Avengers Movie Offers Super Powered Writing Lesson

What I expect from a summer blockbuster film:

(I'll rate the Avengers success in each category.)

1. Stars - It isn't a true blockbuster without a recognizable name on the poster. Dep, Pitt or Downey Jr. and/or Johanson, Portman or Jolie + movie = entertainment gold. They're like pretty Hollywood street cred or something.

Avengers - Literally not a full minute of the film passes without being able to say, "I've seen that guy or gal in a dozen movies!" Seriously, I'm thinking about naming my first child Robert-Sam-Scarlet-Chris-Hemsworth-Jeremy-Gwen-Ruffalo Wesley.

2. "I didn't just see that..." Scenes - Call them special effects if you will, but if my jaw and the floor don't get acquainted at least a couple of times throughout the film, it isn't a blockbuster. Required: Last summer's explosion count must be surpassed at all cost!

Avengers - Oh boy, if you love you some 'splosions then this is THE movie for you. Earth's mightiest heroes do a damned fine job of breaking everything in sight, including each other. Ever wondered what the Hulk would do to a building if he decided to scrape down it a like an angry kitty on the drapes? Wonder no more. Ever wanted to see what Thor and Iron Man could do to a forest if they got a little rambunctious? (Boys!) Let's just say Mother Nature is still pissed.

3. A Reality Reboot - The success of the summer blockbuster hinges on being able to make us forget we're normal. Most of us are under or over weight, too short to ride rides or too tall to have ceiling fans, afraid of heights, and kind of freaked out by live chickens. The blockbuster must take that away with the thrill of the improbable victory, the rush of fake situations so death defying someone probably really died trying to pull them off, and the scorching envy brought on by watching people too pretty to exist hooking up like it's their hobby.

Avengers - Simply put, if you don't walk out of the Avengers without at least thinking about trying to tip over a car or parkoring up the wall of the cinema like a Red Bull infused spider monkey, there's no spark of imagination left in your little black soul. For two hours you're so overwhelmed by the impawesome (impossible + awesome), there's just no way to accept our reality could be so sucky and boring. 

So that's the movie review: STOP READING THIS AND GO WATCH IT ALREADY!

As for what I don't expect from my summer blockbusters:

1. A proper schooling on the craft I've been chasing the last few years like some kind of obsessed Labrador.

If you're not familiar with Joss Whedon it probably just means you haven't watched TV in a couple of decades. Not calling you lame, just ... sheltered. 

His writing credits date back to the Rosanne show and include Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Toy Story, Speed, Angel, Firefly and most recently the horror movie hit, Cabin in the Woods. Suffice to say he's developed quite a lot of geek credit (like street credit, but with glasses and acne) over the years.

In fact, my use of the non-word 'sucky' above is a Whedonism. He likes to turn nouns into adjectives by adding a 'y'. Now you know why three generations of teens talk the way they do! 

Back to the Avengers. I mentioned all the explosions and cool visual stuff, right? Here's what's really going to blow you away if you're looking for it: The best scenes in the movie are dialogue heavy interactions between the various super folks.

When the characters speak, stuff happens. I'm not talking about visual stuff up on the screen kinds of stuff. I'm talking about the rusty old gears in my noggin turning kinds of stuff.

That's right, the true vehicle for the story isn't the action, it's the motivations of each character. What keeps your mind racing toward the next scene isn't what makes them super, but what makes them normal. 

Through razor sharp dialogue and not an ounce of wasted exposition, Whedon and his co-writers have crafted a master's course in how to keep a story moving and meaningful in spite of all the visual distractions. It truly is what makes the Avengers special.

I know I sometimes focus so much on what goes on in my stories from an action/doing standpoint that I often fail to utilize dialogue and exposition to its utmost. In fact, I'm going to go see the movie again and take some notes this time. 

I was having too much fun the first time to catch everything. :)

TOMORROW: I'll be interviewing the wonderful debut author, Alyson Burdet. Her novel, NIGHTFIRE, is full of vampire goodness! You know we'll have some fun, so I hope you'll stop back by to wish Alyson luck and check out her thoughts on writing and the beautiful madness it induces in us all. :)

Also, my primary computer is in the shop so I'm getting around to my blogs a little slower this week. I should have it back by tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to reading what you all have been up to. Until then: 

ASSEMBLE! 

~EJW~

Does the Hunger Games Movie Make the Grade? (review, minimum spoilers)

Hey gang! Like 99.9% of the rest of the populace, I was able to catch the Hunger Games movie over the weekend. I wanted to give a quick 2 cents in case someone is in the .01%. Plus I thought some fans might want to gossip with me. : )

I've read all 3 books (a couple of times) to give you perspective on my expectations/experience going in. I'm a fan of the source material, and the review will come as such. I'll give a quick grade for each aspect of the movie listed below.

I've done my best to generalize, so the spoilery stuff should be minimal.

CHARACTERS:

Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence): JL nailed it! She's distant, yet emotional. She's cautious and observant. She's tough as nails on the outside with a compassionate core. She's Katniss. GRADE - A+

Peeta (Josh Hutcherson): He really conveyed Peeta's compassionate resiliency. His relationship with Katniss is believable and heartfelt. Thought the character came off a touch more needy (sensitive?) than the Peeta in the books. Probably more to do with movie stuff (script, etc.) than his performance. Overall, excellent job. GRADE - A-

Gale (Liam Hemsworth): Didn't really have a big role in this one, but he was most definitely Gale. Confident, assertive and rugged. Unlike Peeta, I thought his was a pitch perfect translation of the character (again, much less screen time). Can't wait to see his increased presence in the future movies. Grade - A

President Snow (Donald Sutherland): Absolutely great. Stole every scene he was in. Just the right mix benign politician and evil dictator. Perfect casting, perfect performance. GRADE - A+

Effie (Elizabeth Banks): Another ringer performance. I hated her. I pitied her. I believed her. She WAS Effie Trinket in all of her awkward and vain glory. Grade - A+

Cinna (Lenny Kravitz): If I'm being completely honest, thought he was a little stiff. Kravitz definitely captures Cinna's compassion and his affinity for Katniss. But that's all he brought out. It was one layer of the character. Looking for a little more passion and confidence. In the book, Cinna really got Katniss' vulnerabilities better than anyone else. That really never came through for me in the performance. GRADE - B-

Haymitch (Woody Harrelson): Like Kravitz, I thought Harrelson's performance was solid, not perfect. Again, this might have more to do with movie stuff than the actual performance, but I was left thinking too highly of Haymitch, too soon in the movie. Haymitch (to say the least) isn't the most likable of fellows, and that doesn't change much throughout the books. You understand him better as Katniss does, but he never really feels like a champion good guy. He's an antagonistic motivator. We hate those people, even if we respect the heck out of hem. Harrelson was at best cranky, and at worst a loving uncle. And much more of the latter than I'd have liked. GRADE - C+

STORY & PLOT:

For most, a book to movie adaptation is made or broken with how successfully the theme or 'feel' of the book is translated to film. I'm pleased to say they mostly hit a home run with the Hunger Games movie. The liberties taken, or stuff they added for the film, were few and universally enhanced the story from a visual perspective. Omissions from the source story, while also infrequent, will stick out a bit more to the diehards. 

Most of the details left out were minor and simply muddled the finer aspects of character development and motivations.  Example 1: Katniss' expertise in botany (She's named after a plant. Hello?!) really isn't given much attention. As a result, an important scene late in the movie kind of loses its impact. Example 2: Katniss finding water in the book is a big deal. In the movie it's barely a footnote. 

A few minor things, but an otherwise outstanding job. GRADE - A

VISUALS:

The movie really shined in this area (quite literally in some instances). The Capitol was splendiferous and cosmopolitan with its sparkling fountains, towering buildings and yawning streets. The Districts were dirty, compact and simple. And the games arena ... WOW! Exactly as I imagined it. So much so that I'm probably most excited for the second film just to see how they pull off the next arena.

The casting, as we've known for months, was pitch perfect. Gale = strong handsome jock. Peeta = artsy normal guy. Foxface = Fox faced girl. Snow = creepy beard face. After seeing the movie, the care given to the actors selected for the roles (in terms of appearance) really stands out. The costumes were crafted with equal care. Capital citizens were over the top (think Hollywood on steroids), the District folks were simple and downtrodden. 

It all combined to really put you in Panem. GRADE - A+

SOUND & MUSIC: 

OK, this is going to be a mixed bag. The sound mix is awesome. Nature scenes make you feel like you're outside. City scenes sound like a city. You'll flinch and jump right on cue. As for the music and score ...

I've listened to the Hunger Games soundtrack. It's excellent. Lots of folkie goodness laced with modern nuance. Legendary producer T-Bone Burnet intended it to sound like 'country or folk music as it would be 200 years from now' and they nailed it. You won't hear much of it in the movie. I'm cool with that. I don't particularly care to hear Kid Cuti and Taylor Swift during intense movie moments.

That being said, the score was virtually nonexistent for me. Outside of a couple of memorable scenes late in the movie (and they ARE doozies!), I don't think there's another definable music moment in this film. A score can elevate a great movie to iconic status a la Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, ET, The Artist, etc. A missed opportunity, and ultimately the gist of my overall grade below. GRADE - B+ 

OVERALL:

You can probably tell I really enjoyed the movie. Yet I think it falls just short of perfection. When I think of the best film-from-book adaptations I think of the first two Harry Potter movies, The Shawshank Redemption, To Kill a Mocking Bird, Babe, etc. The Hunger Games isn't quite on that level. 

In the end, the Hunger Games movie is a rare Spring bone thrown to us from Hollywood, and fans of the books and movie lovers alike shouldn't miss it. GRADE - A-

Have you seen it? Agree with my impressions? Let's hear your take!

~EJW~ 

Mid-Week Review: Brave, Brave Sir Robin

Robin Hood (Movie – 2010)

Welcome, ye merry men and women! Tis but another installment of ye old MWR. What ho? A review of the latest Robin Hood flick, me thinks.

Okay, that’s enough of that …

We all know the story of Sir Robin of Loxley: A nobleman becomes disenfranchised with the class system of feudal Europe and decides to fight the man by stealing from the wealthy and giving to the po. Along the way he finds love (Lady Marian) , a nemesis (Sherriff of Nottingham), and bromance (Merry Men).

Over the years there have been many, many iterations of this story. A few come to mind: Errol Flynn’s gaunt tight-clad heroism; Prince Costner’s aged rouge with charm; Mel Brooks’ hysterical Manly Men in Tights. I’ve enjoyed them all.

When it came to the latest installment, I had but one question: Could they bring something to this story that hadn’t already been done? On paper, I was hopeful. The cast looked top notch (Russell Crowe & Cate Blanchett as Robin and Marian respectively), the director had street cred (Ridley Scott of Gladiator, Alien, and Blade Runner fame), and the scope looked epic (this was going to Robin Hood Supersized). Why then, was I left wishing for merrier days?




The Story:

First things first, this is not the Robin Hood you know. This Robin (Crowe) is not a nobleman, and is in fact not Robin of Loxley at all. He is a somewhat lowly archer in King Richard the Lion Heart’s army. The King is busy trying to conquer lands (not in the Crusades, btw), and is portrayed as a somewhat less than desirable fellow (somewhat true). When the King is killed in battle (sort of really happened), the real Robin of Loxley (the King’s right-hand man) is tasked with taking the crown back to England. Unfortunately, Robin of L is bushwhacked on the way by the French (damn the French!), but before they can make off with the crown the other Robin/Crowe intervenes. Crowe runs off the French and agrees to the dying Robin of L’s last wish: he will take the crown back to England and also take his sword back to his father.

Crowe is accompanied by a group of fellow archers/warriors who really only seek their freedom. You see, before they scared off the Frenchies, Crowe-Robin and these boys had been locked up by the King for disorderly conduct. During the chaos that ensued after the King’s death, they escaped. Now that they have been tasked with returning the crown they decide to disguise themselves as the nobles who had been escorting the crown in the first place.

Confused? So was I. This is perhaps the first place in the movie that the plot goes all wonky.  It's a sign of things to come.

Plowing right ahead, Crowe-Robin does in fact return the crown to an even less-savory new King. Crowe-Robin then takes the real Robin’s sword back to the father of Loxley. Once in Loxley, he finds Dame Marian tending to the family land while her husband’s away at war. After breaking the news to her about dead Robin, Crowe-Robin takes the sword to Daddy Loxley only to find that the Old Man is blind and a little crazy. Papa Loxley, realizing that the King will likely take their land once he’s gone as there is no male ere, convinces Crowe-Robin and Marion to ‘pretend’ that Crowe-Robin is the REAL Robin of Loxley.

See what they did there? Yeah, I thought it was thin as well. Suffice to say, the rest of the story follows the same flimsy pattern, so we’re going to skip ahead …

The French are secretly planning to overthrow England (when are the French not secretly planning to do something despicable?), and it’s up to Crowe-Robin to convince the new buffoon King that it’s not the poor who are trying to destroy him.

The Cast:

Crowe (other Robin) and Blanchett (Marian) are the glue that holds this movie together. I found their chemistry to be genuine, and their acting to be excellent. Blanchett provides a grounded, almost earthly, version of Marian that seems very at home in the squalid medieval England. Crowe is not the charming Robin of past films, but is just dynamic enough to balance his inherent tough-guyness.

The rest of the cast perform well, but mostly take a very big backseat to Crowe and Blanchett. There is no Morgan Freeman this time around, and the character of the Sherriff of Nottingham might as well not have been there at all.

How was the Movie?

Disappointing. There were so many things that could have gone right for this movie. However, I was underwhelmed by the majority of it. The cast wasn’t deep enough, the music not inspiring, the scenery (while beautiful) nothing that hasn’t been seen before, and the story was all over the place. I’m neglecting to mention major plot points so as not to spoil it, but there is something revealed at the end of the movie that should have been shown in the first scene. It wasn’t, and as a result I spent the entire movie trying to fit this Robin Hood into what I knew about the story coming in. I was distracted from the start.

It isn’t awful, but I’m confident in saying it won’t be what you’re expecting. This one should probably be a rental.

Mid-Week Review

George Washington once said, “A rolling stone gathers no moss.” I confess, I totally made that up, but I bet he wishes he’d said it. At any rate, I’m introducing a few changes to my blog structure this week. In an attempt to keep the content a‘moving, and also provide ‘stuff’ of worth, I’m going to add a few regularly occurring features. The rundown is as follows:

Get Moving Monday – To start each work week I’m going to be offering some general thoughts on the writing world, motivation, some point/counter-point arguments, and essentially post stuff similar to my previous posts.

Mid-Week Review – Every Wednesday I’m going to be reviewing music, movies, and literature. I’ve chosen to review these mediums, because they all inspire my writing in various ways.

Fab Five Friday – I’m going to run through my five favorite writing related web finds from the week. Basically, share with you the stuff that I can’t live without as an aspiring author.

Sound Off Saturday – I’m going to post a poll where you, the readers -okay, by ‘readers’ I mean that one guy that stops by on occasion trying to sell me Nike Air Jordan’s -can share your opinions.

So without further delay (drum-roll please), I give you the inaugural Mid-Week Review:

Iron Man 2 (Movie)


For the sake of full disclosure, you should all know that I’m a sucker for robots that blow stuff up (who isn’t, really?). That being said, it’s no wonder that Iron Man 2 has been on my geek-dar (radar for the cool impaired) for quite some time. The first Iron Man movie (2008) rocked my socks with over the top action sequences, a superb cast, and a surprisingly tight story. So I was looking forward to strapping in and taking an action-packed rollercoaster ride that promised to make the original offering seem like a whirl on the teacups by comparison.

The Story:

Billionaire Tony Stark has it all: money, babes, prestige, and zero conscience. His family (namely his father) has built a fortune manufacturing weapons for, at least in Tony’s mind, the betterment of the world. However, when Tony is mortally injured and kidnapped by a terrorist organization that is determined to destroy the world using weapons manufactured by his own company, he is forced to confront the fact that his family business might be doing more harm than good.

As any good techno-genius-billionaire would do, he sets his know-how and money to work by building a super-suit that is essentially indestructible and also utilizes a power source that keeps him from dying of the injuries he sustained. Now, as Iron Man, he’s vowed to rid the world of violence and taken on the role of ‘world superhero’.

After declaring himself as Iron Man to the world (at the end of the first movie), Iron Man 2 picks up with Stark basking in the glory of his Iron Man success and fame. Unfortunately, he has also garnered the attention of the U.S. government, who would like for him to hand over the technology behind the Iron Man armor (presumably so that they can use it). Stark refuses on the grounds that the world is safer than ever because of Iron Man, and that there’s no need for any other protection. Soon after, Stark is attacked by a madman who has unlocked the secrets of the Iron Man technology and also happens to have a long hate-filled past with the Stark family. Although Stark survives, he finds his life spiraling out of control as he struggles through personal issues (his relationship with his father and his assistant/love interest Pepper), a continued decline in his health (due to the injuries he sustained in the first movie), and the growing realization that he doesn’t have as much control as he once thought.

Will he be able to find the cure for his illness, reconcile with his past, salvage the only meaningful relationship in his life (with Pepper), and stop a super-powered maniac from destroying him?

The Cast:

To be clear, while I’m a fan of comics, the Old Shell Head (as Iron Man is referred to in the picture books) has never been one of my favorite characters. Tony Stark, the man behind the mask, is an over-the-top playboy billionaire who womanizes, drinks, and smarms his way through life. His only real problems seem to be that the technology that he uses to power his super-powered iron suit occasionally gives him fits, he has some daddy issues, and there are a handful of requisite evil bad guys trying to beat him up. In short, his character always seemed too shallow for my taste, and his story not that compelling.

The first Iron Man movie changed that. Most of the credit is undoubtedly due to the performance given by Robert Downey Jr., the actor who portrays Tony Stark. He so comfortably filled the shoes of Stark that I had trouble distinguishing between what I really thought Downey Jr. would be like in real life, and what he was presenting on screen. The most important trait the Downey Jr. brings to Stark (that is lacking in much of the comics, in my opinion) is an inherent likeability. Jr.’s Stark is a funny guy you could imagine throwing back a cold one with at Chili’s just before he runs outside, gets into his Ferrari, and speeds off. He’s real in an ‘ordinary guy who happens to be super-smart and a gabillionaire’ kind of way.

For Iron Man 2, Downey Jr. reprised his role, and delivered an equally humorous and grounded performance. He was also joined by Gwyneth Paltrow, who portrays Pepper Potts, Stark’s assistant/love interest. Paltrow’s performance, while nothing Oscar worthy, is perfectly understated (yet confident), and provides Stark with some much needed humanity. Paltrow also offers an accessible beauty that (so I’m told) the fanboys eat up. In other words: it’s not hard to imagine chatting her (or someone similar) up at the local sports bar or comic shop. Her co-star, Scarlett Johansson, on the other hand offers no such subtlety in her beauty. Johansson appears in the film playing the role of a super spy who has been sent to keep tabs on Stark. She also acts (although somewhat loosely) as a love foil for Stark and Potts. Johansson spends a good portion of the film in revealing clothing and also performs several gymnast-esque fight sequences. Her lines are few, so she serves mostly as eye candy and offers some comedic fodder for the movie.

The villains in this movie are played by the always dirty looking Mickey Rourke and a clean cut Sam Rockwell. Rourke plays as Ivan Vanko, the son of a Russian scientist who vows to destroy Tony Stark for sins the Stark family has committed. Ivan builds his own super-powered suit using Stark’s own technology. Rourke is intense, as always, and displays enough anger to make such an outlandish vendetta believable and feel somewhat less contrived. Rockwell plays as Justin Hammer, an arms manufacturer that sees Stark as his nemesis. Hammer provides Vanko (Rourke) with the means/weapons to defeat Iron Man. Rockwell does an admirable job with a role that seems to be more for comedic relief. Hammer is sort of the Tony Stark wanna-be.

How was the Movie?

The first Iron Man movie set a high bar in the fun department. It’s sort of the anti-Dark Knight, offering glitz over gritty, and humor over brooding. It pulled it off wonderfully. I found Iron Man 2 to be the perfect sequel, surpassing the first in all areas. There was less need to flesh out back story (as is often the case in 2nd movies), so the action starts right away and rarely lets up (something we writers can learn from). There are plenty of laughs, and the special effects will be some of the best you’ve ever seen. It’s a romp that offers more style than substance, but enough of both that you’ll feel satisfied. The soundtrack is filled with rock anthems and the scenes are packed with beautiful people, explosions, and awesome sports cars. The result is that, for a couple of hours at least, you’ll feel like Tony Stark and cheer for Iron Man.

While it’s not perfect (a hint of a drag in the middle when Tony’s life really hits the crapper, and a plot that is too similar to the first movie), I can’t imagine anyone not having fun with this one.

4 out of 5 Gophers