E.R. Torre's Blog, page 172
March 7, 2015
Blomkamp’s Alien in trouble…?
That was quick.
A few weeks back, the internet community was salivating at the curiously timed release of director Neill Blomkamp’s sketches regarding a possible fifth Alien film, one that features an older Ripley and, intriguingly, acid scarred Hicks.
To say I, like many others, was intrigued is an understatement. I love the first two Alien films but felt the series made a very bad turn with Alien 3, which in the opening minutes cancelled out all the good that Aliens had accomplished by mercilessly -and, to my mind stupidly- killing off both Newt and Hicks, the only other human survivors of Aliens. Alien Resurrection, to me, was a decent enough film which was neither terribly good or bad…but very mediocre.
So when Mr. Blomkamp’s ideas surfaced, the idea that the studios would have the -let’s face it- balls to consider a new Alien film that (it had to, right?) effectively ignore the events of Aliens 3 and Resurrection felt daring, fascinating, and quite bold.
Fox Studios took note of the fan reaction and, in short order, Mr. Blomkamp reported that his next film would be this new Alien feature, and there was much rejoicing.
But lost in all the hoopla was the fact that Mr. Blomkamp had a new film about to come out, Chappie.
As I said above, the release of all this Alien stuff was “curiously” timed. After all, rather than push a new project, wouldn’t Mr. Blomkamp want to push his new project and get it to succeed before he starts jumping on his next project?
Beneath the excitement over this potential new Alien film, some started to question why the director was turning the chance to promote his to be released film into a push for his next one.
There grew a feeling that Chappie, like Mr. Blomkamp’s previous film Elysium, wasn’t all that good and Mr. Blomkamp and the studios knew it and that’s why he was pushing his next work.
Well, Chappie’s been released and the critical reviews haven’t been all that good. Rottentomatoes.com currently has the film hovering in the 30% range for critics, a pretty dreadful score. Audiences, however, appear to like it more, giving it a far better 67% positive.
Still the word of mouth doesn’t appear all that strong and it doesn’t look like Chappie will survive too long in its release.
Which has created a noticeable shift in opinion among many regarding Mr. Blomkamp’s Alien film. People who were clamoring for Mr. Blomkamp’s take on the Alien franchise are, quite suddenly, ambivalent regarding his involvement. Mr. Blomkamp has made three films so far, the well received -and successful- District 9 and followed that up with Elysium and Chappie, both of which appear to be disappointments.
Has the bloom left the rose?
I think it has.
The first sign of trouble was this intriguing article from Jeremy Smith and published on Ain’t It Cool News. Now I know there’s a lot of nonsense published on that site, but now and again they present some articles that offer you food for thought, something Mr. Smith certainly has. Read it for yourself:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/70604
Perhaps the most hard hitting lines from that article are these. I’ve bolded the statement that really hit home:
That last bit from Blomkamp (that he feels his talents aren’t best utilized as a director) comes courtesy of an interview with Uproxx’s Mike Ryan (which was conducted before the “ALIEN 5″ deal was announced), and I think it’s a huge red flag. Given that Blomkamp now admits he “fucked up” ELYSIUM, and is so enamored of his latest movie, CHAPPiE, that he spent a good chunk of the press tour promoting his involvement in a new ALIEN flick, I’m not sure he should be getting a shot at a major franchise that could give a passionate filmmaker – i.e. one who believes with absolute certainty that he/she is a director – a significant career boost.
Ouch.
If Chappie winds up being a huge bust, I wouldn’t be surprised if Fox changes their mind about doing Mr. Blomkamp’s Alien.
Given what’s gone on, perhaps, just perhaps, that’s not such a bad thing.
Still, I would love to see someone give us a Alien film that brings back Ripley, Hicks, and Newt.
As always, we’ll see.
March 6, 2015
Formula One Driver Forgot 20 Years of His Life Following Crash…
Fascinating example of retrograde amnesia, wherein the person who suffers a head trauma may forget events leading to the traumatic event. In the case of Formula One Driver Fernando Alonso, the memory loss amounted to a whopping 20 years!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/06/fernando-alonso-crash-forgot-20-years_n_6814418.html
The most fascinating thing was what he said to doctors following the crash:
“I’m Fernando, I drive go-karts and I want to be a Formula One driver,” the 33-year-old two-time Formula One champion is quoted as telling doctors.
He further went on to state that he believe it was 1995!
The scariest thing, to me, about the article is how quickly it moves from the injury and accident and to whether Mr. Alonso will drive again and how soon. Granted, it appears the retrograde amnesia was temporary and he appears to be doing much better, but still…
If I were involved in such an accident and sustained an injury severe enough to cause me to forget 20 years of my life (think about that folks…think about the type of concussion/head trauma necessary to cause this!), I’d be rethinking (no pun intended) what I do for a living and maybe moving on to something else.
Then again, that’s just me!
March 5, 2015
The High Tech Hotel of 1921 Had An Alarm Clock In Every Room!
Fascinating bit of history found at gizmodo.com regarding advertisements for the Commodore Hotel (first opened in 1919) and the fact that they had alarm clocks in every room!
Of course, what may blow us away technologically today is something far, far above what may have been a technological wonder to people over a century ago. And the graphics presented above clearly illustrate this.
But I have an even more interesting story!
A few years back I was visiting St. Augustine, whose founding in 1565 makes it the oldest continuously occupied and European established city in the entire United States. Many years after the founding, industrialist Henry Flagler built a hotel there. Called the Ponce De Leon Hotel and opened in 1888, the Hotel still stands today, though it no longer operates as a Hotel and is now part of the Flagler College.
When I visited the area and was on one of those informational excursions, we were told that when the Ponce De Leon Hotel opened, it catered to the very wealthy friends of Mr. Flagler and was one of the first structures (I hope my memory is correct here!) to actually have electricity.
However, because electricity was a relatively new invention at the time, it didn’t work quite as… safely as we’re accustomed. Hitting a switch to turn on, say, a light, was an iffy proposition and there was a good chance you would get shocked in the process. Naturally this was not a good thing to have happen to the upper echelon of society that were guests in the Hotel!
Flagler’s solution?
He hired staff to attend to the various switches. Whenever a guest wanted lights, the staff member would hit the switch rather than the guest him/herself and if any shock was to be experienced, it would be to the help rather than the upper crust!
Ah the wonders of modern technology!
March 4, 2015
Housebound (2014) a (mildly) belated review
Ever since (perhaps before!) Abbott & Costello bumped into Frankenstein, there has been this cinematic sub-genre which mixes horror with humor in equal doses.
Perhaps one of the most famous relatively recent successes is Evil Dead II (1987), which featured literally buckets of blood poured onto its lead character -the immortal Bruce Campbell- who, as the film moved on, became a real live cartoon character.
The New Zealand movie export Housebound exists in the same general sandbox, though the movie doesn’t feature anywhere near the amount of gore/blood or cartoonish characterization that made Evil Dead II so delightful.
But that doesn’t mean the film didn’t succeed on its own!
The lovely (her eyes are sooo damn expressive!) is Kylie Bucknell, a young hooligan who, at the start of the movie, attempts to steal the money in an ATM machine. Assisted by her (it turns out very quickly) completely useless boyfriend, she manages to get the loot but is unable to make her getaway. In short order she is arrested and sent before a judge for sentencing.
Because of previous arrests, all involving petty criminal activities, Kylie is sentenced to house arrest. She’s to wear an electronic monitor around her ankle and spend the next eight months at her home, a place we find she has little desire in returning to.
As it turns out, her relationship with her somewhat (!) daffy mother is very strained while her relationship with her stepfather (her father divorced and doesn’t communicate with either Kylie or her mother) is virtually nonexistent. Worse, there’s this creepy neighbor living next door and at night she hears weird sounds…
Oh, and her mother believes the house is haunted.
What works so well for Housebound is the way the characters first appear as one note constructions yet over the course of the film become multidimensional people. Kylie’s daft mother, for instance, turns into an interesting person who, while still daft, clearly means well. Her stepfather’s silence is revealed to come from a pain he carries with him. The officer in charge of monitoring Kylie’s home arrest, delightfully, is revealed to be much more than he first appears. And even the creepy neighbor next door turns out to be not quite what you think.
But what makes the movie work is the fact that on top of the interesting characterization there’s a solid story being presented. Is Kylie’s house haunted? If so -or not- what secrets does it hide? And what happened a number of years before in the house which may be the reason for all the eerie stuff happening now?
I’m being deliberately vague because I don’t want to get too deeply into spoiler territory. Suffice it to say that I recommend the film…with some minor reservations.
Housebound does take a little time to get going and Kylie’s character, at least at the beginning, is very hard to root for. However, by the time we get to the idea there may be ghosts in the house, the film starts to take flight and keeps you interested and surprised by its various reveals.
While it may not be the very best horror/comedy I’ve ever seen, there is plenty to like about Housebound. If you have the patience to give it a few minutes to get started, you’re in for some great fun.
March 3, 2015
Lucy (2014) a (mildly) belated review
I’ve been intrigued by the last few features starring actress . She’s been on a roll, starring as the Black Widow in The Avengers, then playing a genuine black widow in intriguing (but to my mind ultimately flawed) Under The Skin. Despite the success of the Marvel related films, as of yet there has been no indication that a Black Widow movie was in the works. Perhaps it was because of this that Ms. Johansson decided to “take the bull by the horns” and star in her own action/adventure film.
That film, of course, is Lucy. As directed by , a man who has made a fair amount of pretty damn good action films and produced/co-written a truckload more, the film concerns Lucy (duh), a woman living an aimless life in Hong Kong who, at the movie’s opening, is being implored by her current squeeze to deliver a suitcase into a building.
Lucy knows something is off by her boyfriend’s request and is very reluctant to do this for him. That is, until the boyfriend handcuffs her to the case and tells her the key to unlocking it is inside that building. Not being all that terribly bright (for now) Lucy does what the boyfriend wants and enters the building with said suitcase. Turns out there are new, experimental drugs inside it and a homicidal Hong Kong crime boss with little patience waiting for them.
Poor Lucy is beaten and drugged, though her fate turns out to be better than her boyfriend’s, and awakens to find that she has been operated on and forcibly turned into a drug mule for the crime boss. Inside her is one of the bags of drugs she had brought to him.
Fortunately/Unfortunately for her, she is beaten and nearly raped (!!!) in her cell and the bag within her ruptures. It winds up giving her super-mind powers (what, no one experimented on this drug before hand?!?), and she effectively becomes a superhero out to stop the other drug carriers before her system burns out.
What many wound up objecting to when this film was released was the long ago disproved concept that humans only use 10% of their brain and that if they could use more, they might become like Gods. If accepting this well discarded premise bothers you, then seeing the mighty spout that babble for most of his scenes will undoubtedly make you wince. A lot given he’s supposed to be this highly intelligent scientist who has devoted his life to researching this nonsensical idea. Even worse, Mr. Freeman chooses to deliver his silly dialogue soooo daaaaammn sloooowwwwly that I couldn’t help but wonder why the highly evolved Lucy, on time clock as it is, didn’t just jack into his brain and suck out what little she needed (by that point in the film she was capable of this, by the way).
Unfortunately, that is only one of the film’s sins in my eyes. Luc Besson appears to be trying to make a La Femme Nikita-meets-Inception/2001: A Space Odyssey type film and the mix just didn’t work. He gives us weird scenes involving predatory animals that hit you over the head with the danger Lucy is in early on, scenes that were unnecessary as we already knew exactly the danger she was in. He goes further and gives us prehistoric scenes as well, which clues us in to our Lucy’s name being symbolically tied with the prehistoric Australopithecus Lucy.
Why exactly? I guess the prehistoric Lucy is meant to be the equivalent of the “next level” of evolution just as our modern Lucy will be for us in the present. Otherwise, it is more unnecessary symbolic overkill, though I’d be the first to admit the scene where (MILD SPOILER!) the two Lucy’s sorta/kinda meet was the emotional high point of this otherwise ridiculous film.
There, I’ve said it: The film is ridiculous.
And not in a good way.
If it isn’t clear already, let me spell it out: Lucy strives mightily to be more than “just” an action film. And while one can admire the attempt, the end result just doesn’t work for me.
Yes, there are some decent action sequences and the film looks like a million bucks and Scarlett Johansson remains an intriguing screen premise, but let’s face it: The film’s story is hard to take seriously from the get-go and with each passing minute that silliness proved harder and harder to swallow.
Alas, Lucy is a pass for me.
March 2, 2015
200 GB SanDisk microSD Card?!
For several years now it seems we’re not necessarily getting significantly better computers/devices but rather the real improvements, and they’re needed, are to both the memory capacity of said devices and the battery life.
As you can see mentioned above, SanDisk is working on the memory part and they appear to have created a (gulp) 200 GB microSD card:
I wouldn’t be surprised if sometime in the future we develop memory chips with a capacity so incredibly large that we are able to put our entire movie, book, music, TV show, etc. etc. collection on one chip and accessible whenever we should need to get to it.
And when that happens, however will we ever get our faces out of our phones/pads/computers?!
February 27, 2015
Leonard Nimoy, R.I.P.
When I was very, very young, I would spend many hours before the television, sucking in whatever I could see and marveling at the entertainment provided.
Even today I distinctly recall the first movie I ever saw and realized told a coherent story, It was Steven Spielberg’s 1971 film Duel. I’m not sure if I saw the first broadcast (it was a TV movie) or a rerun, but the film entranced me and, I realized many years afterwards when I found out Spielberg had directed it, further realized that it was an early “draft” of his future megahit Jaws.
I also remember watching and enjoying the hell out of shows like Get Smart, by that time in syndication and, to my eyes, one of the funniest things ever made, along with Batman, The Wild, Wild, West, Twilight Zone, Mannix, etc. etc.
Way above all those shows, in my estimation, was Star Trek. The original series absolutely captivated me, alternately making my younger self laugh out loud and/or shiver with its action and suspense…if not outright horror! The show presented incredibly varied themes and, I would later realize, often very cleverly held a mirror to society as it was at the time.
But the best thing about the show was that it presented what to my young eyes appeared to be a very tight knit family. A group of diverse individuals that nonetheless helped each other and tried, always tried, to make things better. I liked the crew of the Enterprise and it felt they liked each other just as much (contrary to future tell-all’s!).
Central to the show, of course, was the starring trio of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Though they wouldn’t appear together in all episodes, they did appear together in almost all of them. (A bit of trivia: Leonard Nimoy’s Spock would appear in the most number of episodes of the original Star Trek series with 80. This included the first non-Captain Kirk starring pilot. William Shatner would appear in all 79 regular episodes, including the second pilot while DeForest Kelley’s McCoy would appear in 76 episodes, all according to IMDb.com.)
What a team these three made!
In watching the original Star Trek and the performances within, it was the first time I realized how well on-screen charisma could get. As much as I liked other shows, there was this little extra something to be found in the interactions between the Star Trek characters that was at times lacking in other shows. They -the actors as well as the crew behind the scenes- were that damn good.
And while I wouldn’t pick one actor’s work over the other (they worked best together anyway), I was always drawn the most to the character of Leonard Nimoy’s Spock.
There was something so incredibly…fascinating…with Mr. Nimoy’s stoic, unemotional performance, and especially when the stories had him stray from this stoicism and have a little fun with its limits. Which explains why this scene, from the conclusion to Amok Time, is my all time favorite original Star Trek Spock moment (forgive the quality of the images…I didn’t want to provide a link to the whole episode and this featured exactly what I wanted):
In that scene, most obviously, you see Spock smile. But what makes the whole thing work so damn well is that we are in Spock’s shoes. We think, like he does, that he’s killed Captain Kirk, his very best friend. Along with the absolute agony of this act is the realization that it also means his future, both with Starfleet and personally, is effectively over. And just like that it is revealed that Spock did not kill his best friend and Leonard Nimoy’s reaction is just so perfect, moving from shocked surprise to relief to absolute elation. And then, to make the whole thing absolutely perfect, Spock realizes he’s just shown emotion and has to clamp it down and go into his “logical” routine, knowing full well the mask has slipped.
Ah that smile.
And the smiles of the other, who realize the stoic Spock isn’t quite as stoic as he pretends to be.
Despite his alien blood, Spock is every bit as “human” as the rest of them and just as capable of happiness as they are.
I will always admire this scene and that wonderful bit of acting.
So Rest in Peace, Mr. Nimoy. To the child I was back then and the grown man I am now, you did real good.
The Guest (2014) a (mildly) belated review
I heard quite a few good words regarding last year’s The Guest, a low budget suspense thriller/horror film, and was curious to see it. Yesterday I finally had a chance.
Did it live up to what I read?
Yes…and no.
The Guest has a simple enough plot: A stranger who calls himself David (, who for the most part is excellent here) appears at the front door of the Peterson family home, which is in a remote, rustic town and introduces himself to the lady of the household () as a soldier who fought alongside her recently deceased son.
Anna Peterson is taken aback by David’s story and excuses herself to have a cry. When she composes herself and returns to the man’s side, she finds him looking at photographs on her mantle. One of them, David points out, shows him with her son’s squad.
David then says he has to go but Anna Peterson will not have it and invites him to stay over for at least a little while.
Big mistake.
For as the film plays out and the members of Anna’s family, including her husband, her other son and daughter, meet David and have different reactions to him, we find that the charismatic soldier may not be quite who he says he is. All the while, things escalate out of control and the body count rises.
I’ll say this much for The Guest: It wastes very little time in delivering its premise while building up tension. The acting, for the most part, is uniformly good and, as already mentioned, Dan Stevens delivers a terrific charismatic/creepy performance as the titular guest.
But when all is said and done, The Guest wound up leaving me with too many questions while delivering a climax that was equal parts silly, ridiculous, and sadistic.
Among the questions I had, the biggest one was this: Why did David bother going to the Peterson family in the first place? It was made quite clear in the film that he is a self-sufficient man who thinks on his feet and is quite capable of disappearing into the woodwork. Without going too deeply into SPOILERS, why does David tie himself down to this one place and, effectively, risk making himself known, especially (OK, MILD SPOILERS HERE!) to those who want to get at him?
It makes no real sense.
The lingering questions and your all too typical “bad guy isn’t quite killed” finale cliche (is it written in some movie making bible that every horror movie with a boogeyman type killer has to end this way?!) wind up hurting the movie just when it was about to cross the finish line.
Because of this, I can only offer a mild recommendation for The Guest. Despite some very good acting and some effectively creepy moments, the film’s lack of answers for many questions and cliched ending hurt what is for the most part a very effective piece of work.
A special note: I loved the use of 80’s alternative electronica music in the film. I suspect the filmmakers were going for a John Carpenter type vibe (the movie has more than a couple of nods to the original Halloween). It worked!
The #1 Song on the Day You Were Born…
Like music? Are curious to see which song reached the #1 position on the day of your birth? Then check this out:
http://playback.fm/birthday-song
I’m an ooooold man, and the #1 song for the day of my birth was…
Watching this video, I’m intrigued with the lip-synching. Clearly the song as playing in this clip is the studio version. The synching, to my eyes, is not all that pretty…
Goes to show, the more things change…
9 Things You Think You Know About Jesus…
…Which Are Probably Wrong, according to Valarie Tarico for Salon.com:
I’ve mentioned before that I’m an atheist. I’m not a militant one, however, and feel that if religion is a big part of your life and gets you through the day, then good for you. Anything that makes you happy, as long as it doesn’t hurt others, is fine to me. Obviously there are those in the past and present who use(d) their beliefs to harm others and that is where I draw the line.
Having said this, I find religion fascinating. I like reading up on it and getting an understanding of where the various religious ideas have come from. Of particular interest to me, as I was raised that way, is Catholicism. So the above article, which sifts though the potential “reality” of Jesus versus the myth, is doubly interesting.
From all that I’ve read, I believe there is a very legitimate question as to whether the Jesus people worship was a real person or a mythical fiction built up over many years. Regardless of your stance, the above link provides a fascinating look at some of the ideas/concepts associated with Jesus and whether they may be the case or not.
Some of the items are, as the author herself admits, trivial (was he short or tall, did he have long hair or short, etc.). What I found the most fascinating, and what deserves the most scrutiny, is just how many of his philosophical sayings/teaching are his or were probably taken from other philosophies and/or added over time. As the author states:
Which words are actually from Jesus? This question has been debated fiercely by everyone from third-century Catholic Councils to the 20th-century Jesus Seminar…The New Testament Gospels were written long after Jesus would have died, and no technology existed with which to record his teachings in real time, unless he wrote them down himself, which he didn’t.
We can be confident that at least some of the wise and timeless words and catchy proverbs attributed to Jesus are actually from earlier or later thinkers. For example, the Golden Rule was articulated before the time of Christ by the Rabbi Hillel the Elder, who similarly said it was the “whole Torah.” By contrast, the much-loved story of the woman caught in adultery doesn’t appear in manuscripts until the fourth century. Attributing words (or whole texts) to a famous person was common in the Ancient Near East, because it gave those words extra weight. Small wonder then that so many genuinely valuable insights ended up, in one way or another, paired with the name of Jesus.
This, in a nutshell, explains why I’m so intrigued by religion and yet am an atheist. It is the mystery of it, the history of how these works came to be, that fascinates me. I love reading about the search for the philosophical roots of Biblical teachings, of the alternate texts or deleted ideas. As mentioned, “the New Testament Gospels were written long after Jesus would have died”. If he existed, he left no actual contemporaneous record and therefore one has to wonder how many of his ideas are indeed his versus those added to him over time.
Again, fascinating, fascinating stuff.
