David Robbins's Blog, page 2

POWERS BOOTHE: ANOTHER ONE GONE

David Robbins
© 2017


We’ve talked before about how every now and then an actor or actress we like will pass on and we frown and sigh and wish it weren’t so.

I sighed when I read that Powers Boothe died. I liked his acting, a lot. You might remember him from the stellar Western TOMBSTONE. He played Curly Bill. Or his turn in SIN CITY or maybe as Philip Marlowe or DEADWOOD or his Emmy-winning role as Jim Jones in THE GUYANA TRAGEDY. He was in a lot of things.
[Powers Boothe back before his hair turned grey. I can relate. :)

There’s one role of his I’d like to give you a heads-up on. It’s more than likely you haven’t seen it or even heard of it since it came out way back in 1981. Directed by Walter Hill (ALIEN, THE WARRIORS, many more), it costars Keith Carradine. You might know him from his recent stint as Penny’s dad on BIG BANG THEORY or his superb portrayal of Wild Bill Hickok in DEADWOOD or any of his many other roles.

The name of this terrific movie you might have never seen? SOUTHERN COMFORT.

It’s an action flick about a squad of Louisiana National Guardsmen who take part in weekend maneuvers in the bayou and everything that can go wrong does, to the extent they find themselves being hunted by some locals who are upset the Guardsmen took their pirogues without asking. It doesn’t help that one of the Guardsmen shoots at them as a prank---with blanks. The locals decide to shoot back---with real bullets.


[Yes, that is Fred Ward with the knife at his throat. You might know him from TREMORS or REMO WILLIAMS.]

The movie becomes a sustained chase through the swamp, with the lost Guardsmen, most of them city boys, struggling to stay alive.

Powers Boothe and Keith Carradine are great. Boothe is mesmerizing with his intense persona of a man driven to his limits by the stupidity of others. The final ten minutes or so, when their relentless pursuers close in, makes for riveting suspense.

The movie was shot on location, which adds to the realism. And the score, by Ry Cooder, is sensational. Over the years the film has gained a dedicated following. On Rotten Tomatoes it garnered an 88% rating.
 [The Guardsmen when they see a helicopter and are desperate for help.]

It should be noted that some took the film as a metaphor for the Vietnam War, which it was never intended to be. Read what Walter Hill has to say. It’s not about Vietnam or ‘war’ per se. It’s about what happens when people do stupid stuff, make assumptions based on that stupid stuff, and then set out to kill each other based on their false assumptions. In other words, it’s about ‘life’. You see it in the news every day.

So if you’re up for a cool movie with a more profound subtext than your usual Hollywood fare, snag a copy of SOUTHERN COMFORT. You might be glad you did. And don’t blame me if that haunting Ry Cooder score sticks in your head for a long time to come.

WILDERNESS #69: A PRIMER

 David Robbins
©2016


Way back in 1990 I started a series that has been going strong for 27 years. It’s called WILDERNESS, and it’s the generational saga of a Mountain Man and his family in the Rocky Mountains of the mid-to-late 1800’s. The series is also part of the ENDWORLD Universe. (More on that in a bit.)
[The very first WILDERNESS. Nearly thirty years, and the series is still going strong.]

Young Nathaniel King heads west at the urging of his uncle, thinking he will strike it rich in gold or silver, and instead discovers something vastly more precious: freedom. He also finds love in the person of a Shoshone maiden. Together, they start a family, and together, they brave the many perils to come.

WILDERNESS is all about ‘family’. (So is ENDWORLD. Again, more on that soon.) About how devotion and love can endure anything and everything life throws at you.

The Kings have a boy and a girl. The son is a hellion who lives to count coup. The daughter is as independent as they come. Between them, they are forever getting into situations that put them at risk.

Over the course of about 80 books---counting the GIANT editions----the young Kings grow and mature. Each novel stands alone, but taken as a whole, they weave a seamless tapestry of high adventure.
[A book from about the midpoint of the series, and a fan-favorite cover.]

In WILDERNESS #69: THE AVENGER, young Zach King has a wife of his own, and she is about to give birth. Ideally, it should be a time of wonder and bliss. But unknown to Zach, he is being stalked by the brother of a bandit he was forced to slay. This avenger is out for blood---and what better way to make Zach pay, than to strike at those Zach cares for most?

Now, about that ENDWORLD business. It’s a science fiction series set in the future, after the Apocalypse. There is a genealogical link between it and WILDERNESS in that Nate King is an ancestor of Michael King, otherwise known as Blade, in ENDWORLD. When you read WILDERNESS, you are reading about a family linked to the characters of the far future in ENDWORLD. When you read ENDWORLD, you are reading about a Family linked to the characters of the far past in WILDERNESS. 
[The latest ENDWORLD. Part of the timeline series that includes WILDERNESS.]


There are three other series in the ENDWORLD Universe but we won’t go into that.

For now, the important thing is that WILDERNESS #69: THE AVENGER is out! Treat yourself. And see why so many people like the King family saga so much, they keep coming back for more.

MAGNIFICENT SEVEN: A KILLFEST BONANZA

David Robbins
©2016

Stick around along enough and Hollywood remakes everything. Which is why it shouldn’t surprise you that, fifty-seven years after the original The Magnificent Seven hit the theaters, saddle up, partner.

The original is considered a classic. One of the greatest Westerns ever. It’s been preserved in the National Film Library as culturally significant.

You probably already know it’s a remake of Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai. That the cast includes legends of the silver screen. That it is the second-most shown movie on American TV. (Sorry, fellas. Dorothy and Toto beat you out) Despite its age, it holds a 93% freshness rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which, if you don’t know, is ‘really’ good.

It’s already been remade a gazillion times. There was The Return Of. The Guns Of. The 7 Ride. There was a TV series. The theme has been carried over into more movies, novels and comic books than you can shake your six-shooter at. (Yours truly is one of them. Endworld #7: Armageddon Run is dedicated to the makers and the cast of the original.)

All of which brings us to the current incarnation. Uber popular Denzel Washington and Chris Pratt head a multicultural cast of badasses who go on a killing spree of literally epic proportions. They even beat out The Guns of the Magnificent Seven, the reigning champ. In that one, George Kennedy and his crew blow away sixty-three. In the new movie it seems like five hundred (I admit I didn’t count them) although the total is more likely closer to 150.

They’re calling this a ‘reimagining’, which basically means it’s the original with a few elements from others thrown in. You’ve got your ‘man in black’. You’ve got your cooler than cool guy. You’ve got your guy who has lost his nerve. Your knife guy. Your Mexican. (Hey, that’s how they describe him in the movie. And unlike the original, where we had white guys pretending to be Mexicans, this guy actually is, well, ‘Mexican’.) You have your adorably quirky squeaky-voice guy. (You’ll understand when you see the movie.) And a Native American.
[The guy in black and the cooler than cool guy.]


A word about the ‘bad guy’. In the best of the 7 movies, the villain is memorable. Eli Wallach is great as Calvera. In Guns, Michael Ansara is so vicious, you can’t wait for George Kennedy to kill him.The other movies? The lead villain is a cypher.

Not here. They make Peter Sarsgaard into the most vile, despicable, oily, twisted, corrupt fiend since, well, forever. They rub your face in his evil. When he is on screen, you half expect it to start oozing slime. It’s that overdone.

[See the guy in the middle? He's human fungus. When you leave the theater, remember to wash between your toes.]

All of this aside, you might be sitting there wondering, ‘But did you like it? Is it worth seeing?’

It’s okay, so yeah. ‘Okay’ in the sense, that, say, Attack of the Clones was okay. It didn’t rock you, like, say, Return of the Jedi, but it was entertaining in its own right. (Sorry to mix the Western genre with Star Wars but when you get right down to it, Star Wars is a Western set in the stars. You don’t think so? Replace ‘Jedi’ with ‘gunfighter’ and space ships with horses and what do you get? Duh.)
[The lost his nerve guy. Ethan Hawke is outstanding in the role.]

On my personal appreciation meter, I’d rate the new 7 as third, after the original and Guns but way ahead of Return and Ride. That’s just me. You might rate it a lot higher.

I will say the thing I like the most about it is how Denzel draws his pistol. If you know me, you’ll know why. If not, visit the Facebook page, or, easier yet, got to, oh, Google Images, type in my name and Thunder Valley. One of the pics that pops up will make it clear.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll rewatch the original.  One never tires of excellence.

 [Threw this in for old time's sake. Cue one of the best scores in movie history.]

HOUNDS OF HATE: WESTERN FICTION REVIEW

  

 David Robbins
© 2016


Western Fiction Review, one of the premier sites for reviews of Western novels and series, has done one on HOUNDS OF HATE. Check it out below. Then go to their site for more great reviews.


                                                            BLOOD FEUD #2
                                                            By David Robbins
                                                   Mad Hornet Publishing, July 2016

The feud between the Shannon family and the Harkey clan continues. Chace and Cassie Shannon head to New Orleans to put the bloodshed behind them. But the Harkeys have other ideas, and bring along a pack of bloodhounds trained to kill to track the twins down.

Brought to bay hundreds of miles from their kin, Chace and Cassie must rely on their wits and each other if they’re to survive the vicious hounds of hate.

Way back in October 2010 Signet published a book by David Robbins called Blood Feud, this story introduced us to Chace and Cassie Shannon and told of their blood feud with the Harkey clan. Although this was a great stand-alone novel it did leave the way open for a sequel and that has finally happened with the publication of Hounds of Hate.

The story begins where the previous book finished with Chace and Cassie and their followers heading into New Orleans. Chace has a plan but keeps everyone in the dark about it, something I’m going to do too so as not to spoil this aspect of the tale.

The book contains plenty of action that often comes without warning and in one case proving how cold and vicious Chace can be. Dialogue is believable and often had me laughing out loud, as did some of the antics of Tallulah, a young girl who is one of the Shannon gang, with her dreams of marrying Chace someday, making her fiercely protective of him, much to the astonishment of others and Chace in particular.

David Robbins switches from character to character regularly and often leaves them in peril at a chapter end encouraging you to keep reading. The story flows smoothly towards its final showdown between Chase, Cassie and the Harkey’s that have trailed them to New Orleans, the hounds giving a viciously deadly twist to this last gunfight.

Everything concludes neatly and satisfactorily but, like before, the story does leave the way open for another book. Let’s hope David Robbins doesn’t keep us waiting quite so long to find out what happens next.


 [The original BLOOD FEUD. The story that started the saga.]

ENDWORLD #29: THE SERIES ROCKS ON

© 2016 David Robbins

     THE LORDS OF KISMET is out! And ENDWORLD fans have greeted it with great enthusiasm. It’s #29 in the basic ENDWORLD canon (more on that in a bit) and sets a whole new tone for the series. The tone that I initially was going for. Permit me to explain.

     I originally conceived ENDWORLD as pure science fiction. The first book was 500 pages of mutants and mayhem. When I submitted it, the publisher said they liked the concept, but would I be interested in doing a series instead of a single novel? Of course I was. I love to tell stories. I love to write. I had a family to feed. They asked if I could break the novel down into three separate books. Thinking fast, and since it meant clothes on our backs, I said I could break it down, with a little extra added, into four. ENDWORLD was off and running.

     But....and this is one of those big but’s.....they wanted me to tweak things a bit. They wanted to market it in the Men’s Adventure genre, not as science fiction. I reluctantly agreed. Remember, food on the table and clothes on our backs.
[The first ENDWORLD. Since all the timelines converge in the future, I've dubbed them the Endworld Universe.]

     Fast forward a couple of decades. All the rights reverted and I could do with ENDWORLD as I pleased. And it pleased me greatly to take the series back to its science fiction roots and expand on them. #28 DARK DAYS was the bridge that brought the old tone, if you will, to an end, and launched the new direction. Which is on full display in THE LORDS OF KISMET.

     It also does something more. Something I had been contemplating for a considerable while but held off doing until the time was right. It explains a few things that might have mystified those of you who like my books. The biggest being the crossover between ENDWORLD and WILDERNESS.

     In case you are unaware, I’ve been writing the WILDERNESS series under the pen name of David Thompson for 27 years. The publisher always billed WILDERNESS as an authentic Mountain Man chronicle. Which is why some readers were puzzled when I threw in things like a lost world, creatures out of Native American legend, and other elements that tended to blur that ‘authentic‘ distinction. They were even more mystified when, in FRONTIER STRIKE, I sent the Warriors from ENDWORLD back in time to meet the Mountain Man from WILDERNESS.

[The first WILDERNESS. From Mountain Men to mutants in a timeline spanning centuries.]

     Now all that has been explained.

     MINOR SPOILER ALERT. Don’t read on if you’re an ENDWORLD fan and haven’t read THE LORDS OF KISMET yet. I’m about to give the big reveal away.

     All my series---by ‘my‘ I mean exclusively mine, not the many books I did on other series for various publishers---are part of a self-contained universe. Everything is connected in a genealogical timeline that stretches from the 1800’s into the far future. Imagine a spider’s web of DNA strands, all connected and interrelated, and you have the basic concept.

     Here are a few examples.

     Nathaniel King, the Mountain Man from WILDERNESS, is the great, great, great, great, great, etc grandfather of Blade, a.k.a Michael King, from ENDWORLD.

     Clay Taggart, the main character in WHITE APACHE, is a forebear of Geronimo, another of the Warriors. It explains why Lone Elk, whose mother was of the Blackfeet nation, chose the name of the legendary Apache at his Naming ceremony. His ancestry includes both.

[The first WHITE APACHE. Another strand in the DNA timeline.]

     The Shannon twins from BLOOD FEUD also play into the ancestry. They comprise part of the family tree of Hickok, one of the more popular Warriors. Another ancestor is Courtney Hewitt from A GIRL, THE END OF THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING, which is actually an ENDWORLD prequel.
 [The Shannon twins. Even they are factored in. (Due out this month, BTW)]

     And on it goes. If you’re a fan of any of the series or of all of them, there’s now an added aspect for you to enjoy.

     THE LORDS OF KISMET! Get your copy today and join in the excitement. 

BATTLEFIELD MARS: THE WAR WIDENS

© 2016 David Robbins

     I have a couple of new books out and thought I’d give you a heads up. First off the launch pad, if you will, is BATTLEFIELD MARS: COLONY DOWN. The second in a science fiction series. 

     It’s set in the future. Earth has established colonies on the Red Planet and all is going well. Then indigenous life is discovered. And the indigenous life takes exception to us being there. Suddenly things aren’t well at all.

     The first book introduces readers to the principal characters. Captain Archard Rahn, of the United Nations Interplanetary Corps,  is the head of security at New Meridian. Dr. Katla Dkany is a physician and an exobiologist.

     Events start to unfurl when a young boy at an outlying agrifarm goes missing. Captain Rahn take his squad to investigate. They assume the boy wandered off. But when they arrive, they discover the gruesome remains of the parents. Which leads to an even more startling discovery.

     It’s a fun read. Goes along at a breakneck pace. And while it stands alone as a complete story, it leads directly into the next.

     Which brings us to COLONY DOWN.

     Archard and the survivors from New Meridian must trek hundred of kilometers to reach Wellsville, the second colony. The harsh environment, the rugged terrain, are the least of their worries. Because the Martians are out to stop them.

     But reach Wellsville they do. Once there, they desperately try to warn the colony’s leaders of the Martian peril. Their superiors are confident they can handle the situation. Little do they know.

     A word about the Martians. They aren’t anything like those from the H.G. Wells masterpiece. Nor are they cast in the ‘Alien‘ mold so popular in recent fiction. They are consistent with what we know about the planet, and are much more complex, and dangerous, than anyone initially suspects.

     The story unfolds in a linear fashion until we get to the second book. Then things explode in a way that hopefully will have you grinning and saying, ‘This is cool’.

     BATTLEFIELD MARS and BATTLEFIELD MARS: COLONY DOWN. Buy them today.  The covers alone are awesome. 

THE LEGEND OF TARZAN: LIVE-ACTION DISNEYVIBE

 David Robbins
© 2016

    First, an aside. As one of the hugest Edgar Rice Burroughs fans ‘ever’, I was excited to hear that, once again, the ape-man would hit the silver screen. The animated versions were fun but they hardly count in the realm of Tarzan cinematic canon, if you will.

    How is the new movie? you might be wondering. The short and the true of it: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN is terrific. It’s not ERB’s Tarzan but it comes close. Closer than many others. It shows the civilized side of Tarzan better than most. Yet in its  efforts to appeal to current cultural sensibilities, it forsakes the core of Tarzan’s wild side.

    Let me explain. In ERB’s books, which to a purist are the pinnacle of everything Tarzan, he is a living dichotomy. He is ape and man. He is beast and human, living in the same skin. He is a cultured English lord but he is also a denizen of the jungles in which he was raised by his Mangani mother. He is immensely strong, incredibly agile, lightning quick. He has enhanced senses. His sight, his hearing, especially his smell. He can track someone by scent, which you rarely see in the movies. But his most telling jungle traits usually only come out in the heat of combat. He growls. He snarls. He sinks his teeth into the jugulars of his enemies. He never goes anywhere without his knife, which he wields to deadly effect.

   [Tarzan and a Mangani go at it. No, the Mangani aren't gorillas. They are a separate species.]

     We don’t see much of that in the new movie. Yes, Tarzan’s wild side is there but it’s been toned down. Time and again I was hoping for him to bust loose, but no. There are some spectacular fight sequences, to be sure, but you get the sense that Tarzan is holding back. He doesn’t fully unleash his ‘inner ape’, if you will, as the Mangani do a number of times.

    Even so, again, the movie is superb. They manage to meld Tarzan’s upbringing, his first meeting with Jane, the Leopard Men aspect, and some other elements from the books, into a seamless whole. They tweak things, yeah. The whole ‘Tarzan as Dr. Dolittle’ is a trifle overdone, but what do you expect?

[Tarzan as Dr. Dolittle. To be fair, in the books Tarzan does make friends with a number of lions.]

    What they get exactly right is the love between Tarzan and Jane. This movie is a romance as much as anything, exactly like the early ERB novels. And this Jane is no damsel in distress. She is more like the Jane in the books. She can hold her own with anyone. Don’t believe me? Read TARZAN’S QUEST, #19 in the series. She is one tough lady.

[It surprises some people to learn that there is so much romance in the early Tarzan novels.]

    So gather up the kids, and treat yourself. There’s very little gore. And back in Victorian times, they didn’t drop an F-bomb with every other word.

    Again, what you have here is fine cinematic fare. You might have heard that the critics disagree. But they’re, you know, ‘critics’. A lot of them have agendas and base their reviews on their mindsets rather than be objective. You might have heard the movie is racist. Its not. Neither were ERB’s novels. You might have heard it’s sexist, which is sheer bullpatty.

  [Tarzan vs Leopard Man. In the books, Tarzan would rip his throat out with his teeth. In the movie, they bound.]
 
    THE LEGEND OF TARZAN. One of the best Tarzan movies you are ever likely to see. What are you waiting for? :) 

THE JUNGLE BOOK: FROM STORY TO SCREEN

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} </style> --> <br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dJZ_rDy_K-c..." imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="368" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dJZ_rDy_K-..." width="640" /></a><br /><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">David Robbins</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">© 2016</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>Disney has a new live-action version of THE JUNGLE BOOK out. Heavy on CGI, it’s become a huge hit. Estimates are it will reap over a billion dollars. A sequel is already in the works.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>THE JUNGLE BOOK has been on the screen before. At least nine times, ten if you count 1937’s JUNGLE BOY. Disney studios alone produced two earlier adaptations. There was an animated version way back in 1967, and a live-action that came out in 1994.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>To complicate current matters, Warner Brothers is coming out with their own live-action version, slated for 2018.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>So why so much interest in making THE JUNGLE BOOK into movies? Simply because their source, stories by Rudyard Kipling, are some of the most beloved in not just the English language, but everywhere around the world.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>Which brings us to the point of this post. Shortly after seeing the new movie, a couple of people mentioned that they loved it so much, they planned to run out and get the book. When I remarked that the stories are considerably different in tone, they wanted to know in what way.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>A little background. The first JUNGLE BOOK, released in 1894, contained three tales, among others, of the orphan boy, Mowgli, who was raised by wolves. The Mowgli stories proved so popular that Kipling came out with THE SECOND JUNGLE BOOK in 1895. It contained five more Mowgli stories. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>All of them have since been collected and republished many times by various publishers.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>So if you’re thinking of getting a copy, they’re easy to find. As noted above, Kipling’s version and Disney’s latest adaptation do not have a lot in common besides the names of the characters and a few of the plot elements.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>That’s because Disney has done what Disney always does. They’ve taken their grim and sometimes dark source material and turned it into what one critic described as a ‘feel-good one-world progressivism’ film.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"> <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c_a4sLR7rgg..." imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c_a4sLR7rg..." width="640" /></a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">[Mowgli and Kaa the python. In Kipling's stories, Kaa is Mowgli's ally and close friend. In the movie, look out!]     </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">    </span>Make no mistake. Kipling’s stories are not light fare. Their message, their very subtext, is in many instances the complete opposite of the subtext Disney frames its movies around.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>Let’s look at a few examples.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">First: How about if we start with the ending? (SPOILER ALERT!!! Don’t read any further if you haven’t seen the new movie and intend to.)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>Disney Version: The film ends on an upbeat note with Mowgli uniting all the animals to defeat Shere Khan and save the jungle.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>Kipling Version: Mowgli is cast out of the wolf pack, and when he goes to live with Man, he is cast out of the village. He defeats Shere Khan largely through his own efforts, with a little help from two of his friends.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>In the Disney version, universal brotherhood prevails, and the world is well. In Kipling’s, the death of Mowgli's enemy is a personal vendetta.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Second: That brotherhood aspect.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>In Disney’s version---the drought sequence aside---the animals coexist in amiable harmony. There are exceptions. (The monkeys, for instance.) But you don’t see the wolves or tiger or panther kill game. Which isn’t surprising. In THE LION KING, Disney would have it that lions can get by eating grubs.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>In Kipling’s version, you get more of the true and the real. Predators kill prey. Meat-eaters eat meat. There is a truce during the drought, but the carnivores are kept on one side of the river, and those they would like to devour on the other. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>Disney turns the jungle into a fairyland. Kipling underscores the savagery of tooth and claw.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"> <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C0nl9T5B2Ak..." imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C0nl9T5B2A..." width="640" /></a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">[King Louie. This guy isn't in Kipling's tales. The Jungle Folk wouldn't take well to a power-hungry Gigantopithecus.] </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>Third: Those pesky monkeys.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>In both the book and the movie they kidnap Mowgli. Disney has them do so as part of a plot by their leader to steal man’s most destructive force---in this case, fire---so the monkeys can set themselves up as a rival superpower, as it were. Yes, it’s a thinly disguised nuclear war analogy.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>Kipling wrote his stories decades before nuclear arms were invented. For him, the monkeys---the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bandar-log</i>, as they are known---are the issue. They are an analogy for…..well, here. Read his words for yourself. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">They are very many, evil, dirty, shameless, and they desire, if they have any fixed desire, to be noticed by the Jungle People</i>.’</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>And again:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">But whenever they found a sick wolf, or a wounded tiger, or bear, the monkeys would torment him, and throw sticks and nuts at any beast for fun and in the hope of being noticed. Then they would howl and shriek senseless songs, and invite the Jungle People to climb up their trees and fight them, or would start furious battles over nothing among themselves</i>…..’</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>Kipling stresses several times that above all else, monkeys wants to be noticed.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>Hmm. Who could Kipling be comparing them to?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;">         </span>Anyway, this gives you some idea of the differences. The movie is fun make-believe. Kipling’s stories are make-believe, too, but with a mature and darker tone that most everyone finds equally enjoyable, if not more so. Except perhaps the monkeys.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MmtqdHPiW_c..." imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MmtqdHPiW_..." width="275" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;"> [The version yours truly read as a boy. It has been a top favorite ever since.]</span></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DavidR..." height="1" width="1" alt=""/>

BATMAN VS SUPERMAN: DAWN OF SWEETNESS

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:2; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 268435456 0 0 -2147483648 0;} @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page WordSection1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} </style> --> <br /><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CH35qZnc0G..." imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="427" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CH35qZnc0G..." width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">David Robbins</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">© 2016</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">This review is going to be longer than usual. To spare you from wading through it if you’re not inclined, we’ll jump right to the crux: it’s a great movie. Go see it.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Before we get to the expanded crux, a few words about those who are savaging the film. This isn’t surprising. Every time director Zack Snyder comes out with a new flick, it sends those with agendas into a critical frenzy.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Here are a couple of examples. His recent MAN OF STEEL was lambasted for its ‘religious subtext’. How many scores of movies have religious subtext? How many hundreds of movies have anti-religion subtext? But hey, let’s jump on Snyder.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">WATCHMEN. Written by Alan Moore, the comic book version is considered by many a masterpiece. Snyder took a reverential approach. Many of the scenes in the movie are panel-for-panel reproductions from the comics. So what did the critics have to gripe about?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Basically, that Snyder reproduced Moore’s vision on-screen. If you’re scratching your head and thinking, ‘That makes no sense’, welcome to the warped world of movie critics.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sP6c4eINgp..." imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="329" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sP6c4eINgp..." width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">[Superman is in the title but this is essentially a Batman movie. Fortunately, the Batman elements rock.] </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Which brings us back to BATMAN VS SUPERMAN. Let’s take a look at some of the things the complainers have been whining about.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">It’s too long. B vs S pegs at 2<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>hours and 33 minutes. By comparison, let’s take, oh, THE AVENGERS. The run time for that was 2 hours and 23 minutes. Did you hear anyone complain then? B vs S is ten minutes longer and suddenly it’s a crime against cinema. Given that in some cities tickets can go for up to twenty bucks, you’d think they’d be happy to get more movie for their moola.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_rc9cxJhtK..." imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_rc9cxJhtK..." width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">[Pity poor Supes. Always trying to do the right thing in a world full of wrong.] </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">It’s too complex/dark/humorless. Complex? The basic plot is that Batman is out to nail Superman for the collateral damage---i.e. lives lost and people crippled----in Superman’s fight with Zod in MAN OF STEEL. Too dark? Did the same critics not see Christopher Nolan’s ‘<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dark</i></b> Knight’ trilogy? Hello? And as for the humor, given that Batman is out to ‘kill’ Superman, they were expecting a comedy? There are plenty of chuckles and grins.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Lex Luthor. Specifically, Jesse Eisenberg in the role. He’s been reamed as the least appealing element in the movie. In his defense, an actor is only as good as the script. In this instance, though, the critics are right. A large part of it has to do with the fact that while the movie spends a lot of time explaining Batman’s and Superman’s motivations for the big fight, we get virtually zilch about Luthor. Yeah, he’s a psycho. They make that clear. But ‘why’? At least Batman has a personal reason for wanting Superman dead. Luther’s rationale for wanting both of them dead is never explained. Unless we’re supposed to buy that he was under the influence of an even worse villain---a possibility thrown in at the end, almost as an afterthought.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UGmJ0otULf..." imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="322" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UGmJ0otULf..." width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">[Hi. I'm Lex Luthor. I'm about as intimidating as a rabbit. And I'm going to try and take down Superman 'and' Batman. Can we all say 'rabbit fondue'?] </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">All right. That’s enough about the alleged and actual negatives. Is the movie perfect? No. Name one that ever was? (Besides THE AVENGERS</span><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">) Could it have done with a few less dream sequences? Absolutely. But what about the positives? They are many.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Ben Affleck as Batman. Arguably the best Batman ever. More screen time is devoted to him than to any other character. His action scenes are superb. When he goes hand-to-hand to rescue---well, don’t want to give it away---‘someone’, the audience was cheering.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Henry Cavill as Superman. He nails it again. That Smallville goodness. Here is a decent being who wants to help others. No dark side to his nature. No grim and gritty, like Batman. He’s just ‘nice’. In a world that too often isn’t.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. She’s one of the highlights of the entire film. DC was smart to include her in a supporting role. She’ll ramp up enthusiasm for the Justice League movie, and for her own.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XtdDWsE5lI..." imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="324" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XtdDWsE5lI..." width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">[What's that? You don't like strong, independent women who can hold their own with anyone? Here.  Let me kick your ass.] </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">We’re given glimpses of a few other superheroes; Cyborg, the Flash and Aquaman. They’re supposed to pump our enthusiasm, too. Mileages will vary, but my reaction to the Flash was, well, ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">That’s</i>the Flash?’ My reaction to Cyborg was, ‘No clue what’s going on here’. And my reaction to seeing Aquaman---bear in mind I like Jason Momoa---was ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">This </i>is Aquaman? Where’s his blond hair and yellow-and-green costume?’</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Doomsday. A little short in the setup. But spectacular battle scenes. Especially those involving Wonder Woman. She’s an Amazon. As in ‘warrior’ women. Seeing her in action is like seeing Brad Pitt in action as Achilles in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">TROY</i>. It’s just plain eye candy.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-icaWbCX_5e..." imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-icaWbCX_5e..." width="640" /></a></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">[Doomsday. If this is what happens when you mix human and Kryptonian DNA, Supes and Lois might want to hold off on having kids.] </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">So there you go. DC has done itself pretty proud in setting up its movie universe. If you’ve been debating whether you should go because of the critics, you might reconsider.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">As a footnote, I’ve noticed something. Namely, the number of people I’ve talked to who saw the movie and plan to see it again. We’re talking three to four times the usual.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 18.0pt;">Says a lot, right there.</span></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DavidR..." height="1" width="1" alt=""/>

10 CLOVERFIELD LANE: SPOOKY GOOD

David Robbins
© 2016

    Before we go any further, I need to warn you at the outset that this contains what is apparently a major spoiler. I say ‘apparently’ because some people are going to see this movie thinking it is one thing when it is something else.

    As we were leaving, a couple behind us were complaining that they had been deceived. They were upset that the advertising for the movie misled them. Evidently they expected it to be a psychological thriller, and the last ten minutes threw them for an angry loop.
[Trapped in an underground bunker with two guys you don't know. Can you spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-a?]

    Here comes the Spoiler Alert. 10 Cloverfield Lane is the second in what is being billed as the Cloverfield franchise. The first movie, Cloverfield, came out in 2008. It’s a horror movie with strong science fiction elements. Anyone aware of that would know going in that 10 Cloverfield Lane isn’t an ordinary thriller. But more than a few people had no clue. It’s not their fault. The ads don’t make it clear that it’s a sequel, of sorts, to Cloverfield.

    Now that you know, how does it stand up? First thing you should get a heads up on is that it’s not another found footage film. None of that jerky camera work and chaotic feel. And not a lot in the way of monsters or aliens, either. We’ll get to that in a bit.
[Ever notice how you can't get cell phone reception when you really need it?]
 
    Movies are taking weird turns these days. We’ve got Deadpool breaking the fourth wall. We’ve got Hardcore Henry, in which we see much of the movie through Henry’s eyes, as it were. And we have 10 Cloverfield Lane, about an alien invasion that, basically, isn’t about the alien invasion.

    How can that be?  Because the first 90 minutes of the movie or so have nothing to do with the aliens except in a peripheral sense. A young woman is in a car accident. She wakes up in a bunker with a couple of guys who claim some sort of Apocalypse has taken place and she needs to stay in the bunker for her own protection. What would you think if you were her? ‘Yeah, right!’, pretty much sums it up.
[That moment when you think the worst is over and then you look up in the sky.]
 
    This movie is a gem. The tension at times is almost palpable. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is sensational. John Goodman is good and John Gallagher, Jr. is good but it’s Winstead who must carry the movie, and she does so in riveting fashion.

    If you’re a monster buff or a science fiction fan and you’ve been holding off because you’ve heard only the last ten to twelve minutes actually involve the aliens, you’re missing out. Because those last dozen minutes kick ass. They go from one scare to the next, escalating into a climax that has you holding your breath.

    So go see it but don't expect Alfred Hitchcock. Or, for that matter, War of the Worlds. Except for the part where Cruise and his daughter are trapped in the basement with that crazy dude. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is 'so' there.
 [What's this? you ask. Not going to tell you. But I've given you plenty of hints.]