San Andreas (The Earth Quake Save) 4K

From 'San Andreas'! One of the most incredible disaster film scenes ever shot! If you missed this movie the first time around you missed an incredible visual experience. The incredible 'single take' shot through a building as it crumbles was worth a $100 movie ticket!!! Thank goodness we only had to spend about $10.00 on average (non matinee of course!) Enjoy!

How Editing Saved and Made Star Wars Great

This is a superb (and to the point --talk about editing!) examination of why Star Wars 'feels' the way it feels. That snappy, quick pace and sharp dialog was on purpose. And now we know how Lucas succeeded so grandly... his Editorial Force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFMyMxMYDNk

Boba Fett Is Ready For His (Helmeted) Close Up!

I sure hope that Disney has had enough of burning itself at the stove of mediocrity and terribleness; enough that they make sure they hire quality directors and writers and not flashy idiots (J.J. Abrams and most of the rest of the 'Rey Trilogy' films) for all of the Mandalorian episodes. The movie appears to be dead in the water but streaming episodic shows (such as 'Game of Thrones) is big now and that's where this will be seen. Then on TV perhaps. Some episodes can even be shown in the theater if they market it right. Anyway this is good news.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkirby/2018/11/01/star-wars-tv-series-the-mandalorian-is-great-for-disney-and-fans/?fbclid=IwAR0a5eZUz-LDy4c9rlyaXfEGoXzgGrHzgDLdqhx5p8TNHIOy23lSe3ML7PA#3fcd9e04132a

NOW SHOWING: 'A Simple Favor'

ANNA KENDRICK and BLAKE LIVELY'S new movie plays like a candy coated minefield and is a delight to watch unfold. It's humorous, treacherous, sarcastic and sexy all at once.

ANNA KENDRICK plays a deceptively innocent Internet website entrepreneur named Stephanie that's been on a hidden emotionally fall since a personal tragedy. She then meets someone who (apparently!) is the exact opposite of her in the woman, Emily, played to the hilt by the lovely but rough around the edges-feeling BLAKE LIVELY.

Once the two get to know each other a little bit more -and I stress 'a little bit' they begin a game of mental cat and mouse that soon involves the character Sean, (the husband of Emily), acted to perfection by HENRY GOLDING. The plot of this film is practically irrelevant; it plays second fiddle to the more important thing on demonstration here: that the people you think you know are more complex than you think and what's worse they have only shown you what they want you to see... because they have plans for you.

The director, PAUL FEIG, and cinematographer, JOHN SCHWARTZMAN, each did excellent jobs in graphically alluding to and revealing the true darker natures of the characters. Using solid lighting effects, muted tones, and vivid colors along with any necessary shadow play the cinematographer kept the film visually appealing. Meanwhile the director's unflashy, unpretentious style kept you concerned only with the plot -as it should be. All of this was set off by a sometimes bouncy, definitely irreverent, and without a doubt sharp script by JESSICA SHARZAR.

Having noted all of these things one of the most important qualities you'll notice about this film is the refreshing nod to real life random diversity of racial interactions. You have Muslims, Blacks, Asians, Gays and of course Whites casually interacting on a constantly changing basis. Like your modern American city you can be talking to an Egyptian at one moment, take a call from your Asian secretary the next, then get stopped by an obviously Gay gentleman looking for directions -all within 5 to 10 minutes of each other. I haven't seen a movie display so many different types of people within it's narrative so effortlessly.

Another unexpected bonus I got from this film was ANNA KENDRICK'S 'secretly horny nerd girl' appeal. Her nascent loveliness is of course well known but this film reveals a another level of her acting skills and charisma in general.

No regrets watching this movie indeed. So if you want a good 'little' film that flirts with the murder-mystery lover in you then go watch it!

George Alan Booker © 2018 All Rights Reserved

'SEARCHING' [otherwise titled: 'SELF-SABOTAGING YOUR OWN WORK']

I managed to go see the new movie, 'Searching' a couple of days ago and came away from it largely entertained but also with a nagging feeling that somehow it had let me down.

After much thinking I realized that the mood I entered the theater with -that of a thriller fan about to see a good, suspenseful or at least shock filled movie, was ruined as soon as the film began by the presentation of a short film contest winner's work. The event was hosted by the director of 'Searching' himself.
 

Let me elaborate. At the beginning of the film the director addresses the audience and presents to you a short film contest winner  who made a light film about Internet driven searches. The plot of this short film was about a young man who mistakenly suspected that his girl was cheating on him and seeking confirmation of this by snooping into her phone contacts and then to other information services available on the Internet. The film was comedic and for what it was, well done. But without me realizing it the damn thing had all but destroyed my reasonably high level of anticipation for the thriller, 'Searching' that immediately followed it.

So after I watched the thriller (an unoriginal who-done-it drama that may have ripped off one or many TV detective tales...) I had this feeling that it LACKED some quintesential satisfaction. That feeling I soon found out came from the comedic film presented before it. I confirmed this with another person who saw the short film and he bitterly denounced the short film as a 'stupid thing to do'. I completely agreed.
 

I paid my money to watch a THRILLER, that many people said was good, and got shoveled a 15 minute or less AMATEUR and genre CONTRARY movie at the start of my evening. It was one of the most stupid and selfish things I've ever seen done to a captive audience such as a movie going public. It was a blatant PLUG for some AMATEUR DIRECTOR who I and I feel others COULD CARE LESS ABOUT. In a way I was hoodwinked into buying one piece of crap movie to watch a better one. Had that awful short film been placed AFTER the real movie -the thriller I went there to see- then I may have been more receptive to it's humorous take of jealousy driven Internet / social media snooping but it wasn't. I had to swallow this bitter pill up front and now I resent it.

The name of this director (of 'Searching') I'll now remember as some sort of 'bait and switch' clown trying to be like Pixar or something without realizing how and why Pixar puts humorous or clever shorts in front of their damn HUMOROUS AND CLEVER MOVIES. They don't conflict, that's why. They don't show you a fucking Horror short film contest winner before the main Action-Adventure movie or a fucking Documentary on the Berlin Wall fall before Toy Story 5!

That's one way to get a negative review of your film, Mr. Director That Shall Not Be Mentioned. Instead of me acting like that masses of watermellon heads talking about how good the main feature was you got one explaining your self-serving, intellectual arrogancy. I'll make sure I watch your next film on a DVD I rent for a dollar if I watch any other movie you make at all.

One saving grace was the superb performance of lead actor John Cho. If you see this I'm-such-a-clever-writer / director' bullshit film then see it for how John Cho saves it.

Alan Booker

More Fake Star Wars From Disney

Get ready to duck because this garbage is coming our way far too soon (Christmas, 2019). Why in the sacred halls of the Jedi Temple do people call this Disney trilogy featuring that tomboy, Rey, part of the 'Skywalker Saga'?? None of these films are about Luke or Leia or Darth. Even that lousy SUB PLOT of Kylo Ren and his quest to become a Dark Lord of the Sith (I guess this was his quest until the lazy writers had him kill Snokes who I GUESS was training him...) was not enough to call these movies a part of the 'Skywalker Saga'.

These are the REY FILMS. THE REY TRILOGY. Let's clarify that right now. And who in the hell is REY?? We still don't know the answer to that simple question. And if she had bad parents (hinted at in 'The Last Jedi') then who the hell raised her?? A bunch of Jawas?? She was a young girl abandoned by her parents (in 'The Force Awakens') and yet we are TWO FILMS DEEP INTO HER STORY AND SHE HASN'T MENTIONED WHO THE FUCK RAISED HER!!!???!!

This Rey Trilogy is turning out to be some of the WORST examples of visual storytelling in film history. Put out by a major studio too!! WTF.

So if in the next and last Rey movie (hopefully!) Disney fails to address the 800 pound Bantha in the Death Star docking bay then it'll signal the end of Star Wars as we know it. If Jar Jar Abrams (J.J. Abrams to all those still in denial) fails to fix the mess THAT HIS COWARDLY ATTEMPT at visual storytelling caused; his and Disney's ARROGANT attempt at remaking a CLASSIC MOVIE SUCH AS 'STAR WARS-A NEW HOPE' when they made that POS  film, 'The Force Awakens'), then the forces of REVISIONISM have won.

For like an evil third world government that forments a revolution, claiming to be FOR THE PEOPLE, then after seizing power they become dictators while claiming that the REVOLUTION is STILL BEING FOUGHT, Disney intends on making us believe that the REBELLION was never successful and is an ONGOING BATTLE. They call the previously victorious Rebel Alliance 'The Resistance' now... STILL FIGHTING the war so that the CORPORATE DICTATORS can stay in power!

All this post rebel victory stuff was covered in the SW comic books and novels that Disney chucked out of the Falcon's window recklessly once they bought SW from Lucas. Now they're going to give us THEIR MEDIOCRE VERSION OF IT ALL?!?!? Hell no!!

https://makingstarwars.net/2018/08/principle-photography-on-star-wars-episode-ix-has-begun/

Cruising... OUT OF CONTROL

MISSION: SIR TOM CRUISE-Sir Tom Cruise's (is this guy a knight yet??) latest movie is a huge, overblown mess.  By now everyone has heard about Sir Tom Cruise doing his own stunts but so what? Is that what this series of action films have come down to? Is that the main draw?? Is 'Mission: Impossible' a circus or a play (one that happens to be filmed)? I sure wish it were a play because right now the movies feel like circus acts with one amazing trick followed by another. Sir Tom's action pieces are reminiscent of fantastic big tent acts (meant to cause your jaw to drop only). To hell with the story because this movie moves from one 'jaw drop' to the next. Meanwhile the content of the story, what their is pacing, what there is of character arcs are either not there or sorely underdeveloped. So much so that we don't really buy into the idea that the world is in danger and super agent Ethan Hunt (the real alter BIG ego of Sir Tommy) is really out to save it. These movies are now about TOM CRUISE and when an actor outshines his subject matter  (in a particular film series especially) it means one or the other IS NOT GROWING.

Take for instance the LOUSY and UNIMAGINATIVE STORY given to us by ANOTHER Hollywood director who thinks he can write. (RESEARCH). A group of 3 nuclear bombs have been stolen (a cliché at this point in film history!) and are up for sale on the black market. Cruise and his team bungle a planned interception of a sale to a notorious crime Lord and are now desperate to get the nuke cores back. But because this is spy-land, all is not what it seems and everyone, I mean  EVERYONE is lying. So for 2 hrs and more we see the original premise mentioned above get stretched, trampled on and spit at by all of the 2 dimensional 'characters' and with each new 'the plot thickens' device Ethan / Cruise gets to do another wild stunt.

What gets me throughout watching this film is how little drama there was. How little jeopardy. Not for a moment did I think that ANYONE was really in trouble of being nuked or even scratched. To seemingly emphasize this point the film puts Sir Tom Cruise and others through A LOT of battles -many of them at high speed. But NONE of the principal characters get even remotely injured (except in real life where Sir Thompson actually busted or fractured or whatever his ankle during one of his hair-brained stunts). And speaking of other characters many of them had did nothing on the screen worth their acting abilities. This is a TOM CRUISE MOVIE we are told every 5 seconds -because he's never off screen for more than those 5 seconds -and don,"t you forget it!!

Which brings me to my concluding point / question. Why, oh why is Sir Thom Cruise STEALING WORK FROM THE MASSES OF UNEMPLOYED STUNT MEN HANGING AROUND THE HOLLYWOOD SIGN ON ANY GIVEN DAY OF THE WEEK?!?! It was a shame when CGI (computer generated imagery) put our REAL AMERICAN HEROES -the stunt men, out of work. Now Tom Cruise is putting the final nail in the coffin. Even his co-star, Henry Caville (who can almost have his own 'Mission' series, he's quite entertaining in this movie) said he did his own stunts. So, this movie let it's two biggest stars do their own stunts, sometimes in the hundreds of times (Thom Cruise's HALO jump took over 100 takes to get it right or so they claim) and in so doing sent maybe a dozen stunt men to the food kitchen or the welfare office in the process. A damn shame. Cruise hogging all of the fame on his films. Damn shame. LET THE OTHERS SHINE MORE, CRUISY-BOY. IT WON'T HURT YOU ONE BIT.

REALLY Transformed 'Transformers: The Last Knight'

ANOTHER Hollywood piece of trash filmmaking splashes down in your nearest theater's toilet!! 'TRANSFORMERS: Part Whatever'! This story is so bad that I rewrote it in order to entertain myself as I watched this dumbass movie. So kick back and enjoy my transformed Transformers (it's better than Hollywood's!)

'TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT' MOVIE REVIEW

STARRING (in ant-like marching order)
-MARK WAHLBERG as Struggling Actor Unable To Make The Transition To More Serious Films
-ISABELA MONER as the actress with the sexy last name that no producer could ignore!
-JOSH DUHAMEL as the actor who threatened to quit 3 times during the making of the film.
-ANTHONY HOPKINS as the shameless Scrooge-actor out to make every single dime off of his past history of being a classy thesbian (rhymes uncomfortably with LESBIAN doesn't it?) -MAN DRINKING COLD BEER as himself.
-BIG BUTT WOMAN SCREAMING AT OPTIMUS PRIME FROM ROOFTOP as herself.
-THE TRANSFORMERS as real space aliens who choose to work for free in order to help Hollywood offset the cost of illegal movie downloads and high agents' (not stars) fees.


PRODUCED BY:
-The NRA (National Rifle Association) in association with Planned Parenthood


WRITTEN BY
-Jack Shakespeare (William Shakespeare's direct descendant)
-Stan Lee
-Ivanka Trump

SPECIAL EFFECTS BY
-Domino's Pizza (fake cheese masters)

ENEMIES OF THIS FILM
-The Motion Picture Academy
-The Screen Director's Guild
-The Actor's Guild
-The Movie Caterer's Association (food trucks)
-Every acting school and film school within the continental United States

SET SECURITY PROVIDED BY
-Bruce Lee Tea

BEST NONE MOVIE QUOTE:
"I want my check, motherfuckers. And I want it by the end of the day." -Bill the Studio Janitor

THE PLOT:
In a world increasingly turning to green or natural resources for fuel the gasoline guzzling Transformers set out on a mission to prove that climate change is a lie and that gasoline is still the best way to get from zero to 60 MPH in under one minute. But their evil, ex bad guy nemesis, Megatron, has vowed to stop them!

THE DIRECTING:
Another Michael Bay special effects jerk-off fest!!! Hell yeah!! I brought by cybernetic nerd-boy raincoat to stroke off in the corner of the theater at all of the disguised male testosterone splashed up on the screen!! When I came I screamed out, "Michael Baayy!! I fucking love you!!!" Then the surly usher came in a said, "Shut the fuck up, you creep! You're disturbing the other viewers!"

THE REVIEW: This film was great! Go see it right now and don't pay like I did by donning a pair of Dickey's worker clothing and telling the stupid theater employees that you're there to check the HVAC (air conditioning). They'll wave you through.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Stay at home and mail your money to the studios with a letter that states, 'PLEASE REMOVE THIS WORTHLESS CRAP FROM MY LOCAL CINEMA. THANK YOU'. This way you can be honest and kinda hip by telling your idiot pals that did see it that you paid to NOT see it.

Copyright © 2017 George Alan Booker -All Rights Reserved on this planet (Earth) or any of the new planets recently discovered by NASA.

The Guardians of the Puritanical Galaxy!

Just watched a soulless movie (and by soulless I also mean 'sexless') that all but forgot about romance and affection, 'Guardians of the Galaxy 2'. The over-eager to please director and producers filled this film with so much material junk that not a single aspect of affection beyond a long delayed 'hand around the waist of another'is seen. A cold and uninvolving waste of time!! Shit blowing up left and right, forced humor, dull performances (do to a lackluster script). This movie is best summed up by paraphrasing a better writer, William Shakespeare, and his legendary 'Macbeth':

"Sequels, and reboots, and remakes,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief theater lights!
Movies are but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets an hour or more upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Somebody at Marvel or Disney or whoever the hell owns 'Guardians of the Galaxy' (Fox?) owes me $9.75!! The price of my movie ticket!! You bastards! You thieves in the night. You highway robbers lured me in with snazzy visuals then dumped your junk on my consciousness in a movie that's over 2 FUCKING HOURS which won't add a bit of relief to the continuous misery that is my life!! And if you cheat me there you've cheated me everywhere because that's why I and others go to watch your crap --to get away from our crappy lives! But you DENIED ME THAT ESCAPE with your BULLSHIT. You have millions of dollars to hire professional writers but what do you do? You allow your director who has the writing skills of a detention-surfing high school loser to use that money as if it were a multi-million dollar writing class!!! Fucking bullshit ass film.

-George Alan Booker

NOTE: to be fair I actually slept through half of the film (late showing) but whenever I woke up all I saw was shit hitting the fan! Nothing else. Not one smooch between lead characters Peter and Gamora!!

The Last 'Force Awakens' Rant You'll Ever Need To Read

What a lousy design concept for a Star Wars villain. I was looking for more 'Star Wars 8:

The Last Jedi' news to deride when I came across this pic of Daffy Duck in a hood looking creepy. Couldn't help but think of that poorly motivated 'The Force Awakens' villain, Kylo Ren. I don't have to talk about why it resembles him, now do I?

I say Kylo Ren's character is poorly motivated because if the insinuations and indications are to be believed, that he trained under Luke Skywalker before betraying him, then almost certainly Luke would've told Kylo that his father was redeemed in the end by the Force. That Vader, after his death, would never approve of anyone wishing to be like him. Recall how he told his son Luke at the end of 'Return of the Jedi' that Luke was right about him (meaning that he wasn't a lost cause).

Now here comes Kylo, years later, the son of both Leai and Han, who also would've told him about Vader's turn from evil. SOMEHOW Kylo ignores all of these significant figures in his life, and pretends that their appraisal of Vader was a LIE. That Vader is STILL EVIL. He virtually prays to the recovered helmet of Vader in 'The Force Awakens', expressing admiration for his evil.

This is DOUBLY STUPID. It means that Kylo or another had to go to the Moon of Endor and in the process of recovering Vader's melted helmet actually VERIFY part of Luke, Han, and Leia's story about Vader's end.

Now if all this isn't enough to convince you that Disney simply intends on treating OUR beloved Star Wars as a FAT CASH COW then get this: Rumors are already circulating that Star Wars 8: The Last Jedi, the sequel in the new Rey trilogy is building up to be simply a REMAKE of the EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (the 2nd film in the Luke Skywalker trilogy). Another goddamn remake?? Of course it won't exactly mirror 'The Empire Strikes Back' but script leaks and other hints suggest that it will be dark in tone like 'Empire' was and that Rey will lose a hand or other body part like Luke did in his 2nd film. What else are they going to monkey? Will we get another battle on a snow planet like Hoth??

All this points to a sad fact: The people in charge of Hollywood's major studios, for the most part, are not storytellers. Take a look at this little gaff that I just noticed: In the entire film 'The Force Awakens', no one really questions Rey's origins? For all they know she could be an Imperial spy! She was not vetted when she arrived at the RESISTANCE BASE. She and Finn were not checked out at all! Fantastically stupid 'writing'. They could easily have been SUICIDE BOMBERS who could have blown up ALL of the Rebels -or excuse me- 'The Resistance's' leaders by sitting in on one meeting with them!! What a fucking joke this 'story' was.

Notice that Rey's last name is never revealed. Yet this startling lack of admission by any of the characters points to the whole thing as being a PLOT DEVICE. Something created in an ad hoc manner to move the plot on easily, but without having an explanation for it's own existence. Had the heroes began to question Rey's lack of a last name then questions about her (real) identity and thus her actual allegiances would have risen. But the Disney hustlers were too busy looking for a way to get her into the Resistance fast enough to imitate the plot of 'A New Hope', the original Star Wars film, so they could get back the 4 billion dollars they spent in purchasing the Star Wars saga from George Lucas.

Anyway this whole new Star Wars saga starring Rey is a joke and should be treated as one -especially from a professional point of view. Only film illiterate people are raving about this film. People who don't give a fuck about originality or pacing or plotting, etc. and / or who only like the actors in the storyline because they did at least try to make the stupid unoriginal script seem legitimate. And fuck all those people who say that originality is an untrue idea. If your shit reminds others of other people's shit then it's NOT ORIGINAL. If it doesn't remind them of it but is the first of it's kind --in quality, in execution, in detail, then it's ORIGINAL. The original (first) Star Wars was full of stuff that REMINDED you of other films but the quality of it, the execution, the designs, the details were ORIGINAL. Therefore it wasn't attacked as being a rip-off like 'The Force Awakens' has been. 

Coyright 2017 by George Alan Booker, All Rights Reserved

You Say Tesseract, I Say Tomato!

The Hollywood version of A.I.M. was a total let down as featured in the plot of Iron Man 3. Gone was the thrilling designs of Jack Kirby. The yellow jumpsuits. The 'gang of scientists' feel that he imparted to them. An oxymoronic concept. A bunch of men, supposedly scientist -implying free thinking, acting like a common group of thugs!! This is why A.I.M. stood out among the many secret organizations in comicdom. The fact that they were anonymous made them even more dastardly!!

I recall when Captain America fished an A.I.M. scientist out of the ocean to learn from him for the first time about the Cosmic Cube!! the COSMIC CUBE!!! [If memory serves me correctly that's how it happened...] Now that's another gripe against these ratty Marvel movies in itself. Not a once during the Captain America movies did they call the Cosmic Cube the fucking Cosmic Cube!! They called it the 'Tesseract', The 'TESSERACT'?? WTF is that? Sounds like an optometry measuring device or something, not like one of the most powerful devices in creation!!!!

Fake ass Hollywood hipster fuckups! Always trying to make stuff 'realer' -if that's a word. Always trying to 'ground' stuff in what THEY (Hollywood honchos -directors, producers, etc.) believe is better. Who the fuck are they to change great literature (classic Marvel comics)?? Arrogant MFs is all they are.

By calling the Cosmic Cube the 'Tesseract' they robbed the thing of it's fantastic elements. The name is the thing you know. You don't call a 'machine gun' a 'repeater' because it doesn't convey what the damn thing really is. As a friend of mine once said, 'Some people know how to kill the very essence of a thing'. They sure the hell did that with the Cosmic Cube!

There's a bunch of 'Tesseract Apologists' out there on the Internet trying to rationalize why the Cube wasn't called Cube in the movies. That's all B.S. It wasn't called the Cube because of a lack of dedication to comic book continuity --a bad quality that happens when publishers allow filmmakers (arrogant filmmakers) to work on their projects. That's the real reason it's not called the 'Cosmic Cube'! Anyway we'll probably never see it in a film being refered to in that cool way, 'The Cosmic Cube'. At least not in my lifetime I think. Oh well.

Beauty Gets Her Beast -and Bankability Assurance!

'Beauty And The Beast' Review

Beauty and The Beast, the recent big budget live action film from Disney is what I expected it to be -your typical over-lavish production with little depth besides the occasional moment of inspiration which is quickly extinguished. That's modern day Hollywood for you: all promise, little keep.

Most everyone knows the story of Disney's 1990's animated cartoon version of the classic fairy tale of Beauty and The Beast. But in case you have forgotten it here's a synopsis: Attractive girl which every woman thinks represents herself needs a husband but is so selfish and introverted she winds up falling for a loser prince who has been transformed into a beast by a pernicious (hows that for a Google visit?) witch / sorceress / enchantress -whatever because in her eyes his own narcissistic ways are offensive to her senses of how men (in general) should behave. The only thing that can cure this guy of his new Beasty-looks is the true love of a beautiful woman (strained irony if there ever was any). Which actually shouldn't be that difficult if you take a casual walk around your small town or large city. Gorgeous or attractive women can be found with all sort of ugly guys (beast). So much for that punishment!

Or course I'm being silly about the Beauty and the Beast fairy tale because the whole story is downright silly but awfully revealing about the psyches of some women (most?). They often reject braggart men / accomplished men / even rich men  for more prosaic men who don't challenge their own self's intellectual capabilities or good looks. In short women choose loser or weak men over smart / attractive ones --even if they got big bucks (doesn't mean you get their love, right? Right!)

Now that explains why this story is so damn enduring, doesn't it? And why Disney continues to milk the hell out of it. It's all part of Disney and Hollywood's nostalgia exploiting era that we are all unfortunate to be siting through. How many old TV shows have become awful films in these last 2 decades (since the 1990's)? Too many. And few of them worth remembering; many of them that should be forgotten forever ('Star Wars: The Force Awakens'). Which is [unlike] the 90's Disney Beauty and the Beast. It was really a very good animated film!

So here we are again, in the age of nostalgia exploitation viewing Beauty and The Beast.. It's a too-big for itself film to some degree. The characters actually feel subservient to the landscape / castle that the they live in. It's as if the production team got the go-ahead to design the film without a finished script. So that they would be able to tailor their designs to the specific beats of the film. Keeping backgrounds humble in emotional scenes and going crazy with them in more horrific or troublesome ones. I guess that's part of the Hollywood 'factory film'. Script last, money-grabbing concept first. Hire the artists now, never mind what they design! We'll fit the story to the visuals! Not how good visual storytelling is done, folks. One should make the visuals subservient to the scripts' needs. This 'rule' (because their really are no rules in visual storytelling, only appropriateness) is broken relative to the tempo of this live-action version of the classic fairy tale.

The acting in this film is rather uninspired (showing you that the script is surprisingly dry of any character development). Hiring Emma Watson for the role of Belle is a stroke of genius (and I use that term as hyperbole here). This is her first significant role since she played the intellectual-feminist sorceress-in-training Hermoine in Harry Potter. Now I have to admit that I'm a fan of hers from the start and am glad to see her career advance by leaps and bounds. But I can say in an unbiased fashion that she is perfect for this 'intellectual feminist' version of Belle, for in this version of Beauty and the Beast (this 'version' because everyt ime someone tells this story they either add to it or subtract from it) the character IS a dedicated bookworm and a budding woman's rights activist (she's ridiculed for her reading skills and is berated for her desire to teach a young girl how to read by the stogdy and evil villagers she has to deal with daily). Emma turns in a suitable performance and of course is the real reason to see this 'Beauty and The Beast'. The gentleman that plays the Beast, actor Dan Stevens, is perfect for his role as well. We neither love or hate his beast -so when Belle does fall in love with him we can see that's just the fate for any woman that happens to stumble upon the tragic character and is forced to get to know him (as Belle is when she takes her father's place in the Beasts' dungeon). Another interesting performance is that of Luke Evans. He plays Gaston, the soldier who wants to make Belle into his wife. In feminine psychology he is the REAL BEAST of the story. For his undying 'love' or lust for Belle is seen by Belle and no doubt every other female in the audience as his desire to CONTROL Belle. And most experienced men know that women desire control over their romantic fates more than anything else in life. We are left to laugh at Gaston / Luke Evan's attempts at 'getting' Belle. All the while knowing that it's the strong and silent type who will actually win the heart of the girl (the guy who's had the tragedy in his life, in this tale it's the Prince turned into a hideous monster!).

The directing of this film by Bill Condon is rather uneventful. Nothing really stands out and it appears to me that this may be his first big film for it feels like he may have gotten himself into a 'more than I can chew' situation. Errors in character, plotting, or pacing in the film that can be saved by a clever director go unchanged in this film. But I must digress. I was rather tired when I viewed this film and it is a testimony to the director's skill that I did stay interested in it even though my body was screaming to go to sleep! I didn't snooze during it and what I experienced during my less than tired moments was skilled enough directing to keep me from saying to myself, "Who the hell directed this crap?". So to be fair the film is directed competently and satisfies one of the most important values in visual storytelling which is to hide the hand of the director. It's well hidden and so the story does flow from one logic point to another and that's that. But again, I feel as though the characters took a backseat to the CGI special effects and what-not. [I just Googled this director and confirmed my suspicions. This was his first big budget (i.e. big special effects) film to date. He's an experienced drama director but not fantasy one. Even the 'Twilight' franchise films he directed don't compare to the effects laden film such as this Beauty and The Beast.

All in all this film wasn't too bad. It's a good diversion for an adult or the kiddies. But nothing new will come out of it. The only real winner besides the Disney shareholders is Emma Watson's bankability. She should become the leading lady in future films more often because of this. So good for her!! I am a fan, you know...

Copyright 2017 by George Alan Booker -all rights reserved!

Lucas' Legacy

Everyone interested in visual storytelling needs to make sure that he or she survives until 2021, that's the year that Big George's Museum of Narrative Art is slated to open up. In fact, try to stick around until about 2025 in case a bunch of lazy construction workers blow the Grand Opening date.

For all you Star Wars fanatics out there the museum will be in Los Angeles' Exposition Park. So you can head there right now with at least 5 to 8 years worth of supplies and camp out! Just think, you'll be first to enter one of the greatest art museums in history!

http://www.vogue.com/13521201/george-lucas-museum-narrative-art/

The Suspension Of Disbelief

I started thinking about Thor 2 which I watched a few days ago and was surprised to realize that I never doubted the special effects that I sat through. Usually when you watch these super hero flicks your mind will pick up on things that don't look real (realistic), which will break your mind away from the spell (focus) contrived by the hundreds or even thousands of people who work on these flicks. This 'spell' is known as the suspension of disbelief.

The suspension of disbelief has been steadily stretched by the introduction of computerized special effects. In the past, there are only a few films that managed to attain this most sought after quality without the extensive aid of computers -films like Star Wars, Superman (1977), and 2001: A Space Odyssey come to mind. And that was done through very laborous processes such as model building and careful lighting, selective camera angles, and ponderous filming techniques. But all of that went straight out the window when faster processing and affordable computers came along. And since even that occured more than 30 years ago the level of realism in special effects is quite astounding currently-so amazing that they may be in danger of being thought of as being taken for granted. But this is what filmmakers actually hope for! Why? Because when you take a thing for granted it also means you fail to notice it  sometimes-and the best special effect is the one you don't notice!

   So as I watched Thor 2 I never really thought about the special effects- they properly fell into the background of the pretty decent narrative that was woven by the filmmakers. There wasn't a moment in it where I consciously said to myself, "Aha! That looks fake!" or as sometimes is the case FEELS fake. No, this film was pretty darn fun and exciting to look at and listen to --and it's about time; considering the cost of watching a movie nowadays. With this movie I got my money's worth.

Thor Ditto -The Movie

Thor 2 is out there playing somewhere, people (Europe only right now?). Word on the streets is that it is good. Thank goodness for that! Hollywood or any other film production society or company can't afford to be putting out crap anymore and charge over $10 for a damn ticket. I go to the movies once a month because of this very fact. Pay attention to quality not quantity and certainly not exploitation of the film loving marketplace ( you producers know who you are). But the biggest challenge of any trilogy or series of films is to keep script and production quality continously high throughout it's life. This is what hurt the Star Wars series and other trilogies like the Indiana Jones series. When one team of exceptional creators leave a series, then, whoever owns the thing, should make it their mission in life to hire equal or better creators to continue it. If not then the whole series begins to feel uneven. With geniuses guiding the ship one day, then the next day a bunch of clowns are at the helm headed straight for the rocks

Yet all of this begs the question -why the big focus on sequels in our time? The answer is simple when you remember when and where all this sequel mania began. That would be with film director George Lucas and his Star Wars and Indiana Jones films. Lucas was raised in a time where movie producers new the value of serialized motion picture storytelling. Every now and then ( in Lucas' day) you could expect your favorite movie characters return to the theater in a new and exciting adventure. That was a continuous stream of guaranteed revenue for production houses. Now, having 'rediscovered' the basics of serialized movie production, Hollywood doesn't seem to remember the value of it. The first movie is usually good, but the 2nd and 3rd -TYPICALLY LAME. Waking up to this on a mass level could seriously help the movie theater distrubution market compete with the Netflixes and Redboxes out there. After all, seeing the movies on the big screen -nothing can compete with that. Only by being continuously arrogant and greedy regarding the quality of films will keep H-wood's theater distribution market share in the less than optimum state it's in. Copyright © 2013 John Maxter, All Rights Reserved.

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'.