The Karate Kid Remake

I'm really sorry I can't share the pics of this remake with you, you'll have to go to the website to see them, but I have just found out they are remaking the movie The Karate Kid.

The classic cheesy original featured Ralph Macchio as Daniel-san, who even though he was in his twenties, played a teenager (he's a bit like Michael J. Fox, he just never grows up), who moves into a new neighbourhood in America. He gets bullied by these local guys and is surprised one day when a local maintenance guy, Okinawan-born wise old Mr Miyagi (Pat Morita) jumps the bullies. Mr Miyagi becomes his karate mentor and teaches him techniques unconventionally, as well as about honour and self control etc. And so he ends up one-upping the bullies by the end of the movie.

Most of us watched the movie and remember classic lines like "Wax on, wax off" and Daniel trying to do the crane stance, or catch a fly with chopsticks, or Mr Miyagi being able to mend his leg by rubbing his hands together, or giving the silent smile through the crowd and the nod.

Anyhow, I read about this remake, and I naturally read plenty about people being angry as hell that their original was to be 'tarnished' with this idea of a remake.

Here's the set up. Will Smith has pitched the idea for a remake, to star his nine year old son, Jaden as The Karate Kid. There's been talk of calling it The Kung Fu Kid, possibly partly to update it and partly to not offend people who are extremely precious about The Karate Kid.

A mother, for work reasons, goes to live in China, her son Dre (Jaden) is attacked by bullies and needs to learn Kung Fu. A master of kung fu teaches him both kung fu and how to speak Chinese. The kung fu master is played by Jackie Chan.

A lot of blood is being spilled on the message boards. Some claim that people who are against the movie are only against it because they are racist, and don't want to see a black kid learning kung fu. Others say they aren't racist, others say yes, they just don't think a black kid is right for the role - it just does not fit well in the story. It doesn't portray the ethnic issues realistically and they can't relate to it, and anyway, everyone thinks of the Karate Kid as white nowadays.

Other objections brought up are that:

1. Jackie Chan is the wrong actor to step into Pat Morita's role. He's too young and too flippant and funny. In fact you didn't even need a really good martial arts actor to step into Morita's role - what was more important was that the person had the right warmth and chemistry, because Mr Miyagi teaches more lessons about self restraint and less kicking ass in the movies, that's what he's really about.

2. It doesn't matter that Jaden is black, but it does matter that he's nine years old. No one can relate to a nine year old getting beaten up; you don't believe he really needs martial arts lessons, not serious ones. You feel that more at his age he is just likely to get into a few scraps and be teased. The film is a coming of age story and Jaden is not the right age to give that any real meaning.

3. A lot of posters just hate the idea that Jaden got the movie through his Dad - the nepotism, stating that he's untalented and wouldn't have got it if it hadn't been for Will.

This objection ... well I can understand the resentment, but it's basically born out of jealousy, hell we'd all do it if we could, we just didn't get the chance. If we had a rich and famous father who could give us opportunities or 'legs up' we'd take them (not necessarily in showbiz but in some other way) and not think twice about it. Most of us have this already and don't think twice about ti, taking it for granted. Many of us live in houses, get pocket money, went to certain schools, got Christmas presents, had parents of certain intelligence who may have given us advice, some might have parents who helped us with a loan or said they'd babysit our kids for free ... WHATEVER.

All that is help, but if you mention it to many of these same people and say it's getting help from fortunate parents with resources, they cite it as "different" from getting your big rich Daddy helping you put you in a Hollywood film because all the help they receive is 'normal, regular help', but getting a film is "unusual".

Actually, it just means that you're used to it. There are some people who would look with envy at your level and say "I hate those rich lucky bastards who get pocket money and can go whingeing to their parents every time something goes wrong and can dump their kids/dogs/parcels at their parents when they need a break ... spoiled brats!"

It's just a matter of degree. And some people are sure they can pick what degree is "acceptable", trying to convince others it's generally acceptable, when what they really mean is "acceptable ... to me". And that level is usually "Up to as many opportunities as I get, is acceptable for others to have too! But don't go too much further than thaaaat!"

4. Another poster suggested that a better remake, if one had to be done at all, would have been to put an aging Ralph Macchio into the Pat Morita role and have him teach a small Japanese kid the way of Karate ... that is, if it's possible for Ralph Macchio to age.

I'm not particularly looking forward to this Karate Kid myself, but then I never saw the Next Karate Kid. I only saw the ones with Daniel-san. The original and the best!

An Even Darker Side of Mary Poppins

Earlier this year, I suggested that Tim Burton direct a Mary Poppins film, which would show the darker side of Mary Poppins.

This was suggested to me in a dream and I'm still convinced it could work.

It seems that I'm not the only person who has a Poppins fantasy, or the wish to see Poppins' dark side. I was reading a movie message board today, and in a thread on suggestions for remakes of movies, a poster suggested a remake of Mary Poppins by Quentin Tarantino ... a really dark side to Mary Poppins.

Now, let me see, how exactly would it work?

I'm picturing Jane and Michael and the twins a little older now, and both are pot-smoking, cocaine-doing hired guns.

The scene should probably open at a cafe ... no, let's make that an upside down tea party on the ceiling, where Jane and Michael indulge in some badass gangster chat that is lightly disguised as philosophy about something totally pop culture irrelevant to the story, and use dirty language as much as possible.

Something like:

Jane: You see, Michael, I got this theory.
Michael: What's the f*ing theory?
Jane: You know that f*ing carousel we was riding on with the f*ing ponies?
Michael: Yeah?
Jane: Well, that is actually symbolic for child molestation.
Waiter: What'll it be today?
Michael: Can't you see we're f*ing floating on the ceiling having a private conversation? Come levitating later when I look like I'm ready to have my upside down jams and scones replenished.
Waiter: (sarcastically) Yes sir.
Michael: That's what's wrong with this country. You can't get no good customer service. he must've been molested by a f*ing carousel pony as a child and it messed with his sh*tworthy brain.
Jane: I was telling you about my theory. It's like, the carousel's spinning round, and the ponies are bobbing up and down, and the kids are being put on them by their parents, up down up down up down and this is just like being sexually molested, you know what I'm saying?
Michael: I hear you. Oh, shouldn't we be robbing that upside down cashier right now?


In the new Tarantino version of Mary Poppins, that spoonful of sugar Mary Poppins advocates probably costs thousands and has to be smuggled in over the border, but it really gives you a high!

The Making of A Legend: Gone With the Wind

One of the great things about being unemployed is that you can sit back and watch TV shows you wouldn't be able to watch if you were at work. (I can't watch TV much at night as my Dad dominates the telly with his endless reruns of Law and Order.)

Today I saw a show I'd taped, The Making of a Legend: Gone With the Wind. I'm an official Gone With the Wind junkie (see the link on this site to the GWTW Forever site).

I have the DVD of the feature film, I just hadn't realised how much had gone into making it.

I knew, of course, that GWTW was the only book Margaret Mitchell wrote. Scarlett was initially called Pansy, and the book was not initially written for publication. Then a publisher read it and was interested, but didn't like the name Pansy, so Margaret Mitchell agreed to change it to Scarlett.

And then David O. Selznick secured the rights for $50,000 to produce GWTW.

I watched the show as they showed the search for Scarlett. It seemed they had an easier time deciding on Rhett Butler - the public demanded they choose Clark Gable. The only problem was that Gable was with MGM and Selznick wanted to do the project alone. It wasn't for ages and after lots of money and negotiations that he made a deal with MGM - they would let him 'use' Gable, and they'd also lend some money to fund the project, so long as they got half the profits of GWTW for the next 7 years.

Then it turned out that Gable didn't particularly like the deal, as he didn't want to play Rhett, so they 'sweetened' the deal for him by giving him ... $50,000 so he could pay off his wife and get rid of her and a weekend off so he could marry his new girlfriend (an interest payoff!)

Anyhow, I watched a lot of the auditions with the different Scarletts and Ashleys. After seeing what Vivien Leigh and Leslie Howard can do - especially Vivien Leigh - watching the different screen tests is like watching a series of Australian Idol auditions, you just feel how wrong they are and you want a nasty judge to pop up and give them a gong and tell them they're absolute crap.

It was amazing to see how much work went into creating - or destroying - some of those sets. They decided one way to make a set was to burn down an old set and then rebuild. An idea they had was to burn down the old set and then film it as the burning of Atlanta. At the time they hadn't got Leigh and Gable working yet so a stunt double is what you see when you see the horse and carriage driving through burning Atlanta at the time. And they really did just burn down a whole set, film it, and then rebuild a set.

Then some sets were only partially built - for instance some of the big houses were built without roofs - it was less expensive - then an art director comes in later and "draws in" different style roofs later to make the different places.

And the scene in Atlanta with the soldiers all lying wounded ... well while they called in many extras to lie there as wounded men, but they didn't have enough so they put in some dummies as well and instructed extras how they could pull a string on the dummy so the dummy could move a little so it looked alive. (Apparently Margaret Mitchell's husband said when he saw that scene that if they'd had that many soldiers, they would have won the war!) I know, I know, I guess they cheated too because those extras, they only pretended to be wounded. Many of them weren't really shot or anything at all. They only pretended to be shot. And int he scene where Dr Meade is supposed to amputate the leg - I think he doesn't amputate it at all. It's all faked!

So much work went into the recreation, it was amazing, especially when you consider there was not the advantage of the special effects that we have today.

I watched in amazement as every detail of dress was attended to ... the only thing I think I could compare it to was watching This is It when I watched the perfectionism that went in to making the Michael Jackson tour show. How many people actually put the time and effort and research into their shows any more. It's immense and it's amazing.

By the way I still love Scarlett's green barbecue dress - it must be her most famous - but now I've really taken a fancy to that little light blue jacket and white dress she wears to the store when she's caught with Ashley.

Blackface comedy. I hope I am not offending anyone here. If so, apologies in advance.

Recently, on a Hey Hey it's Saturday sketch, a group calling themselves the Jackson Jive got verbally stoned by Harry Connick Jr for being racist because they used blackface comedy. The host Daryl Somers, apologised for any offence caused, and I too, would like to apologise for any offence I may cause in discussing this obviously sensitive issue.

This meant in the sketch, five of them turned up using black face paint (representing themselves as "Afro-Americans", also known by some people as "blacks", I hope that's not too racist. Another appeared wearing white makeup, satirising Michael Jackson who was an Afro-American who bleached his skin so it looked more of the pallour of those who are "Anglo-Saxon" or "Caucasian" or otherwise known as "white", hopefully that isn't offensive. Michael Jackson also recently "passed away", that is also otherwise known as "died". I hope that isn't too offensive either.

Now, I'm not "black" nor "white", not that it would matter if I was either. So I guess I don't really understand the fuss about blackface comedy, and whether it is the blackfacedness or the comedy bit that is really tasteless, or is it the combination?

Is it just plain offensive to make fun of blacks, or Afro-Americans, because it's racist? Because there goes the comedy material for about a third of those big budget Hollywood movies that are in production right this second.

Or is it smearing black face paint on that's just disgusting? Personally I don't like the look myself, I've usually thought the shoe grease should stay on the shoe though I haven't always been that successful. But what about all those disgusting, non-really-black actors who were trying to play Othello? Hung, drawn and quartered, ought they be?

A clue might lie in this where a guy says that blacks do not have pitch black skin, and that is why they are offended by that sketch. It is an interesting objection - one of the devices used by comedy is exaggeration - which is why clowns and mimes trying to hide behind a blank face use white makeup and exaggerated red lipstick which doesn't look anything like a real white human being. Hold the golliwogs!

To be perfectly accurate, most blacks aren't black, they're more browny, most whites aren't white either, they're kinda pinky-creamy-light-brown and I'll be damned if yellow skinned people look that yellow to me.

And anyway, why stop at racism? What I want to know is if black people can get on their high horses about blackface comedy, why should women stand for this crap either? Some idiots dress up INACCURATELY and EXAGGERATEDLY trying to imitate a DOWNTRODDEN group in the name of humour ...

I really don't know why we put up with Barry Humphries, Dustin Hoffman, Robin Williams, or John Travolta at all, who've all exploited women and dressed up in drag and put on caked up makeup in stupid looking outfits that look nothing like what I'd wear - I don't know anyone who acts or looks like Dame Edna Everage - just for satire. It's insulting, it's sexist, and I think I give them a zero. What's more, they degrade women's plight further by going on to earn a fortune out of their huge man-in-women's boobs act than many women who have real or at least only slightly modified by a very discreet surgeon's boobs, make because their own boobs have hit the glass ceiling!

I think all women should stand on their high heels, jump on top of their 'Tootsie' and 'Mrs Doubtfire' DVDs and make it clear that if Mr Harry Connick Jr can get the weight of America behind him, we should at least get a portion of it too!

Unfortunately, I feel that no matter how much I jump up and down, the race issue will always propel American s far more than the gender one. After all, they voted in Obama, and not Hillary Clinton.

Terrible Movie Marketing Strategies

I recently watched the movie Miss Congeniality (Sandra Bullock, Michael Caine, Candace Bergen) and I then did as usually do - checked out what a whole lot of other people thought about it on IMDB.

I came across an interesting discussion on one of the discussion threads, where some guy complained that the movie title was the worst marketing decision ever because "Miss Congeniality" was such an obscure word and no one he knew used the word "congeniality" in fact he didn't know what it meant, it was the stupidest marketing decision ever.

Naturally this thread had been started before Kraft had started the iSnack 2.0 campaign.

Well, of course some people leapt on him and told him to go spread a little dictionary on his toast, stupid, "congeniality" wasn't exactly that obscure a word. Exactly which bit of it didn't he get? It wasn't helped by the fact that his short posting was peppered with spelling mistakes.

What was odd was the fact that he likened the title to "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" - an ill-thought out title, a bad marketing decision because it used an obscure title that no one understood.

Umm, well I don't think it really hurt Harry that much, and I'm a little confused about the comparison. Which bit of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone doesn't he get? Does he not understand the word "Stone" or "Potter" or never heard of a "Harry" before? I'm totally confused. It wouldn't matter if you didn't understand what a "philosopher's stone" is but understood the word's separately - any dolt understanding the English language would be able to tell you if you've come across the word philosopher and you've come across the word stone, a philosopher's stone simply implies "stone of or belonging to a philosopher" and then of course the movie explains the significance of that to you.

Of course, there are some movies like "Snakes on a Plane" which use nice simple words and is ... well ... self-explanatory. But many of the movies that have been extremely popular are a little on the obscure side and have used words that are longer than one syllable. Like Superman, for instance, or Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (What the heck is an Indiana? Anyone? Anyone? And help me if I know what the Temple of Doom is!).

It could have been after reading this discussion board that it was decided to switch from two syllable words to one syllable words to increase popularity, and Batman was remarketed as The Dark Knight. 'Batman' was possibly considered just a bit too difficult for the attention span of some of the movie regulars nowadays.

One of the movie titles that has always baffled me is Die Hard. The fact that I have never quite understood the title hasn't stopped me enjoying the film though. Die Hard? Where in the movie is it about dying hard, as opposed, I suppose, to dying easy or dying soft? Or is that supposed to be a reference to when Hans Gruber dies, and he falls out and lands on the ground, which I suppose is quite hard? Then the next movie is called Die Harder, but I don't think anything could be much harder than splattering your brains out on concrete like that, and I don't think it even shows it to be ...

It's totally confusing. That is obscure.

Alien and Ripley

I watched Alien the other day with Mr Coffee. Ellen Ripley was voted 9th on the 100 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time List (compiled by Empire Magazine), the highest placing female on the list among only a handful of females, beating out Mary Poppins who trailed her in 20th position.

Basically, I thought Ellen was an ok character, but nothing to write home about. I wasn't that amazed by her and the guys who beat her out - Tyler Durden, Darth Vader, The Dark Knight, Han Solo, Hannibal Lecter, Indiana Jones, Captain Jack Sparrow etc deserved their position. I even think characters who didn't beat her such as Vito Corleone, James Bond, John McClane and yes, Mary Poppins, were more deserving.

Ellen's character was the typical gung ho person who starts off looking a little baby-faced and soft but then turns out to be a survivor. Kind of like Sarah Connor in the terminator Series except give me Sarah Connor any day. I thought she was better portrayed and the transformation was done better, and she had more of a sense of purpose, sometimes menace, and a bit of humour.

Female characters don't feature strongly on the list, not, I think, because, as some people mused, that women are incapable of portraying memorable characters or don't get meaty roles written for them. Or that Empire is basically sexist.

Some of those things might be true but I'd say the main thing is a trend that is evident in the voting: that voting on this list went in favour of action/adventure/sci-fi, and also you were more likely to get your face on the board if you were in a series or a set of sequels. People thought more of your character then. It seemed a lot of voters went "I liked that movie, what was the best character in it?" and voted, or "that character was really memorable as I've seen them in a series of movies" (which sticks in your mind more than one movie). Actions, adventures and sci-fi generally lend them more to a format of sequels, and tend to have stronger male characters in them, with a tendency to cater for more of a male audience.

Another way of thinking whether a character is good is to try to concentrate on the character regardless of whether the film was not that good - or not our favourite - and try to use criteria like whether the character was well-portrayed and evoked, and whether it was a great concept and did he/she stick in our mind, even if it was a one off film. For me many characters in comedies, romances, histories etc are characters like that. I personally would have voted in both Harry and Sally from When Harry Met Sally as fantastic characters.

Note that the listing is different for the Premiere magazine list, done in 2004 though.

Anyway, back to Alien.

At times I felt this movie was, errh, kind of boring. Maybe it's the passage of time but there was a lot of waiting around for things to happen and also a measure of predictability. I sat there thinking "Kane's going to spew a monster!" He didn't, it burst out of him but it was close enough for it to not be that exciting.

The scene here the black guy does was annoying me because he sacrificed himself for the woman who was too petrified to take the sacrifice as a good opportunity to save herself. his sacrifice was for nothing! That annoys me. At least one of them could have made it out of there and neither did. Oh damn!

Oh and that stooooopid cat! Please, I would have LIKED that alien to get the cat!

This is not meant to be a review but a vent.

To be fair, the movie is dated, like Ellen Ripley's hair. Sigourney Weaver does a fairly good job of transforming what seems to be an in-the-background Ripley to begin with to a force to be reckoned with, and does not miss out on the human touches. Unfortunately, that did mean going overboard with a cat. It's a cliche, now, having a silly pet that leads you to danger. I'm never quite sure why they have people on ships who would not breach quarantine to save their crewmate who's been attacked by an alien, who would watch their crew die, but would risk death to follow a ... cat and rescue it! And that always annoys me.

There is enough clang and action to make this still exciting towards the end, however I still feel it takes time to warm up and there are too many quite dull moments. It's amusing to watch the movie now and say "Ooooh, how young John Hurt and Sigourney Weaver look now!" but as the start is quite slow that's about all the fun you get for the first quite a few minutes.

The alien still looked pretty grotesque even now, to me - but heck, I am scared of everything. I felt it was a suitable amount of 'horror' - not gratuitous, but sent the message clearly and put more emphasis on the action, sci-fi and interaction (and breakdown) of the crewmates which is really how I prefer these movies to be constructed, rather than indulging in long shots of explicit damage to corpses and aliens eating up bodies and lots of blood and exposed organs, flesh, etc etc

Keeping the Potter Franchise Alive

It seemed Harry Potter ended with The Deathly Hallows, but then out came Tales of Beedle the Bard.

Now, I'm sure many Potterheads would like to see Harry live on and what better way than to besiege Rowling with ideas for spin-offs, sequels and prequels and beg her to continue to keep Harry alive?

A fellow blogger has compiled a set of "totally original" Potter story continuations. I'm sure you'll agree that any of these would make viable books, and would be extremely filmable.

Perhaps an intense Potter martial arts version could be released.

Something like ...

Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione are travelling in the mountains when they are beset upon by some Oriental Muggles. Despite their magical powers, all four are captured. It seems a Jackie Chan backflip can overpower someone on a broomstick any day.

Taken back to the little village, the Muggles kindly bathe the wounds of the four and lend them robes to wear as their wizarding robes were torn in battle. The four are forced to live in the little village and gradually come to respect the strange rites of the Muggles. Ron annoys Hermione by falling for a good looking slim Asian chick, but after a while she gets so involved in learning fourteen different Asian dialects all at once that she forgets Ron's being an idiot.

It comes to light that the Muggles hadn't meant any harm to the four. Furthermore they begin to initiate each into how to use a different Oriental weapon, and appoint Harry as the leader and give him a blue bandanna. Ron gets a yellow one and Hermione is given a purple one and Ginny a red one. These will help distinguish them, and they ask that they help them in times of war as their last true Ninja warrior is dying and ...

Damn, I'm not sure if I should call this "Harry Potter and The Last Ninja" or "Teenage Mutant Ninja Wizards".

I'll come up with an ending later. Surely.

Why the Half-Blood Prince?

Yesterday I went to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

I liked the movie, I definitely thought it was much better done then The Order of the Phoenix which was the last Harry Potter Book and my least favourite adaptation. This had a good mix of humour, action, and special effects and I thought was well acted.

Now, as is my habit, I went to IMDB and had a look at others' comments. Some, like me, loved it, others, mainly Potter junkies, hated it, and made catalogues of what had been cut or changed in the film. Mainly what had been cut (usually prefacing by saying they knew a movie had to cut a little but did it have to cut this much?)

In my opinion, well, the Potter books are long so if you want to cut it to a reasonable length, and still have detail in effects in some scenes, you're going to have to sometimes cut whole plot sequences or themes out. And characters. Other possibilities are to make a longer film or series or to have superficial treatment of every part of the film.

Whether you agree with how it's cut up is subjective.

To me, it wasn't badly done, I didn't mind the hacking, but then I'm not a Potter junkie even though I enjoyed the books and movies.

Just one thing I did find a bit annoying.

The Half-Blood Prince is revealed in the movie (not surprisingly, towards the end ... whoops did I spoil that for anyone?) ... but the moment is brief and it's never explained WHY that person is called the Half-Blood Prince. In the book it's explained better. I mean, the title of the freaking movie is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, as well as figuring out who that person is, you'd figure they'd explain why 'Half-Blood' or what or power or meaning or whatever 'Half-Blood' has. Nope, nada. They might as well have called the person the Blodgybooga Prince.

I think that is one point the movie people should have fixed up, more important than the other stuff that people go on about missing because they thought it was cool or they would have loved to see it or they were personally attached to it, or they thought it was important for the next part of the movie. Even though it is not very exciting and is probably considered minor by many HP lovers. It would have only taken a couple of minutes. Heck, I left thinking if I didn't read the book, I'd be completely confused about the title of the movie!

Bah!

A Woman by Any Other Name ...

I just watched an old movie the other day called "Tootsie". Probably a lot of people have seen it or at least heard about it. It's one where Dustin Hoffman plays an unemployed actor who's so desperate for work he dresses up as a woman to land a part in a TV serial. This of all leads to some comic moments, clashes with his personal life which of course includes his love life, and then he makes some feminist statements.

One of these is when he tells off the director at the TV station for calling him "tootsie" (as well as a variety of other names). The director there calls the men by their first names, but he tends to call the women names like "cutey" or "tootsie" as well as doing stuff like grabbing their butt and having sexual relations with a few of the good looking younger ones.

This is one of Hoffman's feminist statements and inspires some of the women to stand up for themselves.

I read on some of the IMDB comments some of the reviews for "Tootsie". In general it got good reviews. However one commenter said he didn't really understand whether being called "tootsie" was such a big deal. Was being called "tootsie" or "cutey" or "sweetie" or whatever such a big deal and was it any different from being called "pal" or "buddy" as men call each other at work and there is no real big deal made about that?

Well, I'd say that there is something different about it, but first of all, I'd like to say: What are people generally called at workplaces, do you know about, and do you think it's appropriate? First names, last names, nicknames, etc?

At my workplace it was first names except when you addressed the Judge in which case you said "Judge" or "Your honour" which was considered protocol. Naturally some people who were closer to the judges addressed the judge by his or her first name but when in doubt, title was best. Some people used to address me by my position instead of my name (but usually people from outside the building, clients etc).

Basically I think there is a certain difference, that is something like "pal" or "buddy" implies friendship and equality. You say "pal" or "mate" to someone, they can also address you the same way.

However, when a male says "tootsie" or "sweetie" or "cutey-pie" or whatever to a woman, especially to someone who is below him in rank, it sounds like a term that you would use to "pet" someone, and it makes reference to them in a way that could be easily seen as their sexuality or their looks or both.

What is most important about the situation in the movie is that the men were known by their names, but the women were given little cutesy nicknames, which separated the way they were treated, and they didn't find it favourable. (Not to mention the added fact that the man also grabbed butts and talked over women.)

All in all I think that as an isolated case, a nickname does not necessarily mean that you are demeaning someone or being out of line, but the context can determine it, and the way the nickname is chosen and used and what it could imply.

Maybe it's just easier to stick with names unless invited, boring as it may sound!

And then you've got the problem of, is it their full name or their last name plus title or do they like their name slightly abbreviated or ...

HEY YOU!

De Ja Vu

I was just watching the DVD of Anne of Green Gables The Sequel the other day which is a hefty almost 4 hours long and is based on three of the follow up books to Anne of Green Gables by L. M. Montgomery.

It isn't bad, certainly it's only based on the books and deviates from them marvellously. In some ways I enjoyed it more than the first DVD, probably because I'm not so attached to the sequel books as to the first book. So the fact that the plot deviates a lot didn't bother me so much.

I know that TV series such as this are supposed to evoke a sense of de ja vu, but must they do it so self-consciously? I suppose I watched 4 hours in one stretch (hey, I've just lost my job, I have nothing to do round the house all day but watch nostalgic videoes) and if it were shown episodically on TV it may have felt differently.

But I felt that in the Anne of Green Gables DVDs, they overdid the bit about repeating key "Anne" phrases till they became laborious. "Luckily I have an imagination" "she really is a kindred spirit" "I see that [whatever] hasn't damaged your tongue, Anne" seemed to pepper everyone's speech, with a knowing look and twinkle in the eye. Bah. Or maybe it just seemed that way to me. As far as I know, Ms Montgomery cooled off using that so much in the later books anyhow.

But what really got me was the play scene with Mary Queen of Scots. There's that fainting scene. Am I dreaming but were those complaints made by the girl who had to do the fainting snitched straight from Amy in Louisa May Alcott's Little Women?

Amy is told she's "stiff as a poker" at the fainting scene, and she complains that she doesn't choose to get all dirty tumbling down getting bruises, and if she can down easily, she will go. Jo then demonstrates how to faint for her, and does so with drama.

In Anne of Green Gables, "Hattie" in Mary Queen of Scots is told she is stiff at fainting, and she complains she doesn't choose to get all dirty fainting, and if she can go down easily, she will. Anne jumps in and does a demonstration, but Hattie can't imitate her well.

I know this is meant to evoke childhood memories, but nicking something out of another childhood girly book? Or am I forgetful, and did L.M. Montgomery and Louisa May Alcott happen to write something very similar, and the screenplay writer just faithfully adapted that very scene from Ms Montgomery's work?

Anyhow, felt weird.

Review: Doubt

I just last night watched the movie, Doubt. It was excellent.

I'm surprised it didn't win any Oscars. In my opinion Meryl Streep did a whole lot more with this role (and it was far meatier) than Kate Winslet's character in The Reader, who spent most of her time stripping and rolling about in bed. Of course, I'm not that interested in seeing Meryl Streep strip and role about in bed, so I'm very glad that in this role she played a nun who kept her clothes tightly on.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman was excellent as Father Flynn, but I can't compare him to Sean Penn who won the Oscar that year as I haven't seen Milk, and the supporting cast was great too.

For those who haven't seen Doubt, this is a movie which leaves you to think for yourself, which is rare in movies these days. It isn't about flashy effects either, but I remained engrossed the whole movie. It's about the goings on in a Catholic Church where a strict old-timer nun comes into conflict with a more liberal priest (Father Flynn), whom she suspects of misconduct, and the sweet and younger nun (Sister James) who is at her beck and call. Doesn't sound like a lot but it's absolutely mesmerising.

A lot of bloggers have asked what is the moral of this story, and some have talked about how it may be about how things can happen when you act and you are not certain, you have doubts. On the other hand, it also can make you think about what might happen if you were uncertain, and if you didn't act, but waited until you had that certainty before acting. Would you never act and what would the consequences be?

In the end it does show the consequences of 'certainty' or moral superiority and the importance of doubt, but should we not act simply because we have doubts?

I really thought this was one of the best-acted movies I've seen in a long time, and had a powerful theme to it.

Review: House of Wax

I saw House of Wax just the other night.

It wasn't terrible - as far as very C-grade slasher-horrors go, and me not liking those very much. Which is to say it rates pretty lowly on my list but I can confidently say that probably just being in that genre already sticks it in that category.

Some people say that they have a problem with the fact that Paris Hilton was bad at acting in this film. In her defence - well, there wasn't much good acting from anyone else in this film. So she didn't really stand out. She wasn't even the most annoying character (I thought).

One thing I want to know about such films - you are the "goodie" character. There is a big bad villain after you and has already showed it wants to kill you and will stop at nothing. Then there is a scene where the goodies get to kill the villain by doing something like punching him out or putting a bullet through his tummy or an arrow or sword through his stomach or chest. Big bad guy goes down from single blow.

Goodies hug each other, put aside their weapons, spend a whole lot of time chatting or crying with relief and walking slowly away or whatever. In this time you usually see or find that big bad guy isn't really dead just badly wounded, gets up, and manages to become big bad threat all over again.

The end game occurs when the goodies after a big chase end up bashing the lights out of the baddie and making sure he is dead or throwing him in a vat of chemicals or whatever.

What I want to know is:

WHY instead of spending that time hugging each other in relief don't the goodies give the baddie a couple of good extra thwacks to ensure he's really out? They usually have something handy - a chair, the end of a rifle, whatever.

It'd save a heck of a lot of trouble, usually a few houses and lives and a few limbs.

I can understand that sometimes the goodie is too weak or is in a hurry and can't do it but so often you have this dumb storyline where they are too busy standing around checking that their dress is ok and a big bad guy is getting up ready to stab them from behind. REALLY??!!

Also

I have to note I loved this phrase summarising the plot of "House of Wax", found on imdb.com

"An ethically-diverse group of college-aged kids ..."

I'm not sure that it was a typo, you know. "ethically diverse, deprived, challenged"? I don't know what the politically correct term is nowadays.

Review: The Last temptation of Christ

This (at the moment) rates 7.5 on IMDB which is pretty high for a film and I can only say I'm very glad someone enjoyed the film because I didn't.

Snorefest is what I would rate this one.

I'm not a very religious or Christian person, but that that wasn't what made it boring. I have no problem watching something like Jesus Christ Superstar or even the nativity stories kids put on at school.

My main problem was, this was 164 mins long, it felt longer. It should have been shorter and felt shorter.

Also, I want to know why so often you see a Jesus story and Judas seems just so much more likable than Jesus? Is this just me or is it the actors or directors or what? This was especially so in The Last Temptation of Christ which I felt was more like the Least Tempting of Christ.

Christ wasn't that tempting at all. We start off with Jesus portrayed as a carpenter who seems indecisive, mixed up, weak, whiny and not that inspired. There isn't that much really convincing given why people would really feel inspired and awestruck by this guy. Judas at least looked like a guy who wanted to lead, who inspired direction in others.

The scene with John the Baptist just wasn't that convincing to me - and for that matter, call me a romantic but I always pictured John the baptist as, well, a bit more appealing. Not like a gorgeous young thing or anything but not having that scratchy voice and all.

I guess I also didn't really like the Sermon on the Mount scene. What happened there?

But if anything really disappointed it was Mary Magdalene.

Yes, Mary was a whore or so many people say, but I think most people are supposed to like her. And history and art are strewn with likable or relatable to prostitutes from Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman to Belle Watling in Gone With the Wind. But there wasn't anything really to like or care about Mary here - she didn't look nice or act nice.

Maybe there will be cries of "but that's just how it was, probably" but I think there is more to art than giving you a CCTV image of what things were like - it's about creating something that tells a story, creates emotion, develops character, brings out themes, blah blah. Couldn't really care for Mary that much and I guess I was wanting to and expected to.

I didn't feel that there was a lot to this story, just a string of events but no sense of real drama, story, revelation - ok, that could be because I did drop to sleep during part of it.

Disappointed.

Review: Fantastic Four

Last night I happened to watch Fantastic Four. This isn't a proper review except to say that the movie has a lot in common with The Incredibles and X-men and both the latter movies are better.

A quick summary is: Five people go into outer space, they are affected by a space storm, they are given magical powers. The backer of the project is the villain, the other four are the heroes. The powers they get are:

Heroes:
1. A body like rubber, he can bend, stretch, etc and is impervious to great heat
2. A big hulk of a rock man, he doesn't have much feeling in some parts of his body and he's strong heavy and huge
3. A guy who can turn to fire and fly around
4. A woman who can turn invisible and project force fields
Villain
His body is extra-strengthened with metal and he can generate electrical power - he can throw bolts of lightning - kinda

Anyhow, it was a middling movie. I find myself wondering about it later, as a whole lot was left unanswered, not that all questions are left answered in films usually anyhow, especially fantasy hero films. But there was too much here.

1. Why is it that the movie glorified saving a suicidal man's life, when the result was causing a huge carcrash on a bridge, endangering the lives of tens of people and with all that fire going on, probably killed a few people?
2. Why didn't the people look that amazed at the discovery that they had become superheroes after returning from space?
3. Why did they then want to reverse the process of, say, the ability to become invisible and put up a force field at will when it didn't seem to interfere with her daily life otherwise?
4. Why didn't anyone smack that little Human Torch annoying teenager in the gob? He was such a pain in the ass?
5. No one explained how the space storm did what it did ... or why Ben wasn't able to trn his powers on and off but everyone else could.
6. Why did Ben's wife just shriek and run away when she first saw him, but then later she came out specifically when he had become a hero, among the wreckage, on TV, just to drop her wedding ring off? She didn't want to talk, why bother?
7. Why did the Invisible Woman fall for the wimp?

Too many questions, too much unanswered. I really just don't get it.

A Gay Question

I don't know much about gay culture.

So if anyone could give me answers to a question that's been troubling me for some time, I'd be extremely grateful.

In gay romantic films, does the lead character usually have an obligatory hetero female confidante who is extremely good looking and charming but presents no sexual entanglement problem because he's, well, gay, and she gives him sound measured advice about his gay problems when he's emotionally overstrung and consoles him and lets him sleep over when his lover is being unreasonable and she happens to be a good dancer and great to go shopping with too?

I didn't notice one in "Brokeback Mountain" but that may have been the exception to the rule.

Review: You've Got Mail

I'm sorry, I wasn't a huge fan. I found this in Mr Coffee's collection, one that he's seen some time ago, and decided to watch it by myself because I had a big feeling that he may prefer me to watch romcoms by myself so I didn't choose them for nightly-together-viewing-pleasure (we're trying to work our way through both our collections, his is way larger than mine. The deal is that we watch every DVD, unless we've both seen it separately*, and sometimes even then if it's really cool or we've forgotten it) . Besides, I got a tentative agreement that he would watch "Gone With the Wind" with me so long as I didn't subject him to "Little Women" and I think he's doing all he can to stay away from "The Sound of Music" despite his professed love of musicals (I don't know how a musical buff can have never seen "The Sound of Music") so I thought I'd cut him a little slack and get a Ryan-Hanks romcom out of the way in his absence.

Anyhow, back to "You've Got Mail".

I just really didn't get it. I suppose the point was there was Tom Hanks, there was Meg Ryan, there was a conflict but then they figured out that when they really found out what they were like they liked each other? Hmmm.

I guess Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan don't do it for me so much anyhow, Meg Ryan was really good in "When Hary met Sally" but I don't keep falling for her as my romantic icon over and over.

Then I read comments from some people saying that Meg's character must be a masochist if she would fall in love with a guy who tore up her business. Well, it meant as much to her as she acted as if it did, yes, I think it seemed a bit weird that she was so easily able to put it aside.

What did annoy me, though, were some of the inconsistencies in the character - as some people said, Meg Ryan's character goes on about crap big business forcing small businesses out and then she buys her coffee at Starbucks, she shops at a big supermarket, she seemed to have no problem using any big-name products and supporting them.

It was never actually pointed out in the movie what was so bad about Tom Hanks' character - except of course that Meg Ryan didn't like him. He was a capitalist in a capitalist country. He opened a bookstore. He gave discounts and other people liked it. Meg Ryan's shop might have had a bit more warmth but people went for the discounts.

Meg Ryan didn't seem able to convince people that she offered them something better or that there was great value in keeping her store alive.

I was utterly bewildered by this one and couldn't really feel for them or care whether they got together - though of course you knew that they would.

*There are two exceptions to this - we're not rewatching The Blair Witch Project or LadyHawke. Basically because I've been told LadyHawke is not worth my time and The Blair Witch Project has such shaky camera tecchnique it makes you sick watching it.

Review: Little Women

Being unemployed means several things. It means being able to sit around all day in your pyjamas if you like. It also means watching a few DVDs you said to yourself you'd watch but haven't yet.

One of those was, for me, the version of "Little Women" starring Winona Ryder.

I watched it today and I was ... well, a little disappointed. I loved the book; I've read it a zillion times over and I guess the worst bit about it was that my FAVOURITE BITS were cut.
L
For those who don't have a thorough acquaintance with the book by Louisa M. Alcott, it is divided into two parts which are often published separately, but sometimes together under the title "Little Women". The first is called "Little Women, the second is called "Good Wives". The movie encompasses both, but doesn't delve into the activities of the other sequels "Jo's Boys" or "Little Men".

I don't think this was a bad decision at all. Except that, since the first half concentrates on the activities of one year in the March family and then the second book gives the "what happened next to the girls - careers, marriage, etc", I felt some of it was rushed and a lot of the characters weren't given time to develop properly.

Some relationships and motives aren't even explained very well. there are some scenes and anecdotes that are cut for obvious reasons or "merged". But some of the most fun ones are to - and while they aren't absolutely necessary to getting us to the endpoint, they do give us insight to the motives and character development so we can care about them.

For instance:

It makes perfect sense to cut the chapter where Marmee teaches Meg and Jo a lesson that all play and no work doesn't pay - because the chapter in the book basically describes how they get on each other's nerves and make mistakes through lazing about all day. Probably a less exciting scene on film.

But scenes like Amy's tea party gone wrong and Laurie's picnic would have been rather amusing. I also thought they could have made more of when Jo published her first piece of writing. The "Castles in the Air" piece might have been a bit of"all talk, no action" but it did reveal a bit about the girls and the dialogue could easily have been transposed into the attic or picnic scene.

And I would have loved to see John Brooke actually propose to Meg.

The making of Amy's will was "testament" somewhat to her character development, but it was completely cut - no wonder there were so many complaints about the movie that Amy never deserved Laurie and Jo should have married him, because there was never any opportunity given for:

a) Jo and Laurie to quarrel
b) Laurie to show that he was not very serious and he cared for art and had ways that were similar to Amy
c) Amy to be reformed, and to grow up properly

Grrrrrrr.

That is what I will say bout it. I also would have liked a bit more shown of the sweet relationship between Mr Laurence and Beth.

Far too much of this story seemed to leave the relationships and the personalities of the girls who make the book so special by the wayside, and in the end you ought to be caring about all of them - especially Jo, but all of them.

In general though, the actors did a good job and the scenery is really beautiful. I just kept adding in to the script as I went along, in my head.

There's a Case for Every Case

I've seen the Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

And I read the Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

And I can see there's the Mysterious Case of the Allbright Academy by Diane Stanley.

So ...

now I want to know how many different kinds of "cases" there are.

What variety do they come in: Can I get Amazing Cases, Difficult cases, Interesting Cases, Gee Whiz bang Cases, Righteous Cases?

Competition: What really good "case" book or movie would you want to see?

Naturally, cases come in all varieties: there are murder cases, rape cases, the upper and lower cases, stair cases and brief cases. Some are heavy and some are light. Some are better constructed than others, and some are open & shut cases whereas some you need a virtual - or real - sledgehammer to crack.

What case would YOUR case be?

Judge the Rich

I love reading reviews of stuff I've already seen or read, especially reviews that bash it, and rather perversely, especially reviews that bash or at least criticise films or books or shows that I like.

Anyhow, today I was reading IMDB reviews for a movie I really like, 'The Remains of the Day'.

One comment stuck out to me - it said it was a great film but its "weakness" was that "it didn't judge the rich". (the review seemed to feel that negative judgment ought to have been passed)

Is that a weakness in a film - NOT judging the rich? Would it be a weakness in a film to judge or pass judgment on the poor, and especially to make a negative judgment?

I think a lot of people would say that it would be a weakness to allow such judgment at all - that is their situation could be portrayed but to make an ethical judgment based simply on their economic situation or to generalise about the group would be 'wrong'.

So why should we do any differently for the rich ... just because they are rich and they've had it good enough in other ways we don't feel we have to be fair in terms of 'judging'?

Mary Poppins Wants me to Read Sartre

Readers of this blog will be aware that recently I have been plagued with visions of Mary Poppins. Specifically, I had a dream that detailed a dark adaptation of the 'Mary Poppins' movie.

I'm convinced that Mary or P.L. Travers is using me to convey her wishes to the world that Tim Burton do a movie version of Mary Poppins. I'm sure Depp would jump at the chance to get into drag and be a dark Poppins.

And I have some great ideas for what this dark Poppins could do. Burton can contact me for ideas, though I may charge him more than "tuppence a bag".

But that wasn't the end of my Poppins dreams.

Oh no.

A week later, I had another set of Poppins dreams.

In them, Mary came to me and urged me to buy Sartre's complete works. I time travelle with Mary and visited a small village and met an old lady who turned out to be a relative of Sartre and she showed me about her house and was just going to make me a very good offer for his complete works ... when I woke up.

Hmmm.

Not sure if it's Hollywood, but there's something in it.

And maybe I'll crack open that Sartre.