“Writercise” an intro

What is “Writercise?” Well beyond being a silly combination of writer and exercise, writercise is a way for me to work on writing spontaneously.

I try to write something everyday, and for the most part I succeed. But those things are planned out. If they be an article, script, or outline. I usually go into the next day knowing what I’m going to write. Then it struck me, what if, like exercise (where I have a planned routine) I can use some spontaneity, some unknown factor to write for the first 20 minutes before diving into a script. Like a stretch before a run.

 

For those that don’t know, I do improv. In a lot of improv, the audience gives you just one word, whatever that word is, and you go for 20 solid minutes. Those 20 minutes might not be amazing, but sometimes it can be the best thing ever. Just from one single word, it was an inspiration. This will work very much the same way. And I figured why not share this publicly for all to see. Plus, I’ll need your help

How it works: The way this will work is I’ll go to twitter (@Jurassicalien) and ask for a word. From there, it’s up to you to provide one single one. I choose the word, and then I write, for 20 minutes, whatever that word inspired in my head. Could be a sketch, a monologue, a biographical story, whatever it is. It’ll be quick and dirty, perhaps many typos. Then I’ll tag whomever gave me that word, and post what I wrote here for everyone to see.

My goal is to do this everyday, might miss one here or there, but if I’m writing, I’m doing this. So follow me on twitter, give me some words and check out what I end up with. It might not all be gold, but it’s an experiment for sure.

Maleficent review

Malficent is a very confusing film, to say the least. The film that’s supposed to show you the other side of the “Sleeping Beauty” story. To tell you why the villain in that film, Malficent isn’t actually the villain, just a misunderstood hero, or anti-hero, or something.

But how do you turn one of the most iconic villains in Disney, if not film history, whose only motivation was evil and the enjoyment of that evil into a sympathetic character? Well the idea this film has is have her be mutilated, and make every character except herself, her crow and Aurora either stupid, psychotic, or power mad. This film shows the continuing problem of trying to give every villain some deep dark past that explains their awful behavior. They can’t just be evil. Darth Vader has to be a former slave who feared being alone so much he’d kill, Kahn loves his crew so much he’d do anything to protect them, there his family, and now Malficent is made a date rape victim (essentially) who must take vengeance.

So yes, let’s begin there, actually let’s begin before that. Spoilers abound. The film opens with a young Maleficent (that’s actually her name that her parents gave her, it’s not a name she decides to take on reinserting power) who is the guardian of fairy land, the human world right next door past the forest hates and wishes to take over fairy land, just…cause…I don’t know…its’ there. She meets a young boy Stefan, who is poor, but lets it be known he plans to one day rule the kingdom. They grow up together, and fall in love. Eventually Stefan’s want for power pushes him away from fairy land. When the King decides he’s going to take fairy land and make it part of his kingdom, because that’s what he told his subjects he’d do, because… power…or something, he faces off against Malficent.

The King gets hurt, and we get a giant battle scene. Battle scenes at the beginning of films are weird. Commonly battle scenes work to either set up the world, or build upon and make us cheer for characters we know. We don’t know these character yet because we’ve only just met them, so I suppose the battle is to bring us into the world. But unlike Lord of the Rings, where the good guys were fighting monsters, we’re supposed to be cheering for the monsters, including trees that have skull faces and evil serpent plants.

Anyway, the King says he’ll give the kingdom to whomever brings him Malficent’s dead body (I guess he has no children). Stefan, now having worked his way up as a Kingsmen says he’ll do the deed. He goes into the forest, spends the evening with Malficent, before drugging her, causing her to pass out and then he cuts off her wings, the source of her happiness. It’s a PG date-rape/mutilation scene. A man roofies a woman, takes advantage of her simply to gain a sense of power. I don’t understand this, I don’t understand why its in this movie, or if it’s trying to say something. Is it trying to juxtapose the Sleeping Beauty idea, of a girl who was asleep but kissed and brought back? Like, here’s the bad version of that? Was it trying to say that victims of crimes like this can be looked at as villains? I don’t know, it could be interesting, but the film goes no deeper then “This happened, now she wants vengeance!”

From there, it’s pretty much Sleeping Beauty beat for beat except now the King is a psychopath because, power. The three pixies are now bumbling idiots who, even though they know what happened to Malficent, work for the King and almost kill Aurora due to their incompetence.  Because of this Malficent is the one that actually takes care of Aurora in the shadows, raising her, and thus gaining a love for her, and trying to break the vengeance curse she placed on the baby. Of course she won’t admit she loves the child for 16 years, which brings us to the other problem.

In Sleeping Beauty, it’s easy to follow Aurora for those 16 years, because you figure she’s growing up and having a fairly average life. The character won’t change much. But to follow Malficent, you’re left to sit and wonder “What’s she doing for 16 years? Just playing pranks on the pixies? Why is the King crazy none stop for 16 years?” It’s hard to buy these characters don’t change until right before Aurora’s cursed 16th birthday.

The other big change is Malficent doesn’t turn into a dragon. Oh there’s a dragon in the movie, but it’s not her. It’s her crow, a crow she turns into a man. Overall I’m fine with it. It gives her someone to talk to, so fine.

If credit needs to be given it’s the fact that the movie is only an hour and half long. Most films that try to come across as epic and grand in scale now feel they need to be two hours plus. Thankfully this film isn’t. But I do wonder if there was perhaps a longer cut of his movie that works better. This movie rarely gets to breath, every scene is probably no longer then two minutes before going onto the next thing. It feels like a movie version of “Illustrated classics.”

 

You go from thing, to thing, to thing, boom, boom, boom. Which causes tone to be everywhere, you get comic relief with the pixies, to dark stuff with the king, to scenes of wonder with Aurora, then back to the King, then Malficent with her crow denying her love for Aurora and on and on.

I think if this movie could fine one consistent tone it might work, and I think that tone would be camp. It’s a shame because this, along with “Snow White and the Huntsmen,” and other films like this, have these great stars, mostly actress, who seem super game to go big and campy and feel very 80s. But the movies are dead serious and try to present themselves as interesting deep character pieces. If you look at the cast, this movie should be amazing, not just Jolie, but Elle Fanning, Juno Temple, Imelda Staunton, this movie cast should be something great, but these actors are given little to work with, again Juno Temple and Elle Fanning are in a movie together, they share a scene, that should be great…but no, and the actors look out of place in these computer worlds.

Which comes to the next problem, can we get a fantasy film that seems interesting anymore? I’m not sure what it is about 80s fantasy films, I’m sure nostalgia plays a big part, I can’t deny it. But I do wonder if because those special effects had to be practical, built by had, that they all ended up looking different and unique and frankly weird, wizards and creatures from film to film looked different. There’s two interesting visuals in this film, but otherwise, the creatures could just be copy pasted from Alice in Wonderland, Oz the great and Powerful, Snow White and the Huntsman, on and on. And maybe some more color choices, put some color into these worlds! Everything is grey, dark blue or dark green with brown. How about some vibrant colors? I can’t imagine seeing this film in 3D, the night time scenes are practically incomprehensible they’re so dark.

The biggest crime is perhaps that it feels like Jolie is wasted. She hasn’t made a movie in four years, and there’s nothing else that she’s working on that’s coming up. I could perhaps see what would attract her to this film, on the surface it seems like they’re interesting ideas at play, but they’re very mishandled. The idea of “date rape” could lead to something within a fairy tale story, but it’s not mentioned or used in anyway, which makes it feel more offensive. It’s truly there as a plot point, not as the disgusting thing it is.  It feels to easy to read this film as “Well the guy you liked was an evil prick, so you need to destroy the world and kill a baby.” And there’s something to be said about a film looking to good and expensive for a down and dirty genre idea of revenge. “I spit on your grave” is a disgusting film, but because it’s a cheap exploitation film it feels like it meshes better with the gross idea. It’s the difference between the old Evil Dead and the new one. One feels gritty, glued together and that makes it charming. Expensive and clean makes this stuff feel out of place.

Jolie looks great in the movie and the camera knows how to make her look epic and silhouetted with the hors, but sadly that’s not a movie, that’s the Annie Leibovitz photo shots from 2007 and 2008. It’s not weird enough in its fantasy, its not super clear in its story or point, and it makes everyone in Sleeping Beauty look terribly incompetent. Rather then enrich the story of Sleeping Beauty, it makes it feel limp. You end up sitting there going, “Why do this?”

Also I’d like to know who thought the pixies should look like the garbage pail kids.

I can’t…

I can’t unsee it!

Quick Thought: Is there an older female detective film?

Quick thoughts: When I have a quick question or idea about story telling.

Today’s quick thought: The trailer to the new Liam Neeson movie came out yesterday, A Walk Among Tombstones. And it actually looks pretty good.

Hoping this one will be more near “The Grey” and less “Taken.” And it looks that way, solid cast, based on a book by Lawrence Block, written by Scott Frank who’s returning to the director’s chair after “The Lookout.” This trailer got me thinking about how much I do enjoy the older detective (or in this case Private Investigator) film. Doing their job, looking for clue in a dark underbelly of the city, uncovering something unsavory, it’s quite procedural. Love it.

But this got me thinking and I throw the question out to you guys. Is there a female version of this film? I’m honestly asking because I had trouble thinking of any. At least in film, in literature there are many. But I’m racking my brain here and coming up blank? Even a foreign film? I hope there is, I’d love to watch em. If you can think of any please send em my way.

If there’s not… well I may have an idea to add to my ever growing list of “Gotta write that movie.”

Blu-Rays/DVDs worth getting May 27th, 2014

Every week new Blu Rays come out, I like to high light what I think may be worth, at least a rental if not a straight up purchase.

Every once and a while a week comes up where there’s not much, that’s not to say there’s nothing, in fact there can be some great stuff, but there isn’t a ton. And sometimes not even a new release, just stuff coming to Blu-Ray for the first time. This is one of those weeks, but still, some great stuff.

1. Scream Factory continues to be the Criterion of horror!

In their continuing push to become the best in cult horror release. Scream Factory is releasing the infamous “Sleep Away Camp.” A movie famous for it’s ending, an ending that if you don’t know, I won’t give away here. It’s pretty damn memorable. It was also the subject of a great episode of the movie podcast, “How Did This get Made” which needs to be heard. On top of restored picture and sound, and three commentaries, there’s a nearly hour long retrospective look at the film.

2. Also in cult horror…

From MPI, we get another 80s cult horror film Death Spa. Like Sleep Away Camp, Death Spa is another 80s Cult Film. Featuring gory practical effects work. And like Sleep Away, the film comes with remastered video and sound, a commentary track and nearly hour long retrospective documentary.

3. Since we mentioned Criteron…

Two big Criterion releases coming out today, one that’s been in the collection for sometime that’s finally coming to Blu Ray, which is Wes Anderson’s The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

The only film from Anderson that was yet to be released on Blu Ray, Zissou comes out with all the original features from the two disc set ported over. If you’re an Anderson fan, this is a must get.

In addition to that, Criterion has a new film coming to the collection, and that’s Howard Hawk’s classic “Red River”

Red River comes to Blu Ray with two versions of the film, the original theatrical cut (which was Hawk’s preferred cut) and an extended cut of the film. The picture has been beautiful restored by Criterion. With Special Features we have Peter Bogdanovich discussing Red River, and an excerpt from an interview Bogdanovich did with Hawks back in the 70s. There’s also a Radio Theater production of Red River featuring John Wayne. And more…

You should be watching: Playing House

You should be watchingis a series of articles, every Monday I tell you about something I’m enjoying that I think you should check out, either movies, TV, or even a sketch. This week you should be watching…

 

Playing House

Why do we love the shows we love? It’s hard to say, for each person it’s going to be different. Drama is tricky, comedy can be even trickier. Drama can be broken down somewhat easily, what makes you cry may vary, but we can all agree that war, violence or family strife are all ripe for drama. With comedy things vary greatly, what makes one person laugh may not make another. But what makes a great comedy? Do you prefer comedy that’s more grounded? Parody? Sarcastic? To me, it’s character work and a true genuine feeling coming from the story being told that makes for the best comedy. Playing House, created by stars Lennon Parham and Jessica St. Clair, is doing both, and doing both very well.

Playing House tells the story of two friends Maggie and Emma. After a very pregnant Maggie discovers her husband has been having an affair over the internet, Emma moves back to her childhood town to help Maggie make the transition from married to single, and childless to mother. The two friends go through the journey of reconnecting, not just to each other, but for Emma to the people she left when she moved away, including her mother (Jane Kaczmarek) and an ex-boyfriend (Keegan-Michael Key) who is now a local cop and married.

What makes Playing House work for me is that it does two things incredibly well.

1) It does wacky very well, a heightened sense of comedy that is wonderfully absurd.

It’s very funny and of course that’s one of, if not THE most important thing in comedy. The jokes range from great dialogue, (a bit about Cadbury creme eggs in the second episode that had me rolling) visual humor (the way the affair aspect is shown in the pilot) and physical humor (Key’s character Mark putting a baby seat into Maggie’s van). It hits all the aspects of comedy, and it hits them well . But what makes the show truly work, is the other thing it does so well:

2) It’s genuine and has a big heart.

There’s a thing in improv comedy called “game” where you have a joke and you hit it again and again, but there’s the tool of dropping or resting the game. This is important, because it gives the audience a moment to rest, to build them back up to hit them again with the game. It’s waves instead of everything being at 11, if it’s all 11, it gets boring. It’s like playing a song, you have to change the tune to keep it interesting. Playing House understands this, and knows when to play its hand, to stop being wacky and let the character be very real people. To let the characters speak to each other and try to reach a human understanding.

For me, that’s important in a great comedy. Being a show that is simply funny is great, but to go for more and achieve more is something truly magical. It’s what makes us remember shows, it’s not just the moments that make us laugh, but the moments that give us pause, put a lump in our throats, or make us consider things. Shows like “Roseanne,” “M*A*S*H*,” “The Office,” “All in the Family” or The Mr. Bergstrom episode of “The Simpsons.” Shows that were perfectly fine with not just wanting to make us laugh but wanted to make us feel.

Now is it hyperbolic to bring up some of the best shows ever in talking about a show that’s only five episodes old? Yes. I’m not saying this show is there yet, but I’m saying that the ingredients are there, and if it keeps going down the path it’s been going, it can easily get there. I’d point to the last two episodes that aired, “Totes Kewl,” and “Drumline.” Episodes that were very funny, but also let the characters deal with things like communication, and regret, connection  and misunderstandings. Things we can all identify with. It doesn’t use those concepts  in a heavy handed melodramatic way, it arrives at them smoothly, usually after a great line of dialogue that has me laughing. To use these concepts is to tell a story.

What makes the show work, is the comedy and drama are based in character, based in the friendship and relationship with the supporting characters. That seems like a simple reason to like a show, but it’s something many comedies, movies and TV, often miss. Character truth is often sacrificed for a joke. There’s a confidence in this show that is rarely seen in a first season of a comedy. The feet are firmly planted. For this show to understand the comedy and drama can come from character interaction and character arcs is what makes it something you should be watching.

Playing House airs on USA network Tuesdays at 10pm.

Filmographies: Hayao Miyazaki Part 1

We’re back with a new director. This time we dive into our first animation director, with someone that is a master if not arguably THE master, Hayao Miyazaki. We’re joined by great guy and Miyazaki fan Paul Montgomery as we dive into this magical world. First we discuss “The Castle of Cagliostro” which was Miyazaki’s first film and a film that was based on a previously existing character. We move into a debate of “Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind” which some loved, some did not. And finish things off with “Castle in the sky.”

Let us know what you think of the films of Miyazaki by either facebook or twitter, like us on facebook and enjoy!

 

Get the show here

Blu-Rays/DVDs worth Getting! May 6th 2014

Every week new Blu Rays come out, I like to high light what I think may be worth, at least a rental if not a straight up purchase.

This week is fuller then most, hopefully your wallets are full this week.

1. Hitchcock stand-a-lones.

If you didn’t buy the giant Hitchcock set a few years back, then good news, the films are being released one by one now. On top of re-releasing Psycho, we’re also getting The Birds, Rear Window, and Vertigo!

2. Under Appreciated Spielberg

Whenever a Spielberg film is released on Blu-Ray it’s usually an event, from Jaws to Jurassic Park and E.T. When the Blu-Rays came out, there was much fanfare. Not so much with these films it would seem, but for a select few, it’s Spielberg, so it’s worth seeing remastered on Blu. And we have not just one, but two Spielberg films. Amistad and The Terminal

3. They Say he’s got to go GO-Go Godzilla!

With the new Godzilla film being released in a few short weeks, we’re seeing a deluge of Godzilla titles coming to Blu Ray for the first time. As someone who grew up on TNT’s Monstervision Godzilla weekends, this is huge for me.

We have Godzilla vs. The Smong Monster, On Monster Island, vs. The Sea-Monster, vs King Ghidorah/vs. Mothra, vs. Destoroyah / Godzilla vs. Megaguirus, Final Wars/ Tokyo S.O.S, Godzilla vs. MechaGodzilla II / Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla.

The slash means it’s a double pack. So pay attention to that. I highly recommend Smong Monster (Vs. Hedorah). It breaks many of the rules set up in Godzilla films and is kind of a weird trippy film, but it’s pretty fun.

4. TV on Blu Ray

If you’re a fan of classic TV then today is quite the day for you. You have the classic Honeymooners Original 39, and along with that the first season of “I Love Lucy” which has been remastered. And to round it out Season two of “Little House on the Prairie” is also out for a very low price, going nicely with it’s equally lower priced and beautifully remastered first season

5. Criterion of the Week:

The Billy Wilder classic Ace in the Hole comes to Blu-Ray.  There are many “must sees” in Billy Wilder’s filmography. This is certainly one of them.

 

That’s it for this week, see ya next week, hopefully all our wallets survive.

Let’s try this again…

Hi!

So for anyone that remembers this site, haven’t posted here for a while if you don’t remember, well Welcome!

So at one point I had this site, life got super busy. Then facebook, tumblr and other such things came into my life. Also starting and ending podcast, getting way into then falling a bit out of different mediums. But the fact of the matter is, my interest have kind of exploded in different ways. And I figure instead of writing a bunch of different tumblrs over a bunch of different areas, just come back here and start it all up again.

 

All the old post will remain, but this will be the main hub for where you can find my writings and thoughts on movies, books, comics, wrestling or whatever. There will also be links to my podcast, promotions for upcoming comedy shows and so on. Might not post every day, but will try to write a little something as often as possible. Stick around, and enjoy yourself.

New Shows!

Cameron Watches Movies: It’s the end of the year, so I’m joined by Coleman Ranahan and Dave Accampo as we discuss the three biggest trailers of the last few weeks. That being “The Hobbit,” “The Dark Knight Rises” and “Prometheus.” We then start that first half of our top ten films of the year and end with some Dragon Tattoo discussion. We’ll be back in a week or so with part 2. Get that here

Filmographies: Between directors, we return to do our Mission Impossible special just in time for the newest film in the series. The interesting thing about these series of films is that it has four very distinct directors with for very distinctly different films. Some we like, some, not so much. But give a listen and discover with us what we thought. It’s a good discussion with plenty of laughs. We also announce our newest director in the end of the show, who will be next for the Filmographies crew? And stay after the end for some discussion on “Drive”. Enjoy! get that here

Invisible Jetcast: On this sleepy, sick and new years partied out episode of IJC, we discuss Wonder Woman #4, before moving onto emails and the homework: Superman: Sacrifice. On this one, we are sleepy. Get that here

50/50 challenge: Movies #5

The amount of skill behind this movie is purely awesome. Some have said this film is dry, and boring and confusing. I can see where people could get confused. No doubt. But if you can sit still, pay attention and don’t mind a spy film that is all talking and less James Bond. Then I think you’d be in for one hell of a film. I found it riveting. The performances from every actor. The Directing by Alferdson. It’s all awesome. This isn’t a film that will get your emotions going. You won’t be pumping your fist, crying, or swept up in the thrill. But you will see calculated, well done, skilled film making. This is a craft film, and it’s one I’m glad I saw.