And here's a picture

The Summer Blockbuster is a Lie

It's Monday morning and I find myself with 3 things. 1) The worst case of insomnia I've ever had. 2) A day off in the hope that at some point I'll fall asleep. 3) A gut full of discontent about the year 2009 in movies.

So far this has been the worst year for movie watching I can remember. I've seen only 2 movies that have stuck in my mind longer than it took to escape the theater. Watchmen, which was absolutely fantastic, has grown on me the more I've thought about, and will be completely forgotten by the time the Academy Awards come around. And Quantum of Solace which only makes it into 2009 because Japan gets everything late.

It's the last 3 movies I've seen, summer "blockbusters" all, that have really shit me.

Terminator: Salvation was anything but for the audience. Ted summed it up perfectly as we shuffled forlornly out of theatre - "That movie made me angry." For me, the person who had chosen the flick and organized the night out, it just left me embarrassed that I'd subjected my friends to it. I'd read reviews that said it wasn't that good, but I'd also read comments by viewers that said, "Hey, it's not as bad as they say. Give it a try, you'll enjoy it." I now believe that those comments were written by studio plants who were sent onto the forums with the mission of damage control of the bad press.

Because of this mixed press I went into the movie with expectations held not so high. I should have learnt from the mistake that was Wanted. If you're not expecting much, then that is what you'll get. You see, the first 40 minutes of Terminator: Salvation is actually quite watchable. Things are being setup nicely for a kick-ass finale, there's been a shit load of money spent to make the future look suitably bleak, and the story is a refreshing departure from the unstoppable cyborg hunting the Conner family that the first 3 were. In fact I think the setup for Salvation is the strongest of any of them.

And then the film just jettisons any attempt at logic for a second half that makes no fucking sense at all. I mean really, how stupid is SkyNet? Ho ho John Conner, now that my cunning plan has lured you to my Terminator factory I'm going to send ONE and only ONE Terminator from the aforementioned factory to kill you. Yes John Connor, ONE Terminator. That's how nefarious I am. ONE! I shall turn the tables on you. It will be you who will die and not m.... what! You've defeated my sole Terminator! Impossible! Oh no, eieieieeeee I am undoneeeee.... And what's that. You can get a heart transplant from anyone. Look out there's been a medical break in - I mean break through.

Oh. My. God. That was so lame.

Salvation was followed by Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. I've read the books but am not a crazed Potter fan and couldn't care less if some parts are changed to fit the book into a movie. But if Half-Blood was satisfied with only adding an unnecessary action piece to the story that wouldn't have been so bad. It's major fault is that it is dull. Mind-numbingly, ploddingly dull. Most of the movie focuses on the relationship problems of the kids. Yes, they're growing up and hormones are telling them to go out and form pair bonds with a significant other. But I don't want to watch over 2 hours of that.

Like Salvation the first 40 minutes of Half-Blood Prince put everything in place well. The magic world of Hogwarts had rarely looked better, and I was expecting the plot to start moving along. But instead it focuses not on the Voldemort's history and/or Who is the Half-Blood Prince? storylines, but s/he loves me, s/he loves me not, shenanigans. After an hour I was uncomfortable and restless but kept hoping the the film would pick up pace or at least deliver with the action of the end of the book. Neither happened. It continued to crawl, (if it's not the longest Potter film to date then it at least felt like it), the final battle in the school grounds never appeared (so why did the Death-Eaters gain access to Hogwarts only to leave after a bit of petty vandelism?), the murder of Dumbledore was flubbed, and he didn't even get the dignity of the tear-jerking funeral from the book. BTW, the kids acting is great. It's what they're given to work with that is the let down.

I haven't really gotten into any of the Potter films except The Prisoner of Azkaban, although I've found the others to be at least watchable. But the final book of the series is by far the weakest. In fact it was a pretty bad book with its Mission: Impossible-like bank heist and Ministry of Magic break in. And as the same director and scriptwriter from Half-Blood Prince will be returning to adapt it into not one, but two money-leeching films, short of stunning reviews I'll be giving them a miss.

And then on the weekend I caught the incongruously titled X-Men Origins: Wolverine (yes, it has only just gotten here). Again I'd been well forewarned by less than stellar reviews. But how bad could it be with Hugh in it? I should have remembered the debacle that was Australia. The trouble with a bad film with Hugh in it is that he is so obviously trying his guts out even though he knows that everything else about the film is just shit. The same with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Its problems began long ago with the story and script, and not with the actors who had to breath life into this still-born turkey.

I believe the stupid title is the root of the problem that the unfocused story and atrocious script stem from. What did the audience want? A story about the origin of Wolverine. What did it get? A whole bunch of other mutants shoehorned in (hell, even Professor Xavier makes a cameo) so that there can be some X-Men trainspotting. The best sequence is the rather brilliantly done title credits showing Logan and Victor fighting in the major wars of the last century. Great imagery, but why was this relegated to one minute of the movie? This is the story of Wolverine that should be up on the screen, the story of the rivalry, jealously and hatred between two brothers who cannot be killed and never seem to age. Why do Logan and Victor continue to stay together long after they've reached adulthood? Why are they drawn to combat? Why does Victor gradually become more and more animal-like? Why does Logan even care? Why do we even care?

Well, to answer that rhetorical question, we don't. And that's because we're not given characters to care about. Character motivation is pushed aside so that we can spend precious screen time with a whole bunch of other mutants who add nothing to Logan's or Victor's characterizations. These mutants are in the story merely because they'll put bums on seats (Gambit and Deadpool), provide comic relief (Blob), or have superpowers that look cool (just about everyone else plus Gambit and Deadpool). By the time we're introduced to Gambit the film has long stopped caring about Logan and Victor, and has fallen into trite comic book action. It even admits so when Wraith tells Logan that Logan will be fighting Gambit in few minutes even though they've just come to talk to him. This film can't do anything but pad itself out by playing the "two superheroes who've just met have a fight over a misunderstanding before becoming allies" card, because it isn't holding anything else in it's hand.

And when are we going to see the "animal let out" that Logan et al keep referring to. I'm probably wrong but I can't really remember him killing a lot of people. He stabs Victor a few times, and there must be some guards somewhere that get the claws, but really for a supposed killing machine this is a pretty PG friendly Wolverine. I've recently finished the video game based on the movie, and that is the kind of mayhem I was hoping for from the movie. Wolverine the game is one of those rare games that is better (much better) than the movie it is based on. Crazily violent, Wolverine slices, dices and juliennes hundreds of bad guys on the way to the Weapon XI showdown. Gun-toting meat-sacks are impaled on environmental kills, dismembered by claws, set on fire and even beheaded by helicopter rotors. Great stuff and what you'd expect from someone who keeps on claiming that he's the best at what he does, but what he does isn't very nice, or words to that effect but I'm too tired to Google it to find out. Instead with the lack of violence that it had the movie should have been title Wolverine: Declawed.

So that's my rant. Sorry that after 4 months away all I've got to add to the blogshpere is bile, but there you go. I'm off to knock myself out. Based on the space between postings next time we meet I'll probably be kicking off with "Merry Xmas".

MSxGO

You just have to see this to believe it.

So that's what Lorenzo Lamas has been doing since the eighties.

Jimbo, crack open the c oldies. It's time to liquor up and watch some shit.

Proof of Life

Do You Cusp?

10: IF "N" or "n" THEN GOTO HERE.

20: IF "Y" or "y" THEN PRINT "Remain where you are. The Insanity Control Squad will come to your location."

Watchmen

SPOILERS FOLLOW.

Hitler is wrong.

There's no getting around the denseness of the 'Watchmen' graphic novel: it utilized not only conventional comic book storytelling, but also, reports, journals, extracts and interviews. Its 12 issues assembled a large cast of characters each with their own backstory and hangers-on, covered a timeline of over 50 years of an alternate history of earth, used flashbacks, various narrators, dealt with BIG issues, had equal parts full-on action and quiet character moments... It is in my opinion the greatest comic book you'll ever read.

So I was utterly amazed at what was put on the screen. Watchmen the movie is a fantastic example of taking a work from one medium and translating it into another. Yes, Watchmen the film is not, nor can not ever be, 'Watchmen' the most lauded comic book of all time. It's got a few hours to tell the story as a film. But even if 'Watchmen' had been adapted as a 12 part TV series, as some rabid fanboy in some backwater of the net frothed that is should have been, would it really be any better? I don't think so. Yes, more minutiae might have been thrown up on the screen, more subplots could have been told, more characters given more time. Basically there could have been more, more, more from the original medium translated with equal weighting to the new medium, which is most important when making an adaption, don't you know?

But why restrict this fictional series to 12 episodes just because the comic has 12 issues. Let's have 18 (because its 12 + 1/2 of 12, an equation I pulled from the same ass that 12 comes from) and devote an episode to 'The Black Freighter' subplot, an episode to the denizens of the ill-fated New York street corner, an episode to Hollis Mason's 'Under the Hood', an episode to the island where the squid was made... Hmmm, maybe we'd better up that episode count to 24, because that's 12 x 2, and thus the adaption can maintain authenticity by claiming some nebulous numerical connection to original.

Or here's a thought. How about devoting the screen time to putting as much as possible from the graphic novel up on to that aforementioned screen, in a way that best utilizes the medium of film. And that is the triumph of Watchmen. So much of the denseness of the graphic novel is packed into the movie's 160 minutes by adapting it to film. Two examples are the many voice overs which for once aren't annoying but purposeful, and the tableaux that in a well-used few seconds hint at unexplored story avenues. These don't distract from the main storyline of the film, but add a depth to the cinematic world. For the astute viewer coming to the story for the first time they provide a verisimilitude to a fantasy world that I haven't seen since the Lord of the Rings movies, and for the veteran readers of 'Watchman' they show that it's mostly all there if you take the trouble to look. Just open your eyes and ears to Watchmen and you'll see that Zach Snyder gets 'Watchmen' real good.

But there's no squid! Well, yes, that's right. There is no squid. Get over it. As many others around the net have already said, in the context of the movie, it works. I found it to be an elegant solution to streamline the story while keeping the same result. And after all though 'Watchmen' is a great work of art, it's not without it's faults. For me the squid was one of them. It's a plot point that really doesn't bear looking at too much. Over looking is more what's required. That dead squid is going to be the most rigorously tested genetic material on the planet. How long would the deception really hold up that its not of Earth origin? But rather than trying to strengthen the case for Watchmen's Dr. Manhattan frame-up by weakening the case for 'Watchmen''s squid frame-up, I'll instead say that the Dr. Manhattan frame-up is at least as weak or as strong (your pick) a plotting as an other dimensional squid. YMMV.

And kudos for the sex and violence. I haven't had to worry about being turned away from a movie for being underage for quite some time, so I never took any notice of Watchmen's rating. This meant that I was pleasantly surprised by the retention of the comic's sex and violence. If you're not into seeing bodies blown up, limbs broken, a meat cleaver in the head nor consenting (and non-consenting) adults doing what they do, then you'd best close your eyes. Quite often. But I was glad that Watchmen retained that visceral aspect, when I expect conventional marketing wisdom would dictate that a lower rating opens the film to a wider audience, and thus bigger profits. Die Hard 4.0 certainly thought so, and it did very good box office indeed. However to me it was just another way that Watchmen tried to be as faithful as it could to the source material.

In case you think I was left in total awe of Watchmen I'll mention two points I didn't think worked well. The first was the delivery of one of my favorite lines of all time, "I did it 35 minutes ago." It just didn't have the gravitas I'd always imagined in my head. The second, again with Ozymandias, was the bullet catching. It was weakly foreshadowed, and then seemed rushed, muddled, or just not framed right (too close up?). I don't know what exactly, so I'd better stop crying about it. So there you go, some complaints.

I gave Watchmen 9 out 10 on the IMDB. It might well have got 10 if "I did it 35 minutes ago" had had better delivery.

Beck

Last night we saw Beck at NHK Hall in Shibuya. NHK hall is like Townsville Civic Theater's great big sumo brother. It was a very different vibe to the other concerts I've seen in the last few years, which were at Saitama Super Areana or the Budokan, both much larger spaces. But the audience was very appreciative of Beck, and even though it was concert hall type seating, within a few minutes everyone was standing, handclapping, and generally flailing about. You'd never do that at either of the other venues for fear of plummeting to your death. At the Super Arena you might never hit bottom.

It was the first time I'd ever seen a concert that was opened by a magician. Cameron, the magician, came out for about 10 minutes and did some tricks. He was ably assisted by the gimp from Pulp Fiction. The gimp was stripped to the waist and he and Cameron looked like the were cavorting around between tricks in some kind of S&M inspired body-rubbing dance. Those up close were appreciative of it, but there were no large screen TVs so anyone further back than the first 10 rows (us) saw very little. Sleight of hand just ain't the same when the hands aren't visible. Still it passed some time until Beck, and the S&M dancing was entertaining.

Beck and the four others in the band put on a show that covered his whole career, but about half of it came from the last two albums, which was fine by me as I've had them on high-rotation since buying the tickets. About 2/3 in they changed pace and did some acoustic numbers, including the old Korgis' song 'Everyone's Gotta Learn Sometime'. They also left their instruments behind and came to front stage with what looked like Nintendo Dses to do some scratching, rapping and electronic stuff. This was really cool as the keyboardist jumped down and "played" (screen touched) from within the audience. There was also a shaved head pro-wrestler looking security guy walking around with a video camera that was projecting to a black & white array of lights behind the band that was acting as a low resolution screen. There was much cheering from the audience as they could see themselves up big on the "screen".

My only complaint was that it was a tad short. Beck would have come on around 7:30 PM, and we were well on our way back to Shibuya station by 9 PM. Still, rating the night on quality over quantity, it was fantastic. Plus they played 'Chem Trails', so I was happy. And Mari stayed awake the whole time, so it must have been good.

Noooooo!

Today being March 12th, was the day that new Downloadable Content was to be available for Midnight Club: Los Angeles. Having left the game a month ago at 98% complete (and 69% of Trophies achieved) I was pretty much looking forward to something new for it. The map was to be expanded by 1/3, there was to be something like 26 new vehicles, 2 new vehicle classes, a whole bunch of new races, missions and Trophies.

I tried looking for the DLC this morning on the PlayStation Store, thinking that as it'll probably be slow to download because every other virtual petrolhead would be downloading it too, I'd leave it doing so while I was away at work. Couldn't find it. Oh well, maybe it will be there when I get home.

Same story then, too. A check of Rockstar's official site to see what the problem was had the same info as every other time I visited to fawn over the video of some lowriders cruising around South Central. Available 12th of March. Another visit to the PlayStation store, but still no joy. America must be awake by now, where was my DLC?

So then a google later and I found out the awful truth on some other game site. South Central has, without explanation, been delayed 1 week. Why oh why Rockstar, didn't you update your site with that info?

Well I suppose I can keep playing LittleBigPlanet 1 more week.