Author: BRWC

Generally I do not review newer films (as most readers of my pieces here can attest to.) As a filmmaker myself (one that is working to at least SOME small degree) I don’t like to pick at my… erm… “competition” (being generous to my no-budget self, I know), at least not publicly, as I try and be a nice guy toward fellow contemporaries. However when something comes along like Inception and the mass of abject fawning that accompanies it, it’s hard for me to stay silent.

I saw Inception two nights ago. I thought it was a beautifully shot, well edited (if not well paced), nicely thought out film. The special effects for the most part were better than average (save for the street scene explosions and finale lightening storm) with the most talked about “anti-gravity” fight scene not only being the highlight in effects, but the whole film for me.

Now. Why did I see Inception? I saw it because, like James Cameron’s Avatar and Nolan’s last film, it is being heralded as the cinematic equivalent to the “second coming of Christ.” It’s been called “The greatest film of all time!”, “A landmark in cinema history!”, “In ten years Inception will be a religion.”, etc, etc.

After seeing the film I wondered as I did after seeing the previously mentioned Avatar and Dark Knight, just what movie it was people had seen?

In a nutshell, Inception is an amalgamation of the Japanese Anime Paprika (far TOO liberally borrowed from it I might add), 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Matrix (which in itself was an amalgamation of many things.) For a modern film, yes, it is moderately “intelligent.” BUT what it most reminded me of was one of those conversations you’d have with your friends, late at night after watching a bunch of horror movies and getting hopped up on soda. You know, those conversations that seem profound and deep to you and your buddies at the time, but then years later you think “what the hell was I thinking?” Except that conversation was then turned into a screenplay and given 200 Million Dollars to make it into a film.

I understood Inception very well (I am a big fan of heady, scientific oriented thrillers, both in film and novel form.) There isn’t much to understand. There are a group of people who make a living messing in people’s dreams, extracting secrets, information, etc. They get assigned to implant (rather than extract) an idea, within a dream, within a dream. The team leader has psychological issues involving his dead wife, that interfere with their work. They go in, implant the idea and come out. The only moment of real ambiguity in the plot/film is the attempted “twist” ending that (spoilers) tries to tell you it all may still be a dream, or not, maybe.

That’s it. There’s nothing deeper than that.

Watch it more than once (although, there is no need to), there’s nothing else to it. No deeper meanings or shades. Hell, the only character that gets any development is DiCaprio’s and his development is mostly tried and true movie cliche.

It (and the other critics who have so glaringly defended it) would like you to think there’s more to it than that. But there isn’t. The closest comparison I could call to Inception would be Star Trek- The Motion Picture. It’s a big budget, gorgeous, but bloated movie, with lots of technobabble and self importance, that in the end isn’t able to live up to it’s own desire to be profound. The old phrase “a whole bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing” comes to mind.

Unlike ST-TMP, it isn’t hip to like or like it’s director, so it gets hated on, despite being more fun and better acted than Inception.

The only (sad) reason Inception has been loved on as much as it is, is because audiences today aren’t used to getting any semblance of intelligence or thought with their big “popcorn” flicks anymore. So when something moderately well thought out and competently made/acted comes along, LIKE The Dark Knight, Avatar or Inception, it’s a new thing to the audience and critics who have been beaten to a pulp by the lesser fare that permeates cinema today, and they treat it all far better than it deserves.

If it seems like I’m trying to hate on Inception, I’m not, I just want to give it the review it actually deserves, not take a ride on the “kiss-ass” train. As mentioned, for a modern film, I think it was moderately intelligent and they pulled it all together decently. DiCaprio as always (in my opinion) was forced, strained and unbelievable in the lead role. Marion Cotillard pleased me early in the film, but by the end I wanted to kill her. Ellen Page was surprisingly decent, as I usually dislike her. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was great as always. However, Tom Hardy, turned out to be my favorite of the actors, he was quite witty, well timed and really seemed like he was having fun in the part.

As mentioned earlier, it was well shot. The location photography was gorgeous as were the sets. The editing was a bit too liberal. The film could have used a good 30-40 minutes of excision. Some of the effects were a bit flat, most were better than we usually get these days. And, the anti-gravity fight scene in the hotel was a thrilling technical feet (undercut by the rest of the plot interacting with it.) The score by Hans Zimmer was far too over the top in all the wrong places. And ultimately, it was just a hollow experience to me, that will never hold up on repeat or home viewings.

6 out of 10 Amalgamated Self-Important Knock-Offs

It has been firmly established in the annals of time that I am a movie nerd. I love things that movie nerds should love. I am both a Star Trek and Star Wars fan, although I greatly prefer Trek. I have an original one sheet poster for Irwin Allen’s “The Swarm” on my bedroom wall. And, among countless other examples, I love the 1986 “cult classic” Highlander.

In fact Highlander is one of my top 20, possibly even top 10, favorite movies. Russel Mulcahy directs the movie with an assured and very visual flourish. He moves the film along at a lightening fast pace; due in part to some amazing transition shots, and some very progressive camera work. The acting in the film is good, if very over the top at times, from all the leads, but GREAT from Sean Connery. And the centuries spanning plot, about sword fighting immortals that must fight to become the last of their kind, is equal parts mystical, emotional and cheesy (and certainly better than Twilight by a large margin.) But, the last piece of Highlander that sends it from being just a good, oddball 80’s movie, into being a true cult classic is it’s “Music By Queen” credit.

Earlier in the 80’s, my favorite overall rock band, lent their skills to scoring another of my favorite films, Flash Gordon. With Highlander however, they do not provide score, but songs. The songs are very much in tune with the film, all of them equal parts mystical, emotional and cheesy. And, where as there is no official Highlander album for us to experience their glory, Queen was nice enough to put all of the films songs (save a cover version of “New York, New York”), plus a couple of new ones, onto the album in review today; 1986’s “A Kind of Magic.”

“One Vision” kicks the album off with a good start. The song begins with an oddly synthesizer-mixed-with-vocals opening that can only come from the 80’s and lapses into a pulsing back beat, that mixes drum machines and electronic orchestra into the usual Queen-rock of the bulk of the song. Lyrically the song is anthemic, essentially telling the listener to have a purpose or “vision” to their life. As is often the case with Queen songs the lyrics are a bit cheeky and told in a theatrical manner. Freddie Mercury’s vocals are as flawless as ever and the production values are solid, if thoroughly grounded in the time period. It’s a good opener and a great listen on its own.

“A Kind of Magic” is the album’s title track, inspired by a line of dialog from Highlander. Lyrically the song is very closely related to the film, in a sense at least. With thoughts of eternity, “challenging the doors of time” and so forth. The song is like magic in the sense that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. The lyrics are cerebral and archetypal, they don’t tell a linear story, but they are fun to listen to none-the-less. Mercury sings with passion and humor. And the music and production values have that pure Queen feel to them, especially Brian May’s “stereo usurping” guitar harmonics.

“One Year of Love” is next and it’s one of the more solid tracks lyrically. It’s a sentimental and passionate song about unrequited love. Mercury really shows off the pain, passion and theatricality of the lyrics with a soulful vocal performance. The music of the song detracts a bit, as it comes across a bit too cheesy for the subject matter. But if you like well produced 80’s ballads, you’ll like this song.

“Pain Is So Close to Pleasure” is one of the weaker tracks on the album. The song has a do-wappy nature to it. And Mercury’s vocals come across a bit snarky. They’re just a bit too high pitched and the song is just sort of mediocre. It really doesn’t have much point and doesn’t go anywhere. Not much to say about the other band members either, the music is as mediocre as the lyrical content on this one.

“Friends Will Be Friends” is a step up from the previous track for sure. It’s still nowhere near as good as the first three tracks. But this is a solid song and it has that proper Queen feeling and thickness to it. Mercury is back on top form vocally. The production work is pleasing and easy on the ears. The one major failing of the song is that the lyrics don’t really grab you. But Mercury puts in enough effort, and the song builds well enough that you can forget about that and enjoy the listen.

“Who Wants to Live Forever” shoots back into classic territory. Lyrically the song tells a painfully sad tale about eternal love and endless loss. Mercury’s vocal work has never been better. There is no winking in this song. Mercury’s voice takes the story of the song to the highest peaks of emotional depth and seriousness. You can hear in every syllable and nuance that Mercury is committed to selling this song, and he does. The music is just as a good as Mercury’s vocals, it is subtle and quiet when it needs to be and soars up to the rafters with full sonic intensity when the emotions are at their greatest peaks. The song is a classic ballad, a classic Queen song and a real tear jerker. This song is worth the purchase of the album alone.

“Gimme the Prize” opens with a blistering guitar solo, that climbs and climbs in intensity. This is the best part of the song. Mercury is good, as is the music. The lyrics are weak again and the song comes across as filler to a degree. There are snippets of dialog from Highlander interspersed throughout as well, which always throws one off. Not a horrible listen for fans, but a casual listener could skip it.

“Don’t Lose Your Head” comes hot on the heels of Gimme the Prize, it has a similar musical sound, but is a decidedly much better song. The lyrics are strong and Mercury pulls out all the stops singing them with his seemingly effortless vocal style and theatricality. The lyrics also retain Queen’s usual sense of humor. The music and production work is interesting and pleasing, if a bit dated. Drum machines and synthesizers echo about wildly in the background, creating an irresistible beat.

“Princes of the Universe” is another track tied heavily to the film Highlander. This is the theme song to the film, and later the TV series. However, you don’t have to like the film to enjoy the song. It is bombastic and pulse pounding. It’s very much an arena rocker. The music, lyrics and vocals scale the heights of theatricality and pompousness. It is essentially this albums “We Will Rock You.” The bridge and second half of the song are of particular note and quite memorable.

“A Kind of, A Kind of Magic” is essentially album filler. In fact it’s a bonus track on the CD version of the album. It’s basically a karaoke version of A Kind of Magic. But it’s also kind of not. If you like the song and know the lyrics, pull out your best Mercury impersonation and sing along with this one.

“Friends Will Be Friends, Will Be Friends…” is another filler song. Another bonus track, it is also a pseudo-karaoke version of the original track. However, musically this song sounds better to me. So once again, if you know the lyrics, sing along.

“Forever”, the last track on the CD version is yet another bonus track. This one is not so bad. In fact if you’re a fan of instrumental music, it’s quite enjoyable. It is a soulful, piano version of “Who Wants to Live Forever.” Not quite as perfectly emotional as the full song, but a lovely listen none-the-less.

Overall, A Kind of Magic does have that good old Queen magic, at least in places. Of the nine actual tracks 6 of them are great, Who Wants to Live Forever being spectacular. The filler isn’t horrible, but it isn’t amazing. The CD release should have stuck to the original vinyl listing and ended on a high note with Princes of the Universe as the three bonus tracks might annoy casual listeners. But for fans of Highlander and Queen, this is a must have album.

• One Vision- 8/10
• A Kind of Magic- 8/10
• One Year of Love- 8/10
• Pain is So Close to Pleasure- 5/10
• Friends Will Be Friends- 7/10
• Who Wants to Live Forver- 10/10
• Gimme the Prize- 5/10
• Don’t Lose Your Head- 7/10
• Princes of the Universe- 8/10

A Kind of Magic, An Album by Queen- 7 out of 10 broken microphone stands.

While on the subject of heady, science fiction thrillers (see my Inception review)…

As we all know, I am a film maker and lover… You might call me a nerd… You could call me psychotically obsessive even (I have seen over 10,000 films in my life, most of them twice and I own nearly 3,000.) In fact a good portion of my earliest memories are of watching films. The language of cinema is so engrained in my psyche that I dream in widescreen (I’m talking 2:35 too, not no 1:78 crap.) So much of my life has been taken up by film that I have sort of become reticent towards reading (that and being forced through several absolutely wretched novels in my schooling years. Alas Babylon, anyone?)

In the past 10 years (or more), aside from the Michael Crichton novels I have devoured, the only books I have read have been film related. If Chins Could Kill Confessions of a B Movie Actor, by Bruce Campbell; My Word Is My Bond, by Sir Roger Moore; Bronson’s Loose! The Making of the Death Wish Films, by Paul Talbot; and Seagology A Study of the Ass-Kicking Films of Steven Seagal, by Internet Film Critic Extraordinaire, Vern. (I will defend myself a little bit by saying that I am not completely without class and sophistication, as my all time favorite novel is The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexander Dumas.)

What exactly is it then that draws me to the works of Michael Crichton? Quite simply, as many of his detractors AND supporters have pointed out, his novels are like screenplays. Not just any screenplays though. Screenplays for the most suspenseful, engaging and intelligent movies you can imagine. You can see the story as you read it. It is vivid and visceral, as if the pages are projecting a film directly into your brain. In fact many of Crichton’s works have been turned into great films, most notably Jurassic Park (and to a lesser extent Rising Sun and Disclosure.) I can’t say all of his novels have been translated successfully to the screen though (hello Congo and Sphere.) But THIS is what draws me to the works of Crichton, he writes in a very visual manner; so you can see, feel and hear the story, not just flip through some pages.

It also doesn’t hurt that Crichton was also a filmmaker himself (and a doctor to boot.) He wrote and directed the brilliant and terrifying Westworld (that was in essence a pre-cursor to Jurassic Park) about a theme park who’s attractions start killing the guests. Crichton also did an entertaining adaptation of his own novel The Great Train Robbery, starring Sean Connery and Donald Sutherland. Then of course there is Looker, Physical Evidence and Coma all directed by Crichton. However, I was first exposed to Crichton as both a filmmaker and writer with his 1984 “robots gone amok” thriller, Runaway. Runaway is one of my favorite films of the 80’s. It is well acted and paced. The film has an accessible intelligence to it, but it is also action packed and quite thrilling.

So, needless to say I was exposed to the film world of Michael Crichton before the literary world. In a way I’m glad it worked out that way though. Had I read the novels his films are based on first I would have been ruined by that elitist “The book is better than the movie” attitude that so often proliferates reviews of screen adaptations. Most films based on Crichton’s novels and or written by Crichton are almost always (save for Congo and Sphere) far more enriching and intelligent than the bulk of Hollywood films. It is true however in the end, that the books are better than the films; but generally only by a slim margin.

The first Michael Crichton novel I ever read is the one I am reviewing today, Prey. A film has not been made of this novel (however the rights have been purchased), but it would make an excellent film. The novel features many of Crichton’s usual propensities; an average looking; flawed but relatable male protagonist with great intelligence. A beautiful, but foreboding icy blonde, career driven bitch of even greater intelligence. And, a story driven by the paranoia of technology or medical related science on the brink of destroying us all.

I am going to quote you the back of the novel and that is essentially all I wish to say about the plot, so as to not give away any twists or great shock moments (of which there are many, in great supply.) 

“In the Nevada desert, an experiment has gone horribly wrong. A cloud of nanoparticles- micro robots- has escaped from the laboratory. This cloud is self-sustaining and self-reproducing. It is intelligent and learns from experience. For all practical purposes, it is alive. 

It has been programmed as a predator. It is evolving swiftly, becoming more deadly with each passing hour.

 Every attempt to destroy it has failed.

 And we are the prey.”

To fully enjoy Prey, or ANY Michael Crichton novel it would help to either be a full on nerd or at least of average intelligence. Being a former Doctor, Crichton himself is well educated and it shows through in his works. All of the subject matter in his novels is meticulously researched. The technology and science on display in his books, while oft times slightly far-fetched, is believable and described in a frighteningly realistic manner. From the cloning elements of Jurassic Park, to the apes of Congo capable of sign language, the DNA patenting and organ selling of Next and the nano-particles of Prey, all of Crichton’s “science fiction” is laced with about 75% science fact.

This use of almost real (and for the most part, actually real) scientific and technological, facts, records and data give Crichton’s novels a sense of terrifying reality and overwhelming urgency. I have read Prey twice. The first time I read it I literally read it from start to finish in a single sitting. My reaction to it was immediate. It has a visceral intensity to it that makes you just keep turning the pages. The book makes you NEED to see what’s going to happen next.

In addition to the scientific and technological “near facts” on display Crichton also has a habit of writing in “archetypal” characters. People you can immediately gravitate to, or despise, depending on the needs of the story. Some may call this lazy, but I don’t. It makes the heady, cerebral and overtly intellectual aspects of the novel more accessible AND believable. There is no need for me to name the characters in Prey. The “heroes” and “villains” of Prey are written deep enough to understand their motivations, to connect to them and their feelings, without going too far under their surfaces.

Crichton’s novels aren’t about characters, they are about unfurling a horrifically plausible tale of unrelenting suspense, wrapped up in a stiflingly claustrophobic atmosphere that comes with the world of scientific and technological terrors he creates for us. And Prey is no exception. Aside from the ending being a bit anti-climatic, the whole novel is an edge-of-your-seat affair, it’s just page after page of breathless, overwhelming suspense. And Crichton makes it seem all too possible, all too realistic. By the end of the novel you won’t be thinking about how scary it would be if it did happen, you’ll be thinking about how scary it’s going to be WHEN it happens.

Yes, Crichton does tend to rely on playing off of basic human fears a bit too heavily. Yes, some of his works are a bit ham-fisted with personal opinion (like State of Fear.) And, yes, sometimes the “what if” scenario that serves as the basis of the novel and scientific “fact” that drives the novel are sensationalized and stretched in some extreme and unlikely directions (also State of Fear.) BUT when you are there in the moment and turning each page with a sweaty brow and shaky hands you won’t think about any of that.

In the end Prey is my favorite Crichton novel. It has the overwhelming sense of all encompassing dread of his earlier “classic” works. The stark technological and scientific “near fact” feeling of Jurassic Park and a well crafted “cinematic” pace that prevents you from being able to put the book down. Sure, it would have been nice to have a change of pace with the characters, dialog and humor. AND the ending could have been sent back for another edit. But as I said before, when you’re in the thick of it with the characters, surrounded by a dense black cloud of thinking, near sentient, man-made robotic death, fighting for your life, you won’t be thinking of that. You’ll only be thinking about what happens next.

Rating – 9/10 Killer Nano Particles