27 December 2003

C.S.I. is painless...

That title doesn't really make any sense, but it's slightly catchy and fits in with the DVDs I've been watching lately. Namely, MASH and C.S.I.: the first season. Interspersed in there too is Full metal jacket, on a strong recommendation from skippy. So what can I say now? Crime doesn't pay and war is hell.

Seriously, though ,they were all pretty good. Full metal jacket I'd be willing to watch again, but probably just that. C.S.I. was decent but I don't think I need to watch this particular season again, though I am looking forward to watching the next one—once as well. I remember enough and it wasn't a classic, just pretty good. About the only shows I'd go back to for a second and subsequent viewing are The prisoner and The Sopranos, though there could well be more that I just can't recall at the moment. As for TV shows, I think I'll stick with the small screen version of M.A.S.H., not just because I watched it first but because it just works better to stretch out the ideas they're working at over so many years, not just two hours. That and they don't sing the lyrics to the theme song on the show. Altman's film was pretty good, but I have yet to find an Altman that really impressed me. His Player rubbed me the wrong way (several wrong ways, actually) and I haven't really loved anything I've seen of his since. Though the idea of including more football than war in a war movie is an interesting idea and if it was as allegorical as it could be that is by itself brilliant. But the movie overall was scattershot and dragged.

Now Full metal jacket definitely didn't drag. I'm sure somebody out there will clobber me for saying so, but it was his warmest film that I've watched so far. Vague as that statement is, I cannot elaborate on it without lots of hand-waving and "you know..."s so I guess I'm still on the outs with the armchair film school. 'Course I watch my films from a couch, anyway.

26 December 2003

reference department, part 3

Blah blah Christmas and whatnot. I didn't post anything the last two days and I'll let you come up with your own reasons. Speculate away.

Anyway, for almost the last week I've been trying to write about John Varley's Red thunder. It's a great book and it pays homage to a great many things, not just the Heinleinian juvenile books but also south Florida crime fiction. More than that, though, the book (I think) played with the reader. In the beginning there was a passage where the narrator says, "I used the tip of the screen's stylus to touch 7, then 5, then ENTER on the tiny flatscreen keypad..." and then later at least five more (though shorter) descriptions. At first they annoyed me, but then I reasoned that they too must be part of some homage or other. And as the days have passed I've thought more about it and I'd like to think that that little section there is to deliberately annoy readers and weed out the less deserving fans. Or something like that. A day ago, I had it all reasoned out, but the days have passed. Oh well, these things happen.

What else has happened in the intervening time? I got a couple presents including a cheesy but probably fun digital camera and a damn cool watch, the very one after which I've been lusting since first seeing it on TokyoFlash. Today I went and spent a couple giftcards, also a present, on a very reasonably priced Soul Calibur II, which would be more fun if my thumbs weren't sore from a day or two of Gran Turismo 3, which I've been playing for who knows how long and still am only fifteen percent finished. I also watched Full metal jacket, but I'll go into detail on that another time, I think.

By the way, I didn't post anything because my blogging software was acting up. I don't know if it's because I upgraded (and then down-graded back) or just some odd two day quirk, but it wasn't working. I hope you all enjoyed your days, however you spent them. Happy holidays to all, and to all a good night.

20 December 2003

...and in the darkness bind them

Now I've seen it, and I have to say that Return of the king, and in fact the whole Lord of the rings series is top notch. I can't add much beyond that, that hasn't already been said.

17 December 2003

avast!

Finally, something good. Pirates of the Caribbean was great! I'll be less concise tomorrow.

16 December 2003

nothing in holes

I wanted to like it, though I cannot say why really, but Holes didn't do a damn thing for me. It didn't make me laugh or cry and it sure as hell didn't distract me from my pounding headache.

15 December 2003

lure of the rings

Here's an interesting tidbit for you: Ehren Kruger, screenwriter for the American remake of Japan's Ringu, better known as The ring, also wrote screenplays for three other movies: Scream 3, Reindeer games and Arlington road. Talk about inconsistent. Scream 3 was the necessary-but-not finish to a series that lost steam almost before ever getting any, but it was workmanlike and adequate—suitable, maybe, but nothing exceptional. Reindeer games was an overly twisty action flick that was anything but adequate, though not in a good way. Despite a prominent Ben Affleck I still wanted to like that movie, but as I saw it that just wasn't possible. I just now placed a reserve for the DVD of the director's cut, though, and I haven't completely given up hope yet. That said, I'm not exactly keeping my fingers crossed. And giving up on crossings and double-crossings all together brings us to Arlington road, by far the superior film of the three. Can three have a superior? Is it just superior or most superior? For some reason I'm thinking that superior is one of a digital relationship, but as I type this that sounds silly. Going back, far past silly and ludicrous and into serious, Arlington road is a good thriller, though the final ending drags on a bit. The action is well paced and nothing is revealed unnecessarily or too soon. It is, I will admit, a little unconventional but that wouldn't stop me from recommending it to anybody with more than a shred of intellect. So Kruger's batting .333 in my book, one hit and two misses. And then comes The ring which likely won't knock a film out of a future AFI 100 best horror films but probably should. For what I had expected to be a through-the-motions (don't-go-in-the-basement, ooh-a-scary-monster) flick, it turned out hauntingly beautiful and even pretty good (By "pretty good" I mean "I rather liked it"). Now, three weeks after watching that I have watched its Japanese predecessor (and lived to tell the tale).

Though the (film snob) buzz would lead me to believe otherwise, it wasn't really better than its progeny across the Pacific. The effects were, well, worse, though the understated faces of death was not to its detriment but actually a good thing—Verbinki and company may have taken that one further than necessary to get just a little more jump out of the audience. Understatement was the watchword for the visuals, though a lot of plot was spoken and verbally worked through, whereas Verbinski and pals left more to be seen and absorbed by the audience rather than beating them across the ears with it like a trout. Score one for the Americans. Another point for the Americans is the deeper story and reengineering of who does what—the reporter's considerably less independent (though more vulnerable) in Japanese. There are more character changes, too, with a more fleshed out son back in America. Hell, the video is only four scenes long in Ringu, none of them particularly disturbing.

On the whole it is almost as though the Japanese version is the more conventional of the two, though by conventional I am referring to the conventions of the Hollywood horror flick. Perhaps it is something of a modern-day Seven samurai (Akira Kurosawa's love letter to the American—and to some degree Italian—Western, which was remade as an American Western). To be an American with very little exposure to the Japanese language of film, I know I missed subtleties and framings that any Tamagotchi and Pokemon graduate in Osaka would immediately recognize. I think I noticed where some would be, but again I could not understand them. I have every intent to learn the written and spoken language, but to learn its cinematic equivalent could well be a tougher proposition. But if it takes watching every Godzilla film ever made (over there) I'll do it, gosh darn it.

To sum it all up, (and I know that this will get me drummed out of armchair film school) if you're going to see only one Ring, watch Verbinski's. I can't really come up with an ideal way to watch both, having done so myself. Watching Ringu first would take much of the bite out of Ring's "ending" and give away too much of the plot, but to do it in reverse, as I have done, takes too much away from the not so horrible Japanese version. To have seen Naomi Watts play the reporter first sets a standard that just can't be met by the earlier, lower budget film. Seeing the American film's video first makes the Japanese one cheesy, almost laughable in comparison. The imagery's altogether better given that they had something of a first draft to expand and extend. Yeah, the AllMovieGuide calls the shorter video "obscurely menacing" but the images that haunt me after a movie ends are the ones that I see, not the ones that menace me obscurely (see also the creepy stick figures in The Blair witch project twisting in the wind in haunting black and white). I also disagree with AMG's praise of the Kabuki stylings of Sadako, being too unnatural as to call attention to it and not just to make it frightening. Verbinski's trick photography is no better, I will concede, but it has the edge of being a little girl on screen and not whoever was used in Ringu, with the gawkishly long and skinny arms and rubber glove fingers. Maybe it's my preference for the stylized, but I still give the edge to the USA on this one and let AMG and its highfaluting opinions be damned. But this is a decision everybody needs to make for oneself, not one to be decided by some site or beret wearing film geek and then set in stone. So watch one, or both. Just not neither.

About the best thing to do, short of inducing amnesia (a la Zaphod Beeblebrox), would be to watch the two of them at the exact same time. Unfortunately that too wouldn't work well as the movies have different runtimes, and who has two TVs beside each other? Moreover the watching of a subtitled movie demands somewhat more attention than is devoted to one with understandably spoken dialogue, so one would definitely be shortchanged whether it be to a viewer transfixed by the visuals or merely a slow reader. This whole paragraph is utter nonsense, so skip it and instead rent The ring and watch it, though you might want to do it early on in the day and with other people around you. Just trust me on that.