TekWar (1989)

     So, I remember watching the Action Pack TV movies (and then single season of the series) based on William Shatner's TekWar books.  They were pretty bad.  But I like Greg Evigan – I'm of the age that I remember him as both BJ McKay and Joey Harris – and I sure had plenty of time to waste on bad television, so I stuck with it.  Somewhere in my mind, I wondered how bad the source material was.  And now I have an idea.
     William Shatner's idea for describing the future in TekWar (1989) to to have plastic everywhere – plasglass, plascast, even just straight plastic – and make the robots/androids/cyborgs have shiny metal parts.  He replaces newspapers and magazines with fax editions (this may have seemed like a good idea in 1989, but it seems extraordinarily shortsighted now), but books are still printed – just on-demand.  Most importantly, the hero, Jake Cardigan, has contacts everywhere and isn't devastated that his wife and son are nowhere to be found after he is released from prison.
     Mostly, I was interested in how much of what the recent books I had read would be present in Shatner's work.  The answer is too much.  Descriptions are usually either too detailed (in the wrong places) or skipped over altogether.  There is little editing to keep him from using the same wording or phrasing repeatedly – everything happens "at exactly" a given time.  Always.  Minor or background character pop-up for almost no reason and contribute nothing to the story. The characters from South of the Border never learned the English terms for yes, please, or nothing.  Worst, the central motivation that seems to be driving Cardigan is never investigated or resolved.
     Shatner clearly knew that setting his novel in the realm of Sci-Fi would be an easier draw for his fans.  But his would-be hard boiled detective is set adrift in an almost cartoonish existence with no emotional anchors.  Cardigan has relationships with all kinds of people, but none of them feel very authentic or for a purpose other than allowing Shatner to avoid having to describe how investigations actually are conducted.  Even as light genre fiction, TekWar is a bad offering.  But it didn't cost me anything other than the two days it took to read, so it could have been much worse.

The Ides of March (2011)

[There are spoilers.  Not trying to make them obvious, but I can't discuss the film without them.]

     I don't think I was supposed to find this crux of this film balanced on so ridiculous a point that I would actually complain about it as it was playing out.  The greatest media mind in recent campaign history is such a dolt that he cannot fathom a plausible reason why he would meet with someone who holds a position with an opposing candidate, never minding that the story has introduced three strong reasons for him to do exactly that.  At the same time, his capability is not so great that his job allows for an insignificant slight to his immediate boss (who is depicted, sadly, as not really doing anything) nor is his complete and total shift in character so repugnant that it keeps him from being let back into the fold and given more authority.
     The Ides of March (2011) doesn't want to spend much time building a plausible structure to its story.  I'm sure those who worked on it found it far too clever to worry about the glaring problems with it.  Likewise, they overlooked the fact that Ryan Gosling can do little more than look good – occasionally adrift – in the presence of actors who actually inhabit their roles, such as Philip Seymore Hoffman and Paul Giamatti.  The best Gosling can do is convince the audience is that young women really are eager to fuck him, but he plays the morning after as though he were a nervous high school junior (good grades, popular, but never had much luck with the ladies) instead of one of the two mean leading a Presidential election campaign.
     Most of the characters get to be stupid to allow the weakly structured story to roll forward.  Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) gets to deliver some poorly crafted speeches well, but he doesn't seem to be allowed to think.  This should make him a poor candidate for President of the United States.  At no point is Morris allowed to exercise good judgment; he instead gets to alternate between a dogmatic fastidiousness to his so-called beliefs and total morale failings.   I get that having the characters be extraordinarily intelligent would distract from what is supposed to be an examination of how individual poor choices can snare these powerful men, but it becomes hard to give credence to the notion that these characters would be in the position of being a serious contender for the office of the President or high level campaign staffers. 
     The language isn't evocative of those either in power or desirous of office.  In this regards, it feels as though the script had been dumbed down so as to not to alienate audiences with the educated lingo these men should be using on a regular basis.  But that means giving up on authenticity or poetic moments, and that hurts the film.
     Oh, and there is another huge problem the script cannot overcome. The daughter of the head of the DNC is working on the campaign, and none of the life-long Democratic politicians or staffers seem to know who she is or take efforts to make sure to limit her involvement (as her father would likely have done if he wanted to maintain an appearance of impartiality between the candidates).  Worse, for being the daughter of a powerful life-long politician, she is hopelessly naive in regards to the egos and wants of men of power.  That she isn't even given something as reasonable as daddy issues as part of her motivation shows that she is not so much a character but a means to moving the poorly planned out plot forward.
     There is some good acting in The Ides of March, but with the poor writing and workman-like (at best) approach to cinematography and editing, it cannot rise about the level of passable.  Maybe this works on a smaller scale, such as the stage, where more attention has to be paid to the characters and the dialogue, but given a larger canvas it only paints a less than earnest mess.  I'm sure those involved thought they had a film that was making a statement, but I doubt that they realized that statement was 'we should do a better job of showcasing the world in which we set our story.'

I don't know anything about quality films, 2012 edition

     I thought I would get my predictions (really just guesses, since I didn't see many movies in the theaters this year) for the Oscars on the record so I could show how little I know about what the Academy values.

Best Picture

The Artist
My guess is The Descendants, but not really on the strength of the movie.  I see it as the most supportable of the seemingly weak field.
Some of the nominations seem to have zero chance at winning – Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (don't believe the claims that this film wasn't trying to exploit the sympathies felt for families directly touched by the September 11th attacks), Hugo (the kind of film that may garner Best Director consideration, but not able to convince people that it was worth seeing), Midnight in Paris (maybe I'm wrong, but unless Woody Allen can survive the Holocaust and make a movie about it, I don't see him losing his stigma anytime soon), The Tree of Life (when the actors disavow the movie, no matter how good it may be, it becomes hard to give it the awards), and War Horse (isn't it a tragedy when an innocent horse gets drafted into war, even more so than the English strategy of infantry charges against dug-in machine gun positions).  The Artist seems a little too uncommercial, but it might just win.  So might The Help, simply because it was so commercial (daring film, coming out against racism).  And Moneyball, though it has some fantastic baseball sequences, is not a complete film.  While I wasn't enamored with The Descendants, I have to pick it.

Directing

Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
I should pick Scorsese, but he won not too long ago for The Departed.  My second guess should be Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist (because I think it is much more likely to win this than Best Picture).  Instead, I am going to be consistent and pick Alexander Payne for The Descendants.

Actor in a Lead Role

Jean Dujardin, The Artist
I am two minds about this.  I honestly believe that it is hard to give the award to an actor who doesn't have any spoken lines (but The Artist has to win for something) and that people have to be willing to honor Gary Oldman for his non-cheesy roles, such as in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.  Against my better judgment, I am going to guess that Jean Dujardin walks away with the statue.

Actress in a Lead Role

Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Viola Davis for The Help.  The others already have awards and/or their films underperformed.  The Academy does care about box office, and I'm sure it is desperate to show a commitment to diversity by having a second African American winner (ever) in this category.

Actor in a Supporting Role

Christopher Plummer, Beginners
I am not going to make a smart pick here.  Max von Sydow (aka Brewmeister Smith) has been a terrific actor (in at least four languages that I have seen, though Wikipedia lists him as having performed in eight different European languages).  The smart pick would be Kenneth Brannagh, and I wouldn't rule out Jonah Hill (who wasn't horrible in Moneyball), but I have to go with Max for this category.

Actress in a Supporting Role

Octavia Spencer, The Help
Well, I don't see The Help taking two awards for acting.  If it does, it will be Octavia Spencer (who is probably going to win, but I am not giving another Oscar to Streep and thus picked Davis for Lead Role) and not Jessica Chastain (who had a very busy 2011).  That leaves me free to pick Melissa McCarthy from Bridesmaids, who (I've been told) meant as much to that film as Kevin Kline did to A Fish Called Wanda.

Music (Original Score)

The Artist

Ludovic Bource for The Artist, but largely because John Williams can't win every year.  Oh, and a movie with almost no spoken words needs music that works.

Makeup

The Iron Lady
That's right, I'm picking against the last Harry Potter film.  The Academy seems to feel that lots of work is somehow less remarkable.  My pick goes to the team for Albert Nobbs.

Costume Design

The Artist
Sandy Powell for Hugo.  My better judgment would be betting on either The Artist or Jane Eyre winning, but I have to go with my gut.

Writing (Original Screenplay)

Woody Allen

Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris.  Yes, I know I said they wouldn't give him a statue, but this is his best chance.  The only one I would not expect to win is J.C. Chandour for Margin Call; this is a wide open category near as I can tell.

Art Direction

Hugo
Again, I am going to do something stupid.  The Harry Potter films were a gold mine and at some point the Academy usually gives awards for that.  But I am picking the team from Hugo.

Cinematography

Hugo
Emmanuel Lubezki for The Tree of Life. I didn't see it, but if the rest of the movie looks anywhere near as good as the clip of the children chasing the truck spraying DDT, then this should be a no-brainer.

Film Editing

The team responsible for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

While I think the duo responsible for The Artist will win, my pick is Christopher Tellefsen for Moneyball, because the baseball sequences looked awesome and seamless.

Foreign Language Film

A Separation

A Separation

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash for The Descendants.
Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash for The Descendants.  Really hoping that it isn't The Ides of March, because that story has an insane amount of problems and should not have been nominated.

Sound Editing

Hugo
War Horse.  Chances are it will win something.

Sound Mixing

Hugo
War Horse, again.

Visual Effects

Hugo
Finally, an award for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part 2.

Music (Original Song)

Bret MacKenzie's "Man or Muppet" from The Muppets.

Bret MacKenzie's "Man or Muppet" from The Muppets.

     I am just going to assume that most everyone else made better choices than I did.  But I'll check back in on Monday and update this to note just how wrong I was.

The Everything Creative Writing Book 2nd Edition (2010)

     The Everything Creative Writing Book (2010) feels like the kind of book one should read immediately before taking an introductory creative writing class.  It contains a lot of good information, but there is a distinct lack of depth.  It glosses over most of the differences between the kinds of writing it purports to address, giving desperately little insight into applying creative writing to business reports or essays.  Indeed, there seems to be a disconnect between the notion of creative writing and simply not writing something awful in a different form.  Bad writing is not just bad writing, it is bad in relation to its intended purpose in addition to any other failings it may have.
     Perhaps the main problem is that the book attempts to cover too much material.  Letters to the editor, essays, and business proposals all require writing, but probably don't need to be in a book on the topic of creative writing.  Poetry felt rather awkwardly inserted into the mix as well, but I also have a bias against the form because I often have problems finding the rhythm the author intended .  Writing plays (and screenplays) is also covered, something that I gravitate towards because I do enjoy writing an over abundance of dialogue (see this old short story) into almost story.  Why not do it in a format where it is more accepted?  Unfortunately, The Everything Creative Writing Book spends no time addressing the format of plays and scripts.  To make up for this, it does explain a small amount of the lingo for screenplays, like slug line.
     Though relatively recent, the book cannot help but feel dated.  When it references self-publishing, there is still the assumption of printing physical copies of a book (or magazine or comic book) rather than simply choosing the e-reader friendly formats that Amazon and Barnes & Noble make available to just about any aspiring author.  Sure, the information on how to get an ISBN is nice, but essentially the self-publisher is going to search for information on the same topic in more detail on the internet.  Likewise, the information on how to get one's book into libraries feels very thin – another area where the purpose had to be more of keeping the idea in the reader's head rather than giving definitive information.
     What author Wendy Burt-Thomas does the best job of conveying is that the material an author has after the first draft is most certainly not to be considered to ever be on par with reviewed, rewritten, and edited work.  She does not make much of an effort to deal with the difference of authors whose first revisions are complete rewrites (effectively treating the first draft as a means of outlining and providing details for a story that has yet to be properly written), revisions (what I assume is standard rewriting), and editing, except in asides.
     It is hard to find something new in the fourth book on writing I've read this month.  There is bound to be a lot of re-stating the core principles: write every day when you are writing, treat rewriting and editing as serious endeavors, not everything you write is going to be good – even when it is finished.  But Burt-Thomas is somewhat more forgiving in telling the aspiring author that it is okay to take time away from a project (and even from writing, though this is supposed to be kept brief).  When she does the best job of is keeping the material positive at almost all times.  There is almost nothing in the book that will discourage the would-be author, and she is quick to point out that if the criticism is constructive it isn't going to be of much use to correcting the errors. 
     While How Not to Write a Novel (2008) is a more entertaining read, The Everything Creative Writing Book is undoubtedly a better resource when it comes to guiding beginning writers and aspiring authors into finishing their projects.  As long as one ignores how little most of the interviews add to the material, and that the essay and screenplay examples in the appendix are less than stellar (they will no doubt make most writers feel good about their own work), it is a solid book.  My one real complaint about it would be that her suggested writing exercises seem more tedious than insightful, but that is not enough for me to not recommend the book.

There be Dragons (2011)

     It takes a fair amount of work to set out to tell four different stories and effectively illuminate none of them.  That is exactly what happens in Roland Joffé's There be Dragons (2011).  The audience gains no insight into the works and history of Opus Dei, the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), the Spanish aspect of the Terrible Triangle, or the relationship between the two central characters in the film.  Indeed, there is no rational reason for the characters to be linked.
     In what feels like the ultimate cheat, there is almost no definition given to the sides or conflict of the civil war.  Joffé, I assume, was going for a sense of confusion on the part of those living through the events, but those characters certainly would have had much more insight than what the film allows them.  Then there is the possibility that Josemaría Escrivá's (Charlie Cox) siblings may have died because of the flu pandemic of 1918, but no reason is given for their deaths.  Like the rest of the film, it feels both ill-informed and halfhearted. 
     Essentially, this should be the story of how a man spent his adult life trying to come to terms with the actions he took during the Spanish Civil War, which he relates to his estranged son.  For some reason, this story is mixed with a priest-on-the-run tale, and it is nowhere near as interesting as the real story must be.  Giving no character enough room to develop, There be Dragons moves ever onward towards the reveal that has nothing to do with the priest or Opus Dei.
     I found myself actively upset that this film was not done with a Spanish cast; I cannot explain why, except to say that it would have felt less artificial if the actors were at least Spanish or even speaking Spanish.  The budget seems to have been spent on a few set-pieces and not on making the scant war scenes look authentic (though I was very excited to see a Lancia IZM in action, that was ruined for me with the independent movement on the turret-mounted machine-guns).  The English speaking cast gives no urgency to the material, and they seem caught somewhere between a dull period piece and an ironic anti-war movie.
     This is a prime example of where bad reviews are a great indication that a film should be avoided.  It is largely a waste of time.  Read a book about Opus Dei or one written by its founder, like The Way.  Read about the Spanish Civil War.  But don't expect any insight into life, the Church, Opus Dei, or the Spanish Civil War from There be Dragons.  All you will get is some half-formed notions that don't develop into anything coherent.

Redline (2009)

Unironically Awesome
by Silence Do_nothing

     That a surly blue gorilla traffic cop who braves the hostile forces of a military planet called Roboworld to enter an illegal anything goes death race with brazen alien hot-rodders is a great idea in theory, I take as a given. What matters most, though, is how well that idea would translate in practice.
     Going back to VHS tapes from Blockbuster in the 90s, I've learned that most anime ideas which sound cool or quirky in the synopsis aren't as entertaining when executed on the screen. Poor dialogue (perhaps a a weak adaptation by the translator?), glacial pacing, or choppy cost-saving psuedo-animation have doomed many which sounded good. But just as I think it's time to give up on the medium, I come across one which reminds me how it can offer an experience not found in American animation. Redline (2009) is the latest to do so.
     Those whose interest in Japan comes from video games, giant battling robots and mulleted superhuman martial artists with implosion powered punches, as opposed to the more traditional route of cherry blossom viewing, tea ceremonies and zen gardens, will be attuned to the film's awesome visual style. The movie radiates garish delight. It has Las Vegas style architecture, pachinko color schemes, futuristic Hot Wheels influenced hot rods and characters that wouldn't feel out of place in the Heavy Metal (1981) animation. It's the perfect antidote to the restrained taste of Apple's much vaunted design aesthetic.
     The animation is giddy fun that wrings smiles out of even the most reserved demeanor. Frames were dense and hyperkinetic without losing clarity. Vehicle and driver stretched towards infinity during a nitro boost. A gaggle of wild eyed reporters who've invaded a racer's hospital room contracts and expands like one breathing entity. The production went against the CGI trend by using 100,000 pages of paper based hand drawn animation. The fluidity wasn't equal to a Hollywood production (although Ghibli is presumably the only Japanese studio currently making feature length cartoons which are comparable in this respect), but it's still noticeably better than television quality.
     Thanks to good pacing, the film's vast amount of frenetic action never became repetitive or numbing. The sequences in between the two races allowed for a better look at all the awesome design work. Background guys looked better than many animations' main characters. From the larger elements, like an orbital beam cannon or giant mutant bioweapon, to the small, such as an unmotivated anthropomorphic squid shopkeeper (which struck me as a Japanese dig at foreigners' customer service), the movie had so much stuff that would have made a cool toy (I leave it to the reader to decide if the merchandising-appeal-as-cinematic-excellence standard should be applied to a Citizen Kane (1941) ).
     CliffsNotes aren't needed to follow the story, but when you have a movie that looks as awesome as Redline, it only has to avoid gumming up the works. There wasn't any cringe-worthy dialogue to ruin scenes. JP, the rockabilly looking hero with an improbable pompadour (officer Gori was only a minor character), is likable enough to give a rooting interest and provide an emotional anchor to the action scenes. He isn't racing for money and he rejects his competitors' habit of arming their vehicles with deadly weapons. JP is a purist who wants to compete on racing ability alone. His earnest hunger for victory manifests itself near the finish-line as the strain of every fiber of his body is so great that his eyeballs bleed (although that display still wouldn't be enough to save him from the "lazy" label if he were running wind sprints for my former coaches).
     I've used "awesome" to describe its visual excellence, even though the public doesn't respect the word as much as I'd like. The term has become debased by attaching it to things far from awesome (I won't get into whether using it to describe entertainment, rather than nature or the divine, was a prior devaluation). Add to that a generation's cynicism [several decades after Ozzie and Harriet (1952-1966) and Leave it to Beaver (1957-1963), the pendulum continues in one direction] and you have the word more often employed sarcastically than seriously.
     Hopefully, applying the term to high quality works like Redline is a step towards shoring up the currency of awesome and rehabilitating its sincere meaning. Because I refuse to use "epic". Forget that.
     For neophytes, Redline is good enough to spark an interest in other anime. For lapsed fans, it will renew their faith. It would be totally awesome if my wait for the next anime of this caliber were less than the five years the characters had between races. "Totally", not to betray my 80s upbringing, but because nothing is ever somewhat awesome or a little bit on the awesome side. Awesomeness knows no moderation, but it is well acquainted with Redline.

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

     Cowboys & Aliens (2011) has one strength going for it – it looks good.  There is a crispness to it that enhances the beauty of the New Mexico landscape and makes the setting appear real without losing the verisimilitude to the actual era in which it is set.  Then there are the aliens, and the movie largely falls apart.
     I don't know if it was the ridiculousness of the sputtering, black-cloud spitting, seemingly piston engine powered flyers the aliens use to scout and capture people – these flyers are of variable size, though that is a fault with the CGI team not keeping the imaging consistently scaled – or that with a near magical ability to steal the precious resources they are after, these aliens go out actively picking fights with the locals.  Then there is the conceit that losing over one hundred people to rescue around forty hostages is wholly acceptable.
     I don't want to rag on Daniel Craig, who could probably play a very good anti-hero cowboy (American or Australian, since he favored the hat worn Down Under), but director Jon Favreau doesn't give him much of a chance to do that.  None of the characters are well developed (Harrison Ford's character has an unlikely redemptive arc that involves him getting other people killed so he can love his son in a more positive manner), and some appear solely to act as victims that are supposed to evoke an emotional response from the audience.
     When I see the names Kutzman and Ocri, I expect a horribly structured story.  They are terrible writers.  They have long been terrible writers and, as far as I'm concerned, they will always be horrible writers.  In this case, Alex and Roberto live up to my expectations.  There is no smooth narrative flow, nor is there a building of suspense.  Part of that is the fault of the editing, but how much can be done to save a film when it isn't well conceived on the page?
     I am exceedingly pleased that I didn't pay money to see this.  For what worked – the look of the film – it is largely a mess.  Why not make a well-budgeted, adult Western?  I would much prefer that to trying to force some aliens into the story (and I'm a huge sci-fi) fan.  The last mature Western I can remember is Open Range (2003), and that had a love story shoe-horned into it.  Damn it, Hollywood, I want good Sci-Fi films, but there is an absolute shortage of Westerns.  Sure, I can point out that I have yet to see some of the Westerns released over recent years, but none of them had even one quarter of the budget of Cowboys & Aliens.
     Anyway, this was a bad movie in terms of telling a coherent story or making me care about the characters.  Or respecting advanced alien cultures and physics.  Other than some great photography, mostly of the landscape, there isn't much of a reason to watch it.