greedo vs. Han exchange. Others felt that the movie gained much from the upgrades, and felt that the overall effect was a good one. Newer fans felt it was a vast improvement, feeling the old 70's effects were looking pretty bad.

My opinion? I thought that the overall idea was a sound one. I didn't mind most of the little technical changes that added to the film. I didn't like Greedo shooting first, and I think the updated effects in that scene still look bad (they were cleaned up a bit for the DVD release). I'm not disavowing Lucas because of the change, but I didn't think it was necessary. I didn't like the new scenes with Jabba and or the added moment with Biggs. Both weren't needed to tell the story and the Jabba scene feels like it was forced in (especially with Mr. Fett's knowing look at the camera). As for the revamped space battle, I think it is an improvement. The ships have more motion, and it generates more excitement. In addition it’s easier to follow what’s going on, especially Wedge's maneuver to save Luke. For the longest time I never knew what the hell happened in that scene - the Special Edition clears it up.

Still many fans were more than angry, they were infuriated. Hatred for the new version of the classic film was boosted by other changes in "Empire" and "Jedi, not to mention the release of the prequels. Many of these angry fans are old timers, like me, who grew up with Star Wars and hold it close to our hearts. I held on to my old Laserdisc version to be able to watch the unchanged version of the movies - but I bought the Special Editions as well. Eventually Lucas offered an olive branch to the pissed off fans with an untouched copy of the original films (even going so far as to release the cut with the opening crawl, minus the episode number). Still some fans are angry that these original versions are not in anamorphic widescreen. You can't please everyone Mr. Lucas - don't even try.

I know many people who are convinced that the Special Editions were one hell of a cunning marketing scheme. Lucas got to release his existing films, tinker with some scenes for a minimal amount of money and then release them to cash in. All the old timers will see them for nostalgia reasons and bring their kids along (20 years later most of us old timers have kids), and start the cycle fresh again - just in time for "The Phantom Menace" in theaters in 1999. If he made a few people angry - who cares. He got them to see the movie didn't he?

I'm sure some of that mercenary thinking went into the decision, but I think that Lucas was frustrated with some aspects of Star Wars. Even in old interviews he's lamented some of the failings of the “cutting edge for 1977” effects. In that vein, I don't mind him going back and cleaning up the movie a bit. But when you start tampering with character motivations, and basic storytelling - it's bound to make some fans unhappy. Add to it the fact that tampering with the movie inspired other tampering to occur (Spielberg’s changes to "ET" are one of the bad side effects), and that Lucas can now make little tweaks to all his films and release them again and again and again - just leaves a bad taste in this fan's mouth. It's one of the reasons I really stopped calling myself a Star Wars fan. I enjoyed the classic films in their classic form, and while I do watch the Special Editions from time to time, I’m glad I can watch the versions I remember from my youth. Because for me, Star Wars makes me feel like a kid again.
What did you think of the Special Edition Changes Lucas made? Do you think fans made angry by the changes need to get a life, or do they have valid points? Do you have a problem with a creator going back and tinkering with his creation (especially when it comes to movies and books)?

The Lion Roars - The Lion King

Disney animation got a nice kickstart in 1989 with "The Little Mermaid". It brought back some hope that American animation could be something more worthwhile than endless reruns of "Smurfs" and strange Japanese hybrids like "Transformers" and "GI Joe". For a while Disney kept releasing top class animated efforts based on their successful model with: "Beauty and the Beast", "Aladdin" and climaxing with "The Lion King".

In a way "The Lion King" was the most experimental of the new style Disney films. It wasn't based off a fairy tale (and seemed to be based on a Japanese anime by the name of "Kimba the White Lion" but that can be disputed either way). It was scored by a man who worked primarily on film scores: Hans Zimmer. Instead of using a full blown Broadway style to the film, they chose to use a more pop oriented sound, supplemented by Elton John. In addition, this movie was to use more computer animation than the previous installments, especially in the climactic wildebeest sequence.

The result was one of the most successful Disney animated films of all time. The music was on the radio constantly, and Lion King plushies were in every house. I was working in the video store at the time of it's release, and I can tell you we sold a ton a Lion King tapes and Laserdiscs. Many declared it the best Disney film ever, and while I was quick to dispute that, I was willing to admit it was top notch Disney.

It had been a few years since I'd seen the film, probably back when it first came out on DVD. I was interested to see where it fell in the pantheon of Disney films, now that we've seen where Disney ended up heading (into the realm of "Hercules" and "Chicken Little") and where Pixar took us (with "Toy Story" up to "Wall-E"). Would "Lion King" still be on its high perch or would it be deposed?

Upon my recent viewing of the big four ("The Little Mermaid" through "The Lion King"), I think that my ratings have fallen into pretty much the same place they fell before. I think "Aladdin" trumps "Lion King" in overall entertainment value and as a complete experience. I think part of that falls into the fact that Disney really hit the perfect balance with their model in "Aladdin". The "Lion King" as conventional as parts of it are, is really pretty experimental for a Disney film.

Even if the film is based on "Kimba: The White Lion" it is also based on the same basic story as "Hamlet". In this case we get to see how the good king, Mufasa, interacted with his family and subjects, instead of hearing it all second hand. We also get to have Hamlet be a cute little lion cub in these sequences, which helps enormously when the king is killed. Another twist in the tale is that Simba feels responsible for the death of his father and runs away. So instead of a brooding introspective Hamlet, we get a carefree but guilty Simba. Of course things have to get down and dirty with the finale, and "The Lion King" doesn't skimp too much - lots of fire, rain and stark landscapes as Simba and Scar battle it out. It's actually pretty hellish and reminded me of the feel of "A Night on Bald Mountain" from "Fantasia". It ends with Scar being torn apart by his hyena lackeys. Yeah, pretty gruesome for Disney, even if it shown in shadow.

What is also interesting is the use of music in "The Lion King". While "The Little Mermaid", "Beauty and the Beast" and "Aladdin" all used the Broadway musical format, and had the songs actually move the story forward - the songs in the "Lion King" are more decorative. "The Circle of Life" contains one of the themes of the film, but the actual song itself doesn't have anything to do with the plot. Compare this to the opening numbers of "Beauty" and "Aladdin" and you have songs that present the main character and their world, marrying the animation and words of the song - just like a musical. In fact the only song from "The Lion King" that really fits the mold of a musical is "Be Prepared", Scar's song about his plan for pride-domination.

The flip side is that we get a full blown film style score from Hans Zimmer. As good as Menkin's score music is for "Aladdin", Zimmer is able to actually capture the power of the story in his score. He fuses ethnic sounds, his traditional muscular synthesizer sounds (which will echo his future work on "Gladiator" and "Kung Fu Panda") and a great use of voices to elevate the scenes and accent the action. Zimmer's work is consistent and is much different from what Disney had tried before. They would get a similar type score when they hired Jerry Goldsmith to work on "Mulan".

But enough about music, how about the cast. Nearly every main voice in "The Lion King" was some kind of film or television celebrity. Compared to "Aladdin" where the biggest celebrity voice as Robin Williams, this was a big turn around. Here we can see the birth of the use of an all celebrity cast, and it works for the most part. Much of the animation even managed to capture the look of the actors and fused it well to the animals (Jeremy Iron's facial expressions translate well to Scar's furry mug).

However some of this casting robs the picture of it's effectiveness because you are immediately presented with an actor's voice that you know well. Suddenly Mufasa becomes Darth Vader or worse, Thulsa Doom from "Conan the Barbarian". Does Mufasa enjoy cannibal orgies? For me, Robin Williams worked as the genie, because the character was a magical being, one that was capable of "phenomenal cosmic power". It would make sense that he was a over the top and filled with antics. Since his voice was the only real recognizable one, it didn't detract.

"The Lion King" doesn’t' feel as smooth in this department. In fact, it works better to cast unrecognizable voices (celebrity or not). The only real condition should be acting skill. Check out Pixar's work in "Ratatouille". There were some big names lending their voices to that movie, but I only recognized Peter O' Toole and only at the very end (the character looked nothing like him and that helped).

Of course part of the reason "Lion King" works well is that the basic story is solid and its execution is well done. Who would have thought that Disney would attempt a story dealing with fratricide and revenge - but here you go. In addition, these elements aren't blunted. Mufasa's death at the hands of his brother is horrific (not graphic, but visually potent). Simba's reaction to the death and the way Scar twists the guilt knife are done very well and allow us to truly hate Scar and sympathize with Simba. If Disney had softened these moments with comedy or a song - it would have robbed the power of the finale. Thanks to the set up, when adult Simba climbs Pride Rock (with the help of Zimmer's score) we feel that Simba has redeemed himself, saved his family and his people and brought justice back to the world.

In the future Disney would attempt to tackle such weighty movies as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and deny the darkness of the story, injecting humor and songs where they were not needed. They would tackle history with "Pocahontas" and create a muddled narrative with some seriously bizarre choices that make the film an oddity. They would tackle "Hercules" and made what should have been a rollicking adventure story into an inspirational sports film!?!

"The Lion King" was an experiment that worked. It has some weak points (and they were exacerbated in future Disney films), but as a whole it's a solid film. It's interesting to see what Disney did and didn't learn from this film. Eventually many of the good points were utilized by Pixar in "Toy Story" and it wouldn't be long before the idea of creating a story first and building the film around it would allow Pixar to push to the top of the heap in American animation.

What do you think of "The Lion King" and it's place in the Disney cannon of animated films? Do you think that the Disney renaissance of the early 90's was a fluke? Do you think that traditional cell animation (like "The Lion King") is a relic and that Pixar dominates because of its amazing computer animation?

The Perfect Film? - Seven Samurai

I ran into a few critical reviews of the film "Seven Samurai" that referred to it as "the perfect film"?  Usually the reviewer would go on to explain why they felt that this movie was perfect. They would often point out the many great things about "Seven Samurai" and I was left with a little doubt that it was, in fact, perfect.

Now let me start by saying that I really love "Seven Samurai". It's one of my favorite films by director Akira Kurosawa.  I usually recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen a Kurosawa film before.  But I always give out the same caveats - it's Japanese (meaning it's subtitled), it's black and white, and it's over three hours long.  Right off the bat there are three strikes against the film.  Most modern movie watchers will see these three elements as the kiss of death.  In addition, while it does have action, it is a slow builder.  The battle at the end of the film is fast and furious, but for the most part the samurai battles are relegated to that final hour.

I find it hard to label a movie "perfect" if I have to put disclaimers before it.  Now, maybe for a Japanese audience back in 1954 it was perfect (but looking at the box office, "Seven Samurai” was popular but not the years biggest grossing film).  In fact the movie is more and more a perfect film for cinema junkies.  It's a movie that becomes more and more impressive as you dissect it.  Many critics like to point out that there are no wasted scenes in this movie, and while that can be argued, it is amazing how lean and mean the storytelling is in the film.

What makes it such a good film is that it does so much with it's time.  It creates the problem: bandits are going to raid a helpless village.  It provides the solution: the villagers hire seven samurai to help protect them from the attack.  It provides an action packed climax: the villagers and samurai defend themselves and defeat the bandits, but at a cost.  Simple and effective.  But Kurosawa does more, he creates interesting characters, ones that you want to find out more about, ones that end up caring for, ones that make you empathize with them or admire them.  Then when things get nasty, the viewer is sitting on the edge of their seat wondering which samurai will survive, which villagers will step up to the challenge and if the young lovers will stay together.

Watching the film by itself or with the excellent critical commentary provided on the Criterion version of the DVD allows you to understand how well the movie is made.  The behind the scenes stories are almost as engrossing as the film itself.  I heartily recommend it for anyone willing to watch a black and white, Japanese film; as long as they have over three hours to spare (there is an intermission, so you can work your bathroom and food break in there).

This brings me back to the "perfect movie" idea.  Is there a movie similar to "Seven Samurai" that I could tell a modern viewer to enjoy?  This is really tough.  Something with the same entertainment value, and yet one that delivers an emotional punch at the end.  Something in color and preferably not three hours long.  I flipped and flopped for a while on this and only came up with a couple contenders: "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Matrix".  Yeah it's a stretch, but both films are crowd pleasers with main characters that draw the viewer in and deliver some kind of message.  "Raiders" is a little light really - much more of an action picture than anything else.  "The Matrix" does have an interesting message, that loses it's punch with the "magic kiss" at the end.  @_@  Still bugs the hell out of me.

If I'm allowed to reach for the 3 hour time frame I would offer "Kingdom of Heaven: The Directors Cut" and "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring".  In it's extended form "Kingdom of Heaven" is a excellent movie.  It's characters are much more defined and the ending packs a greater punch than it previously did.  It still suffers a bit in places, but this movie deserves more credit than it gets.  "Fellowship" is still my favorite of the Lord of the Ring trilogy.  On the downside it doesn't have a real ending, but the climax at the end is bittersweet and fits the rest of the film.  For the most part the story moves along briskly, adding new characters, giving them depth and then whisking you along for the ride.  I prefer the longer extended cut, because it does allow the viewer to settle into the world and see more of the characters.  But the theatrical cut is serviceable as well.

In the end, none of these choices seems to be a good fit.  They are all fine movies but they seem to lack the what makes "Seven Samurai" work so well on almost all levels.  Maybe I'm blanking on an obvious choice but that's where you come in...

What do you think of Seven Samurai?  If you've never seen it, would you ever?  Can you think of a modern movie that might be comparable to it or has the skill needed to make those types of movies passed us by?

The Clones Strike Back - Attack of the Clones

Immediately after I saw "The Phantom Menace" in theaters, I became a apologist for the film.  I did my best to convince myself and others that it wasn't really that bad of a movie.  Time has passed and I realized that is was really that bad.  When "Attack of the Clones" was released I enjoyed moments, but found the whole thing to be lacking.  When I revisited this movie on DVD most of what I liked in the movie decreased with the shrinkage of the screen.  For example, the chase on Coruscant was no longer thrilling. It was extremely long and lacking the exhilarating feel that the music and visuals are going out of their way to sell.

This film suffers from many of the same ailments that "The Phantom Menace" suffers from: badly handled exposition, weak acting, horrible sci-fi names, countless shots of ships landing and taking off, a rough script and Jar Jar Binks.  What I want to focus on is the dialogue, one of the key points that really damages this film.  Simply put, this movie has the worst lines in the trilogy.  Obi-wan chiding Anakin and the "humorous" dialogue between them during the chase on Coruscant is truly wince inducing.  The banter of "A New Hope" is clearly missing here, but what we have instead isn't a substitute.  It tries way too hard to be funny and doesn’t flow in any natural way.

Of course the worst offenders are the romantic scenes.  Lucas could have and should have avoided all the talky stuff and gone with a more obvious physical attraction and wordless dynamic between Padme and Anakin (this would require some chemistry in these roles and the cast didn't seem to have much of that).  Instead he overlays the feelings with heavy handed and poorly worded dialogue.  None of it sounds genuine - and that is a problem.  Sure, this is Star Wars and even Han and Leia's scenes in "Empire" were not the pinnacle of romantic dialogue.  But we had a definite physical attraction there.  The words were playful and perhaps not natural sounding but at least sounded right from these characters.  Padme and Anakin sound very forced and when Padme confesses her love to Anakin - well, I always end up laughing.

Not nearly as funny are C-3PO's string of horrid and groan inducing puns.  The fact that these are supposed to be accidental puns makes it even worse. If 3PO is saying them on purpose - why?  He's never punned before and never puns again.  Why do it here?  As I mentioned most of the "humor" in this film is very forced and weak.

Even Yoda doesn't escape the damage. For some reason, and it's probably just me, I can't stand when he says something to the effect of "Around the survivors a perimeter make." Yoda-speak got out of hand in this movie, causing some seriously goofy sounding lines.  

After watching the film I usually come back to the same feeling.  This movie feels as long as "Phantom Menace" and just as painful.  Some think it is an improvement over the previous film, but I think the dialogue ends up damaging the few good battle scenes we do get.  Is there anything good about this movie?  Sure, the visuals are still top notch and paint an amazing series of worlds and characters.  The final battle scene is great popcorn for those who love lightsaber battles and lots of mechanical ships and walkers stomping around.

But you are saying "If you hate it so much, why do you watch it?"  Well I've got a Rifftrax for it, and it makes it actually fun to watch.  And I'm a Star Wars fan deep in my little black and bitter heart.  I enjoy the original trilogy a great deal, I just wished these prequels measured up.  You know you've got a problem when the Lego video game version of the story is better than your movie.

Funny Uh oh - Galaxy Quest

I've recently read the comments from a few movie fan bloggers that feel that the art of comedy in movies is on the wane. They end up pointing at parody films like "Meet the Spartans", "Epic Movie" and "Date Movie" as evidence of this. These movies don't stand up to the first viewing much less repeat viewings. Their scripts are nothing but sight gags that aren't anything other then taking a scene from a popular film and recreating it with a twist (having the spartans from "300" dancing around and behaving stereotypically homosexual).

In a way these films are attempting to ape the popular Zucker brothers ("Naked Gun" and "Airplane") and Mel Brooks ("Blazing Saddles" and "Spaceballs") films from the past. The big difference is, those films actually provided some laughs even if they were on the stupid side of things. The idea was to bombard the audience with so many sight gags, word play, non sequiturs and actual jokes that something will end up sticking. Some of these films are more successful than others (and I think it has lots to do with which of these films you ended up watching first).

What is more difficult to pull off is to create a parody that not only succeeds in spoofing the film or genre, but to make it an entertaining movie in it's own right. The trick is to write a solid script, and to work the humor in creating a balance between comedy free from the parody and comedy based on the parody. I haven't seen one of these succeed in quite a while (a example of a spectacular failure of this was "My Super Ex-Girlfriend").

"Galaxy Quest" does it right. It takes a familiar genre - science fiction and specifically "Star Trek" and uses it as a jumping off point for the comedy. For those of you who haven't seen the film, the basic plot is the following. A group of actors of the popular sci-fi show "Galaxy Quest" encounter real aliens. These aliens think the television series are actual historical documents and that the actors really are the characters they play. At first the actors think that the adventure will be a bit of fun, but things go wrong when a sinister alien despot and his crew also believe the actors are real heroes. Can these actors step up to the challenge, or are they way out of their league?

One of my favorite moments is when the starship leaves it's space dock. In nearly every "Star Trek" film, this moment is accompanied by majestic music and special effects meant to create a sense of exhilaration that the adventure is getting underway. In "Galaxy Quest" the moment is handled in the same way... but our pilot isn't too good at his job. He ends up scraping the hull against the side of the space dock and making a sound like a giant car scraping the side of the garage. Anyone who's done this before gets a good chuckle out of this scene.

A great second dynamic is added to this and is the fact that our heroes are just actors, not space explorers. They are used to handling special effects, and written dialogue, not fighting aliens and flying space ships. On top of that each actor has a specific personality that helps or hinders. Tim Allen is perfect as the egotistical actor who plays the captain. He starts to believe his own hype but quickly finds out that he's not cut out to be a real captain. Nearly stealing every scene is Allen Rickmen who plays a Spock like character on the television series and loathes his lot in life. Now that he's in space with aliens that are convinced he's not human... well he's not the happiest of campers.

The parody moments are hilarious. Everything from the music, to the search of a mysterious planet, to the fact that everyone always goes flying out of their chairs in dangerous space battle is modeled after "Star Trek". For the most part, these parody moments doesn't feel mean spirited. More often they cause the viewer to wonder, "Hey, why does that seem to happen in nearly every 'Star Trek' film or episode".

Even if you are not very familiar with "Star Trek" or have only seen a few sci-fi movies, there's plenty to enjoy. The dialogue is funny, and the performances are spot on. The overarching plot of good versus evil is solid. There is also plenty of humor once the fans of the show appear near the end of the movie.

"Galaxy Quest" isn't the funniest movie ever made. And people more familiar with "Star TreK' will enjoy it more than people who haven't seen any of the series or films. However the film is re-watchable and good for a laugh on a Friday night. Certainly it's more entertaining them much of the "comedy" that's been released lately, especially those ill conceived spoofs. If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend it. And if you have, but haven't seen it in a while, check it out again. It still holds up well.

What did you think of "Galaxy Quest"? Do you think modern parody films are funny? Why or why not? Can you think of a film comparable to "Galaxy Quest"?

My kind of town - Chicago

If you say "Hey let's watch a musical!" I'll roll my eyes and maybe fall over and pretend to be dead. It's not that I hate all musicals - it's just that I've had some bad experiences with them. A few bad apples spoil the cart, you know. For me to tolerate a musical, it's got to be light on the over-enthusiastic, bursting into song for no particular reason with a song that wants to be catchy but is really just annoying. I know, that pretty much covers all musicals known to man, right? Actually there are a few I can deal with "Yanky Doodle Dandy", "Moulin Rouge!" "The King and I" and that one episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer".

So my friends, who are fans of musical theater were ready to convince me that 2002's "Chicago" was a good movie and that I'd enjoy it. I already had a three problems with this idea. 1) it was a musical. 2) it had Richard Gere tap-dancing 3) It had Renee Zellwegger attempting that pouty look. But I decided to give it a try. After all, my wife said I'd like "The King and I" and she was right.

Well lo and behold, I did enjoy "Chicago". Almost all the musical moments are either actual performances in the story (characters performing on stage for other characters), or part of the deranged fantasies of one of the characters. This made the whole thing work. It makes sense that everyone was singing in the main characters fantasy land - she's a nut job! The music was jazzy, snappy and not annoying (of course if you hate jazz, you'll probably hate the music). Richard Gere was good, playing a role that wasn't a stretch for him (unlike say "First Knight". GAG!) Only Renee brought the movie down for me. I'm one of the few that finds her more annoying than cute, and here she was doing her full blown "aint I a cute little pouty thing" schtick - except that it fit her character. So in a way it didn't bother me as much.

I think what I liked best about the whole production was the camera work and production design. This is how you do a musical! Much like "Moulin Rouge" (which suffers from some of the over-enthusiastic acting that grates on me like nails on a chalkboard), the camera is not stage bound. It moves and flows like a real movie. The director and production designer went out of their way to make this a full blown movie with songs and not a stage play captured on camera. In addition the use of the fantasy sequences just about screamed for some creative design and you get it in spades here. It's not as dreamlike insane as "Moulin Rouge" but it just as effective to this story. Even people who dislike musicals more than I do should be able to appreciate the talent behind the camera in bringing this story to the screen.

So the final verdict was, I enjoyed the film. I don't know if I'd run out and purchase it or anything, but my knee-jerk reaction to the mention of it's name is gone. Now - as for it's winning of the academy award for best picture... I don't know about that. Of course I already think the academy awards are run by a bunch of loonies, so I don't trust their judgment to begin with. Still, the movie surprised me, and in a good way.

What did you think of Chicago? Have you seen any other musicals that are able to pull off a truly cinematic look and not feel stage bound? Can you explain reasoning behind the over-enthusiastic acting syndrome?

More Human than Human - Bladerunner

When you ask fans of science fiction films what their favorite 80's sci-fi is, you'll get more than half of them replying with "Bladerunner". The rest will probably say "The Empire Strikes Back", but that's another blog. What makes "Bladerunner" such a popular film for sci-fi junkies?

I got my hands on Ridely Scott's "Final Cut" of this movie. It's been cleaned up, matte lines have vanished, there is more depth to the world, and a general improvement of the visual effects. Nothing drastic like the "Special Edition" version of the Star Wars trilogy. This is more along the lines of the polishing done on the "Indiana Jones" series. In fact, if no one told me they had cleaned up the effects, I probably wouldn't have noticed. This is probably the best version of the movie I've seen (and I've seen three other versions). If you've never seen the movie, go and check it out now, then come back and read this blog.

For the rest of you, I'll reveal something that may be blasphemous, but I think is pretty true. "Bladerunner" isn't a classic sci-fi film because of it's characters. In fact most of the characters in the film are pretty flat. Don't believe me? What do we know about Deckard? Not much, and he doesn't really seem to change or evolve as the film continues. In fact one of the main reasons you can believe he is a replicant, is that he seems to steadfast in his hunt of the fugitives. He seems effected by killing them, but this emotion runs through the entire movie. Deckard is basically your typical film noir detective or hit man. He's burnt out, drinks too much but gets the job done. He falls for the dame and runs off with her at the end. Not much new there.

I think there are two things that make "Bladerunner" such a classic: the incredible and immersive world Ridley Scott creates in the movie and the basic theme of "What does it mean to be human?". Now, even after over two decades of existing, "Bladerunner" has such a distinctive look. Sure it's an 80's vision of the future, but that vision is complete in everything around the characters, from their clothing to the grime in the streets. The detail is so complete that it houses the characters and seems to exist independently from them. You never feel that you are on a soundstage, or in front of the blue screen. You feel like Scott plunked down his camera in Los Angeles 2019 and filmed.

The look of this movie has inspired countless others, but none have really managed to pull it off as completely and realistically as Scott did. The only place I've seen it equaled is in Japanese animation, especially in the cyber-punk films "Ghost in the Shell" and "Akira". If anything many directors who have envisioned a dark, grimy, urban future owe this look to Scott's team one "Bladerunner."

The final element that makes this film so memorable is the question of what it means to be human. It's not the first film to explore this. You can go back to the silent movie "Metropolis" to see one of the earliest examples. You can't forget HAL in "2001" either. Here the idea is presented for the 80's audience. Are the replicants really so bad? They are like children given great power and now , just like anyone else, they are afraid to die. They will do anything to stop it from happening. Is Deckard a hero for hunting them down? And what does it mean if he's a replicant too? This added bit of depth keeps the movie alive for new viewers.

What do you think of "Bladrunner?" Is it a classic or is it over rated? Is it a product of it's time and was topped by the likes of "The Matrix" and "Ghost in the Shell"? Did there need to be a "Final Cut" or was a previous version good enough for you?

Let’s Play Cops and Robbers - Heat

I revisited Michael Mann's crime epic, "Heat" and found it to be a little less enthralling than I remembered it being. It's still a top notch crime film, with great acting and one of the most intense shoot out sequences I've seen. As usual Mann makes the city (Los Angeles in this case) look incredibly cool, both in style and in atmosphere. "Heat" also has a great score and soundtrack that really lends to it's overall aesthetic and mood, something that Mann does really well in all his movies.

What I actually found to be a bit lacking was the basic construction of the story and more important the subplots. The character that Val Kilmer plays gets a solid share of screen time but in the end it doesn't really amount to much more than what we are already seeing in both De Niro's and Pacino's characters. While the subplot does end up affecting the investigation by Pacino's detective team, the emotional thrust of that subplot duplicates De Niro's story arc and not as interesting. Kilmer's scenes are well acted and written but seem to slow down the film a bit too much. This ends up being a problem since "Heat" clocks in at around 140 minutes.

A little research revealed that "Heat" is actually a revamp (or remake if you prefer) of a movie that Michael Mann did for television called "LA Takedown". In the television version the story is streamlined to the main conflict between the criminal mastermind and the detective after him. I think this simplicity would have worked for the theatrical film. Of course, when you hire Val Kilmer, you've got to give him a juicy part, right?

Still, I enjoy the film. So much of it works so well that of all of Mann's recent crime features ("Heat", "Collateral" and "Miami Vice") this is the best. Great cast, good script, excellent direction, great music and superior sound work (half the reason the shootout works so well is the sound used in it). I think "Heat" is one of the best modern crime dramas.

What do you think of "Heat"? Was it too long and too slow? Do you think I'm out of line on this one? Have you seen a better crime drama that works on all levels?

Jones vs. Bond - Raiders of the Lost Ark

According to legend Steven Spielberg wanted to direct the 1980 James Bond movie. It ended up not happening and instead he started working on "Raiders of the Lost Ark". If Spielberg had tackled Bond, he would have to have followed "Moonraker" one of the most popular and financially successful James Bond films of the 70's and 80's. If you watch "Moonraker" and follow it with "Raiders" you'll be wondering just what Spielberg might have done.

"Moonraker" takes the mold of the Roger Moore Bond, and pushes it to the extreme. It meanders along, with a well coifed Bond moving through scenes that are fun, but hold little tension. The movie is very jokey (bordering on silly) and seems to be a well made Bond spoof. The ending is special effects extravaganza with lots of explosions models and the obligatory "Bond caught in the act" joke that was a favorite of the 70's spy films. Would this type of movie appeal to Spielberg? Or would he have tried to turn the Bond series around a little bit, bringing it back to the more gritty 60's Bond adventures like "From Russia with Love"?

When 1981 rolled around James Bond was back in "For Your Eyes Only". This movie had a new director behind the camera, but Roger Moore back in front of it. He plays the part with a harder edge. He is actually in danger in this film instead of going through the motions. Large special effects heavy set pieces are replaced with top notch stunt work, real locations and an intensity that had been missing from the Bond films since 1969. Strangely enough, this movie was not a hit. In fact most people don't remember "For Your Eyes Only". Maybe because viewers associated over the top antics of "The Spy Who Loved Me" or "Moonraker" with James Bond. Maybe they were disappointed with this return to the more realistic spy story. Or maybe it was because Spielberg beat them to the punch.

The week before "Raiders of the Lost Ark" exploded onto the screens. It seems that Spielberg wanted to make Indiana Jones the anti-bond in many ways. Indiana gets dirty, he gets hurt, he's often proven wrong, he cheats when he has to, he falls asleep when kissing the girl, and he ends up needing God to save his bacon. In addition, "Raiders" was a true thrill ride, going from one action set piece to the next (especially in the second half of the movie). There was humor in the film, but it wasn't bad puns and sight gags. It was sardonic wit and even gallows humor. Add to that, a crackling script, a wonderful score by John William's at the height of his theme-heavy style, and Spielberg use of the warm brown and gold hues, and the movie was a real pleasure to watch. Audience loved the film and watched it again and again. A new hero was born and he just about pushed James Bond out of the consciousness of 80's movie goers.

Of course there are some things to consider. James Bond started life as a spy, and his movies were usually based more of detective and suspense movie conventions. Even the more action packed adventures still held some mystery to them. When "Star Wars" arrived and began to shake up movie making with quick editing and special effects - "Moonraker" adapted by using the 70's Bond formula and injecting some glossy visuals into it. It also acknowledged that is was having fun with it's conventions and kept winking at the audience. Bond wasn't serious any more, and Roger Moore played it all very lightly.

On the other hand Indiana Jones was based on serial shorts that audiences enjoyed before a main feature. These "cliffhangers" were filled with nonsensical plots, but speedy action and plenty of chases and escapes. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg took that model, polished it up, added the anti-James Bond and suddenly you had a fresh new hero and an adventure that was thrilling enough to get people to come back again and again.

In a way "Raiders" legacy has influenced adventure and action movies since it's release. James Bond fell more and more into that mold (check out "Octopussy" and "Never Say Never Again" two Bond films released a couple of years after "Raiders"). This lasted up into the 1990's with the Brosnan tenure as 007. It's interesting to see that action movies started to swing the other way around the time of "The Matrix". Now action is elegant and brutally fast, and over the top violent. The hero's are now rough nasty anti-heroes. Even James Bond is a killer - less suave, but much more dangerous (and closer to his book persona than ever). Indiana Jones comes back and his cutting edge nature seems a bit old fashioned. But as they say, everything old becomes new again.

Do you think "Raiders" changed the course of action movies, or am I making this stuff up? Have you seen this type of change occur in books or other genre's of film? Who would win in a fight: Indiana Jones (of Raiders) or James Bond (of For Your Eyes Only)?

A Tale of Two Epics - Ben Hur

I recently got my hands on the four disc set of "Ben Hur". This movie is often considered one of the best made epics of all time, and at the least the best made epic of the 50's. What made this box set extra intriguing for a film geek like me is that it included the 1920's silent version of the movie as well a a bunch of documentaries about the making of the 50's version.

So in the course of a weekend I watched the silent version and the full blown 50's epic. I was amazed by how similar they were and at the same time the key differences between the films.

Each film is a product of it's time. Both pushed the envelope for scope and wow factor in their decades. Both cost a small fortune to make and pleased audiences and critics in their day.

The silent film is shorter than it's color counterpart. The narrative is the same but it comes in at around two hours. It moves briskly from plot point to plot point. The viewer is pulled in by the adventure story. One of the key differences between the two films is how they handle the large scale ocean battle. In the silent, actual boats were built and put to sea. What you see is what you get, with what looks like a pretty good sized fleet going at it. The 50's version uses models as well as rear projection and sets to pull off the same thing. On this side of things the silent is more exciting and realistic.

However the acting in the silent film is just what you'd expect for this type of movie, over-exagerated facial expressions and hand gestures. Some of it will have modern viewers giggling, as will the amount of make up the lead actors are wearing (should Judea Ben Hur have such curly eye lashes?)

On the flip side, the 50's version of the film clocks in at just under 4 hours. This is epic in every sense of the word - huge sets, lots of color, filmed in 70 millimeter cinema scope, a massive orchestral score by Milos Rozsa, and of course Charleton Heston as Ben Hur. This film was made at a time when films felt they were really competing with television for audiences and so they pulled out all their tricks to get butts in seats. This movie is huge, opulent and massive.

It is also very, very slow moving in almost all the dialogue scenes. There is a pause after each sentence, followed by a glance or meaningful look. Some scenes that should only take five minutes are stretched out the twenty or so. The worst offenders take place before the intermission, when you know the chariot race is coming, but the movie is just taking all the time in the world to get there.

But when the race gets there, it's worth the wait. The chariot race is still awesome, full of color, action, motion and intensity. But do you know what? The silent version tops it. I'm not kidding. I think it has to do with the camera work, but for some reason the chariot race in the silent is even more immersive, even if it seems to lack a bit of the scale of the 50's version.

The acting in the 50's version is better, if it wasn't for the languid direction it would probably be more effective. In addition, the integration of the love story works better in the 50's version. In the silent, Esther seems more like an side character. In the color film, she is much more important to the story and to the development of Ben-Hur's character.

Both films handle the biblical side story with equal skill. Interestingly, both films choose not to show the face of Jesus, but just enough of his iconic clothing and settings to let the audience know who the character is. In fact the 50's version goes one better and you don't ever hear Jesus speak. In the silent, he does "speak" and in verses from the gospel no less.

Both films also go for a stylized look at the ancient Roman world. This seems heavily influenced by the Neoclassical painters of the 1800's. It's a beautiful looking world, but probably not very realistic.

In the end, I think the silent film is a more entertaining film, especially because of it's brisker pace, explosive sea battle and unstoppable chariot race. That's not to say the 50's film was a slouch. It is a great movie as well, just know that it takes it's sweet time going anywhere. But the scope and spectacle are worth seeing at least once, and the score is excellent - even on CD if you enjoy your film music without the film.

After seeing these two versions of the same story, it made me wonder if more silent films should be remade. No one watches silent films any more, except for film geeks. And they made some great films back then. These would be ripe for some re-imagining and if done right could be great movies of today. Imagine someone like Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Ridley Scott or Steven Speilburg behind the camera for a remake of "Metropolis". Now that would be something.

Do you have a film you enjoy in it's original and remake form? Can you think of any silent films that would make great remakes? Or do you know of a movie that was such a product of it's time, but if it was revisited would be a great film now? Or do you think that all remakes are just plain evil?

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?