Jun
30
Summer Reading | “Jaws 2″
Filed Under Books | Leave a Comment
I’ve fallen way, way behind on my blogging. I thought this summer would be a fairly relaxed couple of months, but I think I’m busier now than I was last semester. Trying to relax is exhausting. I’m almost looking forward to going back to school in the fall to give myself a chance to chill out a bit.
I’m trying to catch up on my reading, chipping away at a stack of used paperbacks I’ve accumulated over the past few months. I think I’ll try and do a semi-regular column about the out-of-print gems I’ll be perusing over the next two months before school starts up again. First up is “Jaws 2.”
Movie novelizations are, in general, kind of a stupid tie-in. A book that’s based on a movie is just the script written in prose form without any major deviations from the cinematic source material. A movie that’s based on a book is going to have all sorts of differences from the original text. Characters will be dropped or composited, subplots will be jettisoned, scenes will be deleted. Most people take issue with whatever changes are made in the adaptation process, and the conventional wisdom is that the book will always, always, always be better than the movie. Read Peter Benchley’s “Jaws” and get back to me on that one. Movie’s light years better than the novel.
All that being said, why’d I bother to read the “Jaws 2″ novelization? The first sequel is easily the best of a bad lot of follow-ups to Spielberg’s original, but it’s not an adaptation. Benchley didn’t write any direct sequels to “Jaws.” So isn’t the novelization of “Jaws 2″ simply a retread of the events of the movie sequel, which are more or less a retread of the events of the first film? Actually, no. Hank Searls’ novelization of “Jaws 2″ is very different from the finished film. It’s based on an earlier, abandoned draft of the screenplay by Howard Sackler and Dorothy Tristan.
Set four years after the events of “Jaws,” the novel finds Amity police chief Martin Brody trying to keep order on the small island that’s still reeling from The Trouble; I assume The Trouble is in reference to the shark attacks, not an unwanted pregnancy. Many businesses have since been shuttered as deep-pocketed tourists have been vacationing elsewhere. The long shadow cast by the now-dead Great White has turned Amity into a ghost town. But, gambling’s been approved by the local government, and a casino’s being built on the island in a desperate bid to resuscitate Amity’s flagging local economy.
But after a couple divers turn up missing, and a skiboat explodes under bizarre circumstances, Chief Brody slaps the handcuffs on a trigger-happy cop from Flushing named Jepps who’s vacationing on Amity island with his family. Brody catches him shooting a baby seal on the beach, not too far from where the boat went up. Jepps’ arrest makes waves with a vacationing mob boss named Moscotti, and unless Brody drops the charges against Jepps, the casino deal is as good as dead. Maybe Brody is, too.
What’s great about the book is how it isn’t until about 50 pages from the end when Brody finally comes face-to-face with a female Great White — one that’s pregnant with eight(!) shark pups, and the one who’s behind the missing persons. This would never work in a major motion picture, but on the page, it’s never boring. Searls gives the shark plenty to do in the meantime, keeping the threat alive in the reader’s mind. All the the while, Brody’s a small town police chief dealing with big city problems in a pulpy, mass-market page-turner.
I had a surprising amount of fun with the book and count it as the only novelization I’ve read that’s stronger than the film it’s based upon. Uninhibited by budgetary constraints, the book pulls off some shocks the movie fails to deliver as successfully, chief among them is the waterskier being gobbled. The shark in the book bursts out of the water, and her very pregnant bulk hurtles sideways through the air before chomping down on the unsuspecting victim like a trained dolphin at Sea World. It’s such an amazing visual that’d have been worth the price of admission alone if director Jeannot Szwarc could’ve pulled it off on-screen.
The only thing the book is missing is John Williams’ booming score.
-Brad Lohan
Jun
29
“Top Gun” Review
Filed Under Movies | Leave a Comment
It’d been about twenty-five years since I’d seen Tony Scott’s “Top Gun,” so revisiting it at the ArcLight last night was essentially like watching the movie for the first time.
Tom Cruise stars in the film as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, a Tom Cruise-like jet pilot who’s accepted into the Navy’s elite Top Gun program, where he and other chiseled bohunks compete to see who’s can sweat the most. This is the sweatiest movie I’ve probably ever seen. Everyone’s seemingly dripping with sweat for the film’s entire runtime. They didn’t shoot on a soundstage; they shot in a sauna.
Kelly McGillis co-stars as Charlie — a cougary love interest and civilian Pentagon official with a PhD in astrophysics(!) — who catches Maverick’s eye and later engages in some synth-scored, PG-rated necking with our rascally hero. I must say I was disappointed in the lack of female nudity on display in “Top Gun,” considering how the Tony Scott’s camera endlessly lingers on every pilot’s naked torso during the locker room scenes and the wholly extraneous volleyball game Action Spike during the first half of Act II. Producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer baked a none-too-subtle homo-eroticism into the proceedings, as Maverick and Val Kilmer’s Iceman vie for who will ultimately be whose wingman.
Snark aside, “Top Gun” is a blockbuster of the first order. It breaks one cardinal rule of screen storytelling by (*Spoiler*) killing Anthony Edwards’ Goose; the Sidekick can never die in a movie because it reflects poorly on the hero! (*End Spoiler*) But it even makes that bit of business work because it comes right at a point in the story when Maverick needs a dramatic reversal to make his getting through Top Gun seem impossible. And so, I forgive the filmmakers for their transgression.
Tony Scott’s direction is stylish without being overwhelmingly so. The aerial combat, against some unnamed black-helmeted enemy squadron, is coherent enough, considering the technical limitations of shooting with $30 million F-14 Tomcats on loan from the U.S. military. There’s also a terrific sense of danger and scale and exhilaration in watching these jets being catapulted off the deck of an aircraft carrier, and Scott captures that beautifully during the film’s lengthy opening sequence, scored to the thrilling Top Gun Anthem. Movies just don’t come like this anymore.
I did read a rumor, though, that “Top Gun 2″ is in the works. The sweat will probably be CGI this time around.
-Brad Lohan
Jun
28
“Over the Top” Review
Filed Under Movies | Leave a Comment
Yesterday, I picked up the “Sylvester Stallone: 4 Film Favorites” DVD set at Target for just $10. The collection has the buddy cop actioner “Tango & Cash,” the futuristic thriller “Demolition Man,” the two-hour Gloria Estefan music video called “The Specialist,” and the father-and-son drama/arm-wrestling movie “Over the Top.” I’d never seen “Over the Top” before, but the trailer’s effing brilliant. So I popped that one in and watched as magic happened on my 27″ RCA television.
Directed by the inimitable Menaham Golan — one half of the Golan-Globus producing partner powerhouse — “Over the Top” stars Sylvester Stallone as big rig truck driver and longshot arm-wrestling champion, Lincoln Hawk. Hawk’s been asked by his gravely ill ex-wife to pick up his estranged 12-year-old son, Michael, from military school and drive him to the hospital where she’s dying of something or other. But Michael’s understandably bitter about his father having walked out on him a decade ago. Michael’s obscenely wealthy grandfather, played by Robert Loggia at his most Robert Loggia, is even more bitter. Grandpa even dispatches some toughs to intercept Hawk’s rig and kidnap the boy away from his well-meaning dad. Meanwhile, Hawk’s preparing himself for an arm-wrestling championship in Las Vegas, where he hopes to win enough money to buy a small business and be a more stable presence in Michael’s life.
Can Hawk and Michael reconnect through a few exercising montages cut to upbeat, overly sincere musical montages? Will forces conspire to drive them even further apart? Does Hawk stand a ghost of a chance at winning the arm-wrestling championship when the odds are so stacked against him? (*Spoiler: Yes, yes and yes. End Spoiler*)
This movie’s so great, I’m surprised that Will and Jaden Smith haven’t remade it yet. Any film that uses Kenny Loggins’ adult contempo track “Meet Me Half Way” — his Ninth Symphony if you ask me — over two separate musical montages deserves a place in the National Film Registry. In fact, the song even comments on the life lesson that Hawk tries to convey to Michael repeatedly throughout the film: “The world meets nobody halfway.” It’s by-your-own-bootstraps mentality at its most deliciously saccharin.
I hesitate to use the term “flawed masterpiece” because it’s an oxymoron, but I know of no other meaningless way to describe “OtT.” The film’s only flaw is a minor one, an incongruity in terms of what Hawk’s actual name is. Some characters refer to him as “Hawks,” including Hawk himself. However, his truck says, “Hawk Hauling,” on the door, and in the credits the character is listed as Lincoln Hawk. Whatever his name is, Hawk(s) is a film character for the ages.
For reasons completely beyond my understanding, this film was not an overwhelming box office success. But it was the ’80s, a period of collective stupidity. At least discerning folks like me can meet this film halfway on DVD.
-Brad Lohan
Jun
18
“Toy Story 3″ Review
Filed Under Movies | Leave a Comment
I haven’t reviewed a major film in wide release in awhile. The past couple big studio releases I’ve seen — cult fodder like “MacGruber” and “Splice” — are interesting failures, commercially speaking, but I feel somewhat indifferent about both films. Watching them neither robbed precious hours from my life, nor did they capture my imagination like great cinema always does. It’s challenging to write about movies that don’t leave a mark on my psyche.
“Toy Story 3,” though, is a movie that is terribly affecting, a rare threequel that holds up against its two predecessors. It’s not absolutely pitch-perfect. I’m curious how well it holds up on repeat-viewings; I think I’ll give it a whirl in 2D before it leaves theaters. But in the toxic waste heap that is the summer movie season, I’m going to go ahead and call “Toy Story 3″ by far the best movie we’re likely to see for the next couple of months.
I feel an odd kinship to the “Toy Story” franchise. Ten years ago, I was a Character Performer at what was then known as the Disney-MGM Studios in Orlando. I believe it’s since been rechristened the Disney Hollywood Studios. Anyway, I suited up as a number of tallish Disney characters, including Woody from “Toy Story.” The costume was pure punishment to wear. Once, I was stung by a bee while putting the damn thing on. But kids — the ones who weren’t terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought — responded favorably to Buzz Lightyear and me. I must be in a bajillion photo albums wearing Woody’s cowboy outfit and giant, 30-pound noggin.
One thing that always stuck in my craw was how much children, and parents too, were outspokenly bigger fans of Buzz than Woody. I really understood Woody’s inferiority complex from the first film as people told me all day that they liked me, but they loved Buzz. That wears on a man.
All that being said, I wanted “Toy Story 3″ to not be a complete and total disaster, a DreamWorks-like cynical cash-in on a familiar brand. Disney had threatened humanity with a third “Toy Story” film throughout the aughts. When it seemed like the Mouse and Pixar were going to go their separate ways for awhile, the former began development on “Toy Story 3″ without the latter’s involvement. Given the quality of Disney’s DTV sequels like “Return of Jafar” and the possibility that Pixar would be shut out of the film completely, movie three seemed like the worst parts of the Bible.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, Disney and Pixar mended fences, and the original plans for “Toy Story 3″ were scrapped. The film is the product of Disney and Pixar’s renewed alliance. We have Pixar’s attention to story and character as well as Disney’s passion for wringing every last nickel out of fans; “Toy Story 3″ is in 3D, ratcheting up ticket prices, and features a cavalcade of toyetic characters — collect ‘em all!
Hey, how about that review I promised? “Toy Story 3″ is about Andy’s long-neglected toys, desperate for any attention from their college-bound owner. A bit of a mixup causes them to be donated to a local daycare, and they’re warmly embraced by all the second-hand toys, particularly Lotso, a strawberry-scented cuddle bear and leader of the pack. But the daycare turns out to be a fate worse than gathering dust in the attic when the gang’s locked in a room with toddlers who play too rough. Escape seems like their only option, but Lotso’s not about to let them go so easily.
I had a lot of fun with this. The existential angst felt by the characters has begun to wear itself a little thin, but the new environment and quirky characters — Michael Keaton’s Ken threatens to walk away with the film — keep things from feeling overly familiar. The 3D brings absolutely nothing to the proceedings. I’d recommend saving a couple bucks and seeing it in 2D. Some of the regulars are a tad underwritten. Buzz’s role feels a bit too diminished, and Jessie’s also relegated to the background. But with all the capering around, the film still finds the time to reach an very moving climax. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t tear up a bit during the final moments. The 3D glasses are at least useful for hiding the fact you’re crying.
-Brad Lohan
Jun
14
The latest news on the “Twilight Saga” front is that “Breaking Dawn,” the adaptation of the Stephanie Meyer’s fourth abortion, will be split into two films. Why do I know this? Well, this news is running on more than one seemingly legitimate horror movie website. Alongside news about “Human Centipede (First Sequence)” are items about “Twilight.” “Twilight,” fer Chrissakes! A series of toothless novels that have captured the imaginations of undemanding young women with genuinely poor taste in horror.
It’s sad enough that this “Twilight” crapola is omnipresent. I can’t throw a rock without hitting a stack of “Twilight” novels at electronics stores, grocery stores and adult bookstores. Now I can’t even surf horror fansites without stumbling upon news — with the requisite amount of smarminess to indicate that the writer is apparently above it all — about “Twilight.” Why? Are they that starved for clicks? Is the horror fanbase really interested in this dumb bullshit?
Even horror cons have fallen prey to the “Twilight” phenomenon. I was at a convention a few weeks ago, where they were selling t-shirts of “Edward and Bela” that showed a picture of Bela Lugosi’s Dracula eating the severed head of Edward Cullen. Yes, it’s clever and amusing, but it’s still “Twilight”-inspired. Maybe if we actually tried ignoring this nonsense, it’ll finally go away.
-Brad Lohan
Jun
7
It’s kind of amazing that this November marks the beginning of the end for the “Harry Potter” franchise. It didn’t peter out after its first sequel like “The Chronicles of Narnia,” nor did it fail to set the box office on fire like “The Golden Compass.” With the exception of Richard Harris, who died after the second film, none of the major roles have been recast. The series also wasn’t rebooted or retconned with needlessly expository prequels. When Part II of the seventh installment opens in 2011, it will culminate a wholly unique film saga that pays loving tribute to JK Rowling’s series of books one triumphant, serialized epic.
A teaser for “The Deathly Hallows” premiered during the MTV Movie Awards. I read book seven after skipping four, five and six. It’s a terrific series capper, a bit long in places. But when I found myself mourning Dobby, a character who’d disappeared from the series after book two, I knew why these books and films have captured the imaginations of so many: they’re just that good. What Harry bite off more than he can chew below.
-Brad Lohan
Jun
1
Wow, I leave town for a few days, and all hell breaks loose. Al and Tipper Gore separated and Guillermo Del Toro announced his decision to step down from directing “The Hobbit” as well as the wholly unnecessary bit of fanwank called the “bridge” film, which would fill in any gaps between “The Hobbit” and “The Fellowship of the Ring.”
This is terrific news!
I’m one of the very few people on Earth who was not won over by the “Lord of the Rings” movies. I thought they were hammy, overwrought and bloated affairs that took four hundred hours to accomplish what could’ve easily been condensed into a 120-minute film. Now, I really, really tried to get into the LOTR flicks. I saw all three in the theater during their respective opening weekends. I felt that being among the hairy-footed fanbase would help me get caught up in the Tolkien fever. But each time I found myself bored and uninvolved.
Then they released Extended Editions of each film. Oh my Christ, if there’s something that none of those movies needed to be, it’s longer.
All that being said, I was mildly interested in seeing what Guillermo Del Toro would do with “The Hobbit.” I like Del Toro more than Peter Jackson as a filmmaker. Jackson’s “King Kong” demonstrated to the LOTR fans that the emperor has no clothes and his real talent is helming gonzo exploitation movies like “Bad Taste” and “Dead/Alive.” Del Toro, however, can do fantasy like no other filmmaker today. If there had to be another damn Hobbit movie, MGM at least hired a guy who could show Jackson how it’s done.
Del Toro’s departure from “The Hobbit” means that he’s almost 100% more likely to direct a project that I’d much rather see. He’s got a spate of flicks on the backburner right now. Personally, I’d love to see him tackle “Frankenstein.”
-Brad Lohan