E.R. Torre's Blog, page 92

Happy (belated) Thanksgiving…

Hope everyone had a great time with family and friends and acquaintances and didn’t bring up any politics.

That’s a sure way to destroy one’s evening!

As for me, I didn’t eat all that much but nonetheless managed to have enough turkey and the triptophan found in it that by the time it got dark I fell in the bed and crashed so hard that…

What’s that?

You say that the triptophan in the turkey isn’t the reason people get so tired?  According to Kevin Bennett of Pennsylvania State University, it isn’t the cause and he wrote the following article to prove this…

Snooze after eating the bird?  Don’t blame triptophan

Here’s the money quote from the above article:

There are far more important factors leading to those post-turkey comas, not least of which is Uncle Clarence’s story about parking at the airport. Add that to free-flowing booze combined with a load of carbohydrates followed by plenty more booze and you have a fool-proof recipe for dozing off on the couch. 

Welp, I don’t drink alcohol so “booze” wasn’t a factor for me.  I guess it was the carbs?

Regardless, hope everyone had a great time!

About all these sexual harassment/assault stories of late…

Is it just me or does it appear every famous/sorta-famous male out there is a creep?

I’m glad women are, in this day and age, empowered to speak up about these things which, sadly, in the past were brushed under the rug.  I’m also alternately enraged and shaking my head at the growing list of people who have been accused of these types of acts.  Though clearly some of the revealed actions are far more heinous than others, I hope my fellow men view this as a teachable moment.

Men, think about what you’ve done in the past.  Take a good, hard look in the mirror and see if any of your actions when you were younger or -the Gods forbid- recently might fall into the category of sexual harassment or -the Gods forbid redux- assault.

And for fuck’s sake: Don’t do this sort of crap.  Don’t ever do this type of crap.  Behave.

Behave.

At this point, either you do this or prepare yourself to face some potentially huge consequences.

Sketchin’ 36

It has been a very -in fact too long- a time since I posted new artwork.  Why?  Because I’ve been incredibly busy and simply haven’t had the time to put (Apple) pen to (iPad screen) paper.

This weekend, I was determined to remedy that situation and, voila, here you go!

[image error]

The subject is actor Scarlett Johansson and the role is the Black Widow.

As successful as Marvel has been with their movies, its weird they haven’t bothered to make a Black Widow standalone film.

Ah well, perhaps in the near future.

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) a (extremely mildly) belated review

Back in 1974 director gathered together a mega-star cast including Sean Connery, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Vanessa Redgrave, etc. etc. etc. to star in the movie version of what is easily Agatha Christie’s best known Hercule Piorot novel (if not best known novel, period!) Murder on the Orient Express.  Playing the lead role of super-detective Hercule Poirot was Albert Finney.  Here’s that movie’s trailer…

There would be other versions of this most famous novel made for both the large and small screen and a couple of weeks ago famed director/actor Kenneth Branagh offered his version of this famous story.  In making his version of the film, it appeared Mr. Branagh was looking toward that 1974 version and, therefore, made sure to fill the movie with some very big names.  Here’s the trailer for Mr. Branagh’s 2017 theatrical release of Murder on the Orient Express:

As one can readily see, among the famous actors participating in this movie, in which Mr. Branagh not only plays the Poirot role but also directs, is Michelle Pfeiffer, Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Derek Jackobi, Daisy Ridley, etc. etc.

As a fan of Agatha Christie and her writing, I’ll be the first to admit that her murder mystery novels are about as close to science fiction as you can get with regard to the mystery genre.  The fact of the matter is that her mysteries are usually byzantine and feature events that, if one were to look very closely at them, would fall apart in the harsh light of “reality”.

Then again, that’s the case with most works of fiction.

So, if you know the depressing truth that in “real life” murders are usually the result of opportunity combined with a person’s twisted and disturbed impulses, you also know there is often no “clever” solution to a murder and when all is said and done you’ve got a bunch of sad/twisted people who are hardly “upper crust”, well spoken, and “beautiful” like those present in Ms. Christie’s novels.

But you know what?  If you’re willing to do the proverbial “suspension of disbelief”, you’re in for a fun time… as fun as you can with a subject as dark as murder.

In Murder on the Orient Express, we have a classic “locked room” mystery.  Actually, a double locked room mystery: A person is murdered within his locked room and within the confines of a sealed train.  Within this train we have our genius detective and 12 suspects, all of whom present shifty eyed stares and less than truthful statements when asked what they were up to at the time of the crime.

All the elements of a classic mystery are there and, to someone like me, that alone proved a freaking blast.

If you’re a fan of old railroads and trains, the movie is incredibly beautiful to look at, though I suspect much of what you’re seeing is CGI.  CGI or not, it is beautiful.

Mr. Branagh’s direction is fluid and his characterization of Poirot turned out to be quite wonderful.  The mystery is presented in a very linear manner and allows viewers to follow the breadcrumbs from murderer to suspects and, if you’re clever enough, you may be able to figure out the ending just before Mr. Poirot figures it out for you.

That’s the really good stuff.

The bad?  Well, Mr. Branagh the director sure does like Mr. Branagh the actor.  The fact of the matter is that Poirot is front and center in this movie and, despite the big named actors around him, his character hogs the spotlight a little too much.  Other than Michelle Pfeiffer, who gets to act out a little more, the other actors are held back too much.

Perhaps I’m being too harsh with regard to Mr. Branagh.

After all, the large cast are playing suspects and, as suspects, they are supposed to hold back whatever truths they’re hiding.

Still, I wish I could have seen a little more emoting from many of them.

Despite this, Murder on the Orient Express works much more than it doesn’t and the complaints I point out above are very small stuff.

Thankfully, the movie follows Ms. Christie’s novel closely and, much to my relief, the conclusion is pretty much straight out of the book.  I admit going into this film I was afraid Mr. Branagh and company would get cute and try to pull some kind of switcheroo with the movie’s conclusion/resolution.  The fact of the matter is that what makes the novel successful is the way it ends and, in that, this movie nailed that particular bit.

I also liked the way this movie hinted at the next mystery for Poirot and pointed to another of Agatha Christie’s famous novels.  That one was made into a film as well…

To which I say: Bring it on!

Recommended!

Justice League (2017) a (right on time!) review

Yesterday I wrote about the just released Justice League and, based on some of the negative reviews, worried this film might be suffering from a reviewer’s bias.  Critics seemed to so hate the movie this one is a direct sequel to, 2016’s Batman v Superman, that I couldn’t help but wonder if that might cloud their opinion of this film.

Sure, in between we’ve had the release of Wonder Woman, which met with near universal adoration, but that film wasn’t directed by Zach Snyder and, let’s be clear here, Mr. Snyder is the individual receiving most of the blame by those who don’t like these films when it comes to their deficits as perceived by certain critics and fans.

I’ve beaten this particular dead horse for a while, but I liked BvS, though I will admit the theatrical version of the film doesn’t hold a candle to the extended “ultimate” cut that came later and was released to home theater.  I can’t help but feel that Warners/DC got anxious with the film’s original run time and wanted to cut the thing down for theatrical release.

Regardless, in some quarters the reception to BvS was absolutely brutal and Warners attempted to win back the fans/critics by offering a visit to the set while the film was in production and had Mr. Snyder talk about how the next film, Justice League, would be a different animal, much lighter in tone versus the more somber BvS.

Then, word came that due to a family tragedy Mr. Snyder was leaving the film before it was completed.  Co-screenwriter Josh Whedon, who made a splash directing both Avengers films and was announced as the director of the upcoming Batgirl film, would finish the film up and be responsible for any re-shoots.

There was plenty of skepticism among many fans of the characters and a feeling that the troubled production, made all the more troubled by Mr. Snyder’s departure, would result in a mess of a film.

When the film review embargo was lifted just a few days ago, there was further controversy when rottentomatoes.com pushed back the release of their score for the film to promote See It/Skip It, a new program they were doing which was meant to “premiere” the score.  Fans, understandably, were again skeptical: Was Warners nervous about the film?  Did they force them to hold back on the reviews?

Ultimately, the rottentomatoes score was released and… it wasn’t terribly good.  The movie currently sits at a below average 40 percent positive among critics.  Interestingly, the fan reaction is considerably more positive and currently sits at 86 percent.  Over on metacritic, the movie stands at 46 percent among critics and 7.2 (out of 10) among the fans.

A wide disparity indeed!

As a fan of BvS, there was never a question that I’d head out to the theater and see this film.  But, based on the behind the scenes stuff I mentioned above, I was nervous.

This Saturday morning, I had the time and decided to give it a try.  I entered the theater with the proverbial “hoping for the best” attitude.

The opening minutes of the film, however, proved something of a slog.  Not terrible, mind you, but a slow burn nonetheless.

Then, in and around the time we’re introduced to Cyborg, Flash, and Aquaman, things started to hum along nicely.

And that, in a nutshell, proved to be Justice League’s strength: The characters.  Their interactions, in my opinion, proved very fun.  Things got even better with the return of the character everyone knew was coming back (I’ll say no more).

The movie does have its issues, many of which have already been pointed out: The villain is not the most memorable, though I felt he was good and fearful enough.  The effects were at times not as good as one would have hoped, which is strange given the fact that the movie had as big a budget as it did.

What also works in the movie’s favor is the ending, and the subsequent clips (two of them) presented afterwards.  The first one, to a comic book geek like me, was pure mana.

So while not perfect, I recommend Justice League.  It presented familiar characters come to life in a fun and at times rousing way.

I hope we’ll see more of them, especially the villains hinted to come.

Justice League (2017)… any good?

After what seems far too long a time for opinions both negative and positive to percolate -and the back and forth has been at times intense!- the Justice League movie is officially being released and the reviews are… not terribly good.

While these reviews are better overall than the reviews of Batman v Superman and several high profile critics have offered very high praise, the fact of the matter is that once again a DC universe film is being released to generally negative reviews.

Predictably, there’s been screaming from some parts -the fanboys most certainly!- about bias and, perhaps, they have a point.  The question arises: Has the negativity associated with Batman v Superman permeated this new product to the point where a cold, neutral look at it is impossible?  There are those, after all, who seem sold on the idea that anything director Zach Snyder touches will instantly turn to crap, so perhaps they go into the film thinking this is inevitable in Justice League’s case?

Biases most certainly can exist.

Way back in the year 2000, Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz, and Lucy Liu starred in the film Charlie’s Angels, a theatrical remake of the cheesy -but somewhat beloved- TV show involving a trio of very pretty female detectives who, along with their assistant Bosley, worked for the mysterious “Charlie” solving crimes each week.

The show made a mega-star of the late Farrah Fawcett but I doubt even the most ardent fans of the show consider it a “classic”.  Thus, when word came that a movie version was about to be released, many didn’t think it could possibly be any good.

I know this because I found it curious, at the time, how professional review after review I read had variations of “I can’t believe it… they made a good movie out of this!” in their positive reviews.

It was clear many critics went into the film (here comes the bias thing) thinking it would be absolutely terrible and were surprised when they found it to be good.  In their opinion, of course.

So I, who shared very similar negative thoughts –no way they could make a good film out of Charlie’s Angels, could they!?- read those reviews and, based on them, softened my negative (biased?!) opinion.  I figured that perhaps against all odds, the people behind this film made something good.

So off I trot to the theaters and see the film, now thinking I’m about to have a good time (another bias!).

I didn’t.

Charlie’s Angels, to me, wasn’t a horrible film, but the reviews elevated my hopes  to the point that when I saw the film and it didn’t deliver as I felt it would, I was very disappointed.

So, think about it: Many critics went in to see the film with very LOW expectations and figured the film would be awful (negative bias).  They were pleasantly surprised when they found it wasn’t.

I, on the other hand, expected the film would be awful but, after reading several positive reviews, changed my mind (positive bias).  I go into the film with high expectations based on the words of so many critics.  I wind up being disappointed.

Getting back to Justice League, clearly there are many, many people out there who really like characters like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman.  They want any film featuring these beloved characters to succeed just as there are many, many people who feel so negative toward director Zach Snyder and his work thus far with the DC Superheroes (he directed Man of Steel and Batman v Superman) that they feel Justice League will be another bomb, no doubt about it.

Positive and negative biases formed even before seeing the actual film.

I’ve noted -far too many times!- that I enjoyed Batman v Superman and am unapologetic in that opinion.  In fact, I feel that in time and when emotions cool people may give the film a second chance and find it far better than the overall negativity it currently elicits.

Having said that, I’m also one who feels that people’s opinions are just that: Opinions.  Your opinion about movie/song/book X is YOUR OPINION and therefore cannot be wrong… to you, just as my opinion of movie/song/book X is MY OPINION and, therefore, cannot be wrong to me.

I haven’t seen Justice League yet, though I must admit I too have some pre-conceived notions about what it will be.

I’ve heard the film had about 1 hour of material cut from it before reaching theaters.  Given how much better Batman v Superman was in its “Ultimate Edition” versus the cut down theatrical version, I worry that Justice League, which runs a pretty tight 2 hours, may wind up being more disjointed than it should be and that when the inevitable “Director’s Cut” shows up, it will prove a better overall product.

As with so many other things, we’ll see.

For what it’s worth…

With all the current news regarding sexual harassment, I was reminded of the first time an incident which could be defined as such was brought to my attention… and how shocked I was to find out about it.

It was the mid-1990’s, so I can claim some excuse in being younger/more naive/stupider then.  It was a Comic Book Convention I attended, among the first where I attended as a “Pro” guest.

Being a “Pro” guest meant you interacted more with other “Pros”.  In that particular convention, I had the unique privilege and thrill to meet up with several people who, to me, were incredibly gifted and whose works entertained the hell out of me over the years before.

In this particular convention there was a very, very legendary comic book figure, one who was in the business for many years and was behind and/or responsible for many very memorable events during practically her entire history.

Frankly, I was gobsmacked that I could actually meet and interact with this legend and mentioned it to the two people I was with at that moment.

One of the pros I was with, a woman who made a name for herself over the previous years with various successful projects, reacted in a most negative way to my comment.

Though it happened many years ago and I don’t recall the exact words, she essentially told me this individual -this comic book legend!- was a creep, a man who was, as defined by today’s headlines, a sexual harasser.  One who had, to my horror, harassed her.

I came away from this conversation with the realization of something I’ve come to know all too well since that time: Sometimes the art is very different from the artist.

Now, I could name names and tell you who this legendary figure is and who the woman accusing him of harassment was but I feel its best I don’t.  Understand, I’m not trying to be coy or engage in some childish “I’ve got a secret” type thing.

The fact of the matter is that this happened a very long time ago and, as I mentioned above, I can only go by my impressions rather than specific words told to me by the lady in question. Still, my impression hasn’t changed that this woman genuinely felt the man was a creep.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, though this woman was clearly seething and willing to tell a stranger (who I was to her at that moment!) her very negative impressions of that man, I don’t know what happened afterwards and, for all I know, things might well have changed.

While perhaps unlikely, this woman might have had more interactions with this comic book legend and maybe her opinion of him changed.  It is possible the man acted bad on the day(s) she formed her negative impressions of him and maybe he eventually realized the error of his ways and apologized to her.

These are things I don’t know!

The woman in question is still around while that legendary comic book figure has since passed.

Perhaps in this day and age, this woman might come forward to offer her opinions of this man or any other(s) who have shown such creepy behavior toward her.

I hope she -and anyone else who was mistreated by those in power- do so.

In all fields, including the comic book field, it is high time bad behavior –especially bad behavior which crosses the line into outright criminal behavior- was treated for what it is and for those who have engaged in it be called out for what they are.

Creeps.

Corrosive Knights, a 11/14/17 update

We’re nearing the middle of November so why not give an update on Book #7 of my Corrosive Knights series?  And, while I’m at it, let me again post this nifty graphic showing the entirety of the series and the two books to come…

[image error]

Alright, so here goes:

I’m still hard at work on revising the first full draft of the book.  The book has three parts which are roughly the same length:

An intro which offers us a “the story until now” in as interesting/new a way as I can fashion it which leads to…
The bulk of the story which leads to…
Conclusion

I’ve finished going over that first part and I have to say, I really think it worked well.  There are parts presented which offer scenes found in earlier books but offered from different perspectives and, IMHO, it works so damn well!

I wish I could get into more details but to do so would be silly.  Today I embark on the second part of the story and, hopefully, soon enough I’ll have made my way through the entire book…

…at which time I begin all over again but with a hopefully far stronger overall work.

Exciting, exciting stuff!

Angry about Keurig…

Big time politics here, so look away if you’re not interested in reading my opinion of these issues…

The other day Sean Hannity, right wing apologist and another of the too many right wing machine over at Fox “News”, had controversial Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore on his show.

For those who don’t know, Roy Moore is controversial for a number of things, from going against Supreme Court rulings to  -this is the latest controversy- having sex with teenage women/girls as young as 14 years of age when he was in his (gulp) thirties.

He’s being accused by women who are willing to put their name to the accusations of engaging in pedophilia.

So of course, when Mr. Moore shows up on Sean Hannity’s show, the questions are softballs and the purpose of the episode is to give Mr. Moore a platform to prove he’s a good guy and the accusations aren’t true.

He didn’t quite do that…  From vox.com, Jen Kirby writes about that interview, and the one startling thing he had to say when asked if he dated teenagers at that time:

Roy Moore on whether he dated teenage girls: “Not generally, no”.

Way to issue a strong denial there, Mr. Moore!

As a result of that interview, and the way it was performed by Mr. Hannity, people started flooded some of his sponsors with letters/tweets/etc. asking them how they can continue to sponsor a show where its host seeks to show someone like Mr. Moore in a positive light.

Among the companies that were contacted was Keurig, coffee machine makers.  In a tweet regarding whether they would continue to support Mr. Hannity’s show after that interview, Keurig stated:

Thank you for your concern and for bringing this to our attention. We worked with our media partner and FOX news to stop our ad from airing during the Sean Hannity Show.

As with any action, there is a reaction, and one of the big reactions from fans of Hannity’s show is to slam Keurig and, idiotically, decide to destroy their Keurig coffee making machines.  Tom McKay over at gizmodo.com writes about this:

Angry Sean Hannity fans are smashing Keurigs on Twitter because 2017 is dumb as heck

But you know what?  Dumb as it is to decide to protest Keurig (and liberals, I suppose) by destroying your Keurig machine is just another iteration of dumb protesting.

Way, way back in 1976 and when Blue Oyster Cult first released their song “Don’t Fear The Reaper” (you know, the cowbell song!)…

…there was a great deal of controversy amongst the very religious/right wingers out there about it.

Why?

Because the song’s lyrics refer to death in many incarnations and states “don’t fear the reaper” when referring to, among others, “Romeo and Juliet.”  To many, the implication was clear: The song promoted death and suicide and, therefore, it was a sinful song. (Didn’t help that Blue Oyster Cult cultivated a dark image)

So controversial amongst the religious/right wingers was the song and album in which it came on that one day this group has a big BOC bonfire, wherein people brought the vinyl albums and burned them.

To which one of the members of BOC (I forget which) was quoted as saying something along the lines of: “I don’t care what they do to our albums… as long as they buy them first!”

I suspect Keurig is feeling the same.

Rand Paul and that neighbor of his…

If you’ve been reading/watching the news lately, between stories involving Russians, Trump’s latest stupidity, Sexual Assault, and as much depressing shit as you can handle, came the news that Libertarian Senator Rand Paul was tackled by his next door neighbor while cutting his lawn and suffered several broken ribs.

The cause of the attack remains a head-scratching puzzle.  Early word came out that this involved -of all things- landscaping issues.  Mr. Paul was moving his lawn, after all, when he was attacked.

This was quickly disputed, but no reason was given for why the attack took place, either by the attacker or the victim.

Over at theslot.com, author Ellie Shechet offers a quick recap of the whole weird affair and wonders…

What the Frick Is Going On With Rand Paul and His Neighbor, Someone Tell Me Right Now

I was very amused by the comments after the article.  Several people have noted they think the source of the animosity between Paul and his neighbor is something more deeply personal… perhaps sexual.

That perhaps Mr. Paul overstepped his boundaries and/or has had trysts with his neighbor’s wife or daughter or what-have-you.

This is clearly nothing more than the rankest of rank speculation, yet one can’t help but wonder why both the neighbor and Mr. Paul are so very reluctant to get into the details of why they had this confrontation.

A weird story that, by virtue of its timing, is essentially being buried under an avalanche of other stories.