Posse Incitatus

The problem with zombies

This week Sithkitten and I saw Zombieland, which was quite amusing.  If you like zombie movies - and all the over-the-top gross stuff that they embody - this is your movie.

But it does highlight one of the genre's big problems - how the damn disease spreads so quickly.

Like other zombie films, the disease is carried by the bite.  All well and good, and it has that nice "best friend/lover/spouse/kid inevitably goes bad after a bit" vibe going on.  You know, "Kill me now, before it takes over."

And they never do, and then you get the horrifying transformation, etc.

But think about it: if the zombie bites a victim once, it will probably bite again and again until the only thing that can animate is a pile of body parts.  Far from spreading easily, the zombie virus should be very hard to spread - the only ones who get are the ones who almost get caught.  Basically the walking wounded.

Some other, better vector is required.

Just saying.

Movie Review: Star Trek

The Posse took in the new Star Trek movie last night and it was quite enjoyable.

The hard-core fans should be satisfied with its nods to “canon” Star Trek lore, while the action and pacing keep it interesting for everyone else.

I fall into the latter category. I used to think Star Trek was pretty cool, but burned out by the fourth movie, which I think was the last one I saw in the theater. I happen to own a copy of Gene Roddenberry’s book on the series first published in 1968. It’s interesting not only for the background material it provides about the Trek universe, but also the window it opens into late 1960s network television production.

A couple of thing stand out, one of which is the positively Byzantine politics behind getting a show on the air.

More relevant to this discussion, however, is the fact that Star Trek was nothing more than Roddenberry’s latest attempt to sell a show. He’d come up with several, but this was his most ambitious project and clearly his most successful – though that wasn’t clear at the time.

Hugely expensive to produce, the subject of massive rewrites (the “captain’s yeoman” was an integral part that got thrown over the side rather quickly) and recasting (Majel Barrett got “demoted” from executive officer to nurse), it never lived up to what it was supposed to be: a ratings powerhouse. (This, by the way, puts it in considerable contrast to the original Battlestar Galactica, which dominated its Sunday night time slot and its pilot episode boasted one of the largest audiences ever).

The point is that there is no real Star Trek mystique, when you get down to it. As William Shatner put in it in the classic Saturday Night Live skit 20 years ago, it was a show they did for a lark in the 1960s, nothing more.

Knowing that, and reading the bios of the actors in the 1960s – people who wanted nothing more than to make it big and bring home a paycheck – puts the new movie into a different perspective.

It was an amazing cast, and they clearly each brought something to their characters – which were also drawn with a keen eye for drama. Most of them were seasoned bit-part players, and this was their big break. They did the most they could with it. It helped that Roddenberry and his writers were happy to do “feature episodes” that focused on some of the minor characters.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the characters were thinly drawn, which allowed the actors to flesh them out. Mark Steyn notes that James Doohan was able to determine the nationality and first name of his character because the writers hadn’t really fleshed him out that much. So a large part of what make the original cast work so well was that the actors had an unusually large stake in fleshing out their own roles.

I should say at this point that the remake (which is actually a reboot) avoids the pitfalls of having its actors imitate other actors. This is nice, and a good way to go. They are doing what stage actors have done for generations: take an existing character and put their own imprint on it. It’s kind of funny to think of Star Trek as the Shakespeare of our time, but there you are.

So the acting is fine. Still, watching them basically use time-travel to utterly rewrite the entire thing, I couldn’t help but wonder if enough is enough already. Clearly the franchise was all played out, but I’m not sure this was the way to reinvigorate it. You’ve basically got a show about the future that has apparently run out of future. Their solution is to re-do the past. Not a good sign for a genre that feeds off of creativity.

Anyhow it is a fun movie to watch and maybe its wholesale rejection of the Star Trek canon will help strip away the decades of geekdom that have dominated it and turn it into just another genre.

The Oscars came and went

The opposite of love isn't hate, it is indifference. 

The Posse is truly indifferent to Hollywood.  This year, not only did we not watch the ceremony, we neglected to blog about how we weren't watching.

Thanks to commenter David for reminding us, or the whole thing would have passed us by entirely.

This mummy shouldn't have returned

Though I rarely agree with movie critics, I usually consult them before deciding what to go and see. Most often this is an exercise in contrarianism: if the critics hate it, it may be worth seeing.  The important question is why they hate it.

When I saw a new mummy movie was coming out, I omitted this step.  After all, it’s set in China (cool) and has Jet Li (very cool) and Michelle Yeoh (way cool) and they fight each other (way ultra cool).

I figured that given the talent, and special effects, this was a sure thing.

Whoops.

Maybe some Hollywood insider will explain to me how someone can take a fun concept (Chinese armies of the dead!  Does it get better than that?) and turn it into a boring clunker.  Seriously, this thing sucked.  It was actually boring to watch.  Even Sithkitten, who is remarkably tolerant of mediocrity so long as there is something redeeming, was ready to bail after the first few minutes.  We hung in there in the hopes that at least the culminating fight between Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh would be worth watching.  It wasn’t.  I mean, it was okay, but only in the sense that it should have set the stage for a bigger battle later on.

And where was Rachel Weisz?  No doubt she had better things to do than participate in this clunker – and from the looks of it, so did Brendan Fraser, who totally phoned in his part.

Gah.  What a waste.

Movie Review: Iron Man

This past weekend Sithkitten and I took a rare visit to the cinema to see “Iron Man.”  Watching the previews I was encouraged.  This could be a good year for Hollywood, simply because the movies they are making look like ones worth watching – for a change.

Anyhow, I enjoyed “Iron Man,” chiefly because Robert Downey, Jr. is quite a good actor and his character is more interesting than most.

Let’s be honest, super hero movies are pretty formulaic.  We meet the hero before the transformation, watch it happen, and then he goes and kicks butt.  The film usually ends with a nod to a possible sequel.

So plot-wise, there isn’t much going on, and one can only watch so many special effects demo reels before the whole thing gets a little tired.  So what is the jaded movie-goer to do?

Basically, you need good actors to save the day, and that also means funny ones.  Yes, there are going to be explosions, mind-boggling special effects and the epic destruction of monuments, but will I laugh?

Happily, I did.  Perhaps because of his personal struggles, Downey brought something a little extra to the part of Tony Stark.  I don’t go much in for spoilers, but the stewardesses on his private plane were classic.

There was one other element of “Iron Man,” that caught my attention:  the good guys and the bad guys.

The good guys are the US military.  Not surprising when the Air Force cooperates, but it’s nice to see more filmmakers realizing that the public is tired of seeing our troops portrayed as either helpless idiot-victims or mindless killers. Similarly, while not making a big deal out of it, it was pretty clear that the bad guys were, if not actual Al Qaeda honchos, someone who is on their speed dial list.  I’m sure that resonated with a lot of folks as well.

I’m not sure if they can sustain it in the all-but-inevitable sequel, but at least this movie was pretty solid.  Worth the money.

There Will Be Review Pt.1

Hollywood again depicts Christianity as fanatical superstition!

The Posse recently took in the film "There Will Be Blood". What can we say- excellent! thought provoking, interesting, visually stunning, full of human emotion and drama, etc. In our humble opinion it should have garnered best score and sound editing at the 07 Oscars. Just because a film is edited in a fast paced over-the-top style (read the Jason Bourne trilogy) doesn't mean it's Oscar quality.

Anyway, great film. One problem!
Hollywood, again! cannot show religion or faith in God in any kind of positive light! It must be used as a plot device juxtaposed to the sensible main character. The hero is intelligent and successful and godless. The local man of faith is shown to be a foolish fanatic bent on personal gain.

We are sick to death of this portrayal!

Blade Runner - the undirected cut

Since my esteemed Posse member Santos brought it up, I'd like to point out that the "director's cut" of Blade Runner is not an improvement on the original.

By getting rid of the narration, it makes the movie confusing to people who haven't seen it and undermines the cool noir vibe that makes it such a great film.  That was a big part of the movie's success, of course - you had this futuristic detective story.  It was cool.

Without the narration, that noir element is gone and you just get a lot of pretty pictures and rather inexplicable plot twists.

The people who really groove to it are fans who like the alternative take, which is fine.  They know the narration.

But taken as a film - that is a work of art that stands by itself - the original version is better.

Line change in Blade Runner, why?

A re-release of one of our all time favorite films hit the big screen last weekend. The 1982 film Blade Runner has been suped up into director Ridley Scott's Final Cut version and is in limited release on some screens across the country. We were surprised and delighted to find this remarkable sci-fi classic right in our very own town, at matinee prices.

The film has seen several versions released over it's lifetime and has already been released as a Director's cut back in the early (1992) days of DVD, when Scott stripped off the lackadaisical voice-over from Harrison Ford's Deckard character and added a unicorn "memory" scene. The new version stays with these director changes but adds a few leftover shots and some minor dialog appears to be different. There is a new DVD box-set streeting on December 18th that will include the various versions of the film, new and old. Our intention here is not to take valuable space discussing these versions but to point out the monumental line change that we witnessed in this supposed final version.

Watching the Final Cut this past weekend there is a very serious line change that was not expected. When confronting his maker, head replicant Roy Batty (in all other versions) originally says, "I want more life, Fu***r!" The version playing in theatres now has him saying "I want more life, Father!" Why the change from Fu***r to father? Is it more relevant this way, does the line carry more imact? Does it announce the obvious prodigal son's return? Was it to avoid an 'R' rating? The film is still rated R as was the original. We are baffled by the change and can only look forward to the director's DVD commentary where Scott may provide some insight. Whatever the reason hopefully this was a director's decision and not some horrible politically correct studio attitude. What was once effective and shocking and ultimately acceptable in 1982 is now so over the top and offensive that it must be eliminated?

Any insight/opinions out there in the blogosphere would be greatly appreciated.

300: the DVD

The Posse recently acquired the DVD to the excellent film 300, a movie that drove the left to distraction. 

Having viewed it several times since then, we remain firmly convinced that this is an excellent work of art.  The extras include commentary from Victor Davis Hanson and Bettany Hughes, the British info-babe who hosted the excellent Spartans documentary.  We got a kick out of it, though we agree with many of the Amazon reviewers that they could have included more information, including famous Spartan anecdotes.

The movie is quite violent, and has a bit of graphic sex.  However, we find ourselves thinking that it - like all great stories - is essentially quite simple and if it wasn't so racy, we'd recommend it for our kids.

The concepts of freedom, honor, courage and duty are presented up front and honestly.  For many of the left, they are the punch line to a joke, but in Sparta they took them seriously.  When Queen Gorgo flatly states "Freedom isn't free," we're sure many leftists rolled their eyes, or at best said to themselves "Of course it isn't free; sometime you have to write letters or make nasty posts on the Daily Kos."

But in point of fact, few of these people are willing to sacrifice anything for their vaunted liberty.  The Spartans - whatever their faults - believed that true freedom came from selfless sacrifice, that only by embracing the good of the polis and therefore society as a whole, could people become truly free.

That is why liberal critics and commentators who argue that Athens rather than Sparta should be the subject of epic films are missing the point.  Sparta's legacy is both military and civic. 

The military legacy is that with Sparta, we see the beginning of the professional yet patriotic soldiery, of which our troops today are the true and legitimate heirs.

In the civic sense, it is the Spartan ideals of separation of powers, of checks and balances and the idea that among the citizen class (which then was restricted but now is far more open) there was absolute equality before the law.

If you missed it in the theater, pick it up at the video store.  It is well worth the money.

Shut Up and Sing, literally

With the strains of Lee Greenwood's ever popular song about being "proud to be an American" still ringing in our ears, the posse took a look at the Dixie Chicks film "Shut Up and Sing". Aptly titled, they should stick to what they do best and keep the political commentary to themselves.

The film purports to be a behind the scenes look at the Chicks on tour and how they dealt with the controversy that arose after their singer Natalie Maines made a statement about being "ashamed that President Bush was from Texas". The statement was made in London on stage at the start of their European tour and on the eve of the Iraq invasion back in 2003.

This is where the film starts and we see the actual footage of the Chicks onstage and Natalie making the statement to the uproarious cheers of the audience. Within two weeks a rising tide of public anger, media backlash, and a country music radio boycott start to hurt record and ticket sales. The Chicks are told that they have to do damage control and reluctantly go on radio, get interviewed by Dianne Sawyer, appear on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, always trying to explain but not apologizing for making the statement. They seem to alternate between not wanting to do any of this and being hurt by American's angry reactions. They try to keep a united front but ultimately let Natalie do most of the talking. They are aware of the cameras as the film crew follows them around these media events and take turns posturing for them. Nothing seems to help and along the way they get into a public tussle with country music star Toby Keith and are forced to deal with a death threat. We see band meetings with their manager and various PR people trying to figure out what they should do at each turn. The film follows them through 2006 as they record a new album and plan another tour.

It's not unusual for a band to hire a film crew to follow them around and capture their antics for an eventual dvd release, but we haven't seen anything as pretentious as this since U2's "Rattle & Hum" tour film.

First off that night in London, the film crew shoots the audience reaction to the statement made from the stage. The audience was miked and the house lights came up and we saw the faces and heard the cheers. This strikes us as odd, unless there is a life threatening emergency it is unheard of for a venue to bring up the house lights unless prompted to do so. Obviously the band gave permission for this to happen and for it to be filmed. There is no way the Chicks could have predicted what this statement would mean and how it would be perceived, but the mere fact that it was captured on film means that they knew there might be a reason to have this. I'm sure the film crew was delighted when this played out in the international media and they now had an angle for a full blown film and not just a tour document.

What is also remarkable about the film is not just the Chicks manufactured reactions for the cameras, but how the other two members of the Dixie Chicks, sisters Martie Maguire and Emily Robison silently endure their selfish lead singer. Showing all the markings of a spoiled child, Natalie speaks as if the world is revolving around her. She interrupts her band mates and manager constantly, she pouts, she speaks as if everyone should be writing down her picayune words. There is a scene in a hospital room where a pregnant Emily is waiting for an induced labor, the band and family are gathered as are the cameras. Natalie chatters away and finally Emily's husband off camera, reminds everyone that this should be about a birth not a band meeting. What we find MOST offensive about this film is a scene on a tour bus where, after reading a quote from President Bush and his mild reaction to them, Natalie calls him a dumb f*** then looks directly into the camera and says "you're a dumb f***"! as if she's speaking directly to the President. Not only is she ultra aware of the camera but she has the nerve to think that what she has to say is so poignant that President Bush will be watching someday. In the comfort and safety of her own tour bus surrounded by paid employees catering to her every whim this might be understandable but to include this snippet in the film is inexcuseable!

The film concludes with the recording and release of a single called "I'm Not Ready to Play Nice" which had some airplay on MTV and VH1 recently. The song is from the band perspective about how they feel about the whole issue. It is a well crafted, nicely layered, emotive pop piece and this to us is actually relevant- they've boiled down their experience into a work that can be created in their prospective field of art. This is what artists do and that's fine, whether actors, authors, sports figures, or singers. It's when they step outside their range of talents yet use the audience captured by those talents to express a political and personal opinion they become irrelevant. As the film title implys we do think they should shut up and sing. They can have all the opinions they want we just don't care what they are.