CMT - Predator

I've had the benefit, of seeing some of the best, and the worst behavior that human beings are capable of. Instances of kindness and charity, fill me awe and appreciation. Ignorance, intolerance, undue aggression and hypocrisy boils my blood, and evokes my disgust. People sicken me; and I say that as both a philanthropist, and an unrepentant misanthrope.

I don't think there's one charge I could bring against the human race, that anyone could successfully defend. Among all of our flaws, one thing is paramount; we all think we're something special, don't we? There's an undeniable arrogance, that pervades everything we do, from the extinction of animals, to the erection of power plants and the building of roads. We shape the world to our liking; we force the globe to cope with unreasonable demands, and we consume, and consume, until there is nothing left to leech.

We even hunt for sport, and that's if you call murder, from fifty yards "hunting". Enthusiasts will defend the hobby, but I'd ask them all to acknowledge, that what was done for survival, is now little more than a game. It is all too easy for us; our weaponry has tamed the great beast, and laid him low. Don't you wonder what it would be like, if someone or some thing, was able to tame us, as well?

Classic Movie Trailers:  Predator (1987)

Before you proclaim the tenacity of the human spirit, before you assume that our so-called "advanced weaponry", and military tactics, would prevail against any threat, please remember how young we are. The dinosaur's rein on earth, lasted one hundred and thirty-five million years. One hundred thousand years ago, we had just begun fighting with the Neanderthal. Man's dominion has been relatively brief, and it endures precariously.

We war amongst ourselves, for the most trivial of reasons. We allow millions to starve, so that very few, can live luxuriously. We not only fail to punish treason, we reward it, and we vote to give the perpetrators more authority. Meanwhile, while we bicker amongst ourselves, we slowly poison the earth that feeds us; then we look at the evidence, and say it isn't true.

I'm not convinced. I don't think we have the intelligence, to rule this world for that much longer, let alone the might. Is our subjugation, by another life form, really so hard to believe? Certainly we're smart, when compared to the flora and fauna around us, but given that we're aware of other galaxies, we're incapable of reaching the knowledge they're hiding.

We don't know what's out there. We don't know much of anything. Our concept, of genius level intellect, is a manifestation of our greatest hubris; we are dumb apes. We are pups, with destructive toys, and we think we're safe and secure. I wouldn't trust a man-made weapon against a rhino, forget about an alien.

There is no such thing as permanent, and that's something you should realize. The human race will end; the only question is how. One answer, is obviously plague. Nuclear war, may play a part as well. It is possible however, that we will meet another life form that is simply, unquestionably, better than us.

------------------------------

@ChannelSeals

http://youtu.be/Y1txEAywdiw

CMT - The Shining

In order for films to work, and to wind up being well regarded, a lot of things have to go right. The screenplay should be strong, ideally. The acting should be top notch. The production itself, should be one of visual, audial, and artistic quality. However, if you don't have all of that, if there has to be a weak link somewhere, what is the most important aspect to focus on?

Classic Movie Trailers: The Shining (1980)

My money's on acting. It's arguable, certainly, but there are reasons for this. If the script is bad, the movie's not in good shape, but good actors can take poorly written lines and change them, and make them their own. They can also, through spontaneous action, ultimately change the director's vision, regarding where the picture is going. On the other hand, if the acting falls flat, pretty words aren't going to save you.

Have you ever seen a movie with poor acting, but fantastic special effects? I actually believe, that some film crews intentionally beef up the visuals, to compensate for such shortcomings; the results are variable, to say the least. This is part of the reason why CGI serves to disillusion us, from certain pictures. Even if the detail is cutting edge, but especially when it isn't, it's difficult to feel emotions, looking at a computer generated image.

They feign emotions with animation, and I would argue that technology won't advance enough, to trick the human eye into belief, for some time yet. With real skilled actors, you can connect with the audience, and bring them over that wall, that leads to immersion. You can even tell stories within stories, in a significant way. For example, after watching "The Shining", I'm willing to bet that the audience can say certain things, about Jack's marriage to Wendy.

We can say what kind of relationship they have. We can make educated guesses, as to whether that arrangement will last. We could even say, with relative certainty, why they got married in the first place. The answers are definitely in the words, but the acting leaves no doubt, and that could have been unclear, otherwise.

Personally, I found that the end of the movie, was left wanting. If they pushed the drama, and the danger further, the real horrors of the situation would have made "The Shining" an excellent film. As it stands now, it's merely a good one. However, if you take away Jack Nicholson's performance, if you excise Shelly Duvall's and Daniel Lloyd's work, it wouldn't even be that.

----------------------------

@ChannelSeals

http://youtu.be/1G7Ju035-8U

CMT - The Wolf Man (1941)

When real life terror, is mixed in with the supernatural, it makes the latter more effective. Frankenstein's Monster, it can be said, is an example of the perils involved, when one leaves a child without guidance. Mr. Hyde is an example, of the dangers that can result, from hiding our true natures for too long. But what about The Wolf Man? What can we learn from him?

Classic Movie Trailers: The Wolf Man (1941)

I've had my share of nights, bar-hopping. Looking back at it now, it seems like a gigantic waste of time. However, I can proudly report, that I left that period healthy, and with my reputation intact. There was some voice, in the back of my head, that worried about what would happen if I drank too much.

The scariest thing about that situation, is drinking to the point where you can't remember everything. I know there's people that drink to get drunk, and if you do that occasionally, and you don't hurt anyone, hey, I understand and that's ok. But just the idea, of being drunk to the point where I've lost time worries me, and it has always stayed my hand and stayed on my mind. What if I do something in that state, and I can't account for it?

What if I got grabby, with the wrong girl? Would I have to show up in court, and talk about a scene I can't remember? What if someone says the wrong thing, and I attack them? A beating would be nasty, especially one I can't recall, but I'd take it over an assault charge, any day of the week.

Acting so brashly, would be uncharacteristic of me. But that's what alcohol does; it lowers your  inhibitions. It keeps you from realizing the consequences, and it keeps you from remembering the mistakes. The most horrifying thing about that is, you could hurt someone you love, and lose them forever.

So kudos to the cast and crew, of 'The Wolf Man", and to everyone involved. They hit the nose on the head, in regards to where the fear of werewolfism comes from; it's about losing control of yourself. It's about someone you'd normally trust with your life, that undergoes a rapid change, and becomes a very dangerous threat.

Forget about the gore, and the blood and the special effects, that are showcased in later pictures. "The Wolf Man" does so much more, with so much less, and it's easier to swallow... easier to believe. I'd go so far as to say, that this film puts those movies to shame. How is it, that you can spend millions of dollars to create a work of art, and yet you can say nothing of significance?

Is "The Wolf Man" dated? Yes, and it probably isn't 'scary' by today's standards. At least not at first glance. Not until you sit and think about it. Whether it's alcohol, or the glare of a full moon that brings it out, nothing is more frightening than the monster that's in me, and in all of us.
---------------------------------

@ChannelSeals

http://youtu.be/AsrFMBWRC1M

CMT - Flash Gordon (1980)

So what is camp, anyway? When someone refers to a TV show, or a film as being camp, or campy, what are they talking about? According to Merriam-Webster, camp is something that is "so outrageously artificial, affected, inappropriate, or out-of-date as to be amusing". The word that's missing from that definition is 'fun'; camp is fun.

Classic Movie Trailers: Flash Gordon (1980);

There's been a few 'campy' versions of Batman, and it's ironic, to think of it. That character has one of the darkest origins in comics, and yet, there are periods in his history, most notably comic's Silver Age, that allow lighter interpretations. The best examples include the 60's TV show, and 'The Brave and The Bold'. However, like Green Hornet, The Caped Crusader must ultimately, return to more serious roots.

Enter The Flash, or in this case, Flash Gordon. During the 30's, his strip had a powerful influence, on the birth of the super-powered heroes, that would eventually steal his thunder. But you can't steal fun, and in 1980, when public consciousness of Flash was returning, thanks to an animated series, we got this Hodges/De Laurentiis production. It followed the release of "Superman" and "Star Wars", and if you love the visual effects in those movies, you'll be delighted here.

As for the comedy, it's performed with the utmost seriousness, and I think that's a trade secret. Go too far, with the winks and the nudges, and you'll have Schwarzenegger, in a Mister Freeze costume, telling you to "chill out". Get too serious, and you'll be expecting your audiences to buy outrageous things: like aliens from outer space, that look like men from Kansas. Forgive me, but that's the advantage that "Flash Gordon" has; it's high-adventure and action and fun, that's never feigns at making sense. Never.

To go along with the light-heartedness, the music by Queen is akin to the exaggerated letters, and spiky word balloons, you would find on the page. It's wonderfully complimentary, and the film would be so much less without it. In regards to the effects, you could arguably say the same. The flying lasers in this film, emphasize the comic-strip roots; so, in this environment, the feel of them is different, than in the Sci-Fi epic, "Star Wars".

"Flash Gordon" may be lesser known, but it's just as memorable, as George Lucas's film. The production quality is comparable to it. The cast, which features Timothy Dalton and Max Von Sydow, is just as strong, or stronger. If I haven't sold you yet I'm not going to, but if I have, then grab a snack, kick back, and get ready for a good time.

http://youtu.be/8EY8QsBH5OU

CMT - Battlestar Galactica (1978)

Boredom is the dark side.

That may seem bizarre, at first glance, but it's true. If your wish is to entertain an audience, you will write and rewrite, edit and shoot new scenes, brainstorm and plan and remove subplots, all to eliminate boredom. Creating "entertainment" means eliminating boredom; it's the opposite of the desired goal, and removing it takes time.

Classic Movie Trailers: Battlestar Galactica (1978)

Time, as it turns out, is an important thing, when watching a feature. In order for an audience to connect to the story, it takes screen time. Storytellers can choose to begin films with great tragedies, but this is done with limited results. When the audience first sits down, they have a barrier of time, that prevents their immersion into the fiction, and any attachment to the characters.

Say you blow up a bus full of people, at the beginning of your movie. If the story requires that scene, you put it in, but don't expect tears. They're not going to be laughing at that moment either, but if they had more time with those characters, their on-screen deaths would mean so much more. This concept also applies, to romances between characters.

You can have two characters that are together, or even married, in your story. Then, you can open a film, with one character cheating. However, this is a dangerous game; if you don't establish the loving relationship first, no one's going to care about the infidelity. Even worse, your audience may not even realize, that one character's committed to another, especially if they're not watching closely.

To avoid confusion, and save time, you can use things like genres, as reference points. You probably don't have to explain what a cop does, in a cop drama. Doctors are self-explanatory, and certain things, like cowboys and dwarves and humanoid aliens, are going to be expected in specific settings. Whenever you introduce a new setting, or a new type of character, you have to give your audience enough time, to grow comfortable with them.

I've seen a number of films that don't take this into account. If you've ever felt lost, while several actors are blathering on about several planets you've never heard of, don't blame yourself. You've just been thrown in the deep end of the pool, without first being taught how to swim. The authors have to take the time, to explain things.

Omitting the scenes, or chapters needed for exposition, is a fatal mistake. You see, omission leads to confusion. Confusion leads to indifference. Indifference leads to boredom...

Jedi pen masters must resist the trap of boredom; it's the one pitfall, they will be glad you avoided.

http://youtu.be/9_opi69O2Q0

CMT - Frankenstein (1931)

Every work of fiction has an identity; this identity can be defined by the characters, the theme, the plot and the tone. The title of the stories, or sometimes the names of the main characters, are the labels or shorthand ways to refer to these identifying characteristics. However, if those characteristics have been changed, if the characters are rewritten, or if the plot or the theme or the tone is altered significantly, those labels are misleading. Frequently, so-called film adaptations are anything except true reflections, of the fiction that bears the same name; that's something that's as true today, as it was in the early twentieth century.

Classic Movie Trailers - Frankenstein (1931)

"Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus", is one of the few novels I've read more than once. I can say honestly, that a third read through is likely during my lifetime. Before curiosity compelled me to pick up the book for the first time, my only understanding of 'The Monster' or 'Creature', was that it was a big, dumb flat-headed brute, with bolts in its neck. That mental image, the popular image of Frankenstein's Monster, dates back to this film and Boris Karloff's performance.

James Whale's "Frankenstein" is not the story from Mary Shelley's novel. It isn't an adaptation and it's so "loosely-based". that I would argue it's a different animal altogether; but it is also a piece of cinematic history and it would be foolish to deny it. Every October before Halloween, Frankenstein's Monster dresses the windows of every costume shop, every Haunted House and every isle of candy, in every retail store. The flat head, the enlarged brow, the bolts, they're all there.

But have you seen the film? Have you seen Boris Karloff's performance? It's brilliant and it's definitely worth watching. Karloff didn't need words to portray his character; he had expressions and movement and feeling. The rest of the performances also come off well.

As for the film itself, it seems as if it was rushed and just left unfinished. An on-stage announcer blatantly points out the moral of the picture, before it even begins and this is good, because you could never gain that knowledge from watching it. A subplot involving a young victim, propels the movie to it's conclusion, but it does this so rapidly, that it drags the quality of the movie down. It's an abrupt end, that leaves the wrong questions unanswered.

There is enough still there, to justify the film's influence. Frankenstein is the original mad scientist, but the actor keeps him believable, as a character. The machines, the storm, the hunchback assistant and the entire process of bringing the creature to life, is fun to see play out, as it does here for the first time.

Don't expect the novel and not even the spirit of it, as it's arguably not present in this movie. Do expect a studio's heavy-handed message, slapped onto a film that doesn't support it. Do expect a short ride, as long as seventy minutes takes. Do expect good performances and for better or worse, cinematic history.

It's history that has implanted the likeness and manner of one actor, into the popular culture of America. Over eighty years later, Frankenstein's Monster is still Boris Karloff. That's a hell of an accomplishment and I can't overstate it. Ultimately,however, as a fan I'm reminded that a fictional property is more than just a name, and that this film failed to capture the fiction it claimed to aim for.

So take care reader. Whenever you enter a movie theater, expecting to see some resemblance of a story you know and love, remember how Hollywood works. Remember that the most important thing in film making, is money making, not artistic integrity and not obedience to another work of art, even if it's superior. After all, it's just a licensed property, a name that's been bought and sold.

Once that deal is signed, the studio is free to take and leave what they like. They have your attention already, just with the name. They can play with this world you adore so much, but unlike you, they don't have to care about it.

@ChannelSeals

http://youtu.be/p5HCmd-Rjvc

CMT - Blade Runner

Classic Movie Trailers: “Blade Runner” (1982)

If, as an adult, you were made aware that you had four more years to live, what would you do? You could savor every moment of life and accomplish more, in your four years, than the average person does in forty-five. Or, you could rally, war, maim and kill, for a chance to delay your ultimate fate….

What impresses me most about Blade Runner, is how well it holds up today. When you watch the film, you’re engrossed in a 1982 vision of the future. While inside of this world, you never have a moment of disillusionment, and that’s because everything you see on screen is real. Models were used, for futuristic buildings and vehicles, and there are no CG characters or stuntmen; all the players are being depicted by real, flesh and blood people.

But what about that question I posed, at the beginning? Would you accept your end, or would you end a life to extend yours? Whatever answer you'd give, would be “More Human Than Human”.

@ChannelSeals

http://youtu.be/iYhJ7Mf2Oxs