Sgt. Angle reporting for duty!

Last week, we got a taste of the worst of the worst, namely that the lamest movie to come around in a while is Legion, as declared by Mr. Wolff. This assertion was quickly followed up by Ben and his “Wasting Ink” blog about horrid comic book characters of the past.

Here, then, are wasted bits of celluloid. Keep in mind, when I say “wasted” in this context, I’m not saying that these movies should be lined up against a brick wall and that I order for each to be hit with a flamethrower. I’m simply saying that there are betters ways to expose film when on these film sets than the resulting footage. Also, I’m avoiding the trap of choosing entire films and shoving them into this column, essentially creating a crappy movies list. Instead, I’m aiming for different elements of different films — an actor that was just entirely wrong for the part, and over-written script for an otherwise decent director, or an entirely over-the-top editing style that would drive an epileptic sane.

The poster for childhood nightmares across America.

Jack — director, Francis Ford Coppola. What was he thinking? Here we have one of the most legendary directors of all time, king of the 70s Golden Age of American Cinema (Spielberg and Lucas hold the trophy for biggest blockbusters, and ushered in a new era, but the art of the decade came from Coppola), fell into a trap of Hollywood greed by directing this Robin Williams starring flop about a ten year old boy who ages four times as fast as regular people, and thus is cursed to resemble Robin Williams. The movie is sappy, ridiculous, and a childish waste of talent (Diane Lane…oh no), veering into typical childish slapstick humor with no other point than to offer kids a casual chuckle, rather than explore the deeper question of when we learn to grow up as people. One wonders if Coppola took an Ambien and slept throughout production and simply woke up to the resulting footage amidst a pile of Williams’ chest hair. Indeed, Jack seemed to be a detour somehow necessary for Coppola to bankroll his next film, The Rainmaker, starring Matt Damon.

Reshoots: Get Robin Williams out of it, and bring in a more serious actor who might be able to practice comedic chops, not the other way around. Also, should’ve brought in a writer with a bit of grace in handling deeper thematic issues — John Sayles, for instance.

The Lawnmower Man — Unreasonable adaptation. There are certain adaptations of stories, books, and plays which are utterly unacceptable and not necessary. In this case, it happened to Stephen King’s short story “The Lawnmower Man,” the creepy short story about a dude who hires a mysterious lawnmowing company, and discovers a terrifying truth about the company’s owner — who turns out to be a satyr working for Pan, and who devours cut grass while nude and kills his client before the truth can get out. The movie, starring ‘James Bond’ Pierce Brosnan, is about a dude who uses a mentally retarded lawnmower for virtual reality experiments, only to watch the poor guy’s evil increase with his intelligence. The ridiculous adaptation was so bad that Stephen King sued to get his name off the final film. Take your rifles and blast a hole in this celluloid monster.

Reshoots: None. Change your damn title and be done with it. Keep Jeff Fahey, though.…

The heat is so on.

Beverly Hills Cop III - Director John Landis and Eddie Murphy. Again, the sound of silver suitcases opening with wads of cash attracts the talent who created “Thriller,” and one of the best comedians of the 1980s, to the end of the better parts of their careers. The film has pieces of comic gems — Judge Reinhold’s hilarious reign as the head of the JDOJSIOC (“The JGjo-josee”), the random George Lucas cameo — but as far as films that represent turning points for anyone in showbiz, BHCIII is that point for Eddie Murphy, when nearly every film that followed carried a lighter, fluffier style (other than, of course, Vampire in Brooklyn), and his raw combination of violence, humor, and relevance just exited stage left.

Reshoots: Fine, keep your Wonderworld amusement park. Now add some blood and violence, and get a director who is able to handle something other than campy, classical horror. I’m sorry, Landis. I love American Werewolf in London, but this sort of thing ain’t your bag. At least, not in the tradition of Axel Foley’s finest work.

Oh, snap! What decade are we in?!

The Good German — Good idea, poor execution. Steven Soderbergh ventured into Post-WWII Vienna with his black and white homage to films like Casablanca a few years ago, and the results of his amalgam of talent and dedication to the craft took a turn for the worse around the moment when Tobey Maguire smacks Cate Blanchett in the face. The elements were all there: Using cameras and film from the era, hiring a great cinematographer who knows how to shoot black and white (Steven Soderbergh), good editing (Steven Soderbergh…again), a classic score (Thomas Newman), a smart script (Paul Attanasio). The problem is the dense story mishandled by great actors who, other than George Clooney, could not understand the basis of the filmmaker’s intentions. That, and the fact that Tobey Maguire was horribly miscast to play an enraged soldier who beats his girlfriend and screams bloody murder at any other soldier who chose today to breathe. Too small, and too soon for TM to try on the shoes of the villain. Pick something smaller, more unique (certainly not this past year’s generic Brothers).

Reshoots: How about recasting? How about re-writing so the plot is not as dense, and how about casting someone other than Tobey Maguire and Cate Blanchett? Cate lacks chemistry with any of her male counterparts in this one.

Dracula: Dead and Loving It - Mel Brooks. If you’re a good soldier,  you grant Mel Brooks your undivided attention from his early days as a performer on “The New Steve Allen Show” as the 2000 year old man, up through and including Robin Hood: Men in Tights. That being said, Spaceballs represented the last great Brooks film, and also the beginning of the Brooks Decline in comedy. RH:MIT is saved not only by Cary Elwes’s English accent, but also bites with humor from Dave Chappelle and a clear comedic target, that being the overuse of classic characters and the resulting effect on the genre itself. With Dracula: Dead and Loving It, Brooks had the chance to exploit the melodramatic forces at play in the vampire genre, and to create a spoof of the soul-sucking nature of monster movies — just as Spaceballs mocked the science fiction blockbuster, and Blazing Saddles taught us that even the most classic of movie storytelling genres was fodder for more jokes than beans in a burrito. Leslie Nielsen couldn’t even save the Dracula spoof’s nightmare of a humorless script. In fact, the one laugh-out-loud moment is featured in the trailer: “She’s Nosferatu.” “She’s Italian?”

Reshoots: More Steven Weber, less Leslie Nielsen.

Stand at attention!

Date Movie - The death of Hollywood dignity. Perhaps a deeply troubled step-child, or third cousin, to Dracula: Dead and Loving It, Date Movie is the representative of the last 12 years of Hollywood spoofs, second generation knock-offs courtesy of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. Films such as Scary Movie 3 & 4, Meet the Spartans, Disaster Movie, Epic Movie. These “films” are loaded with slight references and brief moments of familiar, recent movies, trying to cram every ounce of pop culture in between the most bare-bones of familiar plots. Take a lesson from Young Frankenstein: Build your characters, and keep your references subtle. Or from Airplane: Load us up with SMART jokes in the subtle way, and hit us over the head with slapstick humor of the irrelevant kind. Don’t just rely on the casting of Alyson Hannigan in your lead to attract our confidence in your otherwise colorless, odorless product.

Reshoots: I think we could — nah, nevermind. Burn it. Eliminate the last six years of horrible, pop-culture spoofs, and maybe my platoon will learn to laugh again.

You are dismissed!

Sgt. Angle

Hey kids! It must be Wednesday, because here I am again, with another Book Report. This week I want to spotlight one of the most popular authors of the past thirty years: Stephen King.

There aren’t many authors still living who can boast the number of bestsellers Stephen King has put out. Or the number of books adapted into movies, television shows, or adapted into comics. He is the highest paid horror novelist ever and truly an American icon in literature.

His first novel, Carrie, was published in 1974 (and made into a film in 1976, directed by Brian De Palma, also remade as a tv movie in 2002), but King had been writing for quite some time prior to that. He worked for University of Maine’s school newspaper, doing a column called ‘The Garbage Truck’ and his first professional story was published while he was still a student, in 1967 (He has since returned to writing journalism; Entertainment Weekly publishes his column “The Pop of King” in their magazine once a month).

King’s next seven novels also made it onto screens big and small. ‘Salem’s Lot (published in 1975) was made into a miniseries in 1979 (and 2004). The Shining (published in 1977) became a horror movie classic under the direction of Stanley Kubrick in 1980 (and remade as a miniseries in 1997). The Dead Zone (published in 1979) hit theaters in 1983 (also remade as a miniseries in 2002). Firestarter (1980) came out in 1984. Cujo (1981) brought the fear of rabies back into American consciousness in 1983. Pet Sematary (1983) made it on the big screen in 1989 (and production is underway on the remake). Christine (1983) was released in theaters the same year it was published. Overall, Stephen King has had more than forty of his works released in movie theaters or on television (with The Shining, Stand By Me, and It being probably the most popular with viewers).

Granted, a body of work consistently translated to film doesn’t necessarily make him a good author. But he is. One of the best series I’ve ever read is King’s Dark Tower novels. The seven novels, written over a span of 22 years, is as high fantasy as J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Inspired by “spaghetti western” films and Robert Browning’s poem “Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came” (which is itself a line from King Lear by Shakespeare), the books also bear the distinction of having a connection with sixteen otherwise unrelated King novels. The beginning is so simple, yet hints at the epic journey yet to come.
“The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.“

In addition to the seven novels (with an 8th announced recently, taking place in the time between books 4 and 5), The Dark Tower recently had some of its history explained in comic books. Writers Peter David and Robin Furth, and artists Jae Lee and Robert Isanove, fill in much of the history of Roland the Gunslinger and what happened to the world before book 1 of The Dark Tower. A new online experience titled Discordia also explores and deepens the world of The Dark Tower.

In my previous post about pseudonyms, I mentioned Stephen King creating a man named Richard Bachman. King has stated he created the character as an attempt to make sense of his career. At the same time, during that period of time, publishers felt that authors should only release one novel per year, so as to not over-saturate the market. King worked hard to disabuse any notion that he and Bachman were the same person, but a persistent bookstore clerk in Washington D.C. eventually “outed” King, pointing to records in The Library of Congress showing King as the true author of Bachman’s books.
In 1985, a press release was sent out announcing Bachman’s death, due to “cancer of the pseudonym, a rare form of schizonomia”. At the time, King was working on Misery, which he had planned on releasing as Bachman (after its release, Misery was made into a film in 1990 and also an Off-Broadway play).
Before his “death”, Bachman released five novels: Rage (1977), The Long Walk (1979), Roadwork (1981), The Running Man (1982, the film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger came out in 1987), and Thinner (1984, the film came out in 1996).
Two Bachman manuscripts were “discovered” after his “death” as well. The first, The Regulators (1996), was released the same day Stephen King released Desperation. The two books were actually companion novels, about the same town in two alternate realities. When placed together, the two covers were designed to form a single picture. In 2007, “Bachman” released Blaze, which King had originally started working on before Carrie was even published. He reworked and rewrote and updated the novel to be current for its release.

The first Bachman novel, Rage, was allowed to go out of print after the Heath High School shooting in 1997. The plot of the book was about a student that terrorizes his high school, and the book was supposedly found in the possession of other students who committed high school shootings. King wrote that it was “a good thing” that he and the publishers allowed the book to go out of print.

Stephen King’s most recent novel, Under the Dome hit shelves in November 2009. Originally, it was another old manuscript (similar to Blaze) that King couldn’t figure out how to finish. It’s a great story with a simple premise: A clear, indestructible dome suddenly appears around the exact borders of a small, northeastern town one day. The book is a great study of small town values and what happens to decent (and some not-so-decent) people when their lives are suddenly seceded from the rest of the country. As just a story, Under the Dome is a whopping good yarn. As allegory, there are a variety of different messages you can take from the book, though all of them tend to be left of the political center. But don’t let that stop any of you right-wingers from enjoying the read, because odds are good that it won’t.
There is already talk of Under the Dome being turned into a cable miniseries, and like many of his other novels, there are hints of a connection to The Dark Tower novels.

Stephen King also published a book titled On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft (2000). Part autobiography, part practical advice, the book ranked 21 on Entertainment Weekly’s list of The New Classics: Books — The Hundred Best Reads from 1938–2008.

But out of all the lessons that I learned from all of Stephen King’s books, I think the biggest idea I picked up was: Don’t Live in Maine*.

Until next week, dear readers.
Still paddlin’ the old knew…
_-Mike-_

*Obviously, Maine is a perfectly fine place to live in.

Hey kids, it’s Akatzen with another Book Report for you!

Today I want to talk about a particular device authors use when they wish to hide or mask their identity for any of a variety of reasons: the pseudonym.

Pseudonym: n, SU-doh-nim. A false name. (Derived from the Greek, pseudonymon)

Sometimes an author uses a pseudonym to separate their personal life from their work. Sometimes, a pseudonym is created because more than one author worked on the book, such as the detective novelist Ellery Queen, actually authored by two cousins: Daniel Nathan and Manford Lepofsky. Their work covered 42 years of detective writing, heavily influencing the genre. The cousins also wrote four novels about detective Drury Lane using the pseudonym Barnaby Ross.
A group of 20th Century mathematicians created the pseudonym Nicolas Bourbaki to publish their work as a collective.

Two of the most famous pseudonyms, or pen names, are Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll (covering for the identities of Samuel Clemens and mathematician Charles Dodgson, respectively)
Charlotte Bronte originally published Jane Eyre (and also Shirley) under the pseudonym Currer Belle. Her sister Emily originally published Wuthering Heights under the name of Ellis Belle. Many of their characters were inspired by neighbors, and so they published under the pseudonyms to avoid embarrassing them.

One popular French author, Romain Gary, started publishing books under the name Emile Ajar to see if people liked his books because they were good or because he was popular. Turns out they liked his books no matter who was writing them.

Who else uses pseudonyms?
Stephen King published his early non-horror novels as Richard Bachman because he wasn’t sure readers would accept his break from genre.
Popular storyteller O. Henry was a pseudonym used by William Sydney Porter.
Jane Austen published Sense and Sensibility using “A Lady” as the author.
Eric Arthur Blair is more recognizable as George Orwell.
Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum published as Ayn Rand.
Fantasy author Robert Jordan was the pen name of James Oliver Rigney, Jr. He also wrote under the names Reagan O’Neal and Jackson O’Reilly.
And, as I’ve mentioned in a previous post, when Dave Eggers writes with his brother Christopher, they use the names Dr. and Mr. Doris Haggis-On-Whey

And, I’m sure you’ve noticed one or two of the writers on Semantink use pseudonyms.

Pseudonymitry is a time-honored practice, and while a reader may sometimes wonder, “who are you, really?” most often the mystery is part of the appeal.

First of all, I wanted to let you all realize that I know what day this blog is released on, and that is not Wednesday, it’s Thursday.  Some of you have sent me emails explaining that Wednesday, not Thursday, is hump day due to it’s location in the work week.  I say to you:  You are dumb.  Hump Day is the day in the week when I, Mr. Wolff, hump things.  And I do mean hump; as in: I thrust my hips against something, banging my frontal nethers slamming upon an object in an often funny and sexually perverse manner.  I do this because there is something wrong with me.

Not Mr. Wolff, but close…

Moving on…

We need to talk about Twilight.  Let me say that I have never seen the movie or read the books.  So, if you are the type of person that needs to catch herpes before thinking, “herpes sucks,” then please stop reading, as I will only be hurting your feelings.  I think Twilight is three things:  A creepy non-vampire pop-film, a bad book, and a terrible movie.  And I can think all three things without wasting my time or money to experience Twilight in any form.  Allow me to explain:

“A creepy, non-vampire pop-film ”

You should know that I come from the Anne Rice school of vampire mythology.  I have read the entire chronicles, their spin-offs and I devoured everything.  Also, I have experienced the joy/fear of Bram Stoker’s Dracula — a book that many claim to love, but few whom I have spoken to have actually read…  In exploring these and other sources, I believe that vampire mythology is loose enough to adapt amongst different writing styles, but there are universal truth’s that MUST be involved for a vampire to be a vampire: An aversion to sunlight, the desire to drink blood and pale-ish skin.  Everything else is arguable (stake to the heart, turning into fog or wolf and the whole coffin-bed thing seem arbitrary to some degree).  So here is my question to Twilight fans, and please, correct me if I am mistaken: Edward and his clan don’t eat humans, don’t have fangs and don’t die when in sunlight?  Then how in the hell are they to be considered vampires?  Oh, and here’s another one:  Since he’s obviously not a vampire, and seems to have the I-don’t-age superpower, would you still think the story was beautiful if Edward aged like normal?  A love story between an old man and a high school girl…  Creepy.

I know what many of you are thinking:  “It’s not about vampires!  It’s about love!  A love that transcends all boundaries!”  As long as he looks good, right?  I know all you little bastards wouldn’t think their kissing was hot if Edwards looked like he was 106 years old…  Well, some of you would, and there is a special level in Hell for you.

As a vampire story, Twilight is a pop-spin-off, at best.  As a love story, Twilight is creepy.  As a book or movie?

“a bad book”

Well, I’m going to let Stephen King describe it as a book, comparing it to the Harry Potter series: “Both Rowling (Potter) and Meyer (Twilight), they’re speaking directly to young people… The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good.”  That’s right.  Stephen King, the man behind mainstream horror doesn’t think Meyer can write.  And THAT is why I won’t be reading it, because Cujo’s dad says it’s not worth the time.

Need more?  Here.  And here.  Here you go.  There are more and you don’t have to look to hard to find them.

“a terrible movie”

As a film, let’s just use Rotten Tomatoes, they have a good standing with the film-going community and seem accurate, since they use several different reviewers.  I wonder what they think of Twilight?  49%.  What does that mean?  Well, here are some BAD movies rated higher than twilight:  Mission Impossible II, Hitch, Shanghai Knights, What Women Want, Just Like Heaven, Bounce, and, well, lots.  I can’t keep listing them because I’m getting depressed and I’m starting to feel like I’m kicking a very dead, not-vampire, terribly written, creepy-ass, badly reviewed– uh, horse.

Here are some quotes from the site, regarding Twilight:  “Dumbest vampire movie…ever;” “So this is what all the fuss is about?;” “Twilight is pure fantasy, emphasis on the pure… it’s a soft-focus reverie for girls who want to be Disney princesses and have their bad boys, too, as long as the bad boys are models of tormented self-restraint;” “If you’re a fan of the book, I’m so sorry;” “As lovers, these two are not convincing. They don’t produce enough of a spark to set off gasoline vapor.”  Wow.  Sounds great you guys.  Really.

To Close…

Now, I am not suggesting that this book doesn’t have an audience.  I know it does.  And people who like this book are still people; they are just stupider than the rest of us.  But that’s okay.  We should love them anyways and encourage the fact that they are reading at all.  Honestly, I’m surprised that the type of person who would appreciate such obvious trash, paid attention in school for long enough to learn the ways letter connect to make words, so kudos to them!  Maybe someday they’ll outgrow their training wheels and learn what talent looks like.  But for now, they remain like this:

Sweat or tattoo, what’s funnier?

Or this:

Marilyn Manson loves twilight!

And they do regrettable things, like:

The resemblance is uncanny…

And they act like this:

Maybe you can see the error of your ways now and you’d like to know what to do.  Well, figure out what it is you thought you liked about Twilight (either the movie or the book) and then go find something good in that vein.  For example, did you love the “vampires”?  Then try Matheson’s I am Legend, (the book), or Neil Jordan’s Interview with a Vampire (the movie or the book, written by Anne Rice).  And if you liked the “supernatural love story between immortal and mortal beings,” swing over to HBO for True Blood.  Did you enjoy the “clashing of multiple mythologies”?  Try Ninness’s Mythoi.  Or maybe you just loved the “love story,” in which case you could try: Gone with the Wind, West Side Story, Romeo and Juliet, An Affair to Remember, or even Love Story.  For the readers: Wuthering Heights, The English Patient, True Believers, or The Thorn Birds.

If you still think Twilight “is like, the greatest,” then I want you to go out in to the woods and find a real vampire.  Hopefully, he eats you.

‘Til later, Mr. Wolff