A Writer's Life

Frank Sinatra Dies Hard, Baby

One of Frank Sinatra's best dramatic performances was as NYPD Detective Joe Leland in the gritty cop thriller THE DETECTIVE, which was based on the Roderick Thorpe novel of the same name (the movie also starred Lee Remick, Jaqueline Bisset and Robert Duvall). Thorpe wrote a sequel called NOTHING LASTS FOREVER, again featuring Det. Leland...only this time, most of the story unfolds in a Los Angeles skyscraper taken over by terrorists. Sound familiar? It should. The book was adapted into the movie DIE HARD. So, in other words, Bruce Willis took over the role originally played by Frank Sinatra (can you imagine him swinging from the Fox Tower screaming "Yippee Ka-yaa Motherf****r"?). This is old news, but news to me nonetheless... I only just stumbled on it today, going through some old books of mine. It was like discovering that Sean Connery wasn't the first actor to play James Bond on screen (Barry Nelson was) or that Peter Falk wasn't the first Columbo on TV (Bert Freed was)...

Tempest in an A Cup

Over the last two days, I've received hundreds of hits on a four year old post about Disney giving Keira Knightly bigger boobs in the KING ARTHUR publicity stills and poster art. So why the renewed attention? It turns out that Knightly has refused to let another studio do the same thing for her new film DUCHESS:

"Keira Knightly is essentially giving young women permission to stand up in their communities and their schools and their families and say, 'Look, this is the way I look and it is OK," said "Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters" author Courtney Martin.

The 23-year-old's chest has been the subjected to scrutiny before. In promotions for "King Arthur" in 2004, the actress' A-cup was morphed into a C-cup on posters. At the time Knightly admitted, "those things weren't really mine," though she still went along with the publicity campaign. "I think that's incredibly brave and could have a huge impact on young women," Martin said of Knightly's decision.

You Can't Beat The Original

LA FEMME NIKITA was a fantastic French thriller that was remade, scene for scene, in the American POINT OF NO RETURN and the Chinese BLACK CAT...as well as a USA Network pilot/series. But none of the remakes could match Luc Besson's original.

Here's the amazing "restaurant" scene from the original LA FEMME NIKITA (broken down into two clips) and the same scene in the U.S. remake.

What a Difference Acting Ability Makes

Many years ago, Michael Mann wrote and directed a flop pilot for NBC called LA TAKEDOWN, starring Scott Plank and Alex MacArthur. The pilot would be a forgotten footnote in Mann's career if not for the fact that he pulled off an amazing feat -- he manged to remake it, almost word-for-word, scene-for-scene, as the big-budget feature film HEAT, starring Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro. This may be the one and only time a busted TV pilot has been remade as a feature film...with hardly any changes. Here is the original "restaurant" scene from LA TAKEDOWN and the same scene in HEAT.  Same words, better actors. What a difference acting ability makes...

This and That

My wife and daughter are in France for a month, so I'm all alone at home...unless you count my daughter's dog, the hamster and the fish. I feel like a zoo keeper...my life has become BORN FREE in a tract home. But the solitude has given me the chance to catch up on some books and movies, when I'm not cleaning backyards, cages and fish tanks...

 OSS 117: LE CAIRE NID D'ESPIONS

This French spy spoof is everything GET SMART wanted to be and AUSTIN POWERS should have been. It perfectly mimics the look, feel, sound, fashion and acting style of the 1960s spy films down to the smallest, lovingly crafted detail. And on top of that, it's hilariously funny, too.

  IN BRUGES

This a bloody, dark comedy about two hit men who are sent by their boss to chill out in Bruges, Belgium after an assignment goes bad. I loved everything about this film which, in terms of tone and violence, is sort of a cross between PULP FICTION, JACKIE BROWN and SEXY BEAST. I don't understand why this movie didn't generate some attention...it's seemed to open and close in a weekend here in L.A.. It's a shame, because this may be one of the best movies I've seen all year.

WANTED

Sure, the stunts and effects are cool, but this movie left me cold. I just never got into the characters or the story. I found myself glancing at my watch, biding my time until the next stunt. It badly wants to be THE MATRIX or BOURNE IDENTITY, but to me it felt like I was watching a video game instead of an actual movie.

SERAPHIM FALLS

A post-Civil War western starring Pierce Brosnan and Liam Neeson, both of whom were totally miscast. Not that it mattered. It's a strange cross between OUTLAW JOSEY WALES, JEREMIAH JOHNSON, and RAMBO, and not a fraction as entertaining or fresh as those movies. Brosnan plays a former Union soldier (who apparently has Navy SEAL survival training) relentlessly pursued through snow-capped mountains and parched deserts by vengeance-seeking former Rebel soldier Neeson. Neither man is a villain or a hero which is, of course, the point of the movie, which is driven home with the subtlety of a wrecking ball. The movie seems tired, familiar, and pointless.

THE GARGOYLE

This isn't a movie, but rather one of the hot galleys from BookExpo. It's by first-time author Andrew Davidson and it's a breath-taking, though problematic, debut. The story falls into what is becoming something of a genre unto itself:  the "wounded man finds redemption and love with the woman who nurses him back to health" and who endures his agony by escaping into a fantasy world of imagination and flashbacks. The story, as a result, shares some similarities to THE ENGLISH PATIENT, THE SINGING DETECTIVE and THE WATERDANCE, to name a few. Despite some familiar motifs, this is a brilliant, compelling, and darkly funny novel...at least for the first two-thirds. It's about a coked-up porno actor who is in a terrible car accident that nearly burns him alive. It's in the burn ward that he meets a woman who is either a schizophrenic or his lover from several past lives. To say more would ruin things. I was enthralled for the first two thirds of the book, as much by the story as the prose. Davidson is a master storyteller, and I don't say that lightly. I can't believe this is his first novel. The writing and structure evokes John Irving, Robertson Davies, and Susanna Clarke...with several "side trips" that could stand alone as mini-novellas (something Irving has done in several of his books by having his "author" characters share their stories or by using extended, anecdotal flashbacks). The book fumbles in the finale third, with an extended dream sequence and a limp, pointlessly drawn out conclusion that doesn't satisfy on any level. It doesn't matter. That small disappointment is more than outweighed by the brilliance of what precedes it. The characters, images and stories in this amazing book will stay with you long after you've finished reading. I strongly recommend it.

Get Smart Isn't

I loved the TV series GET SMART and I still do. You could pick any episode from the first three seasons of GET SMART and it would be ten times funnier than Steve Carrell's new movie version. The GET SMART movie is a listless, laughless remake that makes THE NUDE BOMB, the last GET SMART feature film, look like brilliant comedy. But while I was sitting there, fighting sleep and debating whether to walk out or not, it occurred to me that GET SMART has a lot of the same problems as Steve Martin's THE PINK PANTHER remake. In both cases, someone made the inept decision to make the bumbling heroes smart and capable...and very good at what they do. Maxwell Smart and Inspector Clouseau were lovable, clueless, idiots who thought they were brilliant at what they did...and were far, far from it. That was what made them so funny. So why change the key aspect of their characters? The two Steves are extraordinarily funny guys -- but have their egos become so big they are hesitant about playing morons? That wasn't a problem for either one of them in the past (see THE JERK or ANCHORMAN).  If they didn't want to play Maxwell Smart and Inspector Clouseau as we know and love them...then why bother playing the parts at all? They even screwed up the "Would you believe" and "missed it by that much" jokes.

The only thing I liked about the GET SMART movie was the very, very, very in-joke of seeing Carrell use all three of the cars that Maxwell Smart drove in the series opening title sequence (cameos by Bernie Kopell and Leonard Stern seemed awkwardly shoe-horned into the movie). But that one moment was hardly worth the agony of watching the rest of the movie.

Can Dirty Harry be far behind?

Over the last year or so, Rambo, Rocky, John McClane, and Indiana Jones have all emerged from their bungalows at the Motion Picture Home after decades in retirement to do battle in the box-office once again, Geritol in one hand, a syringe full of botox in the other. Now comes the news that Eddie Murphy is returning as Beverly Hills Cop, who was last seen in 1994. Brett Ratner is directing, no writer is set yet.

Which WANTED Do You Want?

German screenwriter Torsten Dewi has posted two radically different trailers for the new movie Angelina Jolie WANTED on his blog. One trailer is from America, the other from Russia. Regardless of which trailer you think does a better sales job, they illustrate how you can take the same footage and edit it to convey whatever tone, point-of-view, or feeling that you want.

Never Sing Never Say Never Again

The Rap Sheet clued me into the recently "rediscovered," rejected theme for the 1983 Bond movie NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN sung by Phyllis Hymann and composed by Stephen Forsyth. To be honest, I don't think it's any better than the bland Lani Hall/Michel Legrand tune (performed in the video below) that the producers ended up using... but you can decide for yourself.

Michael Clayton

I finally saw MICHAEL CLAYTON...it was my test drive using the Amazon Unbox to rent a movie on my TiVo (a service which I liked). If you haven't seen the movie, you can stop reading now, because I'm going to spoil some things.

I thought George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson and Sydney Pollack were terrific and some of the dialogue really crackled, but  the simple plot was inexplicably and needlessly hard to follow at times and there were some logic flaws that pulled me right out of the movie, ultimately ruining it for me.

The bad guys did a slick and professional job of killing  Wilkinson's character and making it look like a suicide, thus establishing them as formidable opponents. But then they put a  car bomb in Clayton's Mercedes.  Why!?  Why not stab him  in an apparent "mugging gone bad" or run him over as he's crossing the street? Why kill him in a manner that will draw an enormous amount of attention -- the exact opposite of what the bad guys wanted? It was stupid and sloppy writing, made worse when Clayton is able to fool them (and apparently the police) into thinking he's dead even though there's no charred corpse in his car... just his wallet and his watch. Did his body get vaporized?

There was also one niggly detail that bugged me, too. At one point they say Clayton was born in 1959. Then, a few scenes later, Clayton says that he's 45. The math just doesn't add up (and the movie clearly takes place in 2007, sine he's driving a brand new SL).

I also don't get how Tilda Swinton got nominated for an Oscar, much less won the thing, based on her small role...

Movies A-Go-Go

I'm on strike...and on Christmas break...and I'm a lazy ass, so I have been catching up on my DVD awards screeners (one of the perks of being in the WGA, but I'm sure the AMPTP will roll that back on us, too).

LARS AND THE REAL GIRL - Cute and enjoyable, though the central conceit wears thin after awhile.
I'm looking forward to the USA Network series in which Lars and the Real Girl become a private eyes.

MARGO AT THE WEDDING - What a mess...but just when you are about to give up on it and watch BOSTON LEGAL on the Tivo instead, there will be a great line or a good performance. Jack Black is always fun, but he seems to be performing in an entirely different, and much better, movie.

CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR - It's one of the better first season episodes of THE WEST WING.

THE BOURNE SUPREMACY - Even better the fifth time. I loved it.  And I admire the creative choices. It takes really guts to have the third movie take place, chronologically, in the final act of the second film....and real skill to actually pull it off. 

Slush Hour

I saw RUSH HOUR 3 today. The story made no sense at all, but I had a good time anyway...mostly because of Chris Tucker. He was the movie. He made lines funny that weren't funny. Max Von Sydow was in the movie, too, which I also found amusing. If you cast him in a part, you might as well hang a sign around his neck that says: -------

Well, you know what it should say. 

Catching up

I finally saw LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD and BOURNE ULTIMATUM.  DIE HARD was over-the-top, by-the-numbers, and dull. BOURNE ULTIMATUM was fresh, invigorating, and exciting...I loved it. I wish more movies were as smart and exciting as the BOURNE trilogy.  The geek in my can't wait to get ULTIMATUM on DVD so I can watch all three movies back-the-back in one sitting (as if I will ever have the time for that).

I also caught up with the last five episodes of THE SOPRANOS. They were definitely a big improvement over last season's episode, a real return to form dramatically and comedicly for the series. But like everyone else, I don't really get the point of the abrupt ending that felt more like a technical/broadcasting error than a scripted, dramatic moment.

Next on my Tivo... JESSE STONE: SEA CHANGE and the last five episodes of the season of HEROES and LAW AND ORDER: SVU.

Night in the Museum aka Boredom in the Movie Theatre

Because I have an 11-year-old in the house, and I'm a big fan of Dick Van Dyke, I went to see NIGHT IN THE MUSEUM...which proves the point that even the best special effects wizardry is no substitute for compelling stories and interesting characters. This is a tedious mess that apparently bored Owen Wilson, Robin Williams, and Ricky Gervais as much while they were making as it did all of us who had to watch it (The only actor who has the slightest bit of energy is Dick Van Dyke). Not even a fast-forward button could make this movie pass by quickly enough.

Ink and Celluloid Dreams Collide

There's a symbiotic relationship between books and films. The movie business likes to use books for content and cut their risks by relying on pre-sold characters and stories. The book biz likes to use movies as big-budget commercials for their products and piggyback on the huge promotional effort that surrounds new films and TV shows. But as the December issue of Moving Pictures magazine points out, there are some dangers.  In one article, headlined "Sin or Synergy," the magazine discusses the recent surge in alliances between publishers and studios...many of whom are owned by the same parent companies. But that doesn't guarantee hits...for either studios or booksellers.

Maria Campbell, a highly regarded book scout for Warner Brothers, believes "good movies are made because people are passionate about them and have a vision. Alliances can create conversations, but they can't create good movies.

Ron Bernstein, head of the West Coast Book Department at ICM shares Campbell's caution. "Books will always be part of the landscape, but it's certainly not the glory days. With movies based on video games, remakes and TV series, the extraordinary hold that the printed word had on movies is not what it once was."

It works the other way, too. Books based on movies -- also known as tie-ins and novelizations -- aren't the booming business they once were, either.  The short window between the theatrical release of a movie and it's availability in DVD has cut down on the need to buy a tie-in novel to re-live the movie experience. Why re-live it when you can own it?

In an article headlined "Novelization is a Nasty Word," the magazine also explores the publishing industry's continuing practice of turning movies into books. Among the authors they interview is Max Allan Collins, who they dub the "Leonardo da Vinci of pop culture fiction,"  co-founder (with yours truly) of the International Association of Media Tie-in Writers. "Novelization is an unfortunate term that tends to diminish the process or, anyway, the end result," Max told them.

Max and Greg Cox do a good job describing in the article the enormous obstacles confronting writers of novelizations...including ever-changing scripts, insanely short deadlines (two weeks to three months) and bad pay. Not to mention lack of respect.

Cox points out [that] novelizers almost never get to see the movie in advance. All they have to work with is an early draft of the script.

"If you're lucky," he says, "you get a stack of still photos and maybe a copy of the movie trailer. "

But when a novelization scores, it can score big. Max's adaptation of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN sold over a million copies in the U.S. alone.  And when a movie does well, the book it was based on reaps the benefits -- according to the magazine, the tie-in reprint of the DA VINCI CODE, with Tom Hanks on the cover, sold five million copies.

Regardless of the potential for these partnerships, the business still remains driven by agents, writers, and studio execs who have to read the material and get excited by it. As Maria Campbell observes,  "it takes a village to publish a book. It takes a continent to make a movie."

Casino Royale...Again

I took my wife to see CASINO ROYALE today and I liked it a lot better than I did the first time. I have no idea why...perhaps it had something to do with the audience, which was a lot more enthusiastic and reactive than the audience I saw it with before.

UPDATE: My friend Javi rates the Bonds. I don't necessarily agree with his line-up, but I love his commentary.

18. a view to a kill - everyone in this film looks like they are a hundred and thirty seven years old and dying of rickets.

My ranking? My favorite Bonds are Sean Connery, Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby and Roger Moore (though Roger had his moments). But my ranking of portrayals doesn't match how I would order the films. Each has its unique pleasures. It would probably go something like this:

1. Goldfinger

2. From Russia, With Love

3. You Only Live Twice

4. Casino Royale

5. Tomorrow Never Dies

6.  Dr. No

7. The Spy Who Loved Me

8. The Living Daylights

9. Never Say Never Again

10. Thunderball

11. On Her Majesty's Secret Service

12.  Goldeneye

13.  Diamonds Are Forever

14.  Die Another Day

15.  For Your Eyes Only

16.  The World is Not Enough

17. Live and Let Die

18. License to Kill

19. Octopussy

20. Man with the Golden Gun

21. Moonraker

22. A View to a Kill

Casino Royale

I just got back from the first show (yes, I am a geek). I enjoyed the movie, I liked Daniel Craig a lot and there are some fantastic action sequences... but it isn't a James Bond movie.  It's not your father's James Bond or even your grandfather's James Bond.  Sure, there are Aston Martins and casinos and exotic locales  and villians with scars near their eyes. But something was missing. Maybe for the better. (Though it could also have missed about twenty minutes, the film goes on way too long).

The producers weren't kidding when they said they were reinventing Bond (unlike, say, their attempt with LIVING DAYLIGHTS). This truly is a new interpretation, clearly one that's heavily influenced by the Jason Bourne movies... with a touch of DIE HARD's John McClaine thrown in for good measure. But if they are jettisoning so much from the old intepretation, the few hangers-on (the women who swoon at his glance, the scar-faced villains and Aston Martins) should be scrapped, too.

This Bond is basically Connery's take on the character as a ruthless assassin, a working-class  "blunt instrument" in a tuxedo.  In fact, you could say that Daniel Craig is dramatizing the formative days of  Connery's 007.  If so, then the next film will be a James Bond film. At least more so than this one was... or so they seem to be hinting at the end.

Casino Royale

There's a new trailer for CASINO ROYALE and it lays to rest any doubts that Daniel Craig can play Bond or that the producers were serious about rebooting the franchise. The last vestiges of the Roger Moore years seem to be completely erased.  Bond is once again the young,  lethal assassin from DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.  I liked the Pierce Brosnan Bonds, though they seemed like a compromise between the Connery and Moore versions of 007. CASINO ROYALE is definitely a throwback to the Connery interpretation. It looks like this movie could be the best Bond film since GOLDFINGER... (though the bad guy's scarred eye is a little too reminiscent of Donald Pleasance in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE). I can't wait to see it.

License Renewed

Daniel Craig's debut as James Bond in CASINO ROYALE is still several months away, but Nikki Finke reports that Sony has already announced that his license to kill has been renewed. He'll be back as Bond in an untitled movie to be released in May 2008.

Superman Unborn

Writer/Director Kevin Smith talks in this YouTube clip from a speech at Clark University about his experience writing the aborted SUPERMAN REBORN. It's very funny...and scary, too.

Superman Returns

SUPERMAN RETURNS reminded me of THE BRADY BUNCH MOVIE --  I couldn't get past Brandon Routh's irritating and pointless Christopher Reeve impersonation. It struck me as a particularly stupid idea... it would be like doing a James Bond movie and hiring someone to do a Sean Connery impersonation. The imitation works for satire...but for a drama? I don't understand the thinking behind it. Why couldn't they just let Routh create his own, unique portrayal? At least Kevin Spacey and Kate Bosworth weren't forced into imitating Gene Hackman and Margot Kidder (though the performances by Spacey and Bosworth are surprisingly bland). 

By attempting to xerox the original SUPERMAN movie, all director Bryan Singer managed to do was force comparisons at every turn... and SUPERMAN RETURNS simply didn't measure up on any level.  I was constantly reminded how much better the first two movies were...and how genuine and charming Christopher Reeve's portrayal was.

Dueling Poseidons

Screenwriter Bryce Zabel, who wrote the THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE mini-series, compares and contrasts all three film versions of Paul Gallico's novel. Among his observations:

All I can say about that is that it's a good thing that the original film, my mini-series take and the current feature only used it as a springboard. It's not that great and some things in it are just nuts. Like one of the characters gets raped and feels bad, after the ship capsizes, for the man who raped her. I'm not sure how that was acceptable in 1969, but it sure is out of the mainstream in 2006.

UPDATE 5-15-06:  The feature POSEIDON sunk at the boxoffice...and Bryce has some thoughts on that, too.

The Name is Poster, Bond Poster

I’ve got all the Bond movie posters, which I started collecting when I was a kid. I bought most of them from the now-defunct Cinema Shop in San Francisco and, later, from Hollywood Book & Poster Co. in LA. When I was single, I had them up all over my apartment. But for the last 16 years of marital bliss, the posters have been relegated to my small office, where I rotate them in, two at-a-time. I love those posters, many of which feature art by the legendary Robert McGinnis. Posterwire reports that a NY gallery is hosting an exhibit of Bond posters from mid-May through July. The news of the exhibit coincides with the release this week of the new trailer and the teaser poster for CASINO ROYALE.

You're Not My Hero

Today I came across two opposing views on the "re-imagining" of pop culture properties. First, my friend Javi says live with it -- recasting is an inevitable part of an industry that recycles everything:

In a culture where everything is re-made and re-hashed over and over again, i can understand why people would get so mad about daniel craig becoming the new james bond, or brandon routh the new superman or david tennant the new doctor who (any hartnell loyalists out there? c’mon - express yourselves!). People crave stability in their heroes and the values they embody - and re-hashing and re-casting takes that way.  I get it.  I can even understand the good-natured argument between friends about how the only man ever to really capture the spirit of superman was kirk alyn, and the occasional shocking revelation that someone who’s opinion you respect actually thinks that george lazenby’s work in “on her majesty’s secret service” has been shockingly under-appreciated...

...what i don’t understand is the all-pervasive vitriol - why put up web pages full of heated invective about craig’s perceived shortcomings? why the long angry treatises about how “the character is named ‘starbuck’ - not ‘stardoe!’” why all the keening wails over how some callous money grubbing producer “ruined my childhood?” why the nasty public outcry over michael keaton putting on the mask and cowl? why all the death threats about how michael shanks was no james spader? oh wait - there weren't any, moving on.

...but the fact is we live in a society where everything is re-made, re-hashed and re-packaged endlessly - which means your idols can be frozen in time indefinitely. no need to put up a protest site, i can just curl up in a sofa and watch my dvd of “octopussy...”

John Kenneth Muir doesn't agree. Despite all the accolades that the new BATTLESTAR GALACTICA has been getting (including a Peabody Award), he thinks they should call it something else.

To reiterate my stance on Galactica: It's well-written and I can enjoy an episode any time in much the same way I enjoy the tense 24. However, my problem begins and ends with the fact that it's called Battlestar Galactica. The original series has been used as a "brand name" by Ron Moore to do something totally new, something unfaithful, something he wanted to do. That's fine, and some people obviously like what he's done very much. But it shouldn't be called Battlestar Galactica

Why not? It's still BATTLESTAR GALACTICA...with a few tweaks (for the better, by the way). Roger Moore's James Bond is still James Bond, whether you like the portrayal or not. I'm with Javi in this debate (I don't know how anyone could look at the new BG and pine for the old one, but that's another subject).

By the way, LIVE AND LET DIE was my first 007 movie, too, and I loved it (hey, I think I was 10 at the time). But then I saw GOLDFINGER and it was a revelation. James Bond became my hero (and still is). That said, I still eagerly awaited each new 007 movie -- and enjoyed them --even as I was rediscovering the early ones (this was before home video...I had to wait for the Connery Bonds to show up in revival theatres or on TV).  I was able to see them as two distinctly different experiences -- the Roger Moore Bonds and the Sean Connery Bonds -- and enjoy them for what they were (not any more. I cringe watching the Moore Bonds).

I can't wait to see Daniel Craig in CASINO ROYALE. But the truth is, I'd be dying to see it no matter who was starring as 007 (Clive Owen, Julian McMahon, etc.). Because I'm a James Bond geek. Even at my ripe old age, I'm still a little kid when it comes to Bond...

UPDATE 4-18-07: John comments at length on the reaction to his original post. Here are some excerpts:

Uh-Oh Seven

Shortly before the Oscars, screenwriter Paul Haggis talked to MTV's Kurt Loder about scripting the upcoming 007 film CASINO ROYALE.

Loder: Were you called in to be a script doctor for the upcoming Bond movie, "Casino Royale"?

Haggis: Yeah. They sent me a script, a very good script, and asked me to think about the character and re-conceive the character of James Bond. I took 10 weeks on that.

Loder: How is this film going to be different than the 1967 original?

Haggis: It will be completely different, I think. You know, it takes James Bond from the very first Ian Fleming book, "Casino Royale," when he becomes James Bond — when he gets his "Double 0" status, which means he has two kills, and therefore has his license to kill. But all the bells and whistles, all the things that Q used to give him, the gadgets, those are all gone. So you deal with the character as an assassin and what it feels like to be an assassin. And I ask the question, "Why does he treat women the way that he treats them?"
So I've either helped to re-energize this series, or I've just ruined James Bond for everybody forever.

I don't want to pre-judge the film, but I'm a major James Bond fan. What's the point of doing a James Bond movie if the character isn't James Bond? Isn't the fun of a James Bond film seeing Bond be  Bond? I hope they don't screw it up (then again, it couldn't be any worse than A VIEW TO A KILL, by far the worst 007 movie yet)(then again, look how reimagining BATTLESTAR GALACTICA created something far better)(then again, the original BSG was crap, so it would be hard NOT to improve upon it)

At least audiences won't go into the theatre with unrealistic expectations...

From the movie poster for 8 BELOW:

"The Most Amazing Story of Survival, Friendship, and Adventure Ever Told."

The Pay for Script Readers in Hollywood Must Really Suck

There is a guy on ebay who has gone from auctioning his old comic books and Heather Locklear posters to offering to read any script, and provide coverage, for $49.

I will read it and send back a 2-3 page analysis of the script. Also called coverage, this is what the studios use when reading scripts and will include a summary of the script (because if what I see as the plot is different from what you meant it to be, there is a problem!), and include notes on strong and weak points, and ways to make the script more marketable.

A little bit about me and my qualifications. I graduated from the University of California (USC) School or Cinema-Television with a BA degree in Film, emphasis on Critical Studies. I also hold a minor in Creative Writing and Literature. I have been working in the industry for almost 6 years now, and have worked as a script reader for Zide/Perry Entertainment (credits include "American Pie," "Final Destination," and "Cats & Dogs"), and for Blain and Associates (credits include "Save the Last Dance") and am currently working at Shaprio/Grodner Productions ("Scared Straight," "Rescue 911", "Big Brother").

This is a great chance for any aspiring screenwriter.

I don't see how. Unless the reader is reading for a studio that's actually considering the script for option/purchase, the coverage is completely useless. 

The sad thing about this isn't really the desperate aspiring screenwriters who will send a stranger $49 to read their script (especially one who is so clearly on the fringes of movie-making).  The sad thing is the schlub who, after six years in the business, is still reading scripts -- and is making so little money that he's been forced to auction off his movie posters and underwear.

The guy isn't doing a favor for writers -- he's asking you to do him a favor. This auction is an embarrassing act of desperation by someone still struggling to find a foothold in the industry. He's trying to take advantage of wanna-bes when, in fact, he is still one himself.

(Thanks to Richard Yokley for the heads-up!)

Movie Hell

My wife dragged me to RUMOR HAS IT tonight. It's the first time in ages I've seen a movie on a Friday night (usually I see bargain matinees or, during the holidays, get in free with my WGA card). Now I know why the movie business is in trouble.

Let's talk about the theatre experience first. The movie tickets were $20. The popcorn and drink were $10 (we shared). That's $30.  You can rent a DVD for $3 or buy one for $18...or wait until it shows up on HBO or Showtime.  I was gouged and I didn't like it. But hey, you can't beat the movie-going experience...the big screen, the stadium theatre, and the great sound. Like hell.

My local stadium theatre is one of the crown jewels of the Regal chain. The theatre was packed. The film was scratched (and it's only been out a week) and the screen was stained. The woman next to me passed gas, coughed, and sneezed her way through the entire movie. The couple in front of me wouldn't shut-the-fuck-up, even though I asked them politely, and then not so politely, to please shut-the-fuck-up.

Let's talk about the movie. I can't remember seeing a movie with so many matching errors. Nothing matched from master to coverage. His hand are around the cup in the master, not in the closeup. She's got her arms crossed under her chest in the coverage, not in the master. The couple is sitting behind them in the master, not in the coverage. We're over Shirley MacLaine's shoulder and she's talking but her mouth isn't moving. AHHHHHH!  Perhaps I wouldn't have noticed the unbelievable number of continuity and other matching gaffs if the movie wasn't so dull. Shirley MacLaine was wonderful, and over-the-top, and cartoonish -- but whenever she wasn't on screen, the movie died.

I couldn't wait to leave the theatre... and get away from the flatulent germ bag next to me, the loudmouth couple in front of me, and the over-priced popcorn and coke and the movie itself. Why pay $30 for that experience? Buying or renting a DVD, making my own bowl of popcorn, and buying my own coke, sitting in the comfort of my own home, suddenly seems like paradise.

Now before you write me off as a curmudgeon, I like going to movies. Or I did. But more and more often, the experience is like the one I had tonight.

Lord of the Yawns

Even for free, Peter Jackson's KING KONG isn't worth the admission price.

Jackson could easily cut an hour-and-a-half from this movie -- and, in doing so, perform a service for all of mankind. But I suspect that even at half the running time,  KING KONG would still be an insanely dull and pointless remake (seven hours into the movie, my daughter leaned over to me and asked "Are we there yet?").

The special effects are amazing, I will give Jackson that, but no amount of CGI wizardry can make up for the failings of the story, dialogue and characters.  All the actors, particularly Jack Black, seem completely lost, unsure what they are supposed to be playing. But you can't really blame the actors. You have to blame the writer/director. The characters aren't nearly as fleshed out,   interesting, or believable as the CGI monsters. At least you understand why the dinosaurs and insects are doing what they're doing. During the ordeal, I  also wondered about my own motivation -- what the hell was I still doing in the theater? But against all my better judgment, and the pleading of my loved ones, I stayed. I endured.

The movie isn't even good enough to wow a ten-year-old.  I know,  because my ten-year-old told me so. 

"Spongebob Squarepants is a lot more fun," she said as we finally fled the theater, "and shorter, too."

King Kong

I haven't seen KING KONG yet -- but Ken Levine has.

What movie did the reviewers see? It was at least an hour too long. The first hour. Wait for the DVD, skip to “they arrive” and start there, keeping your finger on the ff button at all times. Trust me, by the giant insects you’ll be pressing it as if it were a morphine drip.

We were told this was Peter Jackson’s homage to movies. We weren’t told it was his homage to all of them.

I think I'll wait for the DVD.