Welcome to WeeklyWilson.com, where author/film critic Connie (Corcoran) Wilson avoids totally losing her marbles in semi-retirement by writing about film (see the Chicago Film Festival reviews and SXSW), politics and books----her own books and those of other people. You'll also find her diverging frequently to share humorous (or not-so-humorous) anecdotes and concerns. Try it! You'll like it!

Category: Reviews Page 49 of 63

Laura Caldwell Reviews “The Christmas Cats Chase Christmas Rats” (Dec. 20)

Friday, December 20, 2013

The Christmas Cats Chase Christmas Rats

by Constance Corcoran Wilson,
Art by Gary McCluskey

I am honored today to be a part of the Virtual Author Book Tours for the review of The Christmas Cats Chase Christmas Rats.

In The Christmas Cats Chase Christmas Rats
, the Christmas cats have been sent to an Environmental Lab to control the Christmas rat population. Once there, the cats discover that the Christmas rats are actually nice guys and that they do an important job.

I love Christmas books and my children do too. They look forward to each year after Thanksgiving when I put away their Thanksgiving books and get out their Christmas books. They have standard favorites (they love when their Daddy reads them The Grinch Who Stole Christmas), but they love just about every Christmas book they can get a hand on.

They were excited when The Christmas Cats Chase Christmas Rats by Constance Corcoran Wilson showed up in the mail. Not only do they love Christmas books, but they also have two cats, Mr. Rufus and Miss Baby. They were pleased to see that two of the Christmas Cats matched their cats, one grey and one orange.

My seven year old son, Kile, pronounced it a good book. He is in second grade and thought it was an easy read. He said his favorite part was that he loved the “festive” hats on the cats.

My five year old son, Daniel, loved this book and has had us read it to him many times. He is in Kindergarten and can’t read it for himself yet. He loves the story a lot, but his review is that he believes it is more of a lesson story than a Christmas story. He likes the lesson that we should be nice to everyone.

My three year old daughter, Penelope, also has enjoyed listening to this story several times. She really likes the cats and how they match her own cats. She likes the pictures a lot and likes the moral of the story.

I thought the story was an interesting and unique one. I liked how it was set in an environmental testing lab and explains the important job that the mice do. I also thought the moral of the story, to be nice to everyone, is an important one. I thought the illustrations were cute and clever.

Overall, The Christmas Cats Chase Christmas Rats is a unique and fun story to share with the family. You can enjoy it even after the holidays for its great lesson!

Book Source: Author Constance Corcoran Wilson for review as

Interview with Cyrus A Webb on “The Christmas Cats Chase Christmas Rats”

Check Out Entertainment Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Cyrus Webb Presents on BlogTalkRadio

Virtual Tour Schedule for New Christmas Cats Book

Christmas Cats Chase Christmas Rats Web Tour Schedule

Daddy Blogger Dec 1 Live Video Interview
So Many Precious Books Dec 2 Review & Giveaway
Deal Sharing Aunt Dec 2 Review
Daddy Blogger Dec 3 Review
Mrs. Mommy Booknerds Dec 3 Review
Joy Story Dec 3 Review
Saving For Six Dec 4 Review
Rhodes Review Dec 5 Review & Giveaway
Sincerely Stacie Dec 6 Review
VW Stitcher Dec 9 Review
Dogs Rule Cats Drool Dec 9 Review
Books, Books & More Books Dec 10 Review
Jolly Blogger Dec 10 Review
Practical Frugality Dec 11 Review & Giveaway
The News in Books Dec 11 Review
The News in Books Dec 16 Interview
The Crypto-Capers Review Dec 12 Review
Stories from Unknown Authors Dec 12 Live Interview at 1 pm EST
Carole Rae Random Ramblings Dec 13 Review
Little Lovely Books Dec 13 Review
Bea’s Book Nook Dec 16 Review & Giveaway
Identity Discovery Dec 16 Review
Reviewing Novels on Line Dec 17 Review
Manic Mama of 2 Dec 17 Review
Hott Books Dec 18 Review
Laura’s Reviews Dec 18 Review
Sweeps for Bloggers Dec 19 Review & Giveaway
Allison’s Book Bag Dec 20 Review
Allison’s Book Bag Dec 19 Interview
Sweet Southern Home Dec 23 Review
Chaos Is a Friend of Mine Dec 24 Review & Giveaway

DSC_0900

New Review from “True Review” of RED IS FOR RAGE, (Book #2 in THE COLOR OF EVIL Series)

Red Is for Rage, Book #2 in The Color of Evil series.

Red Is for Rage, Book #2 in The Color of Evil series.


RED IS FOR RAGE:

RED IS FOR RAGE, by Connie Corcoran Wilson (www.redisforrage.com), 256 pp., $10.95. ISBN 978-0-98244-481-8 (click to purchase).

In RED IS FOR RAGE, Pogo the Clown, also known as serial killer Michael Clay, vows revenge on the kid who can “see the future” and who got Clay into a load of trouble in the previous book of the series, THE COLOR OF EVIL.

Pogo is in pursuit of Tad McGreevy, who has a special gift that allows him to see into the future and identify killers – this talent has something to do with a latent sense, “tetrachromatic super vision,” a genetic mutation that allows the 2 percent of those who possess it to see not a million variety of colors (typical with most humans) but 100 million.

From page 201: “Tad was the first male with this special sight. But researchers had not yet discovered that facet of Ted’s super powers, though they eventually would. They were still whispering about ‘the boy who sees the future,’ even though, so far, that was just an untrue attention-grabbing tabloid-style misnomer.”

From page 202: “In Tad’s case, his tetrachromacy had rendered him especially sensitive to colored auras around others and had granted him a certain uncontrolled precognitive ability. In addition to experiencing colors so intensely that it almost hurt, he ‘saw’ the actions of people who possessed one particular aura: gray-green. The evil-doers. They were the only ones.”

Meanwhile, Stevie Scranton, newly rescued from his abuser, doesn’t get along with his dad, Earl. Earl, however, discovers Stevie’s journal, and the abuse he’s received from a Scoutmaster, the school principal, and a whole plethora of pedophiles in Cedar Falls. Earl vows to avenge his son.

Wilson brings to life – in ways unmatched – the quirky, ugly, bedeviled underbelly of suburbia like no other. All the warts, blisters, and physical (not to mention emotional) bruises of common folk and their often irrational behaviors. And Wilson brings to us the many ways in which they learn to love and care for each other, despite the rampant mental illnesses and festering pasts and broken homes. Wilson makes all this count and mixes the ugly and the good in ways that, for moments at least, can turn out to be rewarding for readers.

Though at times the narrative is hurried and sometimes feels like it is listed, almost like an outline, and some characters are simple cardboard cutouts, there are moments of a real gift here for the author. While having an idiot such as Earl Scranton advance the plot (his motivations just don’t feel true), there are deft touches here, especially between Stevie and his “rescued” girlfriend that are quite touching and even inspired.

So I remain happy to follow this series, as Pogo is still hell-bent on finding Tad . . . I am assuming this series will reach a conclusion and I cannot wait to see how Wilson writes it.

Chicago Film Festival Opens with “The Immigrant” on October 10th, 2013

DSC_0817
The 49th Chicago Film Festival opened in Chicago on October 10th, 2013, with a showing of James Gray’s film “The Immigrant.” The festival is the longest-running festival in North America. Director James Gray appeared with his film, which stars Marion Cotillard, Joaquin Phoenix and Jeremy Renner.

The story of a Polish immigrant in 1921 New York City, Marion Cotillard speaks Polish throughout the film. She arrives at Ellis Island with her sister, Magda, and the duo expects to be met by their aunt and uncle. They are fleeing Poland after their parents were murdered in front of them by armed horsemen.

Chaz Ebert, widow of film critic Roger Ebert, is interviewed on the Red Carpet at the opening of the Chicago Film Festival.

Chaz Ebert, widow of film critic Roger Ebert, is interviewed on the Red Carpet at the opening of the Chicago Film Festival.

Unfortunately, Magda is ill with tuberculosis and the officials decree that she must spend 6 months quarantined in the infirmary on Ellis Island. Ewa makes it her mission to wait for her sister. She is initially helped by Joaquin Phoenix’s character of Bruno Weiss, who forces her into prostitution, despite her reluctance. Bruno is attracted to the luminous beauty, but, even though he wants her for himself, he has arranged for her to be put in the position of facing deportation (until he intervenes) and he puts her in this position, despite wanting her for hinself.

The plot thickens when Bruno’s cousin, Emil (Jeremy Renner), a magician who performs as Orlando the Magician, returns to the Bandits’ Roost. Emil has a bad habit of stealing Bruno’s girlfriends. This time, Emil’s intent seems to be no different, causing friction between Bruno and Emil.

Mayor Rahm Emmanuel enters the Chicago Theater for Opening Night of the Chicago Film Festival.

Mayor Rahm Emmanuel enters the Chicago Theater for Opening Night of the Chicago Film Festival.

The performances are routinely fine, although Jeremy Renner is under-used, and his guy liner is off-putting. The recreation of 1921 New York City are outstanding. As the granddaughter of a Dutch woman who immigrated through Ellis Island at the age of 13 (and who has visited Ellis Island), you can literally see what it must have been like.

Mayor Rahm Emmanuel with a Festival judge at the 49th Chicago Film Festival.

Mayor Rahm Emmanuel with a Festival judge at the 49th Chicago Film Festival.

The film feels “old timey.” It is a melodrama with the “eternal triangle” motivating much of it, and the blackmail of Bruno (“Don’t you want to help your sister”) keeping Ewa in the traces at the Bandits’ Roost. As the film ends, Bruno admits that he is responsible for Ewa’s entire situation and says, “You hate me and I don’t blame you for hating me.” The entire film focuses on “The things we do to survive” and emphasizes the message, “You’re desperate. We’ve all been desperate.”

The festival this year is dedicated to recently-deceased film critic Roger Ebert, and his wife, Chaz, spoke and attended with her children. Also attending was Director James Gray.

The Weinstein Brothers are distributing the film, and James Gray (“Two Lovers,” “We Own the Night”) is scheduled to direct a space epic (“To the Stars”) in mid-2014.

Cate Blanchett’s Portrait of ‘Blue Jasmine’ Is Pitch Perfect in New Woody Allen Film


The first bona fide Oscar-caliber female performance of the year is Cate Blanchett’s turn in Woody Allen’s “Blue Jasmine.” Probably based on the Bernie Madoff massive pyramid scheme scandal, the film examines what Mrs. Madoff may (or may not) be experiencing, now that she’s as poor as the rest of us.

There are several messages that come through loud and clear, including this one: “When Jasmine doesn’t want to know something, she’s got a habit of looking the other way.” As Jasmine’s step-son, Danny, asks her, “Did you not suspect anything, or did you not care.”

Cate Blanchett in Woody Allen's "Blue Jasmine."

Cate Blanchett in Woody Allen’s “Blue Jasmine.”


When Hal French, the Bernie Madoff-like crook, played expertly by Alec Baldwin, is arrested and imprisoned, Jasmine (whose real name is Jeanette) loses it. Most of the film, we see Jasmine teetering on the brink of a complete breakdown. She even admits to having had some of “Edison’s medicine” (electro-shock treatments) and downs Xanax as though they are breath mints. Jasmine is a totally manufactured persona without an ounce of genuine sincerity in either her words or deeds.

After her husband’s arrest, Jasmine is so broke that she is forced to move in with her sister, Ginger (Sally Hawkins), a blue collar cashier at a grocery store. Jasmine tells Ginger, “I’m dead broke. I’m worse than tapped out,” but then reveals she flew from New York City to San Francisco (to move in with Jasmine) first class. When asked (by Ginger) how it is possible for Jasmine to be destitute and yet fly first class, Jasmine replies, “I don’t know. I just did,” which p sums up Jasmine’s general attitude towards spending money. (She quotes her dead husband, “As Hal said, it’s not the money, it’s the money.”)

Both girls were adopted and raised by the same family, but Ginger reveals that she ran away while Jasmine was the family favorite. Jasmine constantly references her short-lived college career in Anthropology at B.U. and spouts things to her two nephews like, “With wealth comes responsibility.” One of her small, noisy ADD nephews says, “Mom said you used to be okay and then you got crazy.” Jasmine replies, “There’s only so many traumas you can withstand before you take to the streets,” referencing her disconcerting habit of talking to herself in public places, as deranged mental patients often do. (Her seat mate on an airplane ride says, “She couldn’t stop babbling about her life.”)

Another underlying message is that Jasmine has brought all this on herself. She mentions this in a car ride with ostensible fiancé Dwight Westlake (Peter Saarsgard) and we see previous actions on Jasmine’s part that reinforce this point-of-view.

The consensus: Jasmine is a phoney, as was her husband and as was her entire ivory tower life of privilege. The “real” people in the film recognize this, and that includes Andrew Dice Clay as Ginger’s ex-husband, Augie; Chili (Bobby Cannavale of “Boardwalk Empire”), who intends to marry Ginger; and Jasmine’s own step-son, Danny (Alden Ehrenreich). Jasmine looks every bit the affluent Park Avenue socialite, with her Louis Vuitton luggage, her pearls, Chanel jacket and belt, Hermes bag and expensive Vivienne Westwood shoes. Ironically, she gives her young nephews a lecture about working hard and tipping big, when she, herself, is dead broke. At the same time she is talking a good game, she initially rejects a job as a dentist’s receptionist because it is “too menial.” Cate Blanchett’s Jasmine seems to be a direct descendant of Vivien Leigh’s character in “A Streetcar Named Desire,” who has always depended on the kindness of strangers and looked down upon the little people.

There are still the hilarious Woody Allen lines and funny situations in the film, despite its serious insights and subtext. (To Ginger, re Chili: “There’s a world of men out there who’d never think of ripping a phone out of the wall.”) Placing Jasmine in a world that she has not inhabited in years, populated by “the little people” who actually work for a living, is a recipe for humor.

She is forced to fend off the unwanted advances of ordinary males like Eddie (Max Casella), a friend of Chili’s, who gets great lines like: “You get a bad clam, you’ll wish you’d never been born,” and “I had a friend that used to do that (stare into space), but there was something wrong with him. Epileptic, I think.” As she attempts to cope with the rigors of a real job, Jasmine has one elderly dental patient who rejects the appointment time offered saying, “That’s my colonoscopy prep day, and it’s always very special” with a dreamy expression on her face. You can’t help but smile. The expressions on Blanchett’s face in fending off the advances of ordinary suitors who are not wealthy is priceless. (Comedian Louis C.K. plays one such ordinary suitor seeking her sister Ginger’s affections, Al Munsinger.)
All of the supporting players are spot-on. It’s refreshing to see Andrew Dice Clay articulate “the common man’s” emotions at being swindled of their hard-earned money, saying, “Some people, they don’t put things behind so easily.” Peter Saarsgard as a promising suitor who is with the State Department is equally good in the part of the white knight Jasmine thinks might rescue her from her new reality.

Sally Hawkins, Alec Baldwin, Bobby Cannavale, Andrew Dice Clay, Louis C.K.—all are perfect in their parts. But the actor who seems to have a lock on an Oscar nomination is Cate Blanchett’s unhinged socialite-turned-pauper. She may well have brought all this upon herself, but her totally convincing turn as a woman on the brink of a breakdown (or trying to recover from one) is Oscar-worthy.

Ashton Kutcher Scores As Steve Jobs in Bio-Pic “Jobs”


In the opening scene of “Jobs,” the resemblance of star Ashton Kutcher to the ailing Steve Jobs was so great that I thought it was archival film footage–-until the camera moved in for a close-up and we heard Kutcher’s voice. Dressed in the “uniform” that Jobs almost always wore (a black long-sleeved Issey Muyake mock turtleneck, Levi’s 501 blue jeans and New Balance 991 sneakers) Kutcher captures the physical man, including his odd walking gait, as he stepped onstage in 2001 to introduce the Ipod . Say what you will about the over-long movie (2 hours, 20 mins.), this is Kutcher’s finest hour as an actor. He does a great job with material that may—or may not—-be totally historically accurate.

Steve Wozniak weighed in regarding Jobs on the blog Gizmodo on August 16, 2013:
“I saw the (Jobs) movie tonight. I thought the acting throughout was good. I was attentive and entertained, but not greatly enough to recommend the movie. One friend who is in the movie said he didn’t want to watch fiction so he wasn’t interested in seeing it.

I suspect a lot of what was wrong with the film came from Ashton’s own image of Jobs. Ashton made some disingenuous and wrong statements about me recently (including my supposedly having said that the movie was bad, which was probably Ashton believing pop press headlines) and that I didn’t like the movie because I’m paid to consult on another one. These are examples of Ashton still being in character. Either film would have paid me to consult, but the Jobs one already had a script written. I can’t take that creative leadership from someone else. And I was turned off by the Jobs script. But I still hoped for a great movie.

As to compromising principles for money, I will add one detail left out of the film. When Apple decided not to reward early friends who helped, I gave them large blocks of my own stock. Because it was right. And I made it possible for 80 other employees to get some stock prior to the IPO so they could participate in the wealth. I felt bad for many people I know well who were portrayed wrongly in their interactions with Jobs and the company. The movie ends pretty much where the great Jobs finally found product success (the iPod) and changed so many of our lives. I’m grateful to Steve for his excellence in the I-era, and his contribution to my own life of enjoying great products, but this movie portrays him having had those skills in earlier times.”

Steve Wozniak is portrayed by Josh Gad (“The Book of Mormon”). Gad also does a stellar job portraying the idiosyncratic partner to the hard-driving Jobs. The scene where Woz (quoted above) tearfully tells Jobs he is leaving the company they built together is as fine a piece of supporting actor work as Noah Hill’s Oscar-nominated turn opposite Brad Pitt in “Moneyball.” (“Not everyone has an agenda, Steve. It’s about yourself. You’re the beginning and the end of your own world and it’s gotta’ be sad and lonely.”)

The film makes it clear that Woz was the technical computing genius and Jobs the marketing guru. In fact, Apple executive Bud Tribble even coined a term for the Jobs magic in 1981: the “reality distortion field.”
What does that mean? It refers to the ability to convince himself and others to believe almost anything is possible, using charm, charisma, bravado, hyperbole, marketing savvy, appeasement and persistence. Jobs was the consummate salesman, but he was also a visionary. Back in 1995, eighteen years ago, in an interview with David Morrow of the Computerworld Smithsonian-Awards Program (April 20, 1995) Jobs said: “The Internet is the one bright spot of hope in the computer industry for some serious innovation to happen at a rapid pace…It is going to radically change the way goods and services are discovered, sold, and delivered not only in this country, but around the world.”

The real Steve Jobs (left) and Ashton Kutcher as Jobs (right).

The real Steve Jobs (left) and Ashton Kutcher as Jobs (right).


The film opens with Jobs introducing the Apple Ipod at a 2001 Apple Town Hall meeting, then flashes back to 1974
, portraying Jobs’ days as a drop-out on campus at Reed College. He’s still hanging around taking classes that interest him, such as a calligraphy class. He tells a dean, played by James Woods, that “higher education comes at the expense of experience” and he and a friend travel to India for seven months.

But Steve Jobs sees the future of personal computers
and announces to the few who work with him at first to create this new device, “We’re working in a market that doesn’t even exist yet.”

Jobs and Woz design computer boards in his father’s garage and Jobs finds a small businessman willing to purchase 400 units for $500 per unit.
It isn’t until Mike Markaloe (Dermot Mulroney) gives the small start-up group $90,000 in seed money that things really take off, however, and at that moment we see that Jobs can be a shrewd negotiator. In fact, he is portrayed as money-grubbing when he calls Steve Wozniak in to help him with the technical challenge of meeting a deadline for the computer, telling him that the pay is $700 when it is really $5,000. With the task complete, Jobs gives the accommodating Wozniak $350 and quietly pockets the lion’s share himself. Jobs never joined in the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett pledge to donate their fortunes to charity after their death, and was supposedly worth $8.3 billion in 2010, the 42nd wealthiest American and #17 on Forbes’ magazine World’s Most Powerful People.

From their humble beginnings in his father’s garage (the original Jobs home in Palo Alto was used for filming), the Jobs film recycles truths from the master like these: “If we wanna’ be great, we gotta’ risk it, too. I would rather gamble on our mission than on a ‘Me, too’ product.” He says at one point, “In your life, you only get to do so many things, and we’ve chosen to do this, so let’s make it great.” Later: “We’re selling it (the Apple) as a tool for the mind. The belief in the possible, the limitless. Come with me and change the world.”

The chintzy side of Jobs is portrayed and his egomaniacal streak is clearly visible. He is temperamental and fires people seemingly at random. The project manager for the Macintosh, Jeff Raskin, said of him, “He would have made a good King of France.” He is told by his board, “You are your own worst enemy and this company’s.” Jobs wanted to “create something useful that you care about.” His drive and passion for excellence, however, are not shared under CEO John Scully (formerly of Pepsi) and he is forced out in a power play. Jobs went on to start a smaller company called NeXt. It would be eleven years— (especially rocky years for the company he co-founded) —before then CEO Gil Amelio (Kevin Dunn) would come calling to lure Jobs back to Apple as a consultant.

Steve returns to the company he founded, but ultimately forces out both Amelio and his first initial investor/ backer, Mike Markaloe
(Dermot Mulroney), an act of revenge for not backing Jobs in the coup that ousted him from the company he founded eleven years earlier. Steve Jobs’ mentality: “You’re either with me or against me.”

Jobs’ personal life is largely ignored in this bio-pic. There is a passing reference to his being given up at birth for adoption , but it’s very casual, pictured as a small remark made in passing to his girlfriend while dropping acid (“Who has a baby and then throws it away like it’s nothing?”) In real life, Jobs found he had a biological sister and became close to her later in life, but he remained estranged from his biological father even when his father tried to seek him out, and there is no mention of his father or his sister in the film.

The remark regarding throwing away a child seems ironic in the context of the film’s revelation that for years Jobs denied his own biological daughter, Lisa–-conceived with his first girlfriend. (Later, Lisa lives with Jobs and his wife Laurene Powell Jobs (Abby Brammell).
Most of the lines in the film are taken from interviews and statements by Jobs himself and were woven into a screenplay by screenwriter Matt Whiteley. The film was directed by Joshua Michael Stern.

It’s a fascinating character study of a man whom students between the ages of 16 and 26, (asked in a survey to name the greatest innovator of all time), ranked second only to Thomas Edison. And it may serve to repair Ashton Kutcher’s image in the same way that Ben Affleck finally distanced himself from flops like “Gigli” and “Pearl Harbor” by directing and starring in “The Town” and this year’s Best Picture,

“Paranoia,” (Based on Joseph Finder Novel) Fails Thriller Test

OPENING SCENE
The opening sequence in “Paranoia” is promising: the hero (Liam Hemsworth as Adam Cassidy) running down an alley. That’s about as much action, tension and “paranoia” as you’re going to get in this film, so enjoy it There are interminable scenes of computer uploads. Technological babble fouls the air at every turn. You can almost feel time passing, never to return. (That’s an hour and 40 minutes of my life I’ll never get back.)

The plot of “Paranoia,” (based on the excellent Joseph Finder novel), has Hemsworth (Adam Cassidy), blackmailed by the villainous Gary Oldman (Nicholas Wyatt) into spying on his former business partner Harrison Ford (Jock Goddard) and stealing his arch enemy’s plans for a revolutionary new electronic device. It’s all about the world of high-tech big corporations and espionage—spying at the highest levels of power.

WHERE’s WALDO? Or WHERE’S/WHO’S THE HERO?

Top to right, clockwise: Harrison Ford, Gary Oldman, Amber Heard and Liam Hemsworth in "Paranoia."

Top to right, clockwise: Harrison Ford, Gary Oldman, Amber Heard and Liam Hemsworth in “Paranoia.”

It’s hard to root for anybody in this film. All three leads do pretty reprehensible things. Hemsworth isn’t 100% admirable, and Oldman and Ford are involved in a longstanding blood feud, with each trying to one-up or buy out the other. The script’s articulated wisdom: “Everybody steals. Everybody lies. There’s no right or wrong. There’s just winning or losing.”

Why is “Paranoia,” the new movie based on Joseph Finder’s excellent plot so lifeless? There are long sequences that plod along as though expert EMTs are working hard to resuscitate the victim. Finally, the frustrated EMTs shake their heads and pull the sheet over the deceased’s face, acknowledging that this one didn’t make it. Dead-on-arrival.

Scene to illustrate: Adam Cassidy (Liam Hemsworth) tries to use a bogus latex fingerprint to gain access to the 38th floor’s top-secret vault in order to steal the heavily-guarded prototype. He tries to enter with the fingerprint identification gadget three times.

LiamHemsworth I hoped Liam would quit after one try. I was rooting for him to go home, take off his shirt, go for another dip in the pool, and then aimlessly walk around in a towel some more. [I also doubt if any top-secret object is stored in a vault and displayed exactly this way; I saw the Secret Service drag “the Red Phone” into a restaurant during a presidential campaign in a plain black box, and THAT object could have started a nuclear war!]

THE SCRIPT VERSUS THE ACTING

Liam Hemsworth in "Paranoia."

Liam Hemsworth in “Paranoia.”

Why didn’t the adaptation by screenwriters Jason Dean Hall and Barry L. Levy work? The words must be there on the page in order for actors to deliver. And the author’s intent must hew as closely as possible to the ideas expressed in the plot. For the most part, in this script, the great lines (and thoughts) are MIA (missing in action).

Liam Hemsworth in "Paranoia."

Liam Hemsworth in “Paranoia.”

With actors the caliber of Richard Dreyfuss (Oscar winner for “The Goodbye Girl”), Harrison Ford and Gary Oldman, not to mention handsome Australian actor Liam Hemsworth (brother of “Thor”, boyfriend in “The Hunger Games” and sometime fiancé of Miley Cyrus) and attractive female love interest Amber Heard, there is more than enough talent to deliver a tense thriller.

I can’t fault the acting (although others have), with but two exceptions: Josh Holloway’s FBI Agent Gamble was weak and Julian McMahon’s (“Nip/Tuck”) hired hitman Miles Meachum was laughable. The music was not my favorite film score, but the sets were appropriately high-tech (although Philadelphia represents midtown Manhattan at some points), the costuming was okay and there were some killer cars.

EYE CANDY

Liam Hemsworth’s acting has been most often singled out for criticism, with comparisons to the vapid blankness of Taylor Lautner or Keanu Reeves. I disagree. My problem with Hemsworth’s role involved the inordinate number of times he is required to appear sans clothing, in bed or elsewhere. He’s a hunky guy; no doubt about it. But does the plot really require him to stroll about in a towel or hit the pool that often, even if he IS eye candy?

One critic actually suggested that cutting Hemsworth totally out of the movie might have made for a better film, as we could enjoy the two old lions (Harrison Ford and Gary Oldman) battling it out onscreen as they last did in 1997’s “Air Force One.” This would gut Joseph Finder’s complicated plot. The point is that too much experienced talent is wasted. [My suggestion: read the book.]

GARY OLDMAN, HARRISON FORD & RICHARD DREYFUSS

Oldman and Ford don’t have that many good lines or much to do; therefore, they mainly chew the scenery. The acting from Dreyfuss is actually more engaging, especially in the touching scene when Hemsworth, sitting on the front stoop with the sick old guy (emphysema) who badly needs a haircut, insensitively says he doesn’t want to turn out like his old man. Dreyfuss’ face conveys the hurt he feels without any dialogue. Looking at Dreyfuss and Hemsworth, side by side, you feel that, in addition to a haircut, Dreyfuss needs a Maury Povich paternity test.

COMPUTER NERDS RULE

I’m also growing impatient with the trope in movies where gigantic corporations apparently employ only the dimmest programmers in the world. The big corporations never hire the best and brightest. Some nerdy outcast (Lucas Till playing Kevin, this time), using a computer he may have made out of a paper cup, string and tin foil, is WAAY smarter than anybody the big company employs. The plucky upstart (Lisbeth Salander, anyone?) outwits them all. [Oh, really? Then, why is Kevin unemployed and looking for work for most of the film?]

PLOT POINTS THAT FAIL

That plot point aside, many have pointed out that when an employee is terminated, his credit card from the company is immediately de-activated, which would play hell with a scene set in a New York City nightclub where a disgruntled Adam leads his team on a $16,000 drinking binge on the company’s dime. This party was a big change from the book, where Adam is doing a “good deed” in throwing a retirement party for Jonesie, a loading dock guy, so that this sub-set of workers, who never get to enjoy “the good life” at the top, can have a night to remember.

The book’s original motivations for young Adam (Hemsworth) were slightly more admirable. His actions were more in keeping with the necessary “good guy” image of a hero, rather than having Adam simply go rogue in a fit of pique. In the novel, Adam’s going off the reservation—while impulsive and certain to cause dire repercussions— seem generous and less criminal. In the movie, Adam’s actions just come off as wrong and petty.

But, of course, watching Adam’s “team” of handsome young people dancing and popping champagne corks was probably deemed cinematically superior to watching a bunch of old farts (Jonesie has a wife of 42 years, Esther) get down to a Jamaican reggae group, as per the book’s opening chapter. The trouble may have started with scripted changes like that, because Adam’s actions, although wrong in either case, now paint him in an entirely different light as a spoiled brat angry that the Big Boss (Gary Oldman) didn’t like or carefully listen to his sales pitch. He’s a small child petulantly giving the finger to the boss and saying, “I’ll show you!” not the good guy throwing a nice going-away party for a deserving retiree.

THE O.J. FACTOR

For me, the film fails to deliver, in part, because of the O.J. Factor. The O.J. Factor defined: Remember when the prosecution introduced massive amounts of DNA evidence in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, causing the jury to zone out? After so many monologues or dialogues about computer chips (blah, blah, blah), the audience’s eyes begin to glaze and we lose interest. [This is especially true if you can’t even add a new number to your fancy cell phone, but even tech savvy youngsters, especially those who are pining for a car crash per second, will find the droning on about technology a bit much].

Never has technology and industrial espionage seemed so dull. Films like Tom Cruise’s 2002 “The Minority Report” illustrate crisper, more interesting ways to illustrate the wonders of technology. When one company ruthlessly murders programmers, the audience gets to see none of that exciting stuff. We get a quick peek at a black-and-white photo of a corpse with a sheet over the body. (And this particular character actually had a small speaking part earlier!) Why not show us some of THAT action (i.e., how the poor sap met his end) rather than miring us in miasma?

DIRECTOR ROBERT LUKETIC

Is the director the problem? The film is directed by Robert Luketic. Luketic’s best previous film was “Legally Blonde,” a Reese Witherspoon vehicle. He also directed “Monster-in-Law.” One critic wondered what the film might have been like if director Brian DePalma had been hired to build the tension that doesn’t seem to exist—even in what are supposed to be thrilling moments. There were opportunities, but they were not seized. As you sit in the theater, it feels as though you are caught in a time warp. The film is often static, with little conflict beyond Oldman’s ranting in a thick British accent about hotter water for his tea. The onscreen chemistry between Hemsworth and Heard is non-existent. Hardly riveting stuff.

TIMELY TOPICS

The revelation of the NSA wiretapping and data gathering of innocent civilians, as well as the sub-plot involving expensive health care in the U.S. and how it is unaffordable to the average American (especially young >Americans) should have been home runs for the screenwriters to integrate into the script. Lord knows, they tried, using Frank Cassidy’s (Richard Dreyfuss’) emphysema as the entrée to the health care/excessive cost debate.

The film has been a work-in-progress for some time; the recent and still-ongoing NSA flap should have been as timely as the meltdown at Three Mile Island was for “The China Syndrome” in 1979. Alas, even this helpful confluence of fact and fiction did not resonate.

CONCLUSION

Amber Heard’s character says, at one point, “The expectation is so high that I can’t ever really succeed.” For me, (having read Joseph Finder’s ingeniously plotted and well-written novel), I was disappointed that this movie didn’t succeed, despite heroic and expensive efforts to infuse life into “Paranoia.” Past the opening sequence, the film is on life support. Somebody or something either tripped over or pulled the plug.

“World War Z”: Brad Pitt Takes on Zombie Apocalypse–and Filming Problems

“World War Z,” a zombie film written by the son of Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft (Max Brooks) and starring Brad Pitt opened in theaters today after a tumultuous series of filming experiences. First, there was a bidding war with Leonardo DeCaprio’s production company. Pitt’s 11-year-old Plan B company won the book rights in 2006 for $1 million. In the book, survivors of a zombie Apocalypse give first-person accounts of their experiences. That idea quickly went out the window, as did several screenwriters and production people.

Marc Forster, the Director of the film, was quoted in Vanity Fair June, 2013 issue saying, “We started shooting the thing before we locked down how it was going to end up, and it didn’t turn out the way we wanted it to.” [That’s a little like your 10-year-old, having just burned down the house, saying, “We wanted to light a candle to have a little bit of light, but it set fire to the curtains and burned the house down.”]

Since 2006, when Paramount optioned the book, four writers have been hired, an experienced producer and Oscar-winning visual effects artist (“Gladiator” helmsman John Nelson ) left, and an expensive 12-minute climactic Russian battle scene was rewritten, scaled down and reshot, moving the budget ever upward. (Sources say it probably cost at least $250 million to make and will need to make $400 million, worldwide, to break even). All this in the name of creating a new franchise for the studio, since Paramount lost its business partnerships with DreamWorks and DreamWorks Animation when Walt Disney bought Marvel in 2009.

Marc Forster, the 43-year-old German/Swiss director, seemed like an unlikely choice to helm a big budget over-the-top film. His previous credits were smaller films like “Finding Neverland,” and “Stranger than Fiction,” although he did have the dubious distinction of directing “Quantum of Solace,” a Bond film not held in high esteem.

First script submitted (by J. Michael Straczynski, well-regarded screenwriter of horror and science fiction scripts, known for TV’s “Babylon 5”) was rejected. Straczynski was quoted this way in the Vanity Fair article: “Marc wanted to make a big, huge action movie that wasn’t terribly smart and had big, huge action pieces in it. If all you wanted to do was an empty-headed Rambo-versus-the-zombies action film, why option this really elegant, smart book?”

A good question.

The ending was eventually reshot to make the main thrust of the film focus on Brad Pitt’s desire to reunite with his family. Personally, the Russian ending originally planned sounded interesting. It was filmed in Red Square with the undead fighting an army of thousands of soldier slaves forced by the Russians to lop off the heads of the zombies with shovel-like weapons called lobos (short for “lobotomizers.”) I’m not giving anything away with that grim bit, because those scenes (12 minutes) ended up on the cutting room floor.

My very own “World War Z” poster from Opening Night.

Shooting began on June 20, 2011 in Malta (an island south of Sicily) and V.F. informs us that over 45 tons of equipment and props were brought in in 25 full shipping containers for the three-week shoot. As many as 1,500 people were on set some days. All sorts of logistical headaches followed with the person in charge eventually quoted this way, “The movie started out small, then grew into a monster,” and “We were feeding half the city.” (You will notice that the scenes shot AFTER the Israel sequence, set in the World Health Organization lab, are considerably scaled down in terms of how many people are involved and special effects costs.)

The first big action sequence of the plot begins with a Philadelphia scene (actually shot in Glasgow, Scotland, because it was cheaper) in which Pitt and family are caught in a car amongst a crowd menaced by zombies. Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt’s character) is a hot-shot ex-troubleshooter for the U.N. who is lured back into service to help fight the plague of the undead by promises of safety for his family (Brad’s wife is played by “The Killing’s” female cop, Mereille Enos.)

First, Brad is off to North Korea taking along a 23-year-old specialist in epidemics who turns out to be particularly hapless. He accidentally offs himself early in the film, but not before pontificating about epidemics: “Mother Nature is a serial killer. No one’s better. Like all serial killers, she wants to get caught.” North Korea has met the challenge of the zombie invaders quite creatively, by pulling all the teeth out of 23 million people within 24 hours. (“Otherwise, they’re bitin’ everything like fat kids love Twix,” says a soldier who seems immune to the hordes.)

Israel recognized the zombie problem, becoming the first to know and the first to act. They built a Salvation Wall, but then fail to properly supervise the wall after it is built. Says the Israeli hot-shot Brad has come to consult, “The trouble with most people is that they don’t believe something can happen till it does.” It’s not long after making that prophetic statement that the wall defense develops major issues. (Ironic.)

The globe-trotting hero carries on, heading for the WHO (World Health Organization). This destination was added after the Israel sequences instead of the film‘s original Red Square Russian sequences, which were scrapped so that a more character-driven ending could be developed. Some of the scenes of Brad en route to WHO you’ve probably seen in trailers as an airplane sequence. Pitt does so much traveling that the movie almost becomes a giant game of “Where’s Waldo?” It was an exciting action-packed, suspense-filled game, for the most part, so carry on, Brad. Maybe plug a few plot holes (Salvation Wall supervision being one) and aim for the noggins of those fast-moving creatures. Plus, don’t forget to carry your weapon at all times. (Fireman’s axe: don’t leave home without it.)

The Balkans were not “berry, berry” good to Brad and company. The Hungarian Anti-Terrorist organization seized weapons meant for filming with claims that a crucial pin needed to be removed to render them harmless. Dede Gardner (Pitt production partner) said, “It is a very normal hiccup on a big production. Things like that happen every day.” The Hungarian Counter-terrorism unit did drop the case after four months, but, as Paramount spokesman Adam Goodman said of the Budapest finances, “When you are that deep in production and your budget has taken hits along the way, you put it back on the filmmakers and say, ‘You’ve got to absorb those hits and figure out how to make the best with what you have here.’” Therefore, underground prison factory scene (escape sequence for Pitt): out the window. Likewise, water gag with cold water dumped on zombies: ultimately not in film. It was cold enough filming, as it began at night about nine o’clock and the temperatures sank below freezing, with hundreds of extras pretending to fight with zombies that were added later via computer. As second-unit director Simon Crane is quoted in the Vanity Fair article, “We had 750 extras not used to being on a film set, fighting an imaginary opponent.”

The talk is that the first film was to be Number One in a trilogy. Hopefully, it hasn’t run out of steam right out of the gate. “World War Z” was suspenseful, scary, and exciting in 3D, and I’d still like to see those twelve minutes of Red Square film. I find the back-story regarding filming problems as interesting as the actual film. But any time they send Brad Pitt to my theater, in person, to hand out tee shirts (this actually happened in Chicago and elsewhere), count me in.

It’s an exciting film throughout, although it is interesting to watch the numbers (of extras) shrink as the film progresses, which does not in any way detract from the suspense the fairly predictable solution to the world’s zombie plague problem provides by film’s finale.

Kudos to the tooth-clacking zombie in the World Health Organization lab and let’s get this bad boy trilogy back on the road with better supervision/leadership in the future. Quote from Director Marc Forster (Vanity Fair, June issue), “You are having a meltdown while you are
working. So, I don’t usually know what is going on.” Then he added, “For me, it’s like, I had a good time on this film. I didn’t feel like it was a big drama. I feel like, yes, the ending didn’t work. Yes, we all thought it was going to work. Yes, we decided it’s not the right ending. Yes, we decided to change it and spend more money. Yes, it never happened to me before on any of my other movies. But I think this movie is more original and bigger and more special than I have ever done before.”

“Superman,” the Movie: Is It Any Good?

Zack Snyder, the director of the new “Superman,”(2007’s “300”) teamed up with Christopher Nolan (“Memento,” “The Dark Knight Rises”) and screenwriter David S. Goyer to film (yet another—the 9th ) version of the Man of Steel, ‘Superman” with British actor Henry Cavell (“The Tudors,” “The Immortal”) in the title role. Jon Peters—(long-ago love of Barbra Streisand—executive produced.

Snyder, talking with Carson Daley on Daley’s show, predicted that this would be “a Superman you haven’t seen” saying that, “You don’t have to work too hard to get the subtext.” He laid out the symbolism: Biblical allusions, the adoption motif, the immigrant “stranger-in-a-strange-land” theme, which fits because the original creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, were first-generation children of immigrants. In real life, the British-born Cavell is only thirty years old, but it is specifically stated that Clark Kent is thirty-three as Superman, the supposed age at death of Jesus Christ in Christian theology.

Des Moines-born Brandon Routh of the 2006 film is gone from this reboot. In all fairness, I thought they were both fine at filling the suit, but Routh was soundly criticized as being too meek and mild in his 2006 appearance.

I did not expect much, after seeing the “Superman” trailers. But anything Michael Shannon does, I want to see. He is one of the most talented actors working today…a young Sean Penn. (See “The Iceman” for a superb tour de force performance this year).

Here are my impressions of the film.

Russell Crowe as Superman’s father Kal-El.

Russell Crowe in the role Marlon Brando once portrayed as Jor-El, Superman’s real father, channels Richard Burton and gives the role, complete with holograph flashback appearances, some gravitas. There’s a semi-amusing conversation between bad guy General Zod (Michael Shannon) and Kal-El (Russell Crowe) where Crowe says, to Shannon, “You’re talking about genocide” (in claiming Earth for Kryptonians) and Shannon sarcastically responds, “Yes, and I’m debating its merits with a ghost.”

Clark Kent’s earthly parents are well-played by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane. His love interest, Lois Lane, is Amy Adams. The “bad guy” is General Zod, played by today’s version of Bruce Dern,Michael Shannon (“Take Shelter,” “Mud,” “The Iceman,” Oscar-nominee for “Revolutionary Road”). Laurence Fishbourne is Perry White, Lois’ boss at the Daily Planet in Metropolis. Christopher Melloni (“Law and Order”) is the military hot-shot who eventually comes to accept the fact that Superman is there to help, not hurt, mankind.

Michael Shannon as General Zod in “Superman.”

The idea that the inhabitants of Krypton have abused and, therefore, destroyed their own planet is paramount, with a nod to Earth’s global warming and our own abuse and misuse of Earth’s non-renewable core minerals. Krypton’s core has been plundered. This has led to a dying planet. (Relocation to other planets as a solution isn’t as far-out as it sounds; physicist Stephen Hawkins has suggested it may be the answer to Earth’s problems.)

Comments on the current state of our democracy: “These lawmakers with their endless debates will be our end,” says General Zod. (Agreed). We can also sign on to the line, directed at the rulers, “You’re a pack of fools. Every last one of you.” Kal-El, Superman’s father (Russell Crowe), just before sending his baby boy off to Earth (a la Marlon Brando in the 1978 version), before Krypton self-destructs says, “Make a better world than ours.”

“Superman” (2013) on set.

Later, Kevin Costner as Clark Kent’s Earthly father tells his young son, “You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is—good character or bad—that man is going to change the world.” There is a “fundamental belief in the power of each person to be a force for good.” Even General Zod’s statement (“I have a duty to my people and I will not allow anyone to prevent me from carrying it out.”) has to be pondered in the wake of eight years of the second Bush administration. (Rumsfeld and Cheney with more hair and a better physique?)

The over-riding idea is “Can you imagine how people on this planet would react if they knew there was someone like this out there?” Followed by the comment,” People are afraid of what they don’t understand.” We do get the message, loud and clear, that “You are not alone. [At one point, it even is beamed onto television sets by the evil General Zod.]

Another theme touched upon by the screenplay is that freedom of choice is too precious to be taken out of the hands of individuals and decided for them by others in power. Children on Krypton are born in a large Genesis Chamber and destined to be worker bees or leaders from birth. Choosing your own future is not an option. This concept of free choice disappearing is not unique in science fiction. It was touched upon in last year’s “Cloud Atlas.” It’s been in circulation as long ago as George Orwell, and on film in Ethan Hawke’s 1997 film “Gattaca” and twenty years prior in “Logan’s Run” (1976). It’s certainly surfaced in politics and, most recently, in the spirited debate about the Patriot Act and how it has led to an invasion of citizens’ civil rights.

Observations: 1) All the Krypton planes are modeled on insects. They resemble dragonflies or regular house flies. There is a scene straight out of “Avatar” where Russell Crowe hops aboard a dragonfly and flies around.
2) There is a “gunfight at the OK Corral” mood in a face-off that star Henry Cavell has with the seemingly unstoppable gang from his home planet of Krypton. The Krypton Crew reminded me of Arnold Schwarzenegger in “The Terminator.” They take a licking but keep on ticking. (Credit to Timex)
3) The movie was filmed in Plano, Illinois, and also in California (Edwards Air Force Base), with Vancouver (water tank) and Wellington, New Zealand (special effects) mentioned prominently in the credits. I was just in Wellington, New Zealand. The town is so small that, from the looks of the numbers of people who worked on the film, (presumably technical hold-overs from “The Hobbit” films), it must have provided employment for around 2/3 of the town’s population.
4) Amy Adams knows that Clark Kent IS Superman from the get-go.
5) Zack Snyder went for “energy, realism and speed” in the flight sequences involving Superman. He wanted it to seem as though it was difficult to capture modern-day Superman in flight, whereas in the previous films, he was on wires. Hand-held camera, shaky composition. Whatever that effect required. My companion found this offputting. I admit I was not particularly impressed with close-up scenes of the Man of Steel holding his arms out and grinning as he flew. However, it is different from previous Superman filmed versions, whether they were television shows or movies. (“Superman” has, after all, been filmed in ’52, ’78, ’80, ’83, ’87, ’93, ’96, and ’06, which is nine different filmed versions of the old comic book—original copies of which, in mint condition, would now go for more than $2 million!)

During an interview on Carson Daley’s late-night show, Snyder admitted that they made star Henry Cavell put on the original, 40-year-old Christopher Reeves “crusty old suit” for his try-out, and nobody laughed when he suited up. Cavell added the information that he trained for ten months to get in shape: two hours a day for four months, followed by six months of non-stop training while shooting.

Director Snyder declared that Superman is “the first Superhero and the most elemental…He’s basically a god on Earth.” But Snyder also emphasized that, “like all of us, he’s trying to find his place in the world.”

That, for me, was one of the more difficult tasks in following the story. When the film opens on a boat fishing in deep water with Cavell aboard, I was scratching my head and saying, “I guess we’re not in Kansas any more.” I also enjoyed the line, uttered by Superman, when he says, “I grew up in Kansas. That’s about as American as it gets.” (Nod to President Obama’s great great-grandmother, who had Wichita, Kansas ties).

Clark is shown in a variety of job settings, including his stint as a fisherman (which leads to a Deep Water Horizon-type rescue), a job in a bar, and a final scene where he comes aboard as a reporter at the Daily Planet, which leads me to believe that the film-makers had already decided this was to be a franchise that would have sequels. (Apparently, nine is not the magic number of film remakes of the source material.) All the jumping around was sometimes difficult to follow, but it did add to the theme of Superman trying to find himself in life and in our world.

There are some lines that made me laugh. “You know they say it’s all downhill after the first kiss” was one (after Lois and Clark finally kiss). I also enjoyed the star-struck female highway patrol officer who tells her commanding officer, “I just think he’s kinda’ hot.”

I was also struck by Henry Cavell’s (“Tudors,” “Immortals”) facial resemblance to a young John Travolta once he suits up. (Prior to that, not so much.) His vocal timbre was good as the Superhero. Eye candy in his “S”suit for sure. (We learn that the “S” means “hope” on his planet of birth.)

I wondered about the “suiting up for the big fight” sequence with General Zod. Michael Shannon seems to have a vastly superior suit, with the equivalent of armored metal studs, facemask, etc. Superman has—well, you know what Superman has: a red cape and tights. Zod reminded me of a Stealth bomber while Superman is piloting a small puddle-jumper.

I said to my companion, “Superman needs to get a better suit.” It was at that point that General Zod, for reasons that are not clear (and certainly not in character), divests of his superior armored array and helmet and decides to battle Superman mano-a-mano, (i.e., wearing only tights) which leads to a computer-generated fight that would fit well into films like “Fast & Furious 6.”

Some purists decried the violent battle between good and evil (as represented by Superman and General Zod). They didn’t like the extent of the fight (it’s quite over-the-top) nor the way it finally ends. I thought it was inevitable that the duo have this face-off. The end (which I won’t reveal) did not seem uncharacteristic or “wrong,” to me. I admit I am not a comic book purist, although I think I probably threw away one of those $2 million plus comic books at some point. Typical.

To me, the climax and denouement just seemed like the natural progression of an increasingly violent society with more blood and more violence at every cinematic turn, whether on television or at the movies. (Hasn’t anybody but me noticed how “The Following,” “Hannibal,” “Dexter” and “The Walking Dead” have helped turn the dial up about twelve notches on the amount of gore, violence and brutality that will be tolerated on television in 2013? I’m beginning to feel like Tipper Gore in her album-labeling days. Please don’t make me have to square off against the likes of Frank Zappa in a Senate hearing, because this is obviously the kind of game-box violence, gore and mayhem that today’s audiences not only enjoy but DEMAND for a commercially viable venture.)

Just as some say that the Republicans of old could never get elected today (let alone nominated) by the Republican party, I would point out that the violence levels, especially on television, of yesteryear, are gone forever as “the times, they are a’changin.’”

So why criticize the production team for recognizing this reality of modern audiences? Didn’t anybody pay attention to the violence level in “The Dark Knight Rises?” And we all know where THAT led.)

So, my take is this: it’s not as good as this summer’s “Star Trek” movie, but I liked it better than “Ironman.” It is NOT the “C” that Entertainment Weekly critic Chris Nashawaty gave it. Perhaps Nashawaty was just having a bad day at the office.

Page 49 of 63

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén