Setter’s ‘Spectives: Not Feeling It With ‘Jurassic World’

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Enough already with the Jurassic Park reworkings.

I liked the original 1993 movie very much. It was thrilling, scary, often funny – despite a few misguided lines here and there.

After seeing the trailer for the very similar-looking Jurassic World, I’m almost certain the latter flick’s gonna be less interesting.

We’ve been through this territory, haven’t we? Dinosaurs run amok at much-heralded theme park. How much of the same thing can we take?

The box-office results in 2015 should have the answer. I don’t yet; I’ve only seen the preview. But I suspect it won’t be anything original … or that interesting.

I guess Prehistoric Mammal Park doesn’t have the same ring, does it? Sigh.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Now I Can Die in Peace After Seeing ‘Godzilla’

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613It took me a while, but I finally watched Godzilla, King of the Monsters! all the way through last night.

I’d never seen it straight through before, so this was important. It’s surprisingly effective, despite the fact that special effects have come a long way since the days of destroying model sets. A little slowly paced, but for the most part it was well done. It also provided an interesting comment on Japanese and American post-war relations.

Of course, there was the creature Godzilla, too.

I think it’s easy to see why this flick was so influential. You do see the monster, but it’s almost always in shadow, so you never get a true close-up of all the scaly details. Leaving a little bit in the dark when it comes to monster movies is always a good idea, methinks. The mayhem was also well photographed, though I was a bit dismayed that Takashi Shimura was so underused. C’est la vie.

Good movie. I’m not gonna run to see it again, but I’m glad I have it under my belt.

Skip’s Quips: Do You, Frankenstein’s Monster, Take ‘I, Frankenstein’ …

Blog Sketch 082813Will someone please direct a movie that’s faithful to the great Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley novel Frankenstein?

It’s not hard. The subject matter’s brilliant. Plus, it’s really scary. Perfect Hollywood material, right?

Guess not. Instead, we’re getting the likes of I, Frankenstein, which, judging from its trailer, resembles the original material as much as Taylor resembles Dr. Zaius in Planet of the Apes.

A planet where junk evolved from quality? Say it ain’t so.

Not even James Whale’s Frankenstein keeps strictly to the book, an issue I’ve always lamented, as it’s otherwise a classic film. Shelley’s monster is, unlike the character appearing in most cinematic depictions, intelligent, vengeful … and the negative mirror image of the man who created him. Are filmmakers today afraid that if they show the creature thusly, it’ll conflict with our mental image of him? If so, why is that a bad thing? We need a truer adaptation.

I, Frankenstein doesn’t fit the bill. Oh, and as an aside, putting “I,” before the name in the title is silly in this context. What does that mean, anyway? “I, Frankenstein, do solemnly swear to star in bad movies until Hollywood gets sick of this story.”

Directors should trust the novel. It’s a good one … and still topical. Great literature always has something to say.  There’s no reason why we can’t put the same content onscreen as well.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Overused Plots, Unite!

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I can’t pretend to know what goes on during the movie-development process in Hollywood.

I do, however, know that the results often have a manufactured quality, as if churned out from a machine fed specific information about character, theme and plot needs.

Some of these plots are recognizable from film to film. I’ve listed a number of them below as being, in my humble opinion, among the most overused. This isn’t a comprehensive list, nor is it objective … though I’d like to think it is. Anyway, here are my cinematic gripes for the day:

Single/Divorced Dad With a Heart (and Soul) Finally Finds True Love: They never tell you why he’s single, though, do they? Maybe he eats other people’s nostrils. Or likes Jerry Lewis films.

Zombies Run Amok After Some Medical Experiment Goes Awry: The least interesting monster in any monster movie often gets the star treatment–probably because you don’t have to write lines for it.

Man/Woman on the Run Hides Out in a Dance Studio; Comedy Ensues: And, unfortunately, singing. More often than not, the singing’s worse.

Sensitive, Movie-Buff Hit Man Retires to Home Town, Then Discovers He Never Really Left: What a long, strange trip this usually is, especially when references to Lash LaRue start popping up.

Ordinary Guy Finds Out He’s “The One” to Save the World; Stupidity Ensues: Also boring, slow-motion fistfights and pseudo-martial arts mayhem. Yuck.

Seminal Ancient Battle Gets “Reimagined” for the Screen with Posturing and CGI Blood: At this juncture, the squibs of yore seem more realistic. Add macho yelling and stir.

Multiple Stories About Folks Around the World Intertwine Tediously: Please, please stay with fewer characters. Once you spin a web surrounding too many people, the movie loses focus.

Dance Team Saves the Town Via Dreadful Flash-Mob Theatrics and Cheap Sentimentality: Possibly the least credible plot device of any film in this bunch. And I’m including the zombie one.