"Dead on Target" was the beginning of a new era for the Hardy Boys. This is the first volume of the new (in 1991) series "The Hardy Boys Casefiles", and it is a more adult and action packed series than the original series. This is never more evident than the first two pages of the book. Whereas the original series (started in 1927 and it is still running today) would have various plots by criminals, nobody ever seemed to get killed or nothing too serious would ever happen, but "Dead on Target" opens with the killing of Joe Hardy's girlfriend (and sister of good friend Chet) Iola Morton. For a series that has been known for its lack of actual murders of any on screen character, this was a shocking and explosive (no pun intended as it was by a bomb that killed Iola) moment. It marked the different direction that the Casefiles would take the reader, as well as the Hardys, on.
A car bomb was the cause of death for Iola Morton. Frank and Joe, as well as Iola and Frank's girlfriend Callie Shaw, were at the mall preparing for a political rally. Iola ends up returning to the Hardys' car to pick up more campaign materials when it explodes, killing her. Joe blames himself because his flirting with another girl made Iola mad and this is what led her to be at the car by herself. At the funeral, "Dead on Target" takes another twist by introducing the character of The Grey Man. The Grey Man is a member of a secret government organization called "The Network". "The Network" believes that an international group of terrorists, "The Assassins", were responsible for Iola's death and are planning something big for the political rally the following week.
The rest of the novel finds Frank and Joe traveling to London, fighting several members of the Assassins, being in the midst of gun battles and defusing a bomb. "Dead on Target" is fast paced with a tighter story than what is found through most of the original series. For fans of the Hardy Boys, "Dead on Target" is likely to be a favorite. It is not for the purists of the series, though. This book takes the brothers down a different timeline than we find in the main series. Since the main series continued to be published at the same time as the Casefiles, these books (Casefiles) are either set at a later date than the continuing series or is part of some alternative timeline since Iola is still alive in the main series.
"Dead on Target" has more violence than the "classic" Hardy Boys, but this is a very interesting story, even if it is a bit far fetched. For the first time, terrorism and murder have been introduced to Bayport and the Casefiles bring the reader a new style of story with the Hardys. As an introduction to the Casefiles as well as a new episode in the lives of the Hardys, this is a good place to start. Fifteen years after first reading this book it remains a fun read.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Monday, August 30, 2004
The Passion of the Clerks?
Seriously? It's not even listed in the IMDB, but writer/director is starting work on a sequel to Clerks. On one hand i think this is awesome as i loved that movie and loved the characters, but on the other...really? Is it necessary? Smith had long said that other than a planned animated Clerks movie (an idea which i love), he is done with the Jay and Silent Bob characters and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back was to be their swan song, the last time we got to see a 40 year old fat man in a trench coat (as Smith once said). Great characters, but it had seemed that their time had passed.
I love Kevin Smith's work, even the underrated Jersey Girl, but i don't know about this.
But i'll still see The Passion of the Clerks. It is written and directed by Kevin Smith, after all.
I love Kevin Smith's work, even the underrated Jersey Girl, but i don't know about this.
But i'll still see The Passion of the Clerks. It is written and directed by Kevin Smith, after all.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment (1985): A Review
A film by Jerry Paris
"Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment" is the first of six sequels to 1984's "Police Academy". The screwball recruits have graduated from the Academy and are now ready for their first assignment as full fledged police officers. With the city in the midst of a crime wave, the rookie officers are assigned to the city's worst police precinct. The Captain in charge of the precinct just happens to be Pete Lassard (Howard Hesseman), the brother of the Commandant of the Police Academy, Eric Lassard (George Gaynes). Pete asks his brother for a dozen good men. Eric gives him six, all of which are the screwball recruits from the first movie. Pete Lassard is given thirty days to turn his precinct around or he'll be out of a job.
In charge of the rookies is Lt Mauser (Art Metrano), an obvious replacement for the Harris (G.W. Bailey) character. Mauser sets himself up in opposition to both the rookies as well as Pete Lassard. Mauser is gunning for Lassard's job. Each of the rookies are given a partner to train with and learn the ropes. Strangely enough, each training partner seems to bungle their job as much as the rookies. Returning for this movie are Mahoney (Steve Guttenberg), Hightower (Bubba Smith), Tackleberry (David Graf), Hooks (Marion Ramsey), Fackler (Bruce Mahler), and Jones (Michael Winslow). This movie (and the series, really) is built around Mahoney and his confrontations with authority figures. He is the most likeable character, but a prankster. Of course Mauser takes a personal dislike to Mahoney from the start.
At this point there is nothing truly wrong with the "Police Academy" series. The movies are funny, though they are less funny with each subsequent movie. They are the typical screwball comedy, but the comedy gets more and more family friendly with each movie (the first movie had an "R" rating, this one has "PG-13", the rest have "PG") and it loses whatever edge it once had.
Nearly 20 years later (has it been so long?), is the movie still funny? Not as much as it was when I was twelve. "Police Academy 2" makes me smile at times, mostly because the situations are familiar and watching the movie is nostalgia now. The only thing about the movie that is really wrong is the character of Zed (Bobcat Goldthwait), a character that is simply annoying and not funny or interesting. Naturally he'll be back for two sequels.
The series is all downhill from here. The highpoint was the first movie, though this one isn't so bad. Still, if you are feeling nostalgic for the series, start from the beginning and quit when you are tired of it all. Most viewers should be able to make it past this one, but the series becomes very bad in a hurry. "Police Academy 2" is one of the better movies in the series, though that may not be saying very much.
"Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment" is the first of six sequels to 1984's "Police Academy". The screwball recruits have graduated from the Academy and are now ready for their first assignment as full fledged police officers. With the city in the midst of a crime wave, the rookie officers are assigned to the city's worst police precinct. The Captain in charge of the precinct just happens to be Pete Lassard (Howard Hesseman), the brother of the Commandant of the Police Academy, Eric Lassard (George Gaynes). Pete asks his brother for a dozen good men. Eric gives him six, all of which are the screwball recruits from the first movie. Pete Lassard is given thirty days to turn his precinct around or he'll be out of a job.
In charge of the rookies is Lt Mauser (Art Metrano), an obvious replacement for the Harris (G.W. Bailey) character. Mauser sets himself up in opposition to both the rookies as well as Pete Lassard. Mauser is gunning for Lassard's job. Each of the rookies are given a partner to train with and learn the ropes. Strangely enough, each training partner seems to bungle their job as much as the rookies. Returning for this movie are Mahoney (Steve Guttenberg), Hightower (Bubba Smith), Tackleberry (David Graf), Hooks (Marion Ramsey), Fackler (Bruce Mahler), and Jones (Michael Winslow). This movie (and the series, really) is built around Mahoney and his confrontations with authority figures. He is the most likeable character, but a prankster. Of course Mauser takes a personal dislike to Mahoney from the start.
At this point there is nothing truly wrong with the "Police Academy" series. The movies are funny, though they are less funny with each subsequent movie. They are the typical screwball comedy, but the comedy gets more and more family friendly with each movie (the first movie had an "R" rating, this one has "PG-13", the rest have "PG") and it loses whatever edge it once had.
Nearly 20 years later (has it been so long?), is the movie still funny? Not as much as it was when I was twelve. "Police Academy 2" makes me smile at times, mostly because the situations are familiar and watching the movie is nostalgia now. The only thing about the movie that is really wrong is the character of Zed (Bobcat Goldthwait), a character that is simply annoying and not funny or interesting. Naturally he'll be back for two sequels.
The series is all downhill from here. The highpoint was the first movie, though this one isn't so bad. Still, if you are feeling nostalgic for the series, start from the beginning and quit when you are tired of it all. Most viewers should be able to make it past this one, but the series becomes very bad in a hurry. "Police Academy 2" is one of the better movies in the series, though that may not be saying very much.
The Village (2004): A Review
A film by M Night Shyamalan
The villagers were warned to stay out of the forest. So long as the villagers stayed out of the forest, "Those We Must Not Speak Of" will leave the village alone. It is an uneasy truce within the village. Anything colored red is immediately destroyed or buried because it might attract "them". The villagers live with a kind of Puritan morality, strict, but heartfelt. A date on a tombstone sets the year as 1897. They seem to be completely isolated from the rest of the world hint at how bad life was in "the towns". The elders have taught their children that the rest of the world is a nasty place, and that they are striving to live a moral life. And stay out of the woods.
A young man, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix) seeks the permission of the elders to pass through the woods to "the towns" so he can get medicines for the townspeople, but the elders say that the danger of "Those We Must Not Speak Of" is too great, and it should not be risked. Ivy Walker (Bryce Dallas Howard) is a blind woman, but is very bold and speaks her mind, and appears to be interested in Lucius.
There would not be much of a movie if nothing actually happened (though there is a feeling of stasis through much of the movie), so in some way the "truce" will break. It has to. The question has been raised as to who or what these creatures are in the woods, and what danger they may pose to the village. Shyamalan is a master at raising the level of tension through what we don't see. The boogie man is only truly scary when we don't see him but can "feel" him coming. So it is with "The Village".
This being a Shyamalan movie, we know that there is going to be a twist. From the first frame of the movie, most viewers are going to analyze everything on screen to figure out what is going on and what is wrong with what we are seeing. After "The Sixth Sense" we are conditioned to know that color is very important and with this movie stressing color (the "safe" and "bad" colors", we are looking for any sort of clue. This is initially the strength of the picture, but is also its greatest failing. If Shyamalan is going to give such a promising setup, and builds the tension so that expectations are raised, he ought to deliver with the reveal. The reveal does not even need to be perfect or amazingly shocking, but it does have to be good. It's not.
Throughout the movie the characters are all speaking in a very stilted, formal tone and style and it grates. Worse, it is boring. Shyamalan is able to build tension about the woods and "Those We Must Not Speak Of", but by the ending the film is nothing but a disappointment. "The Village" does not Deliver. Certainly not on the first viewing, and there is nothing to warrant a second or third viewing. Watching "The Village" and piecing it together, i was left with the thought: "That's it? That's what the movie is about?"
There is a bright spot. Bryce Dallas Howard in her first starring role. She was fantastic and i would love to see her in something else, anything else. Everything else was drab and dreary: the acting, the dialogue, the ending, Oscar winning actor Adrien Brody in an inexplicable role. Still, Bryce Dallas Howard was a shining star in a movie best left unseen.
The villagers were warned to stay out of the forest. So long as the villagers stayed out of the forest, "Those We Must Not Speak Of" will leave the village alone. It is an uneasy truce within the village. Anything colored red is immediately destroyed or buried because it might attract "them". The villagers live with a kind of Puritan morality, strict, but heartfelt. A date on a tombstone sets the year as 1897. They seem to be completely isolated from the rest of the world hint at how bad life was in "the towns". The elders have taught their children that the rest of the world is a nasty place, and that they are striving to live a moral life. And stay out of the woods.
A young man, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix) seeks the permission of the elders to pass through the woods to "the towns" so he can get medicines for the townspeople, but the elders say that the danger of "Those We Must Not Speak Of" is too great, and it should not be risked. Ivy Walker (Bryce Dallas Howard) is a blind woman, but is very bold and speaks her mind, and appears to be interested in Lucius.
There would not be much of a movie if nothing actually happened (though there is a feeling of stasis through much of the movie), so in some way the "truce" will break. It has to. The question has been raised as to who or what these creatures are in the woods, and what danger they may pose to the village. Shyamalan is a master at raising the level of tension through what we don't see. The boogie man is only truly scary when we don't see him but can "feel" him coming. So it is with "The Village".
This being a Shyamalan movie, we know that there is going to be a twist. From the first frame of the movie, most viewers are going to analyze everything on screen to figure out what is going on and what is wrong with what we are seeing. After "The Sixth Sense" we are conditioned to know that color is very important and with this movie stressing color (the "safe" and "bad" colors", we are looking for any sort of clue. This is initially the strength of the picture, but is also its greatest failing. If Shyamalan is going to give such a promising setup, and builds the tension so that expectations are raised, he ought to deliver with the reveal. The reveal does not even need to be perfect or amazingly shocking, but it does have to be good. It's not.
Throughout the movie the characters are all speaking in a very stilted, formal tone and style and it grates. Worse, it is boring. Shyamalan is able to build tension about the woods and "Those We Must Not Speak Of", but by the ending the film is nothing but a disappointment. "The Village" does not Deliver. Certainly not on the first viewing, and there is nothing to warrant a second or third viewing. Watching "The Village" and piecing it together, i was left with the thought: "That's it? That's what the movie is about?"
There is a bright spot. Bryce Dallas Howard in her first starring role. She was fantastic and i would love to see her in something else, anything else. Everything else was drab and dreary: the acting, the dialogue, the ending, Oscar winning actor Adrien Brody in an inexplicable role. Still, Bryce Dallas Howard was a shining star in a movie best left unseen.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
The Cestus Deception (Star Wars): A Review
During the Clone Wars a new threat to the Jedi emerged. The Jedi Council learned that on the planet Ord Cestus, a new type of droid was being manufactured. This new droid was nicknamed the "Jedi Killer" and when given the opportunity to test their powers against a non-lethal version of the JK, the Jedi discover that this droid may actually be force sensitive and is able to "sense" what its opponent is going to do before the action is done. This is similar (if not the same) as what the Jedi are able to do. An example of this is the ability of Anakin Skywalker to be able to pod race in Episode One. A whole line of these droids in the hands of the Separatists could potentially mean the extinction of the Jedi and the destruction of the Republic.
Ord Cestus is still a Republic planet, but with the Jedi Killer droids, the question is: for how long? Obi-Wan Kenobi and Kit Fisto are sent to Ord Cestus to take care of this problem, diplomatically if possible, by other means if not. Obi-Wan works with the leaders of Ord Cestus to try to resolve the JK problem peacefully, but Kit Fisto starts sowing the seeds for a rebellion in case diplomacy fails. With Fisto are a squadron of Clone Troopers to help set up the rebellion.
One of these Clone Troopers, A-98 (or, Nate) was engineered to be one of the elite. Nate is in a leadership position and we see the training of the Clone Troopers through his eyes and "The Cestus Deception" gives us our first chance to really get to see the life of a Clone Trooper. Steven Barnes could have easily given us a story that barely touched upon the Troopers, but he didn't, and the Clones have now been humanized in the Star Wars Universe.
"The Cestus Deception" was a rather good prequel era Star Wars novel. It expanded upon the Clone Wars, giving the reader bits more detail about what is happening and how many smaller events are making up the whole of the Clone Wars. Something else that "The Cestus Deception" did was also touched on in "Shatterpoint". There is a change in the nature and role of the Jedi. The Jedi are not soldiers and they do not fight wars. It is against their nature. When thrust into the Clone Wars, which the Jedi have no choice but to fight as they can, they are forced to do things that would not be considered very Jedi-like. In doing so, the Jedi individually have to struggle to maintain their balance in their actions. Obi-Wan and Kit Fisto are put into such a situation in "The Cestus Deception" and while their actions seem to be out of character, they struggle with what they are required to do. For me, this helps put this novel into a greater context of the Clone Wars and the affect of the wars on the Jedi.
The political intrigue and the sections on the Clone Troopers made "The Cestus Deception" a fascinating entry into the Star Wars universe. Like the other Star Wars novels, this was a fast paced story and was easy to read. For fans of the Star Wars novels, this is worth the time to read. For newcomers to the series, i would recommend being at least familiar with the two prequel films (The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones) to give sufficient background.
Ord Cestus is still a Republic planet, but with the Jedi Killer droids, the question is: for how long? Obi-Wan Kenobi and Kit Fisto are sent to Ord Cestus to take care of this problem, diplomatically if possible, by other means if not. Obi-Wan works with the leaders of Ord Cestus to try to resolve the JK problem peacefully, but Kit Fisto starts sowing the seeds for a rebellion in case diplomacy fails. With Fisto are a squadron of Clone Troopers to help set up the rebellion.
One of these Clone Troopers, A-98 (or, Nate) was engineered to be one of the elite. Nate is in a leadership position and we see the training of the Clone Troopers through his eyes and "The Cestus Deception" gives us our first chance to really get to see the life of a Clone Trooper. Steven Barnes could have easily given us a story that barely touched upon the Troopers, but he didn't, and the Clones have now been humanized in the Star Wars Universe.
"The Cestus Deception" was a rather good prequel era Star Wars novel. It expanded upon the Clone Wars, giving the reader bits more detail about what is happening and how many smaller events are making up the whole of the Clone Wars. Something else that "The Cestus Deception" did was also touched on in "Shatterpoint". There is a change in the nature and role of the Jedi. The Jedi are not soldiers and they do not fight wars. It is against their nature. When thrust into the Clone Wars, which the Jedi have no choice but to fight as they can, they are forced to do things that would not be considered very Jedi-like. In doing so, the Jedi individually have to struggle to maintain their balance in their actions. Obi-Wan and Kit Fisto are put into such a situation in "The Cestus Deception" and while their actions seem to be out of character, they struggle with what they are required to do. For me, this helps put this novel into a greater context of the Clone Wars and the affect of the wars on the Jedi.
The political intrigue and the sections on the Clone Troopers made "The Cestus Deception" a fascinating entry into the Star Wars universe. Like the other Star Wars novels, this was a fast paced story and was easy to read. For fans of the Star Wars novels, this is worth the time to read. For newcomers to the series, i would recommend being at least familiar with the two prequel films (The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones) to give sufficient background.
Do NOT go to nbcolympics.com
Seriously. I went to the site the other day to find about about the previous night's results. What i got instead were spoiled results for today's (or whichever day it was i went to the site) broadcasat. I found out that Phelps lost to Thorpe, that Natalie Coughlin won, and that the men's gymnastics team lost to Japan.
Now, i realize that there is a significant time difference between Athens and Minneapolis, but if NBC is pushing their prime time Olympic programming, shouldn't they not reveal the winners in bold headlines on their website? Maybe have a spoilers section, or something?
Had i gone to the website yesterday, i would have lostall the drama and interest in seeing the US beat the Australians in the 4X200 meter freestyle by a tenth of a second when Kellar is able to hold off Thorpe. That was an exciting race and was more so because i didn't know who would win...but i'm quite sure that nbcolympics.com had the result as their big headline.
Not going to the site, i was able to see the women's saber finals (and two semi-final matches) not knowing in Sada Jacobson would win (she got bronze) or if the other US woman would take the silver (she got Gold).
And this isn't even Track, when i'll get really obsessive.
Now, i realize that there is a significant time difference between Athens and Minneapolis, but if NBC is pushing their prime time Olympic programming, shouldn't they not reveal the winners in bold headlines on their website? Maybe have a spoilers section, or something?
Had i gone to the website yesterday, i would have lostall the drama and interest in seeing the US beat the Australians in the 4X200 meter freestyle by a tenth of a second when Kellar is able to hold off Thorpe. That was an exciting race and was more so because i didn't know who would win...but i'm quite sure that nbcolympics.com had the result as their big headline.
Not going to the site, i was able to see the women's saber finals (and two semi-final matches) not knowing in Sada Jacobson would win (she got bronze) or if the other US woman would take the silver (she got Gold).
And this isn't even Track, when i'll get really obsessive.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Collateral (2004): A Review
A film by Michael Mann
Max (Jamie Foxx) is a Las Angeles cab driver with dreams of something grander for his life. His dream, as he tells various fares, is to own his own luxury limo company: Island Limos. This job of driving a taxi is only temporary, but it is a temporary job that has lasted ten years. Max is a man who does not step out and take risks in his life. Into this mundane existence comes yet another fare, Vincent (Tom Cruise). Vincent offers Max $600 if Max would drive him to five different locations so Vincent can do some business and catch a flight out of town at the end of the day. While this is against his company's regulations, Max accepts. $600 is a lot of money for one night's worth of work.
When Max brings Vincent to his first stop and a few minutes later a dead body lands on top of Max's taxi, followed by Vincent looking not at all upset or surprised, we know that this evening is taking a turn that Max never anticipated. Max accuses Vincent of killing the dead guy, but Vincent coldly replies that "the bullets and the fall killed him." Vincent is a hit man, a paid assassin, and despite Max's protests that this isn't his job, Max will drive Vincent around the city as Vincent kills person after person. He doesn't have a choice, really. Vincent has a gun.
What is fascinating about this movie is how the relationship between Vincent and Max works. Despite his chosen profession, Vincent is civil and cultured. As a character, Vincent comes off as somewhat likeable even though we know he is a bad guy and we have seen him coldly murder. Yet, there is a certain charm to Vincent, and he treats Max well so long as Max goes along with what Vincent wants. Vincent suggests that Max will never improve his lot in life until Max himself takes responsibility and does something about it. There is not a friendship here, but throughout the movie a grudging respect between the two characters build.
This respect does not change the fact that Max is being held hostage while Vincent is committing murder. The viewer can guess in what direction the film is going by the way director Michael Mann ties things together early on in the movie. He makes a couple of connections (which would give away part of the ending if mentioned directly) which are obviously not coincidence. We even learn Vincent's unspoken intent by dialogue said by a detective (Mark Ruffalo) investigating that first murder. Nothing is truly random in this movie, and this goes double for the ending. "Collateral" is building to this ending, which I felt was fully appropriate, the entire movie and with the exception of a single scene where Vincent becomes the second coming of the T-1000 from "Terminator 2", everything in "Collateral" works for me. The city itself is a character, giving setting and tone and depth and a sense of place to the film. While the story could have taken place anywhere, the movie would have had a different feel to it.
"Collateral" can be dark and violent, but it is also intelligent and stylish. This sense of style is not to be confused with the typical Hollywood "slickness", but rather it is Michael Mann giving the film its own feel and look that simply "works". The whole film does (excluding that one scene I mentioned), and when put together it is better than its parts, and this includes the fantastic performances by Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx.
Max (Jamie Foxx) is a Las Angeles cab driver with dreams of something grander for his life. His dream, as he tells various fares, is to own his own luxury limo company: Island Limos. This job of driving a taxi is only temporary, but it is a temporary job that has lasted ten years. Max is a man who does not step out and take risks in his life. Into this mundane existence comes yet another fare, Vincent (Tom Cruise). Vincent offers Max $600 if Max would drive him to five different locations so Vincent can do some business and catch a flight out of town at the end of the day. While this is against his company's regulations, Max accepts. $600 is a lot of money for one night's worth of work.
When Max brings Vincent to his first stop and a few minutes later a dead body lands on top of Max's taxi, followed by Vincent looking not at all upset or surprised, we know that this evening is taking a turn that Max never anticipated. Max accuses Vincent of killing the dead guy, but Vincent coldly replies that "the bullets and the fall killed him." Vincent is a hit man, a paid assassin, and despite Max's protests that this isn't his job, Max will drive Vincent around the city as Vincent kills person after person. He doesn't have a choice, really. Vincent has a gun.
What is fascinating about this movie is how the relationship between Vincent and Max works. Despite his chosen profession, Vincent is civil and cultured. As a character, Vincent comes off as somewhat likeable even though we know he is a bad guy and we have seen him coldly murder. Yet, there is a certain charm to Vincent, and he treats Max well so long as Max goes along with what Vincent wants. Vincent suggests that Max will never improve his lot in life until Max himself takes responsibility and does something about it. There is not a friendship here, but throughout the movie a grudging respect between the two characters build.
This respect does not change the fact that Max is being held hostage while Vincent is committing murder. The viewer can guess in what direction the film is going by the way director Michael Mann ties things together early on in the movie. He makes a couple of connections (which would give away part of the ending if mentioned directly) which are obviously not coincidence. We even learn Vincent's unspoken intent by dialogue said by a detective (Mark Ruffalo) investigating that first murder. Nothing is truly random in this movie, and this goes double for the ending. "Collateral" is building to this ending, which I felt was fully appropriate, the entire movie and with the exception of a single scene where Vincent becomes the second coming of the T-1000 from "Terminator 2", everything in "Collateral" works for me. The city itself is a character, giving setting and tone and depth and a sense of place to the film. While the story could have taken place anywhere, the movie would have had a different feel to it.
"Collateral" can be dark and violent, but it is also intelligent and stylish. This sense of style is not to be confused with the typical Hollywood "slickness", but rather it is Michael Mann giving the film its own feel and look that simply "works". The whole film does (excluding that one scene I mentioned), and when put together it is better than its parts, and this includes the fantastic performances by Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Silenced (Jerry Jenkins): A Review
"Silenced" continues the story of Paul Stepola and offers a continuing vision of the future after World War III. Religion is outlawed. Christians are persecuted for simply claiming to believe. Paul Stepola was one of the top guys in the National Peace Organization and was very good at his job at finding, and rooting out underground Christian groups. This was until he was blinded during a raid. Stepola had continued to research the New Testament to better understand what he was up against, but with the held of a new friend, he was moved by the Bible and became a believer, and had his sight restored. If this sounds familiar, it mirrors the story of Saul/Paul of Tarsus from the Biblical book "Acts of the Apostles".
"Silenced" begins with Paul continuing to work in the NPO as a double agent, giving intelligence to the underground believers while trying to maintain his cover. He is unable to tell his wife that he is a Christian for fear that she will turn him in or tell her father (an even higher ranking member of the NPO). This would lead to death, for professing faith in Christ is treason to the world government.
Paul's task is to find a "Christian terrorist" named Styr Magnor. Magnor has claimed responsibility for the incident which somehow instantly removed all water from Las Angeles. This is a blessing in disguise for Paul because while Paul knows that the L.A. incident was the result of prayer and the action of God, he does not believe that Magnor is a part of the Christian Underground. Rather, Magnor has been committing murderous acts throughout the world, bombing major landmarks and killing hundreds, and this is the antithesis of what the Christian Underground is about. Stopping Magnor will do two major things. First, the NPO is suspicious about Paul's true loyalty, and stopping Magnor will be a major proof of loyalty. Second, Styr Magnor's actions are making all Christians look bad, and they are already treasonous for believing in God.
Stepola is headed to Europe to discover who Styr Magnor really is, and to stop him. He is also there to make contact with the Christian Underground over there and do what he can to help the European believers.
Jerry Jenkins started this "Underground Zealot" trilogy with a surprisingly good volume in "Soon". With the strong start to the series, and no idea where exactly Jenkins is going with it (except, perhaps, the ultimate end of the story), I was looking forward to "Silenced". It is written in the typical Jenkins way. It is very easy to read, and fast paced, but it is also clunky and simplistic in the presentation of the narrative. Readers of the "Left Behind" books will know exactly what to expect in the style of writing. It is so easy to read, and fast paced, that many readers will not be put off by Jenkin's overly simplistic style. Judging by the sales numbers of "Left Behind", it may be a fair assessment.
My one true complaint is that "Silenced" took a while to get going with the story. Sure, the book was as much about Paul's wife Jae's spiritual journey as it was about Paul, but after reading "Soon", and with the starting premise of this book, I expected more…especially with the subtitle "The Wrath of God Descends". There was a lack of God's wrath in this book, which was disappointing.
Still, Jerry Jenkins knows how to end a book. The last third of "Silenced" was worth the price of admission, at least for someone who enjoys his work. Not to sound cliche, but the ending actually earns the term "explosive". Jenkins builds and builds and just when the reader is tired of the building, he lets it all out and the action truly begins. It's exciting, and it gets the reader interested in the next volume of the series. That's a good thing, but it also feels like Jenkins could have done a better job at making the first half to two thirds of the book more interesting and exciting.
After "Soon", it is a bit of a let down, but what an ending.
"Silenced" begins with Paul continuing to work in the NPO as a double agent, giving intelligence to the underground believers while trying to maintain his cover. He is unable to tell his wife that he is a Christian for fear that she will turn him in or tell her father (an even higher ranking member of the NPO). This would lead to death, for professing faith in Christ is treason to the world government.
Paul's task is to find a "Christian terrorist" named Styr Magnor. Magnor has claimed responsibility for the incident which somehow instantly removed all water from Las Angeles. This is a blessing in disguise for Paul because while Paul knows that the L.A. incident was the result of prayer and the action of God, he does not believe that Magnor is a part of the Christian Underground. Rather, Magnor has been committing murderous acts throughout the world, bombing major landmarks and killing hundreds, and this is the antithesis of what the Christian Underground is about. Stopping Magnor will do two major things. First, the NPO is suspicious about Paul's true loyalty, and stopping Magnor will be a major proof of loyalty. Second, Styr Magnor's actions are making all Christians look bad, and they are already treasonous for believing in God.
Stepola is headed to Europe to discover who Styr Magnor really is, and to stop him. He is also there to make contact with the Christian Underground over there and do what he can to help the European believers.
Jerry Jenkins started this "Underground Zealot" trilogy with a surprisingly good volume in "Soon". With the strong start to the series, and no idea where exactly Jenkins is going with it (except, perhaps, the ultimate end of the story), I was looking forward to "Silenced". It is written in the typical Jenkins way. It is very easy to read, and fast paced, but it is also clunky and simplistic in the presentation of the narrative. Readers of the "Left Behind" books will know exactly what to expect in the style of writing. It is so easy to read, and fast paced, that many readers will not be put off by Jenkin's overly simplistic style. Judging by the sales numbers of "Left Behind", it may be a fair assessment.
My one true complaint is that "Silenced" took a while to get going with the story. Sure, the book was as much about Paul's wife Jae's spiritual journey as it was about Paul, but after reading "Soon", and with the starting premise of this book, I expected more…especially with the subtitle "The Wrath of God Descends". There was a lack of God's wrath in this book, which was disappointing.
Still, Jerry Jenkins knows how to end a book. The last third of "Silenced" was worth the price of admission, at least for someone who enjoys his work. Not to sound cliche, but the ending actually earns the term "explosive". Jenkins builds and builds and just when the reader is tired of the building, he lets it all out and the action truly begins. It's exciting, and it gets the reader interested in the next volume of the series. That's a good thing, but it also feels like Jenkins could have done a better job at making the first half to two thirds of the book more interesting and exciting.
After "Soon", it is a bit of a let down, but what an ending.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Tarantino on Bond?
Weeks ago, maybe even months ago i heard rumors that Quentin Tarantino is interested in directing the next Bond film. Immediately i loved the idea. All of the Bond movies in recent memory have been kind of boring and stale, especially the last two or three. Imagine what Tarantino could do with the Bond franchise! Since Bond has a built in audience, he can do no worse than the previous films and could potentially reinvent the franchise. I love it already.
Which is why it will probably never happen. The franchise will be "protected" and the movies will be the "safe" Bond films that we've been getting.
And the franchise will be the worse off for it.
But that got me thinking. How great would it be if we could turn the franchise over to some of the top and most creative directors today?
Quentin Tarantino's Bond
Martin Scorcese's Bond
James Camerson's Bond
Spielberg's Bond
Christopher Nolan's Bond (he did Memento)
Shoot, even Karyn Kusama's Bond (she did the excellent Girlfight)
Even if the movie isn't that good, it can't be worse than Die Another Day.
I love it!
And it'll never happen.
But it would be great if it did. I might get excited for John Woo's Bond and certainly would for Michael Mann's Bond. But probably not for Michael Bay's Bond.
Which is why it will probably never happen. The franchise will be "protected" and the movies will be the "safe" Bond films that we've been getting.
And the franchise will be the worse off for it.
But that got me thinking. How great would it be if we could turn the franchise over to some of the top and most creative directors today?
Quentin Tarantino's Bond
Martin Scorcese's Bond
James Camerson's Bond
Spielberg's Bond
Christopher Nolan's Bond (he did Memento)
Shoot, even Karyn Kusama's Bond (she did the excellent Girlfight)
Even if the movie isn't that good, it can't be worse than Die Another Day.
I love it!
And it'll never happen.
But it would be great if it did. I might get excited for John Woo's Bond and certainly would for Michael Mann's Bond. But probably not for Michael Bay's Bond.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
The 4400
The 4400 is a television program on the USA network, and i think it is one that deserves a look. It began several weeks ago with a pilot episode with a fantastic premise: Over the past decades people all over the world disappeared in what can only be called "abductions". The way the pilot episode showed some of the abduction scenes, it is one of those classic scenes where a beam of light from the sky covers a person on the ground and then the person is gone. A classic alien abduction. So, we see a series of abductions. One abductee is a 9 year old girl who was born in the 1930's, another is a black man who was serving in the army during the Korean war (we see him getting beat up by his fellow soldiers for daring to date a white woman), another was a teenager in 2001.
What makes this interesting to me is that the premise of the show is that one day all of these abductees are returned in a flash of light. The total: an even 4400 returnees. The media dubs them: The 4400. Who are these people and why have they been returned? Is there some sort of an agenda in returning the 4400? Why now?
As a fan of science fiction and stuff like the X-Files (am i identifying myself as too much of a geek?), this is a fantastic concept. But, the show does not go in the direction that i might have expected. The alien stuff is pushed to the back (though never truly ignored). What is pushed to the front is the stories of several of the 4400. We follow their lives as they try to recover whatever life they might have had...but one woman who was gone for 11 years has found that her husband has remarried and the daughter who was only an infant was never told about her. The Korean vet i mentioned has found that the grandchildren of his relatives are his age and they only know of him from pictures. The little girl has nobody. But, others are able to find a semblance of their lives.
Each episode of the show follows several different threads. One thread advances the storyline of the main returnees and how they are adapting to their new found lives. This is actually much more interesting than i expected. Another thread follows two agents in Homeland Security who are investigating the 4400 to try to find out why they may have been returned and also to look after them. These two agents also get to follow the next thread of the series, which is the "ability of the week", which is similar to the X-Files or even Buffy the Vampire Slayer's "Monster of the week". See, the 4400 did not return unchanged. They have been given various "gifts" that augment their ability. One man has a form of telekenesis, another has something of a superpower...but the point of the show never seems to be the power, but rather the relationships. Another thread (it all ties together rather well, by the way) is the American public's growing reaction against the 4400 in fear and hate. Not too surprising.
USA is airing a marathon of episodes on sunday, and it looks like they are airing a finale (must be a season finale to see if they are going to do another season...and there are plenty of stories left), so give it a shot.
What makes this interesting to me is that the premise of the show is that one day all of these abductees are returned in a flash of light. The total: an even 4400 returnees. The media dubs them: The 4400. Who are these people and why have they been returned? Is there some sort of an agenda in returning the 4400? Why now?
As a fan of science fiction and stuff like the X-Files (am i identifying myself as too much of a geek?), this is a fantastic concept. But, the show does not go in the direction that i might have expected. The alien stuff is pushed to the back (though never truly ignored). What is pushed to the front is the stories of several of the 4400. We follow their lives as they try to recover whatever life they might have had...but one woman who was gone for 11 years has found that her husband has remarried and the daughter who was only an infant was never told about her. The Korean vet i mentioned has found that the grandchildren of his relatives are his age and they only know of him from pictures. The little girl has nobody. But, others are able to find a semblance of their lives.
Each episode of the show follows several different threads. One thread advances the storyline of the main returnees and how they are adapting to their new found lives. This is actually much more interesting than i expected. Another thread follows two agents in Homeland Security who are investigating the 4400 to try to find out why they may have been returned and also to look after them. These two agents also get to follow the next thread of the series, which is the "ability of the week", which is similar to the X-Files or even Buffy the Vampire Slayer's "Monster of the week". See, the 4400 did not return unchanged. They have been given various "gifts" that augment their ability. One man has a form of telekenesis, another has something of a superpower...but the point of the show never seems to be the power, but rather the relationships. Another thread (it all ties together rather well, by the way) is the American public's growing reaction against the 4400 in fear and hate. Not too surprising.
USA is airing a marathon of episodes on sunday, and it looks like they are airing a finale (must be a season finale to see if they are going to do another season...and there are plenty of stories left), so give it a shot.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Police Academy (1984): A Review
A film by Hugh Wilson
Those who are disgusted with the entire "Police Academy" series have to look no further than this first movie to find the root cause of their misery. Grossing 81 million dollars in 1984, "Police Academy" set the template for the future movies. The style of the series was set with this first one, though the next six movies never quite hit the level of quality (such as it is) that this first film did.
The new Mayor has relaxed the standards for new recruits to enter the Police Academy. Now, anyone can sign up, and people who would have never considered joining the police force are now attempting to do just that. Included in this group is Carey Mahoney (Steve Guttenberg). Mahoney cannot seem to stay out of trouble with the law (petty stuff, really, nothing malicious), and he is given the choice to either join the Police Academy or go to jail. He is told that he cannot quit, but can be thrown out (little does he know that part of the deal is that the Academy cannot throw him out, either). Mahoney, the prankster that he is, does his best to get thrown out of the Academy.
Along with Mahoney, the Police Academy has several other zany new recruits, among them is the gun loving Tackleberry (David Graf), the soft voiced Hooks (Marion Ramsey), a man with a talent for imitating nearly any sound effect in Jones (Michael Winslow), and also Karen Thompson (Kim Cattrall) who appears as Mahoney's love interest. Calling the cadets "screwball recruits" would be perfectly appropriate, and Lt Harris (G.W. Bailey), an instructor at the Academy, wants them all out and sets them up to fail.
"Police Academy" has something of a slapstick comedy. It is very lighthearted, and the characters (the good guys, anyway) are very likeable. I don't think I would want these recruits in an Academy near me, but it was always fun watching this movie. And that is what "Police Academy" is all about: fun. It seems like everyone in the movie is having fun making it, and it works. Granted, the movie is not nearly as funny as I originally found it ten years ago when I was 15, but I can still manage smiles of nostalgia while watching "Police Academy". The characters which the movie focuses on are those, with a couple of exceptions, who will return for sequel after sequel and they are fun characters to get to spend an hour and a half with.
"Police Academy" is the only one in the series to get an "R" rating, which is for female nudity and language. After this one, the series starts to get sanitized, which also seemed to tame the comedy as well. This first film sets up many of the running jokes that continue throughout the series, and perhaps for this reason it is the best of the bunch because it is the most original of the bunch. Still, it is an enjoyable movie.
Those who are disgusted with the entire "Police Academy" series have to look no further than this first movie to find the root cause of their misery. Grossing 81 million dollars in 1984, "Police Academy" set the template for the future movies. The style of the series was set with this first one, though the next six movies never quite hit the level of quality (such as it is) that this first film did.
The new Mayor has relaxed the standards for new recruits to enter the Police Academy. Now, anyone can sign up, and people who would have never considered joining the police force are now attempting to do just that. Included in this group is Carey Mahoney (Steve Guttenberg). Mahoney cannot seem to stay out of trouble with the law (petty stuff, really, nothing malicious), and he is given the choice to either join the Police Academy or go to jail. He is told that he cannot quit, but can be thrown out (little does he know that part of the deal is that the Academy cannot throw him out, either). Mahoney, the prankster that he is, does his best to get thrown out of the Academy.
Along with Mahoney, the Police Academy has several other zany new recruits, among them is the gun loving Tackleberry (David Graf), the soft voiced Hooks (Marion Ramsey), a man with a talent for imitating nearly any sound effect in Jones (Michael Winslow), and also Karen Thompson (Kim Cattrall) who appears as Mahoney's love interest. Calling the cadets "screwball recruits" would be perfectly appropriate, and Lt Harris (G.W. Bailey), an instructor at the Academy, wants them all out and sets them up to fail.
"Police Academy" has something of a slapstick comedy. It is very lighthearted, and the characters (the good guys, anyway) are very likeable. I don't think I would want these recruits in an Academy near me, but it was always fun watching this movie. And that is what "Police Academy" is all about: fun. It seems like everyone in the movie is having fun making it, and it works. Granted, the movie is not nearly as funny as I originally found it ten years ago when I was 15, but I can still manage smiles of nostalgia while watching "Police Academy". The characters which the movie focuses on are those, with a couple of exceptions, who will return for sequel after sequel and they are fun characters to get to spend an hour and a half with.
"Police Academy" is the only one in the series to get an "R" rating, which is for female nudity and language. After this one, the series starts to get sanitized, which also seemed to tame the comedy as well. This first film sets up many of the running jokes that continue throughout the series, and perhaps for this reason it is the best of the bunch because it is the most original of the bunch. Still, it is an enjoyable movie.
Friday, July 30, 2004
Star of Danger: A Review
In "Star of Danger" we get to see one of the earlier works of Marion Zimmer Bradley. First published in 1965, it was the fourth Darkover novel written. The reason this is worth mentioning is that even thought it was only the fourth novel published in the series, it is the twelfth novel in chronological order, and if the "Clingfire Trilogy" is counted (which was mostly written by Deborah J Ross in the years after Bradley died), "Star of Danger" is the fifteenth novel in chronological order. It is in this order that I am experiencing the world of Darkover, from the earliest era of the planet through to the novels that take place deeper in the chronology. Bradley had not yet developed many of the ideas that would encompass the world of Darkover and she had not yet begun to truly tie these novels together. One theme that does remain strong throughout the entire series, including this novel has to do with the clash of cultures.
Larry Montray is a Terran youth who arrives on Darkover for the first time with his father Wade. For years, Larry has dreamt of traveling to distant planets and experiencing alien cultures, but when on Darkover he is not permitted to travel outside the Terran Zone. It is only through disobeying that he is able to maintain a friendship with a young Darkovan native named Kennard Alton. Kennard is a son of the powerful Alton clan on Darkover, a clan which holds much authority on the planet. Even though Larry is forbidden to leave the Terran Zone, he is invited by the Altons to spend several months with the family at their countryside estate. This is a huge opportunity for Terran Intelligence as the ruling class of Darkover is very restrictive regarding who is permitted to roam freely outside the Terran Zone. This is nearly unprecedented access. But to Larry, it is simply the fulfillment of a dream and a chance to spend time with a friend. It is also the beginning of an adventure that risks the lives of both Larry and Kennard, as well as the still tenuous relationship between Darkover and Terra.
Bradley uses this novel, as she does with most of the Darkover series, to explore a culture clash. In this case, it is Larry Montray who is out of his element. Larry is thrust into a situation where everything that he knows is alien to the life he is living on Darkover and he tries to fit in as best that he can. But, the difference of culture also causes conflict in his friendship with Kennard.
"Star of Danger" is a relatively short novel, coming in at just over 200 pages, but it is packed with action and adventure. So much so that one might thing this was geared towards a slightly younger reader, but the storytelling is such that any reader of fantasy can enjoy this book.
My only complaint about "Star of Danger" has to do with continuity, but because this book was written so many years before the rest of the series and Bradley has always been willing to sacrifice continuity if it would help telling a particular story. The continuity issue that I am referring to in this book has to do with Larry's father, Wade Montray. Wade is a minor character, and he did admit to having been on Darkover before, but the text suggests that Wade does not know nearly as much about Darkover as we see in the "Renunciate Trilogy". It is also surprising that Larry does not know about this, because I would have expected that he would have learned about his father and grandfather's role on Darkover. In particular, I would expect Larry to have known about his grandfather, who had a prominent role in the Terran government on Darkover. Again, since this was written years before the bulk of the series, and with Bradley's willingness to sacrifice continuity for the good of the story, this does not trouble me as much as it otherwise would, but since I am reading the series in chronological order it was a small distraction.
Overall, "Star of Danger" was a short, enjoyable reading experience. I have long been a fan of the Darkover series, which doesn't seem to get nearly as much attention as it should merit. This is good, but not great fantasy (and overlaps with science fiction at times). Most of the Darkover novels can stand alone, and this one certainly does, so it may be a good entrance point into the world of Darkover.
Larry Montray is a Terran youth who arrives on Darkover for the first time with his father Wade. For years, Larry has dreamt of traveling to distant planets and experiencing alien cultures, but when on Darkover he is not permitted to travel outside the Terran Zone. It is only through disobeying that he is able to maintain a friendship with a young Darkovan native named Kennard Alton. Kennard is a son of the powerful Alton clan on Darkover, a clan which holds much authority on the planet. Even though Larry is forbidden to leave the Terran Zone, he is invited by the Altons to spend several months with the family at their countryside estate. This is a huge opportunity for Terran Intelligence as the ruling class of Darkover is very restrictive regarding who is permitted to roam freely outside the Terran Zone. This is nearly unprecedented access. But to Larry, it is simply the fulfillment of a dream and a chance to spend time with a friend. It is also the beginning of an adventure that risks the lives of both Larry and Kennard, as well as the still tenuous relationship between Darkover and Terra.
Bradley uses this novel, as she does with most of the Darkover series, to explore a culture clash. In this case, it is Larry Montray who is out of his element. Larry is thrust into a situation where everything that he knows is alien to the life he is living on Darkover and he tries to fit in as best that he can. But, the difference of culture also causes conflict in his friendship with Kennard.
"Star of Danger" is a relatively short novel, coming in at just over 200 pages, but it is packed with action and adventure. So much so that one might thing this was geared towards a slightly younger reader, but the storytelling is such that any reader of fantasy can enjoy this book.
My only complaint about "Star of Danger" has to do with continuity, but because this book was written so many years before the rest of the series and Bradley has always been willing to sacrifice continuity if it would help telling a particular story. The continuity issue that I am referring to in this book has to do with Larry's father, Wade Montray. Wade is a minor character, and he did admit to having been on Darkover before, but the text suggests that Wade does not know nearly as much about Darkover as we see in the "Renunciate Trilogy". It is also surprising that Larry does not know about this, because I would have expected that he would have learned about his father and grandfather's role on Darkover. In particular, I would expect Larry to have known about his grandfather, who had a prominent role in the Terran government on Darkover. Again, since this was written years before the bulk of the series, and with Bradley's willingness to sacrifice continuity for the good of the story, this does not trouble me as much as it otherwise would, but since I am reading the series in chronological order it was a small distraction.
Overall, "Star of Danger" was a short, enjoyable reading experience. I have long been a fan of the Darkover series, which doesn't seem to get nearly as much attention as it should merit. This is good, but not great fantasy (and overlaps with science fiction at times). Most of the Darkover novels can stand alone, and this one certainly does, so it may be a good entrance point into the world of Darkover.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Angels and Demons: A Review
Before the incredible success of "The Da Vinci Code", Dan Brown wrote "Angels and Demons", the first book to feature Robert Langdon as the protagonist. Langdon is a Harvard professor and a symbologist. He studies and lectures on religious symbols and is an expert. His assistance is requested when there is a murder in a highly advanced scientific community. While Langdon questions why he is being asked to investigate a murder with no police involvement the reason is clear when the nature of the murder is revealed: burned into the chest of the victim is the symbol for the "Illuminati". The Illuminati is a secret organization which has its origins in the time of Galileo. The Illuminati were scientists persecuted by the Catholic Church and the organization became rabidly anti-Catholic.
While bringing the Illuminati into the story certainly adds complexity to "Angels and Demons", the stakes are raised once more when the murder leads to a theft of a small amount of man made anti-matter. This is significant because up until the murder victim, nobody had ever created anti-matter on earth and this is a highly volatile substance that even trace amounts can cause a great explosion. The amount of anti-matter stolen is enough to completely destroy city blocks and with the anti-Catholic nature of the Illuminati, the threat of the stolen anti-matter is directed at the Vatican. This is where Robert Langdon comes in. He has to follow a trail of symbols to stop a series of murders and the eventual destruction of the Vatican itself.
In the hands of a lesser writer, this could be an absurd story that fails to work on any level. Amazingly enough, Dan Brown has written a tight, fast paced story where the tension increases and increases as Langdon tries to unravel the symbols that provide a trail of clues to each potential murder victim and the danger touches the highest levels of the Vatican. "Angels and Demons" should not be as interesting as it turned out to be. This is a book that should be so heavy in detail that it weighs the narrative down, but it doesn't. "Angels and Demons" is a gripping story that pulled me in and did not let me go until near the end when Brown may have used one twist too many and the book finally did venture into the absurd. That one absurdity aside, the 9/10 of this book that worked was so good that I feel compelled to use that grand cliche about literature: "it was a real page turner". In this case the cliche is absolutely true. "Angels and Demons" is a "real page turner".
There are many similarities to "The Da Vinci Code". The theme and many of the events are remarkably similar, as are the villains and the ties to the Catholic Church, but where "The Da Vinci Code" was obsessed with the ideas of the conspiracy "Angels and Demons" tells a better story. "Angels and Demons" is the better book of the two (so far) Robert Langdon novels, but the ideas of "The Da Vinci Code" were far more interesting and controversial, which explains the difference in sales. If you haven't read "The Da Vinci Code" yet, start with this one.
While bringing the Illuminati into the story certainly adds complexity to "Angels and Demons", the stakes are raised once more when the murder leads to a theft of a small amount of man made anti-matter. This is significant because up until the murder victim, nobody had ever created anti-matter on earth and this is a highly volatile substance that even trace amounts can cause a great explosion. The amount of anti-matter stolen is enough to completely destroy city blocks and with the anti-Catholic nature of the Illuminati, the threat of the stolen anti-matter is directed at the Vatican. This is where Robert Langdon comes in. He has to follow a trail of symbols to stop a series of murders and the eventual destruction of the Vatican itself.
In the hands of a lesser writer, this could be an absurd story that fails to work on any level. Amazingly enough, Dan Brown has written a tight, fast paced story where the tension increases and increases as Langdon tries to unravel the symbols that provide a trail of clues to each potential murder victim and the danger touches the highest levels of the Vatican. "Angels and Demons" should not be as interesting as it turned out to be. This is a book that should be so heavy in detail that it weighs the narrative down, but it doesn't. "Angels and Demons" is a gripping story that pulled me in and did not let me go until near the end when Brown may have used one twist too many and the book finally did venture into the absurd. That one absurdity aside, the 9/10 of this book that worked was so good that I feel compelled to use that grand cliche about literature: "it was a real page turner". In this case the cliche is absolutely true. "Angels and Demons" is a "real page turner".
There are many similarities to "The Da Vinci Code". The theme and many of the events are remarkably similar, as are the villains and the ties to the Catholic Church, but where "The Da Vinci Code" was obsessed with the ideas of the conspiracy "Angels and Demons" tells a better story. "Angels and Demons" is the better book of the two (so far) Robert Langdon novels, but the ideas of "The Da Vinci Code" were far more interesting and controversial, which explains the difference in sales. If you haven't read "The Da Vinci Code" yet, start with this one.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
The Bourne Supremacy (2004): A Review
A film by Paul Greengrass
"The Bourne Supremacy" is the sequel to the 2002 film "The Bourne Identity". Both films are adaptations of Robert Ludlum novels, but this adaptation may be a bit looser than the first film because it has to maintain any plot and story changes that were first introduced in the first film. A film has to be able to stand on its own, separate from the book, and since I have not read "The Bourne Supremacy", I can only judge the film on its own merits. There are quite a few.
In "The Bourne Identity", Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) was shot and left for dead. When he awoke, he found that he could not remember anything about himself or his past. The film became his quest to find out who he is, and why people are still trying to kill him. What he discovers is that he was a former agent of the CIA, a trained killer, but that is who he was, not who he is. All of that training was imprinted so deeply in him that even though he couldn't remember who he was, he was able to call on that training when the situation required, and it was required often. By the end of the film, Bourne had made his break from the CIA and warned them to leave him alone, because even a hint of the CIA on his trail would bring the wrath of Bourne upon them.
The story picks up in "The Bourne Supremacy" a couple of year later in Goa, India. Bourne is living with Marie (Franka Potente), the woman from the first film, on the seashore. He still can't remember much of his past life, though he has nightmares that gives him hints that there is something more, something deeper that he is missing. That something starts creeping up on him when he spots a man in the marketplace who shouldn't be there. The man is nobody that Bourne recognizes, but Bourne knows that his cover is blown and that he is in danger again. Bourne's assumption: The CIA is after him again, and this means that Bourne is going to take the fight to the people responsible.
What the viewer knows, and Bourne does not, is that the CIA is not after him, at least not yet. Somebody else is targeting Jason Bourne, and that same somebody else is also targeting the CIA by framing Bourne for a double murder of two CIA agents. This adds an additional layer onto the story because as both Bourne and senior CIA operative Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) are in the midst of a potentially deadly "dance" with each other, the viewer knows that something else is in play.
For those tired of how tedious the James Bond franchise has become, may I suggest the Jason Bourne franchise. The series is going in a completely different direction than James Bond, as Bourne wants nothing more than to be left alone with his fractured memories, but as an entry into the genre of the "spy/espionage" film, the two Bourne films are a breath of fresh air. Why are they a breath of fresh air? Because they are both exciting and interesting movies.
Not having to spend as much time setting up the story as its predecessor did, "The Bourne Supremacy" is an extremely fast paced, exciting movie. This time Jason Bourne is the one driving the story as he tries to get to Pamela Landy and the CIA and stop them from going after him. This time it is self-preservation that drives Bourne, rather than self-discovery. Bourne is pushed back into a life that he wants no part of, but he is prepared to do what it takes to be able to put the life behind him.
Matt Damon embodies Jason Bourne seamlessly. There is a palpable sense that Bourne is a dangerous man even when is sitting silently, or walking down a street. Damon would not have been an actor that I would have expecting this transformation from, but he works as an action star as well as a spy capable of such violence. This leads me into the style of the action itself. The camera work/editing is jolting and jerky. When Bourne fights, I got a sense of the speed and intensity of the fight, but I also felt jerked around too much by the camera. The cuts were too quick, and too glaring for my taste, but were still effective for the movie. It just made some sequences harder to follow than may have been necessary.
There is a frantic pace to the film that is appropriate to the type of story that is being told, but the best scenes are those were the characters are standing around talking. Scenes with the CIA agents, or between Bourne and the CIA, are what the story is built on and do not slow down the pace or the tension in "The Bourne Supremacy". There is still one more Jason Bourne novel written by Robert Ludlum, so perhaps we can expect one more movie (two more if we count the Bourne novel written by Eric Van Lustbader). I can only hope, because the Bourne franchise has proven to be an intelligent, exciting action franchise. That's a good thing.
"The Bourne Supremacy" is the sequel to the 2002 film "The Bourne Identity". Both films are adaptations of Robert Ludlum novels, but this adaptation may be a bit looser than the first film because it has to maintain any plot and story changes that were first introduced in the first film. A film has to be able to stand on its own, separate from the book, and since I have not read "The Bourne Supremacy", I can only judge the film on its own merits. There are quite a few.
In "The Bourne Identity", Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) was shot and left for dead. When he awoke, he found that he could not remember anything about himself or his past. The film became his quest to find out who he is, and why people are still trying to kill him. What he discovers is that he was a former agent of the CIA, a trained killer, but that is who he was, not who he is. All of that training was imprinted so deeply in him that even though he couldn't remember who he was, he was able to call on that training when the situation required, and it was required often. By the end of the film, Bourne had made his break from the CIA and warned them to leave him alone, because even a hint of the CIA on his trail would bring the wrath of Bourne upon them.
The story picks up in "The Bourne Supremacy" a couple of year later in Goa, India. Bourne is living with Marie (Franka Potente), the woman from the first film, on the seashore. He still can't remember much of his past life, though he has nightmares that gives him hints that there is something more, something deeper that he is missing. That something starts creeping up on him when he spots a man in the marketplace who shouldn't be there. The man is nobody that Bourne recognizes, but Bourne knows that his cover is blown and that he is in danger again. Bourne's assumption: The CIA is after him again, and this means that Bourne is going to take the fight to the people responsible.
What the viewer knows, and Bourne does not, is that the CIA is not after him, at least not yet. Somebody else is targeting Jason Bourne, and that same somebody else is also targeting the CIA by framing Bourne for a double murder of two CIA agents. This adds an additional layer onto the story because as both Bourne and senior CIA operative Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) are in the midst of a potentially deadly "dance" with each other, the viewer knows that something else is in play.
For those tired of how tedious the James Bond franchise has become, may I suggest the Jason Bourne franchise. The series is going in a completely different direction than James Bond, as Bourne wants nothing more than to be left alone with his fractured memories, but as an entry into the genre of the "spy/espionage" film, the two Bourne films are a breath of fresh air. Why are they a breath of fresh air? Because they are both exciting and interesting movies.
Not having to spend as much time setting up the story as its predecessor did, "The Bourne Supremacy" is an extremely fast paced, exciting movie. This time Jason Bourne is the one driving the story as he tries to get to Pamela Landy and the CIA and stop them from going after him. This time it is self-preservation that drives Bourne, rather than self-discovery. Bourne is pushed back into a life that he wants no part of, but he is prepared to do what it takes to be able to put the life behind him.
Matt Damon embodies Jason Bourne seamlessly. There is a palpable sense that Bourne is a dangerous man even when is sitting silently, or walking down a street. Damon would not have been an actor that I would have expecting this transformation from, but he works as an action star as well as a spy capable of such violence. This leads me into the style of the action itself. The camera work/editing is jolting and jerky. When Bourne fights, I got a sense of the speed and intensity of the fight, but I also felt jerked around too much by the camera. The cuts were too quick, and too glaring for my taste, but were still effective for the movie. It just made some sequences harder to follow than may have been necessary.
There is a frantic pace to the film that is appropriate to the type of story that is being told, but the best scenes are those were the characters are standing around talking. Scenes with the CIA agents, or between Bourne and the CIA, are what the story is built on and do not slow down the pace or the tension in "The Bourne Supremacy". There is still one more Jason Bourne novel written by Robert Ludlum, so perhaps we can expect one more movie (two more if we count the Bourne novel written by Eric Van Lustbader). I can only hope, because the Bourne franchise has proven to be an intelligent, exciting action franchise. That's a good thing.
Friday, July 23, 2004
I, Robot: A Review
"I, Robot" is the classic science fiction novel by Isaac Asimov. It kicks off the best selling Robot/Foundation series, though when "I, Robot" was first published it was not intended to be a part of any larger series, nor were Robot and Foundation originally connected. While the format of "I, Robot" is loosely a novel, it is truly a collection of short stories that is bridged by a common thread and text that connects all stories together.
The tie that connects these stories together is Susan Calvin, a robopsychologist. At the start of the book, Calvin is retiring from her position at U.S. Robotics. A reporter is trying to get her thoughts on the history of robotics, but not the official position, more of her personal impressions. Calvin was at U.S. Robotics when the first truly "thinking" robots were released for sale and was at the forefront of figuring out why some robots were acting the way they were. The format of "I, Robot" is such that Calvin is essentially giving a little bit of background which moves into the short story, giving an episodic feel to the book.
As the stories move in chronological order, the reader is presented with the evolution of robots, starting with "Robbie", which deals with the relationship a little girl has with her robot, Robbie. Robbie was designed as a playmate for a little girl and her parents feel that she has become too attached to the robot and has forsaken real friends. Robbie is an earlier design robot: large, clunky, and without the ability to speak. The subsequent stories show the development of robots and include: a mind reading robot, a robot who does not believe it is possible that a human could create a robot, and one that may even end up ruling the world.
Through these stories, Asimov has set up the Three Laws of Robotics, which are:
1 - A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.2 - A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.3 - A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
These Three Laws are the driving force within each of the stories. What is interesting here is that all of the stories are something of a "whodunit". Something is not working exactly right with a robot and it is up to Susan Calvin, or the team of Martin and Donovan to figure out why a robot is not working how it is expected to. Each time, it has something to do with the Three Laws and everything makes sense within the confines of the Three Laws: Calvin, Martin, and Donovan just have to figure out what.
The writing style here is simple, and easy to read. Despite the fact that there is little "action" happening in the stories, they move along quickly. These are stories of humanity and science and the robots seem to fit into both categories at the same time. "I, Robot" is rightly considered a classic of science fiction and these are simple little gems with a depth of complexity that makes everything fit together.
The tie that connects these stories together is Susan Calvin, a robopsychologist. At the start of the book, Calvin is retiring from her position at U.S. Robotics. A reporter is trying to get her thoughts on the history of robotics, but not the official position, more of her personal impressions. Calvin was at U.S. Robotics when the first truly "thinking" robots were released for sale and was at the forefront of figuring out why some robots were acting the way they were. The format of "I, Robot" is such that Calvin is essentially giving a little bit of background which moves into the short story, giving an episodic feel to the book.
As the stories move in chronological order, the reader is presented with the evolution of robots, starting with "Robbie", which deals with the relationship a little girl has with her robot, Robbie. Robbie was designed as a playmate for a little girl and her parents feel that she has become too attached to the robot and has forsaken real friends. Robbie is an earlier design robot: large, clunky, and without the ability to speak. The subsequent stories show the development of robots and include: a mind reading robot, a robot who does not believe it is possible that a human could create a robot, and one that may even end up ruling the world.
Through these stories, Asimov has set up the Three Laws of Robotics, which are:
1 - A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.2 - A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.3 - A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
These Three Laws are the driving force within each of the stories. What is interesting here is that all of the stories are something of a "whodunit". Something is not working exactly right with a robot and it is up to Susan Calvin, or the team of Martin and Donovan to figure out why a robot is not working how it is expected to. Each time, it has something to do with the Three Laws and everything makes sense within the confines of the Three Laws: Calvin, Martin, and Donovan just have to figure out what.
The writing style here is simple, and easy to read. Despite the fact that there is little "action" happening in the stories, they move along quickly. These are stories of humanity and science and the robots seem to fit into both categories at the same time. "I, Robot" is rightly considered a classic of science fiction and these are simple little gems with a depth of complexity that makes everything fit together.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Orson Scott Card loved I, Robot?
I enjoy reading Orson Scott Card's column on his website Hatrack River. Card is the author of the incredible Ender's Game, a science fiction novel that is so good that it transcends the genre. In his column, Card reviews everything. Books, movies, local restaurants. Sort of like what i want to do, only with a higher literary quotient that i seem to be capable of right now.
He recently saw and reviewed the film adaptation of I, Robot, which from the previews looks like a big steaming pile or turd laid on top of Asimov's work. Card went in with that expectation but it turns out that he loved it. Loved. To quote Card,
Card's thoughts on I, Robot can be found here.
P.S. Orson Scott Card was not very to the historical aspects of King Arthur in his latest column.
He recently saw and reviewed the film adaptation of I, Robot, which from the previews looks like a big steaming pile or turd laid on top of Asimov's work. Card went in with that expectation but it turns out that he loved it. Loved. To quote Card,
"I, Robot is better than the best movie I could have imagined coming out of Asimov's robot universe. It's a relief to know that, in the right hands, a great work of science fiction can be made into a film worthy of the original."Worthy of the original? I typically don't agree with Card across the board on movies (and i don't read the same books as he does), but that is an exceptionally bold statement. I like getting a different perspective on movies, and Card always provides that. Now i'm torn between seeing it and not. It was always going to be a rental, and with Spider-man 2, The Bourne Supremacy, and even King Arthur (I'm a sucker for any movie that brushes up against Arthurian legend) to see, I don't think that i'll make it to I, Robot anytime soon. Not unless someone wants to pay me to watch and review it, anyway. Any takers?
Card's thoughts on I, Robot can be found here.
P.S. Orson Scott Card was not very to the historical aspects of King Arthur in his latest column.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
The Zombie Survival Guide: A Review
In the vein of a traditional, realistic survival guide or the U.S. Army handbook comes Max Brooks’ “Zombie Survival Guide”. Max Brooks gives exhaustive detail on what exactly a zombie is, what weapons to use, and in general just how to survive a zombie attack. Even though “The Zombie Survival Guide” is typically catalogued in the “humor” section of the bookstore, Max Brooks plays this seriously. At no point in this book is there any impression given that this is not fact and that this topic is one that should be taken very, very seriously.
Brooks begins with the how Zombies are created and what it is the causes the reanimation. Apparently it is a drug/chemical called Solanum. When Solanum is entered into the blood stream (which can happen from a bite, or from being sprayed by infected blood) it leads to death but the Solanum then causes reanimation into a zombie. Brooks discusses various facts and misconceptions about zombies. For example, zombies do not have superhuman strength but what gives the illusion of this strength is that a zombie is unable to feel pain or get tired.
Max Brooks moves on to discuss the various weapons that can be used to combat a zombie, and this too is exhaustive. Included in the discussion are handguns, axes, rifles, assault rifles, flamethrowers, swords, pikes, fire, acid, hammers and many others that fall both inside and outside of these categories. Brooks discusses the pros and cons of each weapon (and class of weapon), just as one might hope for in an actual survival guide.
This volume also contains information about the four classes of zombie attacks which range from an isolated attack to having to live in an undead world. Anything that the reader can possibly need to know to equip himself (or herself) to survive a zombie attack is contained in this book, and make no mistake, the point of this book is survival at a basic level.
The greatest strength of this book is also its greatest flaw: Max Brooks does not wink at the reader or let the reader in on the joke. As presented, this book is factual (though widespread media coverage has been either suppressed or manipulated) and straightforward. If zombies attack, this is what you do and how you do it. The joke, of course, is that there is no such thing as a zombie. The straight forward zombie survival guide borders on being absolutely brilliant. The greatest flaw is also the fact that this book is very straight forward and dry reading. It reads like a manual, but the manual is for something that does not exist. If zombies really do exist, we’ll all be in for a world of hurt.
Brooks begins with the how Zombies are created and what it is the causes the reanimation. Apparently it is a drug/chemical called Solanum. When Solanum is entered into the blood stream (which can happen from a bite, or from being sprayed by infected blood) it leads to death but the Solanum then causes reanimation into a zombie. Brooks discusses various facts and misconceptions about zombies. For example, zombies do not have superhuman strength but what gives the illusion of this strength is that a zombie is unable to feel pain or get tired.
Max Brooks moves on to discuss the various weapons that can be used to combat a zombie, and this too is exhaustive. Included in the discussion are handguns, axes, rifles, assault rifles, flamethrowers, swords, pikes, fire, acid, hammers and many others that fall both inside and outside of these categories. Brooks discusses the pros and cons of each weapon (and class of weapon), just as one might hope for in an actual survival guide.
This volume also contains information about the four classes of zombie attacks which range from an isolated attack to having to live in an undead world. Anything that the reader can possibly need to know to equip himself (or herself) to survive a zombie attack is contained in this book, and make no mistake, the point of this book is survival at a basic level.
The greatest strength of this book is also its greatest flaw: Max Brooks does not wink at the reader or let the reader in on the joke. As presented, this book is factual (though widespread media coverage has been either suppressed or manipulated) and straightforward. If zombies attack, this is what you do and how you do it. The joke, of course, is that there is no such thing as a zombie. The straight forward zombie survival guide borders on being absolutely brilliant. The greatest flaw is also the fact that this book is very straight forward and dry reading. It reads like a manual, but the manual is for something that does not exist. If zombies really do exist, we’ll all be in for a world of hurt.
Monday, July 19, 2004
That's not the book i read!
I've been seeing trailers for I, Robot on television and in the theatres and it made me wonder about the source material. The movie, as advertised, is inspired by the book of the same title. Inspired. Uh oh. Just once i think i'd like to see a movie claim to be "an adaptation that is faithful to both the text and spirit of the original work". But that may be asking for too much.
I am convinced that i've read I, Robot before, probably when i was twelve or fourteen. I remember several of the stories, but i don't remember if they were from this book or from Asimov's collection of short stories. Whichever it was, i don't remember teeming masses of robots attacking humans or punching through a windshield while saying "your vehicle just had an accident". That seems alien to Asimov's work. What did i decide to do?
Read the book, of course.
I was right. The preview tells me that the movie has next to nothing to do with the book. Except for a few things that i could tell from the preview.
1: The title. Both the book and the movie have the same title.
2: The Three Laws of Robotics.
3: The company U.S. Robotics
4: the name of the robo-psychologist Susan Calvin
And in case you weren't familiar with the Three Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Now, with the first law being the strongest of the laws imprinted on the robots, please tell me how the preview makes sense. Please. I know, i should watch the movie first, but i don't think i want to shill out the $9 right now. I'll wait for Netflix.
By the way, I would highly recommend the book as well as Asimov's collections of short stories. There are some top-notch stories in the multi-volume collection. Excellent stuff. My favorite is "The Last Question", which i think is one of the best stories i've read.
I am convinced that i've read I, Robot before, probably when i was twelve or fourteen. I remember several of the stories, but i don't remember if they were from this book or from Asimov's collection of short stories. Whichever it was, i don't remember teeming masses of robots attacking humans or punching through a windshield while saying "your vehicle just had an accident". That seems alien to Asimov's work. What did i decide to do?
Read the book, of course.
I was right. The preview tells me that the movie has next to nothing to do with the book. Except for a few things that i could tell from the preview.
1: The title. Both the book and the movie have the same title.
2: The Three Laws of Robotics.
3: The company U.S. Robotics
4: the name of the robo-psychologist Susan Calvin
And in case you weren't familiar with the Three Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Now, with the first law being the strongest of the laws imprinted on the robots, please tell me how the preview makes sense. Please. I know, i should watch the movie first, but i don't think i want to shill out the $9 right now. I'll wait for Netflix.
By the way, I would highly recommend the book as well as Asimov's collections of short stories. There are some top-notch stories in the multi-volume collection. Excellent stuff. My favorite is "The Last Question", which i think is one of the best stories i've read.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Monster (2003): A Review
A film by Patty Jenkins
Roger Ebert listed “Monster” as the best film of all of 2003. Charlize Theron won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her portrayal of serial killer Aileen Wuornos. For months before the Oscars the talk had been about how amazing Theron’s performance was and how not only was it the best performance of the year, it was one of the best performances in years. This is a lot of high praise that raised my expectations on exactly what it was that I was going to see in “Monster”.
“Monster” is based on the true story of Aileen Wuornos. Aileen lived as a prostitute in Florida and became a serial murderer, killing her prospective clients. As the film opens, Aileen is sitting under an overpass and is reflecting back on past events, specifically her meeting of Selby (Christina Ricci). After meeting Selby in a bar, Selby quickly becomes Aileen’s best (and only) friend and also her lover. They are both very lonely and needy people. For the love of Selby, Aileen wants to clean up her life, quit hooking, and find a real job so she can support Selby. Unfortunately for Aileen, she is unable to find a job because she has no work experience, no resume, and a huge chip on her shoulder that prevents anyone in a position to help to even want to help her. Selby is demanding, telling Aileen that she needs to start hooking again because they don’t have any money, she is hungry, and this is one thing that Aileen can do to support her.
When she is raped by one of her clients, Aileen finally snaps and kills him. She tells Selby that this was a one time thing, but after this first murder she starts killing and robbing her other clients. It is at this point where we start to see Aileen crack under the pressure of what her life has become. She feels that from day one she never stood a chance. She was sexually abused as a child and by age 13 was pregnant and a prostitute. This is her life and she has no opportunity to improve her life. Her experience trying to find a legitimate job is proof of this. “Monster” is the story of Aileen Wuornos and it is brutal and unflinching.
It is impossible to separate the performance of Charlize Theron from the rest of the movie. “Monster” is built on the raw power and pain of Theron’s transformation into Aileen Wuornos. This transformation was both physical and emotional. Charlize Theron is a strikingly beautiful woman and early in her career the roles she became known for were little more than the beautiful wife/girlfriend/woman (Legend of Bagger Vance, The Devil’s Advocate, The Cider House Rules). “Monster” required a physical change in the appearance of Theron’s face and the make-up helped change the beautiful Theron into the ugly Wuornos. The other part of the transformation is that Wuornos was a tormented, pained, and angry woman and this required Theron to not simply be a woman acting but rather to “become” Aileen Wuornos. She succeeds.
During the first half of the movie I could not figure out why Theron had won the Academy Award for Best Actress. She had become Aileen, but the performance was nothing terribly impressive for the first fifty minutes. But when Selby confronts Aileen to return to being a prostitute, that scene nailed it for me and brought Theron’s performance to an entirely new level. The raw emotion Theron conveyed carried the movie. The performance became more emotional, angry, vulnerable, fearful, and edgy and at no point did I think that this was Theron acting. I saw Aileen Wuornos.
The movie itself, without Charlize Theron, did not feel to me that it was telling a story that could not have been told on a made for cable (because of the content) movie. But the movie is not so much about the plot and about the story, but rather about the performance and transformation of Charlize Theron into Aileen Wuornos. The performance makes the viewer capable of feeling pity for Aileen without excusing her actions. I don’t feel that there is any question that Theron deserved the Oscar for “Monster”.
Roger Ebert listed “Monster” as the best film of all of 2003. Charlize Theron won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her portrayal of serial killer Aileen Wuornos. For months before the Oscars the talk had been about how amazing Theron’s performance was and how not only was it the best performance of the year, it was one of the best performances in years. This is a lot of high praise that raised my expectations on exactly what it was that I was going to see in “Monster”.
“Monster” is based on the true story of Aileen Wuornos. Aileen lived as a prostitute in Florida and became a serial murderer, killing her prospective clients. As the film opens, Aileen is sitting under an overpass and is reflecting back on past events, specifically her meeting of Selby (Christina Ricci). After meeting Selby in a bar, Selby quickly becomes Aileen’s best (and only) friend and also her lover. They are both very lonely and needy people. For the love of Selby, Aileen wants to clean up her life, quit hooking, and find a real job so she can support Selby. Unfortunately for Aileen, she is unable to find a job because she has no work experience, no resume, and a huge chip on her shoulder that prevents anyone in a position to help to even want to help her. Selby is demanding, telling Aileen that she needs to start hooking again because they don’t have any money, she is hungry, and this is one thing that Aileen can do to support her.
When she is raped by one of her clients, Aileen finally snaps and kills him. She tells Selby that this was a one time thing, but after this first murder she starts killing and robbing her other clients. It is at this point where we start to see Aileen crack under the pressure of what her life has become. She feels that from day one she never stood a chance. She was sexually abused as a child and by age 13 was pregnant and a prostitute. This is her life and she has no opportunity to improve her life. Her experience trying to find a legitimate job is proof of this. “Monster” is the story of Aileen Wuornos and it is brutal and unflinching.
It is impossible to separate the performance of Charlize Theron from the rest of the movie. “Monster” is built on the raw power and pain of Theron’s transformation into Aileen Wuornos. This transformation was both physical and emotional. Charlize Theron is a strikingly beautiful woman and early in her career the roles she became known for were little more than the beautiful wife/girlfriend/woman (Legend of Bagger Vance, The Devil’s Advocate, The Cider House Rules). “Monster” required a physical change in the appearance of Theron’s face and the make-up helped change the beautiful Theron into the ugly Wuornos. The other part of the transformation is that Wuornos was a tormented, pained, and angry woman and this required Theron to not simply be a woman acting but rather to “become” Aileen Wuornos. She succeeds.
During the first half of the movie I could not figure out why Theron had won the Academy Award for Best Actress. She had become Aileen, but the performance was nothing terribly impressive for the first fifty minutes. But when Selby confronts Aileen to return to being a prostitute, that scene nailed it for me and brought Theron’s performance to an entirely new level. The raw emotion Theron conveyed carried the movie. The performance became more emotional, angry, vulnerable, fearful, and edgy and at no point did I think that this was Theron acting. I saw Aileen Wuornos.
The movie itself, without Charlize Theron, did not feel to me that it was telling a story that could not have been told on a made for cable (because of the content) movie. But the movie is not so much about the plot and about the story, but rather about the performance and transformation of Charlize Theron into Aileen Wuornos. The performance makes the viewer capable of feeling pity for Aileen without excusing her actions. I don’t feel that there is any question that Theron deserved the Oscar for “Monster”.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Cross Purposes: A Review
“Cross Purposes” is a two man play which is set near and in Jerusalem during the week leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus. The focus of this play is on Jestus and Dysmas, two con-men. Jestus and Dysmas were guilty of the murder of Lazarus and they are shocked, and a little relieved, by the reports that Lazarus is still alive. It doesn’t make any sense, because they know they killed him, but Lazarus is alive and this provides the opportunity to get away with the crime. Not only did they murder Lazarus, but they also stole some of his property. The play shifts scenes several times and works its way through Jesus’ final week. We are given glimpses of Jesus with his disciples and the Pharisees condemning Jesus. All of this is building and moving together to that Friday when Jesus is crucified and how this all comes together with Jestus and Dysmas.
While it seems that initially the play starts out with a lighter, almost comedic tone in the opening scenes, the power of the story and the impact of what is going on starts to come through. Barker calls this play “a theatrical celebration of Easter week, told through the eyes of the people who were present in Jerusalem at the time.” This play is intended for for production in a worship setting. This book contains instructions and suggestions for how the play be performed. The suggestions are along the lines of how to use the cast (written for two men, it can be performed by a larger cast) and brief comments on the staging of the play and props.
The potential problem with looking at a play as literature is that a play is ultimately intended to be viewed as a public performance, rather than reading the play privately. A well written play, however, will allow the reader to be able to visualize the play even though there is nobody performing it. “Cross Purposes” is such a play. I was able to “see” how this play could be staged and performed and feel the power of what it would be like to be in the audience for a production of “Cross Purposes.”
A note on my bias: I was a student at Northwestern College of Iowa where Jeff Barker is a professor in the theatre department. I was also a student of Barker’s in a playwriting class he taught in the fall of 1999. I have attended several on campus productions of his work and have always been impressed with the quality of his plays. Potentially, this has shaded my reading of “Cross Purposes” to view it favorably, but it is also with the understanding of the quality of work that Jeff Barker produces. This quality of work begins on the page but stretches through to the direction and production of the play. I feel that the quality is present in the script and this helps me visualize the quality of the production.
While it seems that initially the play starts out with a lighter, almost comedic tone in the opening scenes, the power of the story and the impact of what is going on starts to come through. Barker calls this play “a theatrical celebration of Easter week, told through the eyes of the people who were present in Jerusalem at the time.” This play is intended for for production in a worship setting. This book contains instructions and suggestions for how the play be performed. The suggestions are along the lines of how to use the cast (written for two men, it can be performed by a larger cast) and brief comments on the staging of the play and props.
The potential problem with looking at a play as literature is that a play is ultimately intended to be viewed as a public performance, rather than reading the play privately. A well written play, however, will allow the reader to be able to visualize the play even though there is nobody performing it. “Cross Purposes” is such a play. I was able to “see” how this play could be staged and performed and feel the power of what it would be like to be in the audience for a production of “Cross Purposes.”
A note on my bias: I was a student at Northwestern College of Iowa where Jeff Barker is a professor in the theatre department. I was also a student of Barker’s in a playwriting class he taught in the fall of 1999. I have attended several on campus productions of his work and have always been impressed with the quality of his plays. Potentially, this has shaded my reading of “Cross Purposes” to view it favorably, but it is also with the understanding of the quality of work that Jeff Barker produces. This quality of work begins on the page but stretches through to the direction and production of the play. I feel that the quality is present in the script and this helps me visualize the quality of the production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)