Movie Trailers of the Day!

November 12, 2012 by heroictimes

A quick recap of some movies trailers I sampled today. Here’s the lowdown on the winners, the contenders and the losers!

THE BEST:

UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: THE RETURN- I’m not a fan of the UNIVERSAL SOLDIER movies at all. Thought the first movie was mediocre at best, so imagine my surprise going into this trailer. It seemingly has very little to do with UNIVERSAL SOLDIER, which in my book is a good thing, and the trailer comes across with very much a horror, off-kilter vibe. UNIVERSAL SOLDIER by way of NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. If the ultimate goal of a trailer is to make you want to pay to see the film, then this trailer succeeds.

IRON MAN 3- No doubt everyone and their grandma has seen this trailer now, but let me just jump on the bandwagon and say it looks great. I’ve enjoyed all the previous MARVEL STUDIOS movies, and this appears to be no exception.

MAMA- is the latest by the director of BLADE II, PAN’S LABYRINTH etc, and looks like a worthy and creepy addition to that body of work. It’ll get my theater dollars.

LINCOLN- A bio-pic on Abraham Lincoln done by Spielberg, with a huge, high profile cast. Of course this is a must see in the theaters.

THE UNDECIDED/WAIT FOR VIDEO PILE:

REACHER- Tom Cruise’s latest looks interesting, though nothing you haven’t seen before.Though the ageless Mr. Cruise finally begins to show some age, which probably works for the weathered character he plays. I’m not bowled over by either trailer, nothing that screams see me in the theater, but one I’ll rent at least.

PUSHER- The trailer of this remake does nothing for me. But it has some heavy hitters behind the camera so the film may surprise. Worth a rental maybe.

BIGFOOT- A found footage BIG FOOT film. I’ve liked Big Foot related items since the old SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN TV show, so the premise is enough for me to give it a look. But nothing worth seeing in a theater or buying. Particularly considering the trailer makes it look even stupider than Blair Witch (which I disliked).

STOKER- Well when I heard the title STOKER I was hoping this had something to do with Bram Stoker, but no such luck. The trailer makes this seem like a drama/thriller about a young girl and her serial killer uncle, something of a distorted reworking of Hitchcock’s brilliant SHADOW OF A DOUBT. Quite frankly the trailer is pretty uninteresting, the only saving graces it has are… Nicole Kidman (she’s such a captivating beauty and actress, even here when she should be playing a worn, mother figure. If the purpose of a star is to make you want to look at them… all the time, then Nicole Kidman is a star of the highest order) and the director Park Chan Wook, of OLD BOY fame with his first English language film. So STOKER, poor trailer or not, is definitely worth a look when it hits video.

TAICHI- A steam-punk martial arts film by the creators of IP MAN and DETECTIVE YEE. I’m sold! Not something I’m going to pay theater prices for, but it is definitely a future rental.

EVIL DEAD REMAKE- That’s a gory trailer, jury is still out whether it is a good trailer, much less a good movie. Off the bat none of the actors come across as interesting which already puts you at a HUGE disadvantage. Bruce Campbell’s performance and likeability is a huge part of the success of the original EVIL DEAD, so to toss in some stock CW actors, with the depth of pond water (just going by the trailer, they may be Oliviers in the finished film) and think you earn the right to call it an EVIL DEAD film… could be a problem. This is going to be worth a look on video, but not in the theaters.

THE WORST:

HAUNTED HOUSE- A Marlon Wayans comedy/spoof on PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. The trailer is as stupid and uninteresting as you think it would be. Avoid.

THE COLLECTION- by the SAW creators. Seemingly their SAW franchise is dead, so they are trying to jump start a new one, using the same torture porn premise. Going just by the trailer… utter garbage.

CLOUD ATLAS- The easiest way to get me not interested in a film is to put Halle Berry in it. Tom Cruise doesn’t help either and an unfocused time-hopping storyline leaves me equally uninterested.

SMILEY- Seemingly an urban legend Serial Killer film. A killer with a smiley face made of flesh? Ugggh. It’s an effective trailer for this type of movie, I’m just not the audience for it. I hesitate to put this in the worst category until some of the reviews come in. It may actually have a story to it, and some craft, unlike something like THE COLLECTION.

That’s all for this installment of the best and worst in movie trailers! And you can view all the mentioned trailers for yourself here! Just say NO to Flash/streaming web trailers, which are always slow and crappy, and get them in downloadable quality at the link above!

And come back soon for more!!

RATING THE DOCTORS: The Best & Worst Doctor Who Companions Pt. 1 of 2!

June 5, 2012 by heroictimes

Update:

Okay waiting for my trusty photographer to send me the pictures from Wizard World Philly, and then the 2nd and final part of that convention coverage will go up. Part II of the Pulp article, and the Charles Saunders MONARCH OF MAYHEM are both being worked on.

And working on WEDNESDAYS WORDS for tomorrow, Have not missed a Wednesday yet! (Knock on pixels)

So in the interim of all that heavy lifting I’m doing, here’s an easy, breezy post…

************

THE BEST AND WORST DOCTOR WHO COMPANIONS

This year I made it through watching all 30+ seasons of Doctor Who, counting the old (with the exception of lost episodes) and the new.

I first ran across Doctor Who as a kid watching the Tom Baker episodes on PBS. Incredibly low budget even by my childish standards of the time, it was okay. Quirky, not something I really made a point of following, but would watch if nothing else was on.

Re-watching the entire 30+ year series in a matter of months, I have a far better appreciation and understanding of the series as an adult.

There were some really smartly written and exciting and imaginative episodes in the show’s 30+ year history, and we’ll get into those. But in this post I wanted to discuss the barometer for what is best and worst in Doctor Who… namely the companions.

If you dislike the companion, or find them annoying, or their dynamic with the Doctor just doesn’t work, the show seldom rises above your assessment of them. ie bad Companions translating to bad and annoying episodes. This is very subjective of course, but informed by the context of watching 30+ seasons of Dr. Who. So informed subjectivity if you will.

So without further ado the five best and worst Dr. Who companions:

We’ll start with the negative in this post, and do the best next time at bat.

WORST

Adric – played by Matthew Waterhouse from 1980 to 1982 with Tom Baker and Peter Davison – The character of Adric was an annoying whining and joy eroding albatross stuck on the end of Tom Baker’s tenure and throughout Peter Davison’s tenure by the long running and both creative and stifling producer, John Nathan Turner. John Nathan Turner was a hit and miss producer, responsible for an equal share of Doctor Who successes as he was missteps and failures. His choice of companions being one of his most obvious. Adric being the worst of Nathan Turner’s lot of disagreeable companions. “Wow we are getting to travel in space and time, so instead of being thankful or awed let’s just bitch and be upset all the time, and wear the same stinking clothes for no apparent reason”. The reason for wearing the same clothes, was another Nathan Turner misstep, wanting the companions to wear a consistent uniform, which just came off as stupid, and eschewed the fun brilliance of the first companions who every episode carried over pieces of clothing and garb from their adventures through time and space. Quite a fun idea if you think about it. So the character of Adric, was the most egregious of Nathan Turner’s bad decisions, but not, unfortunately, the only flawed bit of casting and character.

Turlough – played by Mark Strickson from 1983 to 1984 with Peter Davison, along with the characters of Nyssa and Tegan and Adric, he was part of Nathan Turner’s whiny, unlikeable companions. Which is a dig against the producer and writers rather than the actors. Despite Tegan being written unnecessarily combative and whining, and the character of Nyssa being completely underwritten, I didn’t find them too grating, or ‘turn off the show to avoid’ bad. However I did feel that way to a great degree by the character of Adric, and to a lesser, but still unsatisfying, degree, Turlough. So hence him making my worst list.

Mel – played by Bonnie Langford from 1986 to 1987 with Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy- In her defense she’s bubbly. But beyond that she just seems an odd choice that never quite works for me. She is not as bad as the others listed, I don’t dislike the character, I just don’t care for the character.

Amy Pond & Rory- I found her from the first incredibly annoying and uninteresting. Her whole pouty thing, and the Rory/Amy show… not remotely interested. Stopped watching after the first season with them.

Mickey Smith- Ugghhh. A Shakespearean trained actor and you have him doing a bitchy step&fetchit neutered character. Just annoying from the first episode of the revived Doctor Who series. I disliked the character so much, that it would not be until many years later, when given the chance to view the whole series cheap, that I would go back to Doctor Who. A character that defines the negative connotations of the term ‘Black faces, White messages’. Russell T. Davies who is to be applauded for reviving Doctor Who and making it a world-wide phenomenon had some very negative uses of male characters of color in his first few seasons, and Mickey Smith was that dynamic at its worst. Ironically with the character of Martha Jones, he would introduce a fantastic female companion, and a fantastic character of color; Davies issues relegated seemingly only to the male. Whatever the reason Mickey Smith was an awful character, redeemed only marginally in his last few appearances.

Those are the five worst companions in no specific order, though I think you can tell by my descriptions, my personal ranking of them. See my rating for the five best companions here!

On the Racism of HP Lovecraft : 2nd Verse same as the First! :)

April 21, 2012 by heroictimes

One of my more popular posts is my article covering the racism of HP Lovecraft. And by popular demand of someone who describes themselves as a self-professed Romney and Gay marriage supporter out of Olympia, Washington (hey I’m just reading what’s on the card ) … he urges me (maybe she) to repost the article.

This Ricky makes an interesting point about HP Lovecraft’s popularity perhaps being buoyed by the rising tide of an America under attack by selfish liberal interests, bolstered by an ignorant populace that keeps resisting paying welfare to big business.

He/she further goes on to say that “the middle and lower classes are just not understanding that big business is right to bankrupt the country, and enslave many to debt for the needs of the coming over-lords and all this was foretold in the fiction of the messiah… LOVECRAFT!!!! You Liberal scum!! Don’t you see?!! Lovecraft loves you!!!!! HE DIED FOR YOUR SINS!!!!”

Again, I’m just reading what’s on the card people.

He/She goes on to say “CTHULHU! CTHULHU! CTHULHU!” To which I say Gezuntheit!

Ahh you’ve got to love the intelligence and stability and eloquence of Lovecraft supporters.

And I think that deserves our renewed attention to the article that started it all! For those who missed it the first time, read it at the link below, with love from he/she/it in Olympia, Washington!

This one’s for you!

Writers Face Off: Robert E. Howard vs. H.P. Lovecraft! May the Least Racist Writer stand up! :)

April 13, 2012 by heroictimes

I recently purchased THE SAVAGE TALES OF SOLOMON KANE from Del Rey Books and with spot illustrations by Gary Gianni.

So I’m going through the book, and I’m moving pretty capably along.

There are the random slurs and stereotypes, but pretty much they are few and far between and they don’t get in the way of the story…

Until I hit THE MOON OF SKULLS.

Game over man. Game effing over.

To call it insulting is perhaps an understatement. I had to check to make sure I wasn’t reading something by Lovecraft.

Oh stop crying! You know I’m right!

Have you read Howard’s THE MOON OF SKULLS?! A xenophobic, denigrating, and intolerant bit of writing, that goes on forever. I think the actual term that popped into my head before pulling the plug on the story was “racist piece of crap”.

Now I do make allowances for the time these books were written, and the fact that the Texan Howard when compared to his contemporaries of the time such as H.P. Lovecraft (a staggering racist) was quite moderate by the definitions of the age.

Part of this is the difference in the type of men they were.

Howard was a rough and tumble, ‘man-of-action’ sort, who understood the world beyond his head, and by that definition understood people outside of his head.

Lovecraft was a secluded New England ‘Intellectual’ who sought a mythology, a hierarchy of master and slave, with the almost ingrained need of the region to preserve an upper class (that in all truth, Lovecraft was very far from, due to the family’s loss of fortune early in his life) by the belief and need for a lower class.

I think racism, gave a lacking man like Lovecraft something. Something to drag himself up on, to restore him to that glory he never had, but thought he deserved… by tearing others down.

Whereas Howard was a self sufficient man (which makes his end all the more bewildering), he went along with the expected prejudice and tropes of the day, but you get the sense in some of his writing, he was content to see men as men. That Howard was a man who stumbled into the tropes of racism, rather than active in the creation and embracing of racism… ala Lovecraft.

I can deal with Lovecraft’s writing in small doses, but I find this recent deification of Lovecraft, of a writer who was barely a footnote in his own time… as odd, though not inexplicable; especially in a country that so desperately, like Lovecraft, wants to turn back the clock to a glorious age of Master and Slave, that never was glorious, and never will be.

But I do think people are over-stating both Lovecraft’s influence and importance, as his work followed in the footsteps of writers like Lord Dunsany, and took inspiration from contemporaries such as Clark Ashton Smith. Much of what people are quick to define as Lovecraftian isn’t, it belongs to a writing movement of the time, dark fantastic offshoots of the age of spiritualism, Houdini, and Arthur Machen.

“In 1914, when the kindly hand of amateurdom was first extended to me, I was as close to the state of vegetation as any animal well can be…With the advent of the United I obtained a renewal to live; a renewed sense of existence as other than a superfluous weight; and found a sphere in which I could feel that my efforts were not wholly futile. For the first time I could imagine that my clumsy gropings after art were a little more than faint cries lost in the unlistening world.” —H.P. Lovecraft

So I do take the biases of Lovecraft into account when reading Robert E. Howard. And rank him as better than the contemporaries of his age.

And I realize I just have to avoid Howard stories that are written toward a certain audience, and toward a prevalent prejudice of the day. Generally this means avoiding most of his Conan stories, as I would end up ripping them in half.

I can stomach his writing in small doses, and that’s generally when he isn’t on bigoted diatribes disguised as a story. In short bursts, and when not using an entire Continent of Africa to advance 1920s fantasies of race and heroism, I can appreciate his writing. His SKULLS IN THE STARS is probably his best short story, it is a well done story and mainly because it is free of Howard’s capitulations to the prejudices and tropes of the day.

So the winner of my Writer’s Face-Off? Well let’s put it this way. I own a Robert E. Howard book, I don’t own any HP Lovecraft books.

I guess that says it all.

BEST AND WORST DVDs OF 2011!

January 6, 2012 by heroictimes

‘Nasty things [Orchids]! Their flesh is too much like the flesh of men, and their perfume has the rotten sweetness of corruption.’
— 1946′s THE BIG SLEEP

“When one tries to rise above Nature one’s liable to fall below it.”
— Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes in Robin Chapman’s THE CREEPING MAN