Tag Archives: 1980s

#FridaysWithBQB – Interview #7 – Sean P. Carlin – A Couple of Gen Xers Talk About Movies, Screenwriting and Zombie Prison Breaks

IMG_6083

Author Website

I first virtually met Sean P. Carlin in 2015. Wow, has it been that long? I was surrounded by hideous undead brain biters during the infamous East Randomtown zombie apocalypse which, if you’re one of the 3.5 readers of my blog, then you know that was a thing that actually happened. Check out #31ZombieAuthors on Twitter for more information.  I was interviewing authors of zombie fiction, getting their advice on how to keep my brains safe and low and behold, Sean reached out on Twitter to offer what assistance he could.

By the way, the rest of you people reading this offered me no assistance against the zombie hordes whatsoever, so you’ll all have to live with that guilt and shame for the rest of your lives. Sean, on the other hand, can go on with a clear conscience.

My God, 3.5 readers. Look at that smile Sean is flashing. What reason could anyone possibly have to be that happy? Did he just win the lottery? Did someone give him a cookie? Has he concocted a maniacal, supervillain plot to hold the world for ransom?
Perhaps all those reasons and more are in play, or maybe he’s just pleased that his novel, “Escape From Rikers Island” will be out soon. Maybe he’s happy he’s a screenwriter during a new golden age of television and cinema, where streaming technology is making it possible for more projects to be greenlit than ever.

Maybe it’s just gas? I don’t know. Let’s ask him.

BOLD = BQB; ITALICS=Sean

QUESTION #1 – Sean, I’m utterly miserable 24/7. I’ve tried yoga. I’ve tried meditation. I’ve tried tai chi and chai tea (at the same time.) Nothing ever works. I’m stuck being a mopey prick. So I must ask, why do you look so happy in the picture above? Is it due to any of the reasons I listed above?

And while we’re at it, are we really in a new golden age of TV and movies thanks to streaming or is that just something I made up in a fever dream? I did eat some bad taco salad earlier so hallucinations on my part are entirely possible.

RESPONSE #1: Well, that particular photo was taken in Badlands National Park in South Dakota in 2016, during a three-week road trip my wife and I took through the western United States, so I was in a pretty good mood! (I think I’m also somewhat smiling in goofy disbelief at the sheer force of the wind blowing against my face, as evidenced by the Ace Ventura–style sweep of my hair!)

But, regardless, I consider myself a pretty happy guy! I’ve got a wonderful wife, the best friends a man could ask for, and I get to “traffic in my own daydreams” for a living, to borrow the phraseology of UCLA screenwriting chair Richard Walter. Not too shabby.

When I get gloomy, and God knows we’re living in some strange days, I try to remember something my late father once said: Each of scored an invite to the Big Party — life itself. When you stop to consider the astronomical odds against simply being alive, and the finiteness of that life (however long it may last), it’s hard to justify wasting such a miraculous opportunity on perpetual cynicism and negativity.

On the subject of wasting time (just kidding — sort of): Are we in a Golden Age of Television? In terms of both an abundance of quality material and creative opportunities for writers of all different stripes and backgrounds, yes, I would say so. Television has certainly eclipsed cinema with respect to the narrative and thematic complexity of its storytelling. Movies simply don’t matter the way they once did; they don’t drive the cultural conversation like they did in the twentieth century. Television — if one can even identify the medium by that antiquated designation anymore — has assumed the mantle of cultural conversation-starter.

That said, though, there’s too much of it. There are something like five hundred scripted shows in production at present across the various platforms, and most of them are structured in this ongoing, serialized format, which requires you to watch every episode, in sequential order, for years on end. You know what I’m saying? If you’re going to commit to a show like Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead, you are required to start from the beginning, follow every episode, and stick with it for however many seasons its open-ended, ever-expanding narrative can continue to run. Sometimes that’s fun, but more often than not, I’m starting to find it exhausting. It’s such a breath of fresh air, in a way, when a show like Seth MacFarlane’s The Orville comes along, a series in which each episode tells a closed-ended, perfectly self-contained story with a resolution and — anyone remember these? — a point. You can watch any episode of The Orville, in any order, and follow the story of that particular installment without confusion. Unlike virtually every other drama on TV right now, it doesn’t demand to be watched week in and week out. Good for MacFarlane for daring to be square. Who would’ve imagined, back when we were growing up, that old-fashioned, standalone storytelling would one day be subversive?

QUESTION #2 – I’ve got to be honest. I interview a lot of authors on this fine blog, but I’ve never read any of their works. I’d like to, but I don’t have the time. (FYI if you’re reading this and you’re an author I interviewed, please know I’m not talking about you. I read all of your stuff and it was great. I’m talking about all those other chumps who aren’t you.)

All that being said, “Escape from Rikers Island” sounds like something I’d actually be interested in plunking my hard earned money down for. In fact, in January, I made 12 cents off of a book I self-published on Amazon, so I’ll probably put that towards a copy of your book.

The description you give on your blog intrigues me. A detective has to work with gangbangers he put behind bars to escape a zombie infestation that has broken out on Rikers Island, the infamous New York prison. I can see it now. Backstabbing, intrigue, revenge, and brain biters. Surely, if one of the zombies doesn’t eat the detective’s brains, one of the criminals with a grudge against him will try to bash them in.

Not gonna lie. I can see this as a movie. I’d go see that and eat lots of popcorn to it. Tell my 3.5 readers more about this. What inspired you to write what will surely turn out to be a masterpiece? More importantly, when this book becomes a bestseller, will you remember the little people, like me and my 3.5 readers, or will you go all Hollywood and forget us all?

RESPONSE #2: Far from my ensuring my seat at the table in the halls of Hollywood power, I’m actually hoping Escape from Rikers Island will signify my long-desired escape from L.A.! The concept was originally devised as a spec screenplay in 2011; we even had Ice Cube attached to star and produce for a Los Angeles minute. But as is so often the case in the movie biz, the project didn’t move forward, and I moved on to other things (that also didn’t move forward!) with other producers.

Eventually I grew frustrated with the inability to get new materials sold and/or produced in Hollywood, and I’d been privately entertaining the notion of writing a novel, anyway. This was in 2014, when the riots in Ferguson were making headlines, and that, along with the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner (among, unfortunately, many others), were catalyzing this uncomfortable (but overdue) national conversation about the militarization of the police, and their strained relationship with underprivileged communities. At the same time, the stop-and-frisk program of racial profiling was coming under intense critical scrutiny in my hometown of New York, and I thought, “Well, maybe I’ll revisit Escape from Rikers Island, but this time do it as a novel where I’ll really have the canvas to explore some of those sociopolitical issues with depth and nuance.” Because the real-estate limitations of a screenplay just don’t allow for that kind of philosophical digression or thematic complexity.

So, yes, EFRI is about a white NYPD detective and a black gangbanger — men on different sides of the law who also happen to share a complicated, contentious history with one another — who are forced to set aside their considerable differences and work together to escape New York’s sprawling, 415-acre detention center during a sudden zombie-like outbreak among the 15,000 inmates there! It’s a mashup of two popular subgenres I’ve never really seen combined: the “prison break” and “zombie outbreak” narratives. That was an exciting place to start, because I could immediately see all these very familiar tropes and conventions “remixed” and presented in a new way.

And I could’ve set the story in any old prison — one of my own invention, even — but Rikers Island is such a fascinating, labyrinthine place with a bizarrely sordid history, and what makes it all the more compelling is how little most people really know of it. And I’m talking about New Yorkers, mind you: Most lifelong residents couldn’t even find Rikers on a map! And I thought, “Yep — that’s my setting.” And when you put two men who really don’t like each other in a place that’s dark and dangerous under normal circumstances, and then throw the undead into the mix, all the tensions simmering between them are exacerbated, and you don’t know if these guys are going to survive each other, let alone the zombie outbreak in this inescapable fortress.

So, I took the premise, plot, and set pieces from the screenplay I’d developed a few years earlier, and then I used the breadth the prose format afforded to really dig deep into the psychologies and characterizations of these two native New Yorkers: to learn their backstories, to portray the complexity of their lawman-and-outlaw dynamic, and to use their perspectives as guys who grew up as lower-class kids in the outer boroughs to say something about the world as it is right now. I think good horror has always done that; certainly Night of the Living Dead, the first contemporary zombie tale, operates on two levels beautifully: It’s a chilling monster story with a profound sociocultural conscience.

Question #3 – Is the zombie genre dying? Is it dead…er, or undead? Personally, I love “The Walking Dead” but I do think the “survivors banding together to traverse the zombie infested landscape” bit is jumping the shark. Perhaps that’s why authors are turning to new ways to put humans amidst zombies, i.e. in your case, a prison full of brain chompers. It’s not that people are tired of zombies but just that authors need to find new ways to put brains into peril. Thoughts?

RESPONSE #3: I don’t think any genre is ever dead. Sometimes they become creatively depleted for a time, until someone comes along with a new spin. I remember a few years ago, when Twilight was all the rage, and people were saying, “Vampires are in vogue again!” When weren’t they, exactly? I mean, at what point during the twentieth century alone did vampires fall out of fashion? During the silent-film era, we had Vampyr and Nosferatu. Then Bela Lugosi reinterpreted the archetype in formalwear. Hammer came along and brought vampires out of the shadows of expressionism and into living Technicolor. Then Anne Rice took the genre and reimagined it as a domestic drama — Ordinary People with vampires. The Hunger gave us lesbian vampires, which was kind of a big deal in the early days of the AIDS epidemic. The Lost Boys was, incredibly, the first to do teenage vampires, which became its own subgenre with Buffy and Twilight and The Vampire Diaries. Every time the genre starts to slip into self-parody — and we’re certainly there now with the whole emo-vampire thing — somebody comes along again with a fresh take on it, and everything old becomes relevant anew.

Zombies are no different, really. Max Brooks repurposed them for the post-9/11 era, as an allegory for bioterrorism and so forth. What Kirkman did so brilliantly was that he took this zombie-apocalypse narrative we love — notably Dawn of the Dead, but pretty much any of them adhered to the same basic template — and said, “But now what happens?” In the closed-ended structure of the Dead movies, Romero used the metaphor of the zombie apocalypse to comment on some sociological concern, be it civil rights or conspicuous consumption or what have you. With The Walking Dead, it’s the structure itself — the open-ended, nonlinear, What now…? format — that is the social commentary, such as it is, of the show: In a Digital Age that has completely upended our traditional understanding of beginnings, middles, and ends — of linear narrative arcs — The Walking Dead becomes a reflection of a worldview in which there is no resolution, no helicopter that’s going to show up in the final reel to airlift us away from the existential intractability of our problems. And that’s exciting… for a while. But it can become tedious, too. And I think the viewer fatigue with the show you point out indicates a longing for a conclusion — Where’s the damn helicopter already? — or some kind of point to it all, like we get each week from The Orville. But to those waiting for that, I would refer you to Lost: It ain’t gonna happen because the entire point of the show is that it’s simply meant to keep expanding until, like the well walker from season two, it finally collapses under its own bloated weight.

And then perhaps the genre will go into remission for a while, until someone figures out a way to reinvent it. Certainly with Escape from Rikers Island, I made a very conscious choice to subvert popular convention and tell the story of a contained outbreak, not an apocalyptic one. In that sense, structurally, EFRI is much closer to Jurassic Park than it is to The Walking Dead. One way isn’t better than the other; you just have to make a creative decision that best serves the story you’re trying to tell.

Question #4 – On your blog, you discuss how every villain has a backstory. Villains aren’t born. They’re made. They all have some reason why they turned bad. As you point out, Jason Voorhees was left to die by incompetent camp counselors, while the ghosts in “Poltergeist” weren’t happy that suburban homes sprouted up on their burial grounds.

I find myself in agreement. Let’s face it. Darth Vader carries “Star Wars.” In any given story, is the villain more interesting than the hero? Should any aspiring writers who happen to be reading this put extra effort into crafting their baddies?

RESPONSE #4: I think every character in a story should be as interesting as possible! The theme of a good story is reflected in the protagonist’s arc: If you look at Tim Burton’s Sleepy Hollow, Ichabod Crane is a man who rejects faith in favor of science; he lives exclusively in the quirky intellect of his own head (hence his surname). And then the Headless Horseman comes along, whose very existence challenges Crane’s worldview, because this is a supernatural creature, unexplainable by science, without a head! Protagonist and antagonist are perfect physical and spiritual opposites, and through that opposition, the story’s thematics are fully and richly explored. That’s an extreme, almost on-the-nose example, but I think it illustrates why a hero and villain should be designed to work like counterparts in a Swiss watch, each one indispensably integral to the story’s conflict and, ultimately, its meaning.

Some story models, like the superhero genre (of which The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are a part), require a more defined or overt villain than others. (There’s no villain, after all, in When Harry Met Sally…, or Forgetting Sarah Marshall, or even Star Trek IV.) But a good villain should definitely have a logical point of view and corresponding agenda, and should always be designed with an eye toward how he affects the protagonist externally (the story’s major plot conflict) as well as internally (the hero’s transformational arc). Darth Vader is certainly one of the all-time greats, because in addition to being visually striking and psychologically layered (we learn a bit more about him in each movie), he serves as a stark example for the idealistic, sometimes overeager Luke of what can happen when great power isn’t tempered with moral discipline. Being the Chosen One comes with a terrible burden of responsibility, and true heroism is often far from a Romantic ideal; the Luke of Return of the Jedi understands that in a way he simply didn’t before his harrowing confrontation with Vader at the climax of Empire.

Right now, the high-water mark in cinematic villainy has probably yet to be surpassed by Heath Ledger’s Joker. And it’s an amazing performance, for sure, but absent Ledger’s captivating interpretation, you still have a very dynamic characterization right there on the page: The way he challenges Batman ideologically gives The Dark Knight a depth it wouldn’t otherwise have — that the original Burton movie certainly doesn’t have — if he was merely a physical threat. Batman, like Luke Skywalker, is made wiser for his contest with the nemesis; there’s no story without either one of them, so both are equally important.

Question #5 – Can we talk about “The Last Jedi?” You wrote an extensive post about it, focusing on Gen-Xers’ feelings towards it. I’ll get to Gen X in the next question, but I’d like your overall thoughts on the film. Or rather, I’ll tell you what I thought and then you can tell me if I’m right or wrong.

I thought this movie sucked with the gale force wind of a thousand hoover vacuum cleaners. That’s not a charge I toss out easily, as my 3.5 readers will attest, I’m fairly kind to most movies I review.  I mean, hell, any movie that has been made is better than mine, because I haven’t made one, so who am I to judge?  But I stand by my claim here.  It really sucked.

Ironically, I enjoyed “The Force Awakens.” However, (SPOILER ALERT), the ending of that movie gives us this broad, sweeping scene where Rey meets the long-lost Luke Skywalker. The two lock eyes and you’re like, “Oh my God! Rey has found the master who can teach her the ways of the Force!”

So, I went into “The Last Jedi” expecting a lot of awesome training montages where Luke would become the Mr. Miyagi to Rey’s Daniel-san, but instead, all I got was an old man whining about his misspent life. At no time ever does he offer Rey anything in the way of practical advice and I just felt like if I wanted to see an older person bitch and moan about lost youth, I’d just record myself, but no one wants to listen to that, so I’m not sure why anyone thought people would want to hear such ennui from Luke Skywalker.

In short, I came in the hopes of Luke teaching Rey awesome light saber tricks and instead, I got to watch an old man turn a young girl into his discount psychiatrist, telling her all his problems, that frankly, she probably didn’t want to here.

Am I right? Wrong? What say you?

RESPONSE #5: Boy, it’s so hard to know where to start with The Last Jedi. I thought — and there are many who disagree — it was a very sloppy, indulgent, tonally uneven piece of filmmaking. Also, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a blockbuster movie that displayed such open contempt for its own fan base. It’s hard to guess what Rian Johnson was thinking when he made it, and I certainly can’t find logic in the decision to hire a nostalgic director for the first one, then pass the baton to an iconoclastic director for the second one. I think Disney needed from the outset to pick a creative direction, one way or the other but not both, and see that vision through. Trying to have it both ways has been, it would seem, a mistake.

But that actually goes to a much bigger challenge Disney is now facing with this franchise. They paid through the nose for one of the very few branded IPs that everyone adores: Star Wars is the holy grail of four-quadrant appeal. But what I don’t think they took into account was how the very history of the series complicates its relationship with the different generations of fans, right? On the one hand, you’ve got the first-generation audience who grew up with this series in real time, and thusly feels very proprietary about it; they’ve also spent the last thirty-five years both waiting to see Luke Skywalker back in action, and wondering if that would in fact ever even happen. So, for them, The Last Jedi is the culmination of literally a lifetime of hopes and dreams, a reunion with a childhood hero they didn’t know for certain they’d ever see again.

On the other hand, you’ve got the third-generation fans, for whom forty years of history is binge-experienced — compressed and consumed in short order, like a season of television that streams on Netflix — so what a ten-year-old expects from Star Wars isn’t what a forty-year-old does. The “return of Luke Skywalker” doesn’t carry the same emotional weight or sense of expectation for them, therefore they aren’t disappointed with his controversial depiction in The Last Jedi, or Anakin’s in The Phantom Menace, for that matter; to their eyes, it’s all just one more episode in the never-ending continuum of the saga. And they’re not wrong to feel that way — it’s simply the perspective they have on the narrative, having made no temporal investment in it. It’s the difference between showing up for the harvest versus having sown the seeds and tended the crops.

Consequently, Disney finds itself trying to service two incompatible and irreconcilable demographics. And I suspect what you’re going to start to see moving forward is a Star Wars that exclusively caters to younger and newer viewers. Even the nostalgic-to-a-fault J. J. Abrams is limited now in how much fan service he can indulge in Episode IX, what with the onscreen deaths of Luke and Han, and the off-screen death of Carrie Fisher. For better or worse, Star Wars is going to be a new thing now, for a new audience, and my generation is going to have to learn to accept that and, if they don’t like it, move on from it, because, if we don’t, Star Wars will only continue to disappoint us — that much is undeniable now.

We all wanted these new movies to put us back in touch with the child within. I’m honestly not sure that would’ve been possible even if this sequel trilogy hadn’t been so ill-conceived from Day One. Some very questionable choices got made — from signing the original troika to the project and then not giving them any storylines together, to teeing up a big backstory for Rey only to tell us, “No, there isn’t one, actually, and you were idiots for expecting otherwise” — and there’s no reversing that now. But the good news, such as it is, is this: We are finally free to let go of Star Wars. We don’t have to keep retuning to this franchise with Pavlovian fealty, because the thing we wanted so desperately from it is never coming to us. But there can be solace in acceptance, though acceptance by nature is bittersweet, because we only have to learn to accept things we wish weren’t so.

QUESTION #6 – You mention in your post you saw “Return of the Jedi” in the movie theater. I did too. Ergo, I’m going to venture a guess we are roughly within the same age range. (How do you stay well preserved? Are you a vampire or something? I wake up everyday looking like someone clocked my face with a brick, but I digress.)

In your post about fan reactions to “The Last Jedi,” you discuss how Gen-Xers love their 1980s pop culture and how they often are let down by modern day reboots. As you paraphrased Roy Batty, the villain from “Blade Runner,” all those feelings that Gen-Xers had about the pop culture from their youth are gone, “like tears in the rain.”

I agree. Whenever I watch a reboot of a franchise I enjoyed in the 1980s, I try to remember a) it’s about today’s kids. I had my time to be a kid. Now today’s movies must appeal to today’s kids and b) a reboot doesn’t take away the old movie. The new “Ghostbusters” didn’t remove the Bill Murray classic. I can still watch Murray and Akroyd clown around with proton packs on their backs any time.

Ultimately, if a franchise has to be changed in order to make today’s kids happy, I’m for it. Where I get critical is when the source material is tinkered with just for the sake of change, i.e. some Hollywood suit just wanted to do something different just to make it his/her own.

It’s a double-edged sword. In some respects, 1980s source material may not hold up for today’s youth. Then again, there’s a reason why the source material was so popular, so radical deviations from a tried and true formula may leave the filmmaker with egg on his/her face.

OK. I’ll stop rambling on and on and ask what you think about all that.

RESPONSE #6: In order to fully appreciate how we came to be stuck in this Era of the Endless Reboot, you have to look at Gen X’s place in history from a sociological standpoint. (I am an Xer myself.) Barring an actual zombie apocalypse, which I think many of us would welcome at this point, we are the last generation in the history of humanity — really consider this for a moment — that will retain any memory of the bygone analog world in which every moment we experienced as we experienced it wasn’t being recorded and posted online, and one could actually run down to the grocery store and be out of reach for twenty minutes without setting off a family-wide panic. In the span of a single generation, human civilization went from a linear sense of reality (as we’ve understood it for the past several millennia, and as reflected in our closed-looped fictions like Star Wars: A New Hope and Night of the Living Dead and TOS and TNG) to a hyperlinked one (as exemplified by Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead and Mr. Robot). Make no mistake: We are deeply traumatized by the passing of the analog world into the new, ever-on, always-interconnected Digital Era. Millennials don’t have this problem, because they were born into a digital world. (They have other issues as a result of that, but that’s a different matter.)

And that’s where all the incessant recapitulation of 1980s ephemera — Star Wars, Ghostbusters, Transformers, Lethal Weapon, Cobra Kai — comes in: It’s a coping mechanism. We’ve escaped into the bedtime stories of a less-complicated era — Star Wars serves as a reminder of the straight-line, analog pleasures of the lost world in which we came of age — and we’ve kind of gotten ourselves addicted to that nostalgia. Which would be bad enough in itself, but as the current custodians of pop culture, we’re force-feeding today’s kids the stories and heroes of a previous century, and I think that’s a pretty irresponsible abdication of our cultural obligation (and I’m calling out filmmakers like J. J. Abrams for it). They deserve their own heroes, their own legends, not our warmed-over second helpings. But, then, we’re not really making Star Wars or Transformers for them; we’re making it for ourselves. Which makes us a generation that’s submitted to willing infantilization, doesn’t it? So when we start finding ourselves prematurely put out to pasture by the Millennials — which is, to be clear, already happening — we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves. We’re a generation about looking behind, not ahead. And our pop culture is a pitiable testament to that.

So all the reboots, therefore, act as a sort of Groundhog Day-like time warp in which we get to perennially relive the eighties — that fragile, fleeting, blissful moment right before our collective worldview was irreparably shattered. I mean, that’s the essence of Ready Player One, isn’t it? While the world is going to hell around us, we’ve retreated into this immersive, orgiastic virtual-reality simulation of an eighties pop-cultural time capsule. It’s The Goldbergs meets The Matrix. Ready Player One is just an exaggerated fable of what we’re actually doing, and we should be troubled by what it says about us.

BQB EDITORIAL NOTE:  Yikes, you’ve convinced me.  I think I’m going to go lie down in the grass and let the moss grow over me, but first, let’s carry on with this interview.

QUESTION #7 – I think your use of the “tears in the rain” quote sums up Gen-X’s attempts to relive youth via reboots to no avail succinctly. My parents were baby boomers and all they had to offer me from their time was literally 90,343 cowboy movies. I can’t even imagine what watching TV from 1950-1970 was like. “Do you want to watch a cowboy movie? No thanks, I’m already watching another cowboy movie.”

All the cowboy movies were the same too. Stoic hero wants to save the town. Villain wants to destroy the town. Townsfolk turn on the hero, tell him to let the villain win or else things will get worse for the town. Hero displays great courage and has a shoot out with the villain in the end.

Somewhere around the 1970s, Hollywood retired all the six-shooters. We got “Star Wars.” We got “Aliens.” The 1980s gave us “Terminator,” “Goonies,” and a slew of Schwarzenegger and Stallone action flicks.

Ultimately, movies, at least when it comes to special effects, were just starting to become great when we were kids. I suppose there’s an argument that many old black and white films were good too, but I didn’t really appreciate those until I became an adult.

What I’m saying is children of the 1980s got to see things that were never seen on film before. It all even got better in the 1990s. “Jurassic Park” ushered in a whole new era of CGI.

It was fun, but now that the special effects have been around for so long, we’ll never be able to relive that simpler time when all of the stuff we were seeing on screen seemed like real life magic, will we?

RESPONSE #7: We’ve mythologized the 1980s the way Boomers did the fifties. But even at that, our parents didn’t fetishize their childhood heroes and fantasies the way we do. That’s an idiopathic characteristic of Generation X. I will certainly agree, as someone who experienced it firsthand, that Lucas and Spielberg and their contemporaries, in the ’70s and ’80s, conjured a level of cinematic wonder and wizardry the likes of which had no precedent, and stories like Ready Player One are nothing if not a sincere and loving paean to that. (And now we’ve come full circle, with Spielberg directing the RP1 feature adaptation.) As you observe, those were magical movies. They were more than movies; they were visions. And when you couple that with the fact that they were the first movies we ever saw, it made for some very profound childhood impressions, but perhaps it also got us hooked on that special brand of astonishment to the point where we’ve spent our adult lives chasing that initial high. That’s what I mean when I say we have an addiction to nostalgia. We want those analog pleasures back — we would happily trade every convenience of the Digital Age for them — but they’re tears in rain, like you say. The analog world isn’t coming back. Our innocence isn’t coming back. Ever. It’s all gone. But it doesn’t mean we can’t find new pleasures and meaningful experiences yet, we just need to learn to live in the here and now. We’re still at the Big Party, after all! Let’s make the most of it. Let’s agree, collectively, that the Skywalkers had their day — those stories were indelible and cherished parts of our formative experiences — but this is a new day now. I’m reminded of that old Guns N’ Roses lyric: “Yesterday’s got nothin’ for me/ Old pictures that I’ll always see/ I ain’t got time to reminisce old novelties.”

QUESTION #8 – I thought the 2014 reboot of “Robocop” was actually pretty tight. It captured the spirit of the movie, the ennui of a man who sort of remembers his past but doesn’t really, how he’s this badass machine yet there’s not much of the human part of him left so he doesn’t feel very whole. There were updates for modern times yet I walked away thinking it was a reboot that did the original justice.

Have you seen any reboots out there that Gen X and Millennials can agree on?

RESPONSE #8: The one that springs to mind would be the recent Planet of the Apes trilogy, though I confess I haven’t yet seen the third movie. That’s no easy feat they pulled off, operating as a faithful prologue to the Charlton Heston classic — and giving it a contextual backstory that’s enlightening rather than redundant (à la the Star Wars prequels) — but also existing as its own thing that doesn’t require franchise familiarity to enjoy. They also, like the original, have something directly relevant to say about the folkways of the era in which they were produced, which good sci-fi, like good horror, ought to do.

It also took tremendous courage on the part of the storytellers to make Caesar the protagonist, and not sideline him in favor of a human surrogate. Michael Bay’s Transformers movies made that mistake: Rather than letting the robots be the main, front-and-center heroes, as they were in the old cartoon series, they got skittish and told the story through the eyes of a human character — first Shia and later Mark Wahlberg. I bet they worried that audiences wouldn’t relate to a nonhuman protagonist (which is pretty ironic considering how emotionally vacuous Bay’s movies have always been). Planet of the Apes proved that audiences can empathize with an anthropomorphic hero even in a live-action movie. I mean, yes, they had the benefit of photorealistic CGI and Andy Serkis’ motion-capture mastery, but it was the artful characterization of Caesar that made us empathize with him. Those movies are very emotional, in complete contrast with Transformers.

QUESTION #9 – Suppose my 3.5 readers are aspiring screenwriters. What’s the first thing they should do to get started?

RESPONSE #9: I hold bachelor’s degrees in both cinema and English, and it was only when I became a working screenwriter that I realized how little I knew about storytelling craft. Why doesn’t college — or even high school — offer a basic Storytelling 101 course? Instead, they talk a lot of theory. And theory is interesting, and not without value, but someone who wants to learn the nuts and bolts of storytelling — for any medium — needs to learn, practice, and master three fundamentals: structure, genre, and characterization. And to do that, you need to study a codified methodology — a program of unified principles that can show you how you build a story from the ground up and create an emotionally engaging narrative experience. You can write a great script intuitively once, perhaps, but in order to know how to do it on command, you have to develop your toolbox. So, for that, I would recommend studying Christopher Vogler’s The Writer’s Journey for mythic structure, Blake Snyder’s three Save the Cat! books for an overview of the ten types of genres (or story models), and David Freeman’s Beyond Structure workshop to learn the techniques of effective characterization. That’s all you need to know to master the discipline, and it’ll only cost you about $300 total, versus what you’d spend on a degree to learn nothing especially useful. But you’ll need to reread and practice those materials often, for several years, before they become second nature.

Those three pillars of storytelling are what aspirants need to be worried about learning. Then, if you want to be a screenwriter, you can read Syd Field’s Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting, which will teach you the formatting requirements of that particular medium; if you want to be an author, which has its own syntactic demands, read David Morrell’s The Successful Novelist; Dennis O’Neil’s The DC Comics Guide to Writing Comics can give you an overview of that specific form. But that all comes later; first and foremost you have to commit to learning the fundamentals of narratology.

The last point I would add is that, as my mentor David Freeman is so fond of saying, there are no rules, only tools. Aspiring screenwriters often cling to absolutes, and they look to industry-standard instructionals like Save the Cat! to provide those: If I do X and Y, I’ll get Z. If my inciting incident hits on page 12, and my first act break on 25, I’ll have a story that works. If only. Storytelling is about applied craft, for sure, but there’s no magic formula. A hammer is only as effective as the carpenter is skilled at using it.

QUESTION #10 – My condolences. You’ve been convicted of cutting that little tag off your mattress in the first degree and have been sentenced to life in prison without parole. Sorry, but mattress tag laws are very strict.

You’re just beginning to adjust to prisoner life when a zombie outbreak, similar to the one in your novel, occurs. You look inside a random cell, hoping to find items you can use to save your brains from the undead.

Alas, the only three items you find are a) a ukulele b) an origami unicorn and c) a 50-foot long licorice whip.

How will you use these items to defend yourself against the incoming zombie horde?

RESPONSE #10: Do you have any idea just how resourceful and inventive prison inmates are? There’s no telling what they could devise from those three items! I’m not nearly as imaginative as someone who’s been confined indefinitely to a six-by-eight concrete box, but I’d wager they could use the origami unicorn as a “kite” — a coded message passed under cell doors — to coordinate an escape. The ukulele? Hell, that’s an armory unto itself: the neck and headstock could be fashioned into a stake; the strings used as garrotes; the body could be splintered into shivs. As for a fifty-foot licorice whip… well, how else you gonna climb down the outer wall? But you’re gonna want to use a tough, rubbery brand, and not the soft, chewy kind. Stale Twizzlers, maybe; steer clear of Red Vines. You’d think the chances of encountering any one of those articles in jail is pretty slim, but you’d be surprised the kind of contraband that turns up. Licorice is the least of it.

BQB EDITORIAL NOTE: My BQB HQ supercomputer indicates this response has roughly a 93.49% chance of successfully warding off a zombie attack, so good show.  Thank you for stopping by, Sean, and let my 3.5 readers know when we can get our hands on a copy of “Escape from Rikers Island.”

 

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BQB’s Classic Movie Reviews – Brewster’s Millions (1985)

abustany-movie-reel-800px

So much money to spend, so little time.  BQB here with a review of the 1980s classic, “Brewsters Millions.”

What’s the best way to break yourself of a disgusting habit?  To do it to excess until you’re completely sick of it.

Montgomery Brewster (Richard Pryor) and his buddy Spike (John Candy) are a couple of bums who play on a lousy, broken down, minor league New Jersey baseball team.

As luck would have it, Monty’s long estranged Uncle Rupert (Hume Cronyn) kicks the bucket, and in his will, leaves Monty with a quite a challenge.  Uncle Rupert recalls a time when he caught Monty smoking a cigar as a boy.  Uncle Rupert forced Monty to smoke all the cigars in the box until he got sick, thus making it so Monty would never want to smoke again.

Thus, the point of the challenge is clear.  Uncle Rupert put a lot of work into making $300 million dollars and he doesn’t want to leave it to an idiot who will squander it.  So, he challenges Monty to spend $30 million in one month, the idea being that by the end of the month, Monty will become so disgusted by the idea of money being wasted that he will become a stalwart caretaker of the remaining fortune.

More catches – Monty can’t tell anyone about the deal, so he has to deal with everyone thinking he is an idiot for spending his inheritance of 30 million so recklessly.

Further, he must spend the 30 million completely and have no assets left behind.  He can’t just by a $30 million house or something that he can convert back to cash at the end of the whole ordeal.

Thus, this leads to so many flunkies on his payroll.  A personal photographer.  A money manager who gets $100,000 a week.  A personal marching band.  Oh, and he spends it on fun.  He finance a game between his lousy team and the Yankees.  He buys rare bottles of champagne and drinks them.  He funds a campaign to ask New Yorkers to not vote for anyone for mayor because both candidates are stupid.

The highlight of the film comes when Monty buys a rare, 1.2 million dollar stamp.  The villainous banker types who want Monty to fail so they can get Uncle Rupert’s money laugh because they believe Monty has just bought an asset…until they get a postcard from Monty with the rare, cancelled stamp on the card.

It’s a lot of fun to watch as Monty comes up with new ways to waste cash, and the idea that taking your worst habit to the extreme might help you to hit the rock bottom you need to hit in order to avoid doing the habit forever is intriguing.

Makes me sad that Pryor and Candy are both long dead before their time.

STATUS: Shelf-worthy

Tagged , , ,

Top Ten Warning Signs Your Boyfriend Might Be a C.H.U.D.

c-h-u-d-someocrighthere_804eae_4373393

C.H.U.D.s

They stink.  See, the Millenials aren’t aware of this.  If you tell them a C.H.U.D. stinks, they’ll just be all like, whatever, you should just be nicer to the C.H.U.D. or hug him more or try to understand where the C.H.U.D. is coming from.

But if you’re a Gen Xer like me then you know C.H.U.D.s are no joke, and you certainly don’t want to be dating one.  Ergo, from BQB HQ in Fabulous East Randomtown, it’s the Top Ten Warning Signs You Might Be Dating a C.H.U.D.

#10 – Lives in the sewer.

Dead giveaway.  There is no reason for anyone to live in a sewer.  Sounds like your boyfrined might an “underground dweller” who puts the “UD” in CHUD.  Yeah, I’m lazy.  I will no longer put the period after each letter.

#9 – He is cannibalistic.

You saw him frying up a nice hand sandwich?  No, that wasn’t a typo.  I didn’t mean ham sandwich.  I meant hand sandwich.  Look, the dude’s eating a damn hand and you’re trying to make excuses for him.  “Aww, the poor guy, he just had a bad childhood.  If I love him more, he’ll stop eating people.”

No, bitch!  You in love with a damn CHUD!  Run bitch, run!

Also, he puts the C in CHUD.

#8 – He is a humanoid.

Always date an actual human.  A human is a human.  A humanoid is a creature that has a head and arms and legs and many of the same features as a human but is not a human.  Just because it moves like a human doesn’t mean it is a human.  Get some self-confidence.  Don’t settle for humanoid.  You deserve a full blown human.

He puts the H in CHUD.  That’s right.  He is a Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller.

#7 – He is super ugly.

Well, let’s be practical.  A lot of people are ugly.  Sure, we all wish we could date supermodels but after the sex, would we have anything in common to talk about?  Probably not.  So ladies, perhaps you might want to give a guy a break if he’s bald or pudgy or not so handsome but….yeesh…holy shit girl, that dude not just ugly, he a damn CHUD!

Only you can tell the difference between ugliness and CHUDness.

#6 – Smells bad.

Most men do.  We take pride in our farts.  But is the stench natural or CHUD-like?  You be the judge.  If you have to ask, you know the answer.  Run bitch, run.

#5 – Has bright yellow eyes.

Eyes aren’t supposed to glow.  Get out of there before you’re a snack.

#4 – Has pointy teeth.

We’re not talking just a lack of quality dental care.  We’re talking pointy, human biting teeth.

#3 – The best soldiers and police officers of the 1980s don’t seem like they’d be able to stop him.

But then again, they never could in any 1980s movie.

#2 – It’s like you’ve heard of him, but don’t really know him per se.

Yeah, I’ve heard ugly people be called CHUDS hundreds of times and have even been on the receiving end.  I understand the reference but to this day I have not bothered to watch the actual movie.  It’s one of those movies where you must be a real weirdo if you’ve bothered to seek it out and watch it.

#1 – He tried to eat you.

You’re better than that.  Don’t beat yourself up about it.  Just run and also know that you’re worthy of love that doesn’t lead to you ending up in a CHUD’s colon.  I know, that’s the most beautiful thing that’s ever been said to you.  What can I say?  I have a way with words.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Movie Review – It (2017)

Kids, I can’t stress this enough.  Do not talk to sewer clowns.  There’s no good reason for a clown to be in a sewer. Really, it’s just common sense.

BQB here with a review of “It.”

3.5 readers, if you’ve been following the movie news, it was a bummer summer for the box office.  Audiences found Hollywood’s offerings to be little more than a pile of poop and the box office haul was way down.  Maybe it’s because so many entertainment options are available for free or a low price via your smart phone, but maybe it’s also Hollywood just can’t offer anything original anymore.

Ironically, “It” is a reboot of an old TV mini-series based on a book by Stephen King but it feels as original as ever.  It’s well done.  Perhaps that’s why I couldn’t even get a seat last week during opening weekend.  People went in droves to see this movie.

The plot?  A malevolent, demonic spirit has taken up residence in a New Hampshire town for centuries.  Every twenty-seven years, “It” surfaces and causes death, destruction, and murder most foul, terrorizing children and feeding off of their fear.

In the summer of 1989, it’s up to a group of young Generation Xers to summon up enough courage to face their fears and destroy “It.”  That won’t be easy as “It” takes on many ghastly forms, most notably the terrifying visage of Pennywise the Dancing Clown.

“It” knows how to get into the heads of these kids – playing on all of their individual fears, seeking to drive them into madness before killing them.

Oddly enough, the story is butt puckeringly scary.  I’m an adult man yet I’m still feeling chills over the movie a day later.  This is literally the scariest film I have seen I think in, perhaps all of the 2000s.  It’s not just blood and gore scary, though there is plenty of that.  It is also psychologically scary.

At times it is also touching.  It’s a mashup of “Stand by Me” meets “The Nightmare on Elm Street.”

Perhaps King has figured out a formula for when people find themselves facing their worst fears.  At age 13, roughly the ages of all the kids in the movie, a youngster must begin shaking off youth.  They must enjoy being a kid but they must also come to grips that they will be adults soon and can no longer retreat to their parents’ arms as though they are babies every time the world does them wrong.

27 years later, they’re 40 and they face a new fear, namely, that of realizing they are too old to change many of their mistakes, yet young enough that they might still find a little happiness should they see a need to turn things around.  It’s a short window but it’s not impossible.

Not to spoil it but this movie is Chapter 1, which means there will most likely be a Chapter 2 where the adults return to New Hampshire to fight “It” again.  At least that’s what happened in the old mini-series starring Tim Curry as Pennywise and the late, great John Ritter of “Three’s Company” fame as the adult version of the chubby kid.

I can tell you something that scared the piss out of me more so than the killer clown was that this film takes place in 1989.  These kids are just a little bit older than me.  I would have been 10 at the time, perhaps one of their younger brothers.

As the home schooled kid Mike rides his bicycle past a movie theater that lists “Batman” and “Lethal Weapon 2” on the marquee, I was terrified to think how much time had passed.  1989 was such a good summer for movies, those two listed being my faves.  And keep in mind that in the original mini-series/book, I believe the kids were all 1960s kids.

There’s legit terror in this movie but when we walk away and the dust settles on the scary images, we are asked to look at the span of time, how short life is, how hard it is to fix past mistakes, how we really have to try to do things right the first time.

Shit, had I been Pennywise I’d scare these kids just by telling them all that by the time they are 40 and ready to accept a big, well paying job as a reward for their life’s work, it will be yanked out from under them from some snot nosed 20 something millennial who started a multi-million dollar app business on his cell phone.

I know I’d of screamed enough to feel “It’s” fear hunger meter for sure had someone told me that in the summer of 1989.

STATUS: Shelf-worthy.

Tagged , , , , ,

BQB’s Classic Movie Reviews – American Psycho (2000)

It’s hip to be square, 3.5 readers…HEY, PAUL!

BQB here with a review of the dark, dark, incredibly dark comedy, “American Psycho.”

abustany-movie-reel-800px

If you thought that “Wall Street” was the quintessential film about 1980s yuppie scum, think again.  “American Psycho” skewers greedy Wall Street social climbers, both figuratively and well, literally.

If you didn’t find this movie to be a laugh riot, it’s understandable.  After all, it’s very bloody and gruesome.  The humor is there though, albeit at times, subtle.

Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) is a young, studly financier.  He’s obsessed over his looks, constantly working out and following a strict bodily care regimen.  He’s equally obsessed over the finer things in life – his suits, his apartment, his ladies, etc.

One might think he lives a perfect life…but one would be wrong.  Everything has become routine and boredom has caused our protagonist to become…dun, dun, dun…a total psycho.

Yes, Patrick murders, kills, destroys, all while being classy and stylish, even going so far as to give his victims lectures about his favorite 1980s songs.  The littlest things can set him off – a colleague with a better business card seems to be a particularly unforgiveable slight.

Along the way, 1980s yuppie culture is lampooned – perhaps all of these people who go out of their way to show how rich and successful they are – are really just dull and bored and sad on the inside?  Maybe one of them is willing to hack people to pieces just to break the monotony?

Jared Leto, Reese Witherspoon and Chloe Sevigny all grace the film.  Also, I don’t want to give away the ending but it’s one of the better twist endings I’ve seen.

STATUS:  Shelf-worthy.

Tagged , , , , ,

Movie Review – Atomic Blonde (2017)

1980s music!  Jason Bourn-esque fight scenes!  Charlize Theron goes full lesbo!

BQB here with a review of “Atomic Blonde.”

It’s 1989.  The Soviet Union is on the verge of collapse.  In Germany, the Berlin Wall divided the country is about to be torn down.

Set aside this end of the Cold War backdrop, MI6 agent Atomic Blonde (Charlize Theron) must work her way through a world of intrigue to secure a list of Western agents, lest they be killed if they fall into the wrong hands.

With classic 1980s jams playing in the background, Charlize engages in stylish, well-choreographed fight scenes, all the while wearing the latest in 1980s fashion.

Meanwhile, she works with devious allies like Percival (James McAvoy), Spyglass (Eddie Marsan) and Kurzfeld (John Goodman.)

There are a lot of twists.  You’ll feel contorted by the end.  At times it can be difficult to keep up with what is happening, but the music and action is fun.n

Also, you get to see Charlize’s tucas.  I assume it is hers.  I have no reason to believe it was a stunt butt but I have no means of verification.  It isn’t presented in a very erotic manner though but hey, a butt’s a butt.

I’m not sure it lived up to all the hype but it is a fun time just the same.

STATUS:  Shelf-worthy.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Glow – More In-Depth (After Watching Full Season) Review (2017)

Hey 3.5 readers.

So, I ate these episodes up like popcorn over the weekend and I have to say that yes, it’s worth watching.

I especially like the overall theme that this is a bunch of failures who are tired of failing and want a win.

Pretty much all of the women are failed actresses, babes who moved to LA seeking stardom but got crap instead.  GLOW is their last chance for TV notoriety.

Sam Sylvia (Marc Maron) is a B horror movie director, addicted to booze and coke.  GLOW is his last chance to do something that people might like, plus producer Sebastian has promised to fund his next movie, as no one else in Hollywood seems interested in doing so.

Sebastian aka “Bash” is a rich young man who has everything and access to a ton of his wealthy mother’s funds.  He could do anything but he has essentially taken all of the opportunities his mother could give him and squandered them.  He wants to be a big time Hollywood big shot and sees GLOW as his ability to buy his way into the big time.

Most of the girls have their own “I’m trying to make a comeback” story but the two main wrestling gals in particular are Ruth Wilder (Alison Brie) and Debbie Eagan (the amazing big breasted Betty Gilpin.)

SIDENOTE:  You get to see Brie’s boobs but Gilpin’s big ripe casaba melons are never unleashed.  What a ripoff.  Maybe Netflix can offer her some more dough to go topless in season 2.

Anyway, Ruth takes acting very seriously, going to all sorts of acting classes, appearing plays – she treats acting like any other job.  “You should hire me because I have the credentials.”  But no one is hiring her, and GLOW is her last shot at stardom.

And not to give it away, but Debbie’s husband, Mark (Rich Sommer) is a dick cheeseburger with extra buttwipe fries.  Seems lame because if Debbie were my wife, I’d worship her and those magnificent mammaries and do whatever she required of me to maintain her everlasting happiness.

But that’s me.  I feel bad for Sommer.  He’s been typecast as a dick.  He’s a dick in GLOW and he was a dick in “Mad Men.”  Mad Men was in the 1960s.  GLOW is in the 1980s.  Casting agents must be all like, “We need an actor to play a dick in a period piece!  Oh, I know!  Call Rich Sommer!”

Returning to the main point, yes, even Debbie seeks a comeback, becoming a pro-wrestler to get back some of the control she lost at home.

SPOILER ALERT:

I particularly enjoyed the USA vs. Russia i.e. Debbie as Liberty Bell vs. Ruth as Zoya the Destroyer.  People think of the Cold War as a 1950s/1960s thing but it was even happening in the 1980s, though Reagan and Gorbachev did a lot of work to cool it down by 1990.  Ironically, it seems to be heating up again today.

At times, the show also looks at past issues through present eyes.  All of the characters played by the girls are stereotypes.  One wrestler is a black woman called “Welfare Queen” who laughs at the audience about how they all have to work while she stays home and lives off their tax dollars.  She even pulls food stamps out of her bra and throws them at downed opponents.

Meanwhile, an Indian woman plays a Middle Eastern terrorist character, reminding people that terrorism (and related stereotypes) were alive in the 1980s.  9/11 had not happened yet, but as the show points out, terrorist airplane hijackings were constantly in the news.

Interesting to note though you do get to see the dark side of these stereotypes.  At times, the girls object, then they get roped into thinking it’s ok and will help them on the road to stardom, then they see how ugly and obnoxious the crowd gets, hating on the wrestlers because some in the crowd are too dumb to realize that characters like “Welfare Queen” and “Beirut” are real people underneath the costumes and are not the characters they are portraying.

STATUS: Shelf-worthy.  Come for Brie’s cheez-its.  Stay for (we can only hope) the great unleashing Gilpin’s sweater cannons in season two.  Let me know in advance if that’s going to happen, Netflix.  I want to take a day off just to watch.

 

Tagged , , , ,

The Art of the Rick Roll

Hey 3.5 readers.

BQB here.

rick-astley-president-he-will-never-vgive-you-up-make-2576456

I do love a good Rick Roll…but what is it about this thirty some odd year old song that has the Internet going ga ga today?  Why is it considered clever to trick someone into clicking on this video?

Is it Rick’s good looks?  No.  The man’s clearly a flat-top sporting ginger.

Is it his funky dance moves?  No.  He clearly just holds his hands out, makes a couple of fists, then sways from side to side.

Is it his sense of style?  No.  The man is clearly wearing some kind of 1980s trench coat, like he’s some kind of flasher….except not, because he has clothes on underneath.

It’s none of these things.  Yet, Rick is so damn desirable to the ladies for one reason:  his song is all about pure love.

Rick isn’t one of those rappers, promising a quote unquote “bitch” money, diamonds, wealth, jewelry, power and so on in exchange for her phat ass.  No sir.  Rick may not be much to look at, but he boils love down to its core essentials, rattling off a list to a blonde woman in the video of the basics that he, and frankly any good man, would give to a woman:

I’m never gonna give you up,

Never gonna let you down,

Never gonna run around, and desert you.

Never gonna make you cry.

Never gonna say goodbye.

Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.

Look people, we’ve established Rick is not much to look at.  He can’t dance.  His fashion stinks.  To quote Bobby Ferrin, “He aint got no cash, aint got no style…”

But what he lacks in superficial qualities, he makes up with in heart.  He’s got a big one and he wants this lady to know it.  Rich, handsome, studly men who can dance and don’t have red hair can get all the women they want and sadly, more often than not, they can trick a woman into being used and then tossed aside like yesterday’s stale doughnut.

Not Rick, ladies.  He doesn’t have much going for him and like most of us average to below average looking dudes, the best we can do is promise you the basics of love.  We’re not going to leave you.  We’re not going to lie to you.  We aren’t going to hurt you.

Superficial men may be able to promise you material possessions, but the Rick Astleys of the world know their woman wooing abilities are limited and thus, they embrace all of the aspects of what true love is supposed to be all about, namely – honesty and commitment.

No ladies, if you pick a Rick Astley, he’s probably not going to turn all your friends’ heads and make them jealous of you when you walk into the room together.  He’s not going to buy you a bunch of expensive crap.  He’s most likely going to wear that dumb trench coat to every affair.  He’ll always have red hair.  He’ll always dance like a department store mannequin that just came to life and is trying to figure out how his new body works for the first time.

But – he will be there when you need him, ladies.  Is he cheating on you when he’s not with you?  No, for if you recall, he pledged that he would never run around.  Will he leave you?  No.  He promised he would not desert you.  Is he telling the truth?  Yes.  He made it crystal clear that he will never tell a lie.

Fidelity.  Honesty.  Commitment.  These are the cornerstones of any good relationship and Rick Astley is offering them up on a silver platter.

Rick’s promises are so pure that his career was basically one song and done.  I have no idea if he put out any other songs.  If he did, I can’t name one.  Can you?  If he did, he didn’t have to.  He said all he needed to say about love then rode off into the sunset like a ginger cowboy.

Perhaps that is why it is so fun to do a Rick Roll.  Typically, the joke is to fool narcissistic folks into clicking onto something that they are led to believe will bring them wealth, power, or something else that doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things, only to be reminded of what really matters by the Rickster.

As for all of you single ladies out there trying to figure out what you want in a man, let me make it simple for you:  Choose a Rick Astley, ladies.  Choose a Rick Astley.

FYI: I can’t take credit for that meme.  It was floating around in the last election and frankly, maybe we should have elected Rick Astley president.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

BQB’s Classic Movie Reviews – Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

“It’s all in the reflexes.”

BQB here with a review of the action/comedy/martial arts fantasy, Big Trouble in Little China.

abustany-movie-reel-800px

Like Escape from New York, this is another film I got through my 1980s childhood without seeing until now.  Also like Escape, it features Kurt Russell being directed by John Carpenter.  However, while Escape’s Snake Plissken was a gruff man of few words, Big Trouble’s Jack Burton is a boisterous big mouth, thus allowing Russell to show off his versatility.

Our story begins with Burton, an overly confident truck driver who refers to himself in the third person via a radio show of sorts that he performs on CB radio, pulling into the Chinatown section of San Francisco.  After a long haul, he meets up with buddy Wang Chi (Dennis Dun) for a night of rowdy drinking and gambling.

When Burton gives Wang a ride to the airport to pick up his fiancee who’s about to arrive from China, said fiancee is kidnapped by brutish kung fu thugs and the adventure is on.  As Jack and Wang follow the trail, they end up in a world of martial arts, monsters, and magic, culminating in an epic battle royal with the vile sorcerer Lo Pan (James Hong aka the old Asian guy in practically every movie that requires an old Asian guy.  Hell, he even voices the goose that adopted Po in Kung Fu Panda).

Along the way, Jack and Wang team up with good sorcerer Egg Shen (Victor Wong aka James’ Hong’s longtime rival for the part of old Asian guy in every film that requires one).

Jack even finds a love interest in Gracie Law, a lawyer who, I don’t know, is investigating the trouble in Little China.  It’s not really explained that well.  All I know is that it was nice to see a young, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed Kim Cattrall in this movie, long before she became jaded, unapologetically slutty Samantha on Sex in the City.

And yes, the character’s name is “Gracie Law,” because the writers really wanted you to know that she is a lawyer, but “Briefcase McCourtOrder” would have been too obvious.

I had a buddy in elementary school who gave me rave reviews about this movie.  He kept those reviews up long into adulthood, often telling me I needed to check this out.

I checked it out and…hmm…how to explain.

I don’t want to call it the worst movie I’ve ever seen, because it is far from it.  In fact, I can picture a 1980s audience full of big haired, big shoulder padded people being blown away by this film.  It has a lot of heart and there is a definite intent to entertain.  Even some of the cheesier moments of the film can be laughed off by remembering this movie isn’t just an action film, but it’s also an action comedy.

My main criticism is with the overall story, or rather, the film’s storytelling abilities.  Not much of an overall explanation is given about why this magic world of martial arts magic exists.

Instead, Jack, like the viewer, is thrust into the story face first,  He, and you, the viewer, learn bits and pieces of what is happening along the way.  Oddly enough, every Asian person in the film knows everything there is to know about this magical martial arts world, as if it has always been around and only dumb honkies like Jack are oblivious to it.  Even Wang, a restauranteur by trade, displays some off the chain, bad ass kung fu moves, yet there isn’t really any explanation as to why this guy who cooks food by day knows how to fly through the air with a sword at night.

I’m very, very far from politically correct, but I suppose the modern day social justice warriors have brainwashed me into thinking, “Huh.  This film seems to suggest all Asian people are kung fu masters.  That doesn’t seem very woke.”

But then I just tamp down social justice vibe down deep and eat a cookie for fear I’ll become some kind of gluten sucking, fedora wearing hipster.  Boo…hipsters.

Bottomline, it’s a fun romp and there some great scenes.  I just wish a little more work had been done on the story.  Then again, someone wiser than me might say that throwing Jack headfirst into the action and letting him catch up is a great storytelling device all on its own.

After all, how many times in your life has anyone really sat you down and told you everything you ever needed to know about a given situation?  That rarely happens, if ever.  Like Jack, we rush in, put on a brave front full of false machismo, and hold onto our butts, all the while hoping we’ll figure it all out before it’s too late.

STATUS:  Shelf-worthy.  Watch it on Netflix.

Tagged , , , ,

BQB’s Classic Movie Reviews – Escape from New York (1981)

A big ass scoped revolver!  A silenced Uzi!  Kurt Russell in his prime!

BQB here with a review of the 1980s action thriller, Escape from New York.

abustany-movie-reel-800px

I’m surprised I never got around to seeing this one, 3.5 readers.  Made in 1981, it envisions a futuristic 1997, one where crime has risen so dramatically that the entire island of Manhattan has been turned into one giant prison to hold all the riff raff.

While the outskirts of the island are heavily guarded by a security team lead by Warden Hauk (Lee Van Cleef), prisoners on the island are allowed to wander about freely and do whatever they please – killing, maiming, and destroying as much as they want.

Seems like a foolproof plan for ridding America of it’s ne’er-do-wells…until the President’s plane crashes right in the middle of it.

As luck would have it, war hero turned bank robber, the ultra macho, constantly brooding, eye-patch wearing Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) is about to be deposited on the island as a prisoner when the shit hits the fan.

Hauk and Snake play let’s make a deal.  If Snake saves the President (Donald Pleasance), he’ll go free.

High stakes, huh?  To double the stakes, the President was on the way to a conference with important information in his possession that could stop a nuclear war from breaking out.  Thus, the world will be screwed if Snake fails.

Moreover, to triple the stakes, a device is implanted in Snake’s neck that will blow his head off if he doesn’t return with the president within twenty-two hours.  No pressure.

It’s Snake to the rescue as he fights all sorts of weirdoes, and even makes some allies along the way.  Ernest Borgnine provides comic relief as Cabbie, a molotov cocktail wielding yellow cab driver.  Harry Dean Stanton stars as Snake’s frenemy (friend/enemy), “Brain” while Adrienne Barbeau is eye candy Maggie, although she has sort of an odd hair style that never really made it out of the 1980s.

What’s a movie without a villain?  That role goes to Isaac Hayes, “the Duke of New York,” who holds the president hostage.  He does his best to be menacing, though whenever he speaks, I have a hard time not thinking of Chef from South Park.

Meanwhile, Van Cleef’s Hauk is sort of a good villain, a man who puts the screws to Snake in order to get him to do something good.

Van Cleef, who passed away in 1989, was mostly known for playing villains, especially the roles he played opposite Clint Eastwood in For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

I’ve seen these films, but it took me a minute to recognize him without a cowboy outfit on.

The 1980s is the Golden Age of action cinema.  The special effects were just starting to get good.  Audiences were less turned off by violence.  The country was still getting over Vietnam, so moviegoers were sympathetic to an action hero trapped in a shitty situation by forces bigger than he was.

As a kid, I grew up on a steady diet of Schwarzenegger and Stallone, so I am surprised it took me so long to see this one.  It’s got all the standard action tropes, but for whatever reason, I just don’t recall it being as popular as say, The Terminator, a film that everyone was talking about in those days.

One part that made me sad – the World Trade Center plays a prominent role in the film.  To avoid detection, Snake flies a silent glider into the city and lands it on the roof of one of the towers, with the intention of flying it off the tower later, seeing as how it is the only building tall enough for a glider to take off from.

It made me sad, seeing as how those buildings aren’t there anymore, though I suppose technically, the movie still holds up as they were there in 1997, the year the film is set in.

STATUS:  Shelf-worthy.  There is some cheesiness and the special effects, though not up to modern snuff, were likely the best available at the time.  Also, it was directed by John Carpenter, who gave us the Halloween franchise.  Watch it on Netflix.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
Advertisements