To Carrie Or Not To Carrie, That Is The Question

Should I or shouldn't I go see Chloe Moretz's take on horror master Stephen King's class horror tale, 'Carrie'? Ordinarily I wouldn't be debating whether or not I should watch anything with young wonder Moretz in it. She's one of those actresses that keeps my attention no matter what she does. Who is she? She's the spunky, hyper-violent tween from the 'Kick-Ass' vigilante super hero film series. I think she's great future Academy Award material. Anyway, as I was saying, I wouldn't be debating this except for the fact that my local stadium seating theater JUST RAISED THEIR MATINE PRICES!!! They only went up a couple of bucks ($9.50 to $10.50) but damn, when you add on the already skyrocketing cost of living - those extra bucks matter! What? Should I have to choose between eating dog food this week or seeing a blockbuster? I mean, come on! I love the big screen but if the prices keep climbing I'm going go take a pair of Coca Cola bottles and strap them to my eyeballs and slap a DVD into the ol' TV set and hope to Oscar that the bottles magnify my tiny TV screen to big screen levels!! Shoot! The things you got to do nowadays to stay in the game.

White House Down -Mini Review

White House Down is the White House under attack film that we've been unconsciously waiting for (action fans). Ever since the producers of this film were beaten to the punch by the folks who brought us the so-so version of this concept, 'Olympus Has Fallen'. 'White House Down' easily beats it in character development (quite a lot for an action thriller!), action sequences, and script imagination. The film has very good pacing at the beginning, a good, detailed action-oriented second act, and a very satisfying climax. It slows down only by what can be perceived as casting flaws. Jamie Fox doesn't convince anyone (I think) that he's capable of winning the White House. He lacks the suave coolness of the real President Obama. It feels like he's playing some other role, like 'Black Men Can't Jump' or something. Channing Tatum shines as the underdog wannabe presidential CIA agent and has really improved his overall acting skills (which include more facial expressions than just a blank stare). He looks and feels convincing as the successor to Stallone and / or Schwarzenegger as America's next big hunk with more than just an attitude-he can fight and save your ass!

Of course this is a Roland Emmerich film --the man who brought us 'Independence Day' and '2012', but he manages to pull off a non-egotistical film (slightly! There's one name drop / plug about 'Independence Day' during the film but it's context-suitable). He's mastering the techniques of the classic 1970's disaster films such as 'The Towering Inferno' and 'The Poseidon Adventure' by being able to deftly merge character development with explosions and assorted necessary special effects. Script-wise, the whole thing feels like a no-brainer. It's very informative (the script, highlights are the real-life facts given about the White House by a comedy-relief tour guide), and brief. Nothing feels excessive here (dialog wise). Another highlight of the film is the performance by classic character actor James Woods as the mastermind behind the attack on our nation's 'Presidential Palace'. He emotes damn well and his rage as a disgruntled American comes through quite effectively.

All in all a good way to spend a late night / early morning! Can't wait for the  next Emmerich disaster adventure tale I must say.

Conan The Barbarian (2012)

Did this film come out in 2012 or 2011? I don't remember. But it entered and exited the theater's fast because it was up against another big film if I remember correctly. Anyhoo the film had some terrific production values and I especially enjoyed the director's usage of wide establishing shots of the fictional ancient land known as 'Hyborea' I think (I'm kinda rusty on my Conan lingo). Too many directors underestimate the power of an extreme wide shot to establish a scene (putting the scene firmly into the minds' of it's audience which increases the emotional value of what happens there.) If you haven't seen this film yet (on DVD), then go ahead and give it a try. Don't expect an awe inspiring story thought, and it's got a bunch of logic errors in the very story premise itself. Just watch it for the visuals this time around.

Toth VS Kirby? Is There A Contest?

I popped in on a website discussing the interconnected value of both Toth and Kirby. Check it out at
http://markbadger.org/?p=536

Prometheus Schemetheus

 Slight spoiler warning!!!

'Prometheus'. 'Prometheus'! Well, what can you say? The film ALMOST delivers a chilling tale of human origins and it's (seemingly) inevitable doom at the hands of the Alien. But the narrative is so disjointed. So lacking in interconnected relevancy (and entertainment value) that you almost don't give a damn if the human race survives or not. Big problem for any visual storyteller: make sure that your audience gives a hyperdrive flyin' F about your characters. Most of the characters in this film were thinly described, cardboard cut-outs of real people. And although some of the plot elements and actions of the characters leave you wondering 'what if' / 'why' after you've seen the movie, you end up shaking your head regarding the whole "beautiful mess" (as one of my friend's called it). A key (and missing) element of the film's plot / character motivation is why the giant humanoid 'men' who's species supposedly created human life on Earth now are hellbent on destroying it. Then add in the fact that they've created and stored a large amount of the Alien life form and are apparently going to take the damn ship to Earth itself. Now through my own thinking I can only come up with one thing -they created life on Earth in order to test out some sort of new biological / species weapon (the Alien)! But this isn't too clear at all during the course of the film. And why go through such and elaborate, eons old process of developing human life just to wipe it out as a 'test'? That could easily be done in a laboratory environment with computer assisted simulations of a planet-wide infestation of Alien creatures unleashed upon some unsuspecting enemy of these giant predecessors of humanity. Like I indicate, this story feels so half-baked that the cook should be slapped for taking it out of the oven too soon. And what's with that giant humanoid at the beginning of the film committing suicide? I suppose he was the last one alive (because the plot indicated that a bunch of his fellow astronauts were wiped out by their own creation -the Alien). But it's all done so cryptically and without a good sense of story element placing, not visual element pacing, that the film leaves you with a dumb and confusing feeling. Not doubting your own intelligence but the filmmakers'.

Charlize Theron's Remarkable Performance

 
If you haven't seen 'Snow White and The Huntsman' then you're missing out on best villain performance of the year by Charlize Theron. Her evil queen character has a fair amount of scenes but what Charlize Theron does with them has to be seen by anyone that loves visual storytelling. Her evil queen is fraught with reflective nuances, canny eye movements, full body acting. She practically oozes revengeful hatred (directed towards all males!) in every scene she is. In fact, if she had any more great scenes like she has already they would have to call this movie, 'Snow White VS Ravenna, The Evil Queen'. Go check this out or rent it but DO see it. The only performance similar to it in my mind is the David Prowse / James Earl Jones' (voice) performance as Darth Vader in the 'Empire Strikes Back'. And if you remember, that was a damn good, chilling portrayal of evil at the top of it's game (so to speak).

Was Men in Black 3 Good?

 Agh! I tried to watch a late show of 'Men in Black 3' but wound up snoozing throughout most of the film. What I did see I sort of liked. Especially the sense of design within the movie. From the alien creatures to the many locations -all of it looked swell. It's good to know that even though H-wood's story machine is broken down in general, it's design machine (the illustrators, costume departments, special effects companies) is still fully operational. The fanboy-suits that have taken over Hollywood are too idea-focused to truly interfere with the tangible work of visual artists. So they focus their destructive, envious ways at movie scripts and writers. Blocking original ideas, promoting past hits over creating new future ones. This is why we keep seeing all this junk from the past being remade. Fanboy-suits are in control, they want to make movies based on the ideas that gave them hard-ons in the past. To hell with getting a future boner.

Chernobyl Chump

I saw 'Chernobyl Diaries' last night and came away a bit disappointed. It's one of those A-for effort films (you know the kind: as you watch it you are filled with the feeling that this is "kinda good" or you're about to move to the edge of your seat several times during the movie but never really get there...). The film lost it's focus (which should've been gory horror, and not suspense) when it failed to fully show the supposedly radioactive citizens of the "abandoned" city near the infamous Russian Chernobyl nuclear reactors which blew their guts many years ago. This is an example of failure to provide ample coverage of something during the course of a narrative. Show us the damn monster, people! That's what horrific shit is really about -and radiation poisoning is something that involves horrific changes to the body, not suspenseful ones!!! Anyhoo it's an OK time killer. See it if you're rich like me and have over $10.00 to blow (he says with a wink).

Additional: This film was made by the same clowns that made 'Paranormal Activity'. An over-hyped, 1/4th scary "horror film", that showed potential (like 'Chernobyl Diaries') that was never reached.

A Big Nerdy Shout-Out to George Lucas and Alan Ladd Jr.!

Before 'Star Wars' we all used to wonder what adventure in space would really, really look like. Up until then (pre-1977) much sci-fi looked fake, but a good amount was fairly decent, especially after the remarkable leap in special effects brought about in the late 1960s when '2001: A Space Odyssey' debuted. But the sense of adventure was never really captured--never fully realized until 'Star Wars' came out. After 'Star Wars' the sci-fi genre and it's creators finally "got it". George Lucas took some of the best elements of adventure films -wild shootouts and chases, the best of war films -fighter plane dog fights and heavy weaponry, the best of Westerns -the Cantina scene on the planet Tatooine, Han Solo in "cowboy" vest, the best of Romance (the kiss before Luke and Leia swing over the Death Star chasm), the best of auto films-Luke Skywalker, Imperial Stormtroopers, Han Solo, etc. treated their vehicles as 'cool machines', not just a means to an end; and put it all in a place we never thought it could all be found together -outer space! So a big thanks to George Lucas for combining the realistic special effects pioneered in '2001: A Space Odyssey' (made in the late 1960's!) with a longing sense of grand adventure! After Star Wars it all got good and exciting right up until this day. Without 'Star Wars' there would be no 'Alien' or the upcoming 'Prometheus' ('Alien' the movie was deliberately made because of the success of 'Star Wars'). Neither would there be a classic film on the level of 'Blade Runner'. Star Wars proved that comic book ideas and comic book-like ideas were a powerful and unstoppable force in visual storytelling. So again, a big thanks to George Lucas for hanging in there after so many movie studios turned down 'Star Wars' at the beginning. And a special thanks to 20th Century Fox producer Alan Ladd Jr. who green lighted Star Wars not because he thought the story was good or that it would make a lot of money. But for seeing the passion in Lucas' dream to create a space adventure film like no other.

From Wikipedia

Alan Ladd, Jr. (born October 22, 1937 in Los Angeles, California, USA) is an American film industry executive and producer. He is famous for giving George Lucas the go-ahead to make Star Wars and remained as Lucas' only support at times when the Board of Directors wished to shut down production. He is the son of actor Alan Ladd and Marjorie Jane (Harrold), whom Alan Ladd met in high school.
Ladd received the 2,348th star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on Friday, September 28, 2007.
He started in films as an agent in 1963. In 1969, Ladd moved to London to produce, making nine films. He returned to the States in 1973 to become Head of Creative Affairs at 20th Century Fox.
During three very successful years Ladd was President of Fox. Star Wars and Alien were a few of the classics during his tenure. But in 1979 Ladd left his position to found his own production company, The Ladd Company. He enjoyed great successes with comedies like Night Shift and Police Academy and Oscar Winners The Right Stuff and Best Picture, Chariots of Fire. The company also produced the cult classic Blade Runner.
In 1985, Ladd joined MGM/UA, eventually becoming Chairman and CEO of Pathé Entertainment. During his tenure MGM/UA enjoyed hits like A Fish Called Wanda, Moonstruck, and Thelma & Louise. Ladd reformed the Ladd Company with Paramount Pictures in 1993 where he produced the hits The Brady Bunch Movie and Best Picture Winner Braveheart.
Ladd is now producing independently with The Ladd Company.

'Battleship' Reviewed

Okay, who the hell out there actually expects Academy Award winning performances off of a film that owes it's existence to a TOY game for goodness sake? No disrespect to the toy industry intended! With that out of the way let me tell you that the new film 'Battleship' was awfully entertaining. WORTH the price of admission, AND contained attempts at actual story / script quality. Admittedly I went into this film with very low expectations story-wise but was surprised at the aforementioned attempts at creating some type of characters to populate this special effects driven modern SFX "masterpiece" of sorts. But in hindsight this is also an indication of the low expectations that so many bad stories from the Hollywood film machine create inside the viewers of their films. We feel glad at even the most meager attempts at quality storytelling in an H-wood movie. That's so damn pathetic. So let me suddenly change the direction of this review, away from the meager story to the most important element ("actor") employed by today's storyless Hollywood industry. We're gonna talk about the amazing special effects and why you should be blowing your hard earned money on films that only want you to see them for their amazing special effects (whew!). Special effects "driven" films are films that are seen for the -duh -SPECIAL EFFECTS ONLY. Now, there's something inherently wrong about this, and any experienced story teller's bones will feel a shiver down the side of them when he hears the words, 'SPECIAL EFFECTS DRIVEN' film. For story quality is king and always will be. But movie going is more than just going somewhere to watch / hear a story being told. It's also just a reason to get out of the house, to be entertained. And sometimes mindless entertainment may be just what the doctor ordered. Sometimes you've been hard at though all day and all night and the last thing you want to feel is the tension and detail overloading of a good quality film (gulp! I can't believe I just wrote that!) But mindless entertainment does has it's place and that place is contrary to quality entertainment. Nothing is absolute and therefore everything will not be of quality. So a person can make use of this and make the crappy films out there serve as a type of psychological getaway of sorts. Well, 'Battleship' certainly fits that bill. You go into this film already armed with the knowledge to not expect anything special or deep. It's 'Snakes On A Plane' but there on a boat this time AND they come from another planet. Hahahaha.

 Like I said, this examination of 'Battleship' is about the special effects only. And boy do they lay it on. I'm telling you there's a scene in this film that mimics to a certain degree the sinking of James Cameron's Titanic but it's done to the teeth with stuff exploding, falling, etc. from the upturned ship (as two heroes climb to the front -bow? -of the ship like the lovers Kate Winslet and Leonarda DeCaprio did). In addition to the chaos added to this concept, the camera angle is done in one continuous shot (!). It skims around the ship as it's turning upward, moves past people and things falling into the ocean far, far below, to come up and into the faces of the two Navy heroes who've climbed to the peek of this ship turned into a mountain. Then the camera continues it's "tour of duty" by climbing high above the desperate but determined to survive heroes as they leap down into the ocean far, far below. It's fucking awesome and has to be seen to be believed. So there you go. Battleship isn't the best in visual storytelling but it's not the worst either. It makes you glad (and proud) to be a member of the human race because of these advanced special effects. We are certainly privileged to experience such realistic special effects because just over 40 years ago nothing like this was even conceivable. Rent 'Battleship' for the SFX and have a good time just turning your brain off and taking it all in.

Classic Comic Book Review!

 
Check out the Classic Comic Book Review-2012 section for my first classic comic book review! In it I take on "Weird Science" Vol # 2's space-horror short story named, "The Gray Cloud of Death!!"

Next Global Crisis

Next Global Crisis

Here's something interesting. Hot chicks and and super powers go together like convertibles and sunglassed blondes. This site tries to fill in the woeful gap left by TV shows like Wonder Woman, Isis, and a few others from back in the day. Why doesn't Hollywood get the message that sexy girls and tights every week is what we really want to see? Although I'm too afraid to purchase any of these videos yet (preferring to research this site a little bit more before I take the plunge -in order not to get ripped off. Hopefully these videos are SEXY too and not played too straight. Although I did view a clip they had on the site and I thought that the directing of said clip was too restrained or better yet, non-existent (the clip is shown above). The clip below is a little better and makes me want to see more...

ICv2 - 'Ghost Rider' Creator Owes Marvel $17 Grand

ICv2 - 'Ghost Rider' Creator Owes Marvel $17 Grand

Harharhar! Another sore loser! Don't create nothing for nobody! The guys who created "Blade" tried to sue and get their piece of the big ol' Marvel Pie too and LOST. If you work for these clowns (Marvel, DC, etc.) then look at them with a stupid look on your face when they ask you to create something and say, "Man. I'm not too good at that!" Meanwhile sit on your best ideas and wait for the day that you can publish it YOURSELF. The only time you create anything with anyone is after you check their personal references (to see if he or she is a decent person) and then get it all down on a lawyer examined contract that FAVORS you in some kind of way (to show you some f*cking appreciation).

ICv2 - Kirkman Sued By Longtime Collaborator

 ICv2 - Kirkman Sued By Longtime Collaborator

Harharhar! Never create anything for anybody. Better to dig a ditch for a living than to endure being ripped off allegedly by "friend" and watching them get all the money and the credit. Fame ain't worth that level of disrespect. It's better to be penniless and unknown than to watch someone sailing off into the sunset on a boat you helped build! Only create things with people who's personal references you've checked and include a contract that FAVORS you in some way. Then tell them to their faces that you won't hesitate to sue them when and if they breach that contract. I don't care if it's your freaking Mother. Look her in her eyes and tell her you'll sue the bra off of her if she betrays you. This way she knows she can't punk you because that's what this sh*t is really all about. PUNKING you. Show any signs of weakness and you can't take it back --ever! After that moment they consider you "weak" and no matter what fight you put forth they'll always see you as "weak" --and that's even after you successfully sue them. It's all about first impressions.

ICv2 - Marvel Gets Kirby Blowback

 ICv2 - Marvel Gets Kirby Blowback

Harharhar! Kirby's family -a bunch of sore losers! And now his activists fans too -a bunch of sore losers! Welcome to the club, you morons. I, Mr. Booker, a big comic book loser will be Master of Ceremonies. Let me introduce you to the art of losing -first, you need to apply a heavy dose of humor to make the pain go away. Second, and this is the trick, don't fall into the fallacy of blaming others for your loses. And thirdly (is that a word?), you'll never get over it so try to get under it by drinking yourself into a stupor when the pain becomes too great.

Adam Hughes Weighs In On "Before Watchmen: Dr. Manhattan" - Comic Book Resources

  Adam Hughes Weighs In On "Before Watchmen: Dr. Manhattan" - Comic Book Resources

The power of a great cover design. Sex sells and this sure will make this book fly off the shelves. Exploiting the sensuality of the female character (who was such a dominant presence, beauty-wise, in the film is a good idea. They obviously look like they're getting it on. Note the use of warm colors on the woman, made more obvious by her black uniform, while the rest of the book's image is in cool blues. Blue and flesh color are a great combination. On black women the color yellow is very attractive next to brown skin. Adam Hughes usually does a great job drawing women. More power to him.

What's In A Title? A Lot!

 ICv2 - 'John Carter' Ad Trailer Released

The final dumb-down of the "John Carter of Mars" movie title has apparently occurred -the movie will simply be called, "John Carter", robbing it of any immediate genre recognition or inspiring any fantastic expectations based on the movie title alone. Ultimately it's just a stupid move that will effect the film's marketing power. Right now it sounds like a film about a lawyer or something: 'John Carter, the story about a man dedicated to preserving the judicial system of America at all cost.' Or 'John Carter -a trucker hellbent on making a name for himself on the road.' Just like the comic book industry, the film industry has been invaded by fanboy read/write/artist who are determined to fuck up anything they touch. A "read/write/artist" fanboy is the most destructive kind. Not like a regular fan, who only seeks to enjoy the product that professionals make, the fanboy read/write/artist believes he can create something great as well. Or at least get into the business he craves and control the output of it. These directionless morons come into immediate conflict with the professionals in the business (if they get within positions of power) and the result usually is the professional saying, "Fuck off an die." and quitting the company. Thus the fanboy read/writer/artist/ is free to put forth his mediocre (or lower) work as the new "standard". Hopefully the folks at Disney will wake up to the title dumb-down of calling a great sci-fi book series "John Carter" instead of the full blown credentials the series deserves, "John Carter of Mars". What's in a title? A lot! Here are a few other examples of title dumb-down and the effects they could have had on our expectations and enjoyment of a film, comic book, or other visual storytelling artistry: Space Wars: A New Hope (Star Wars: A New Hope) / The Computer Nightmare (The Matrix) / The Fantastic Three (The Fantastic Four). As you can see, the differences are minute but the effect is great. My suspicion is that the movie they made sucks so bad that they felt the need to be a bit awkwardly subliminal about the whole thing in order to get you to see it. Subliminal messages are just messages with hidden meanings in them. So by calling their awful movie 'John Carter' it SUGGEST the 'of Mars' part to your mind. Hahaha. Well, maybe that'll get me to walk like a zombie and go watch the thing. But it probably won't.

Say It Ain't So, Ben!

Uh-oh. I just read that George Lucas is going to write the first season to his new Star Wars TV show entitled, "Star Wars, Underworld". If you cringed at the simplistic, robot-like dialog of "Star Wars, Phantom Menace" and those other 2 Star Wars prequel films then you share my fear in allowing Mr. Lucas to write anything that he has created (ironically!). Mr. Lucas, with all due respect, can you please, please, put aside your well earned arrogance and take a FUCKING WRITING CLASS before "creating" more disturbingly bad writing and thereby weakening the incredibly rich tapestry of Star Wars folklore that you created so painstakenly in the first two films, "Star Wars, A New Hope" and "The Empire Strikes Back". Ever since you had your hand in the writing of "Return of the Jedi" has the entire series of films become a blundering mess of repetitive fanboy-appealing dialog ("I've got a bad feeling about this.") and hokey, almost criminally bad acting (due in no small part to your own armchair directing efforts). Please, I beg of you! Give the writing chores to someone who has the motivation to succeed at the art of script writing (say, a professional writer!) because his fucking rent depends on it!

Wikipedia, Star Wars: Underworld Page

When Amatuer Art Is A "Style" and When It's Just Bad Art

 Image from www.fixedart.com

In the many different worlds of visual storytelling, each has a unique message to send to it's readers. Thus each message best benefits from the appropriate style of artwork portrayed in it. By message I also mean story. In this regard visual storytelling respects neither hyper-realistic artwork, primitive artwork, amateur artwork, or even cartooning. Each effort is and should be related to the narrative it is attempting to illustrate. The same thing goes for film. In the usage of special effects, for example, special effects don't always have to be ultra-realistic despite what the current suits in Hollywood probably think. Amateur special effects of a say, campy storyline, would work out just fine. A good example of this was the long running British TV sci-fi show "Dr. Who". The special effects were bargain basement cheap but who cared? The stories were written with enough wit and imagination for readers to suspend disbelief and / or enjoy the charm of the toy-like spaceships, etc. used to elucidate the storyline. But the same simple special effects would be misappropriated if they were used to elucidate a film like Star Wars, which demanded realistic special effects to make it's fairy tale-like story believable. Likewise in comic books a simple art style is good for one type of narrative while it is not good for some. Amateur artwork is great for some types of story lines but not for others. Cartoons are great for other types of narratives. But when it comes to superheroes one has to be careful, for superhero tales rest almost in the world of the fairy tale, they are best served when done realistically in order to convince the reader that this fantastic "stuff " can actually be happening, thereby fulfilling a crucial need for successful realistic visual storytelling: the suspension of disbelief. When I read a superhero tale with amateur artwork the distractions are plentiful. Distorted bodies, hacked off heads, crooked facial features, etc. etc. don't allow any suspension of disbelief. The amateur artwork becomes a secondary stream of "entertainment" running alongside the text / storyline. Not only do I not "believe" what's occurring in the comic book but I don't think that the writers or artists do either because they made such a wreck of an imagined situation (the superhero). Bad superhero comic book artwork within realistic story lines don't work and never will. They operate on the same level as reading bad writing. In the end you are only left with the impression of "What the fuck?" instead of "That was a great tale!" But of course this (end view) doesn't apply to all people, namely fools. But there's no accounting for the taste of fools because they don't have any taste. You can feed them garbage and they'll think it's health food.

The Value of Alex Ross and the 2nd Golden Age of Comic Books

The movement AGAINST realistic comic book artwork which began with the allowing of fanboys posing as editors, illustrators and writers in the comic book world during the Stone Age of comic books, the 1990's (and  headed by amatuer "artists" like Liefeld and Lee, etc) was countered by the admittance of Alex Ross and his hyper-realistic super hero paintings. Since then the trend towards more realistic artwork in comic books has been an ascending one. But the direction needs to be substantiated by an overall monitoring of quality control (mainly in the super hero comic book genre) -one in which rank amateurs are held down and kept out of the business because of their ill effect on the whole. This can only be accomplished on the editorial level. So when the fanboy editors are thrown out on their arrogant, envious asses (by a public made more aware of the danger that their ignorant choices constantly make) only then will comic books have a chance for a second Golden Age. Until then the threat of another Stone Age is ever present, with or without painters like Alex Ross continually proving the value of realistic artwork in the comic book visual storytelling medium -to which realistic artwork is essentially connected. Sure Ross' work does not consist of figure invented artwork, which is needed for the 2nd Golden Age of comic books, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. He managed to show the fanboys THEIR INCREDIBLE INFERIORITY without offending them by presenting to them realistic comic book artwork done by using photographs. This had to be done in this manner (an indirect path) because the hostility towards traditional realistic comic book artwork done by imagination was high in the 1990's.