David M. Brown's Blog, page 52
May 29, 2013
Film Review: Creature
[image error]
About Creature (1985)[image error]A expedition to Titan uncovers an alien being, that goes on a rampage.Starring: Stan Ivar, Wendy Schaal, Lyman Ward, Robert Jaffe, Diane Salinger
Directed by: William Malone
Runtime: 94 minutes
Studio: TGG Direct
Amazon USAmazon UKIMDB
Review: Creature
In William Malone’s Creature, the US are in competition with Germany when it comes to space exploration. An American team head out to Titan, one of the moons of Saturn, and find a group of Germans have preceded them though all appear to be dead. It turns out the unfortunate German explorers have uncovered an egg/capsule with an alien inside. Having wiped out the German crew, the alien is hell-bent on taking out the Americans as well.
Released only six years after Alien, it was inevitable that comparisons would be made between Creature and Ridley Scott’s masterpiece. In fairness, Creature has an unusal angle in that the alien kills its prey but then controls their corpses, sending them back to their friends or luring them into the alien’s clutches. This was an interesting take on the alien stalking its prey theme but beyond that Creature doesn’t have very much to offer.
The effects are not great with the alien hiding in the shadows for the bulk of the film and when we do witness the guy in the suit it’s far from intimidating. The script is pretty clueless and the acting is utterly woeful, almost as if the Americans had sent half a dozen pieces of wood to Saturn rather than a skilled team of explorers. This does have its gory moments but a low budget and poor writing hinders it greatly.
Creature is a low standard sci-fi horror flick which is severely diminished by its script, acting and very average effects. Although the alien has an interesting way of killing its prey it isn’t enough to make this a worthwhile experience. If you want to see aliens stalking people then stick with Alien (1979), The Thing (1982) and Predator (1987).
Verdict: 1/5
(Film source: reviewer’s own copy)
Film Review: Creature | Thank you for reading Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dave
May 28, 2013
Film Review: Bad Lieutenant
Film Review: Bad Lieutenant | Thank you for reading Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dave
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
May 27, 2013
Film Review: The Thing
Film Review: The Thing | Thank you for reading Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dave
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
Film Review: Rounders
Film Review: Rounders | Thank you for reading Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dave
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
May 26, 2013
Tweedlers’ Jukebox Song of the Week: 96 Tears
Tweedlers’ Jukebox Song of the Week: 96 Tears | Thank you for reading Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dave
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
Film Review: True Colors
[image error]
About True Colors (1991)[image error]Two law school roommates, Peter (John Cusak) and Tim (James Spader), each go in different directions: Tim gets a job as a public prosecutor while Peter enters the sleazy world of politics, using creative financing and blackmail to run for a congressional seat. His attempt to use Tim backfires as Tim begins to investigate his old friend. Also starring Imogen Stubbs.Starring: John Cusack, James Spader, Imogen Stubbs, Mandy Patinkin, Richard Widmark
Directed by: Herbert Ross
Runtime: 111 minutes
Studio: Paramount
Amazon USAmazon UKIMDB
Review: True Colors
Herbert Ross’ True Colors explores a close friendship between Peter Burton (John Cusack) and Tim Gerrity (James Spader), which begins in conflict before the two men become best friends only for the actions of one of them to later drive an irreparable gulf between them. Peter and Tim first meet through college when they crash into one another in a car park. After a fierce exchange they discover they are roommates and despite Peter blaming Tim for the accident, he comes clean and admits it was his fault. A friendship is formed but it undergoes many tests beginning with Tim’s girlfriend, Diana Stiles (Imogen Stubbs).
While Tim and Diana have a seemingly solid relationship, there are cracks due to her being a Senator’s daughter and wanting him to pursue a more lucrative career than being an attorney. While Tim is away, Diana and Peter become closer and he is a more attractive prospect heading into the world of politics. Tim and Peter’s friendship somehow survives this setback, even when Peter and Diana marry, but Peter is now in a strong position and has power in mind for himself. When it comes to the crunch he gains the support of the corrupt John Palmeri (Mandy Patinkin) who agrees to fund Peter’s campaign for election but at a price that will affect Tim. Can Peter go through with it?
Prior to starting this film, I assumed James Spader would be the villain of the piece but it is very much John Cusack who is the bad guy. Although he starts as a sympathetic character, spending Christmas Day alone at college, he very soon descends into self-interest and personal gain to the detriment of those closest to him. Cusack and Spader make a great pairing and are well supported by the likes of Stubbs and Patinkin, who unfortunately doesn’t utter one of his Inigo Montoya lines from The Princess Bride. Had he done so, this would have been a 5 star film.
True Colors is a very good drama of friendship and betrayal, a testament to how power is the be all and end all for some people and how easy it is for family and friends to be swept aside when one is completely driven towards an ultimate goal. Peter’s pursuit of power and glory is a damaging path not just to his friends and family but to himself.
Verdict: 4/5
(Film source: reviewer’s own copy)
Film Review: True Colors | Thank you for reading Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dave
May 25, 2013
Book Review: Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing – Melissa Mohr
[image error]
About Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing (2013)[image error]
Almost everyone swears, or worries about not swearing, from the two year-old who has just discovered the power of potty mouth to the grandma who wonders why every other word she hears is obscene. Whether they express anger or exhilaration, are meant to insult or to commend, swear words perform a crucial role in language. But swearing is also a uniquely well-suited lens through which to look at history, offering a fascinating record of what people care about on the deepest levels of a culture what’s divine, what’s terrifying, and what’s taboo.
Holy Sh*t tells the story of two kinds of swearing–obscenities and oaths–from ancient Rome and the Bible to today. With humor and insight, Melissa Mohr takes readers on a journey to discover how “swearing” has come to include both testifying with your hand on the Bible and calling someone a *#$&!* when they cut you off on the highway. She explores obscenities in ancient Rome–which were remarkably similar to our own–and unearths the history of religious oaths in the Middle Ages, when swearing (or not swearing) an oath was often a matter of life and death. Holy Sh*t also explains the advancement of civility and corresponding censorship of language in the 18th century, considers the rise of racial slurs after World War II, examines the physiological effects of swearing (increased heart rate and greater pain tolerance), and answers a question that preoccupies the FCC, the US Senate, and anyone who has recently overheard little kids at a playground: are we swearing more now than people did in the past?
A gem of lexicography and cultural history, Holy Sh*t is a serious exploration of obscenity–and it also just might expand your repertoire of words to choose from the next time you shut your finger in the car door.
I’ve long held the philosophy that swear words – like all words – are just words. By this ‘just a word’ philosophy sh*t is as profane as cat. Yet, I don’t say ‘cat’ when I drop a cup or trap my finger in the drawer or stub my toe. So, can the ‘just a word’ philosophy stick? This seemed like the perfect book to help me find out.
This is really an absolutely fascinating look at the history of swearing – the obscenities and the oaths – and I was incredibly impressed by the depth of research that has clearly been undertaken. Mohr looks at the differences between swearing (obscenely) and swearing an oath, how these arose and the history of certain words. Unsurprisingly, some words that we find offensive now were considered perfectly acceptable previously, yet some words that we use commonly would have caused an 18th century girl to blush.
My conclusion upon finishing Holy Sh*t was that my ‘just a word’ philosophy kind of sticks. If it didn’t, how could the insult of this generation be the tame slang of the next? What makes an obscenity obscene (to me) seems to be less about language and more about tone, expression and body language. It’s also about knowing what will impact, however. In that respect, it has to be more than just a word. Mohr shows that swearing is very much an evolving aspect of language and behaviour, constantly shaped and revised by our culture and history.
If you love language, culture or history, this is an excellent read with some real surprises in store.
Verdict: 4/5
(Book source: netgalley)
Book Review: Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing – Melissa Mohr | Thank you for reading Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dave
Guest Post: Linda M James
[image error]
We are delighted to welcome Linda M James, author of The Day of the Swans, who joins us to share a guest post about characterisation.
Guest Post: Caring About Characters – Linda M JamesHave you ever read a story and given up half way through because you’re really not interested? The characters seem one-dimensional and do things that you don’t believe they’d do. We’ve all read stories like that and the reason we become bored is because the writer doesn’t really know his/her characters well enough to make them convincing. Knowing your characters intimately is vital when writing engaging stories. If we’re not interested in them, why should we care if they fall off a cliff/ their partner leaves them or their cat dies? Your reader must care about the characters you create otherwise why should they waste their valuable time on them?
Here’s part of a questionnaire I give to my students so they can create a fully rounded human being.
1. What is his age/ name/height/ colour of eyes?
2. How does he walk or move? Does he have any mannerisms or habits? Does he smoke? If he doesn’t, what is his attitude towards people who do?
3. What type of clothes is he comfortable in? Does he change his clothes often?
4. How does he speak? What’s the pitch and speed of his voice? Any favourite sayings or words? Does he use slang or swear?
5. Does he live alone or with other people? Does he have any children? What is his relationship to them? What are his children like, if he has any?
6. Where does he live? Does he own his home? Is he domesticated, tidy or messy?
7. Is he successful in material terms? How important is that to him?
8. Does he like his job? If not, what would he rather do?
9. Are his parents living? Does he like them? What has he inherited from them both physically and psychologically?
10. What sort of personality does he have? How does he express tension? How does he express pleasure? How does he express anger?
11. What does he really want? What is he prepared to do to get it?
Once you really know your character he will start thinking, speaking and acting for himself, not being manipulated by you. i.e. he [or she] becomes real.
About The Day of the Swans (2012)[image error]If memories give us our identity, what happens if someone gives us false ones and makes us believe them?The relationship between Stefan, a charismatic stalker, and Anna, a clinical psychologist is both intriguing and erotic.
When Stefan tells her that she’s his long-lost sister she believes she’s treating a highly delusional man.
But after she discovers that her parents have been lying to her, Stefan invades not only Anna’s life, but her dreams as well.
Who is telling the truth?
Amazon USAmazon UKGoodreads About Linda M James[image error]I’m a nomadic author/ screenwriter and creative writing tutor who currently lives in the seaside town of Whitstable, Kent. I believe we are all shaped by the people we meet and the places in which we have lived. The climax of my psychological thriller, THE DAY OF THE SWANS, takes place at night on a spectacular cliff on the Gower Coast in Wales where I grew up. I’m thrilled it’s become a finalist in the People’s Book Prize. My latest book, a crime thriller A FATAL FACADE is being published in August.
Website
Guest Post: Linda M James | Thank you for reading Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dave
Film Review: Quiz Show
[image error]
About Quiz Show (1994)[image error]Academy Award(R)-winner Robert Redford’s (1981, Best Director, ORIDINARY PEOPLE) critically acclaimed triumph, QUIZ SHOW, was cheered as one of the year’s 10 best films by more than 80 critics nationwide. It’s an exciting look behind the scenes at the thrills and high-stakes competition of TV’s hottest big-money game show! But fame and fortune become a hotbed of scandal when a Washington investigator (Rob Morrow — NORTHERN EXPOSURE) uncovers corruption beneath the quiz show’s glittering facade. The scandal implicates both the wildly popular champion (Ralph Fiennes — 1996 Academy Award(R) Best Actor nominee, THE ENGLISH PATIENT) and the disgruntled ex-champ (John Turturro, O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?). A powerful story with unforgettable performances — don’t miss this suspense-filled hit!Starring: Ralph Fiennes, John Turturro, Hank Azaria, Rob Morrow, David Paymer
Directed by: Robert Redford
Runtime: 133 minutes
Studio: Hollywood Pictures Home Entertainment
Amazon USAmazon UKIMDB
Review: Quiz Show
Robert Redford’s 1994 drama focuses on the game show scandals of the 1950s with the emphasis here being on the show Twenty One. Reigning champion Herbert Stempel (John Turturro) seems invincible but behind the scenes the producers are worried. The ratings are stagnating as the audience is somewhat bored of the same guy winning. It’s time for a change. Producers Dan Enright (David Paymer) and Albert Freedman (Hank Azaria) find a new contestant in teacher Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes) and in meeting with him they offer to set-up the show so that he wins but Charles refuses. Enright then meets with Stempel and convinces him it is time to go and that he must answer a question wrong, one he blatantly knows. A furious Stempel reluctantly agrees on the understanding a career in television awaits him. Charles become the new champion and the darling of the nation while Stempel is left ignored and abandoned.
In a crucial moment at the outset, Stempel reluctantly answers a question wrong much to the horror of the audience, with the majority of the nation knowing the answer. Charles has the chance to win and just to make things difficult he is asked a question that was already been covered in an interview leading up to the game show. Charles knows the answer but he also knows this is a set-up. He has a decision to make and Charles chooses glory and the love of the nation that follows. After that, the producers are keen to keep him as champion, it’s what the nation wants, so Charles goes through the questions before each show, learning the answers to the ones he doesn’t know. Meanwhile, Richard Goodwin (Rob Morrow), a lawyer and top student at Harvard, begins to investigate Twenty One when Stempel fails in a lawsuit against the network after they turn their back on him. As Goodwin digs deeper he begins to unearth extreme corruption amongst the network and the game show but can he bring the cheats to justice and how far does the deception go?
Redford’s drama is a fascinating story carried along well by three great leads in Turturro, Fiennes and Morrow. When the scandal becomes public knowledge at the end it will vary amongst the audience about how far sympathies extend. Is the blame completely with the network, the producers or even the contestants who finish up as victims to a degree but ones that were willing to assist in cheating for the money and the fame? I can only imagine the outrage this would have caused back in the fifties. In the UK it was a huge scandal in recent years when Charles Ingram cheated in winning the top prize on Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
Quiz Show is a well-acted and carefully paced drama with a somewhat unsatisfying ending. This isn’t a negative reflection of the film, just a testament to how some cheats get away with their crimes while others are left behind to suffer ignominy.
Verdict: 4/5
(Film source: reviewer’s own copy)
Film Review: Quiz Show | Thank you for reading Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dave
May 24, 2013
Film Review: Piranhaconda
[image error]
About Piranhaconda (2011)[image error]When a rogue scientist discovers an immense egg in the dark recesses of a rainforest he thinks he’s stumbled across his fame and fortune. But little does he know that it belongs to a terrifying hybrid monster, known only as the Piranhaconda. Soon the beast is on the loose, hunting for its unborn child, rampaging through the country and destroying everything in its path.A terrifying, edge-of-your-seat chomp romp featuring a Hollywood cast and thrills galore – in the same vein as Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus, Mega Piranha and Sand Sharks.
Starring: Michael Madsen, Rachel Hunter, Shandi Finnessey
Directed by: Jim Wynorski
Runtime: 90 minutes
Studio: Chelsea Films
Amazon UKIMDB
Review: Piranhaconda
Jim Wynorski directs this TV movie which shouldn’t require too much of an explanation from me given the title. Professor Lovegrove (Michael Madsen) is in Hawaii when he locates a nest from which he pilfers a single egg. His two companions are quickly killed by a prianhaconda which is just a snake with a very annoyed expression. How and why these two species have come together is a mystery. The film soon switches to a film crew who are putting together what appears to be a low budget horror movie (oh the irony!). The star is Kimmy (Shandi Finnessey) who spends most of the time in a bikini, complaining about being tired and not favouring having to get up early for a shoot. Also on set is Rose (Terri Ivens) who is working on the script and stuntman Jack (Robert ‘Rib’ Hillis) who fancies Rose but spends most of his time fighting off Kimmy. Little do the group know that there are two giant piranhacondas in the area and they have humans on the menu.
While the piranhacondas begin picking off the film crew, Professor Lovegrove ends up being taken hostage by a group of thugs including Rod Stewart’s ex-wife of all people. The remnants of the film crew comprising Rose, Jack, Kimmy and the director Milo (Chris De Christopher) end up running into the Professor and his kidnappers with those snakes not far behind. A bloodbath ensues and not a very convincing one so who will survive until the end?
I didn’t have high hopes for this film from the start and I wasn’t left disappointed. The special effects are utterly awful, I could swear one of the snakes was yellow in one shot and moments later had changed again. There were two snakes on the rampage, of course, but I’m certain this was the same one. The acting isn’t great, most of the characters are pretty annoying but perhaps the greatest tragedy is seeing Mr Blonde – Michael Madsen – appearing in a film as dreadful as this one. I find it worrying that he has to stoop as low as this but I’m noticing a few quite famous names popping up in these films.
Piranhaconda can sit shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Mega Piranha and Mega Python vs Gatoroid in the pantheon of truly awful films. It has nothing redeemable about it. If you want to watch a film with embarrassing effects and weak acting then you need look no further. Otherwise you’d be advised not to waste your time on this.
Verdict: 1/5
(Film source: reviewer’s own copy)
Film Review: Piranhaconda | Thank you for reading Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dave
