[Freya-dæg] The Room: "Leave your stupid comments in your pocket!"

{The Room's movie poster, found on Wikipedia.}

Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing

Back to Top
Plot Summary

Everything in the life of Johnny (Tommy Wiseau) seems to be going well: he's lined up for a promotion at work, he's about to marry his girlfriend of seven years (Lisa, played by Juliette Danielle), and he's surrounded by friends. However, little does Johnny know that his world of easygoing trust is about to collide head on with the truth of a betrayal of all he holds dear.

Although he lives there, Johnny risks it all when he enters The Room!

Back to Top
The Good

The first 30 minutes of The Room are a bizarre quasi-softcore porn hurdle (sex scenes make up 1/3 of it at least) that needs to be leaped in order to arrive at the movie's middle. And what a middle. Although it should really take a viewer out of the movie, this movie's middle is like a sweet cream filling while the first and last 30-35 minutes are like a low-grade chocolate shell. What matters, though, is that this set up works.

As the movie's events heat up and become more dramatic Wiseau's curious delivery makes all of his intense lines unintentionally hilarious. This is, after all, the home of the internet-famous

{"You're tearing me apart, Lisa!"}

Speaking of Lisa, it's refreshing to see an average, real woman featured in the female lead role of a movie such as this.

{But, as Lisa's mother Claudette (Carolyn Minnott) says, she "can't support herself."}

Back to Top
The Bad

Although Wiseau's acting often has a tinge of the (unintentionally) comedic, the movie as a whole doesn't share in the same off-yet-endearing quality.

For starters, several side characters are introduced and then forgotten like so many Scooby-Doo villains, and quite unnecessarily. For example, we're introduced to Mike (Mike Holmes) and Michelle (Robyn Paris) fairly early in the movie, but they don't survive into the third act, as Mike is nowhere to be seen at Johnny's party.

What's more, Mike and Michelle, as a fellow couple, could easily have been the source of advice for Johnny and Lisa. Instead, for the space of a couple of scenes we get Peter (Kyle Vogt), the psychologist friend. Even stranger is the third act introduction of a mysterious man in a white button up shirt at Johnny's party who is the one who finds out about Lisa's and Mark's betrayal.

Much more importantly for a movie called The Room, the setting is really unclear. We're definitely watching a story in San Francisco, and that takes part in an apartment building of some sort for the most part. But what kind of apartment is difficult to nail down. Some establishing shots suggests a modest apartment building:

Others suggest a townhouse:

Perhaps the movie's uncertain setting is simply meant to make the titular room more expansive than one four-walled enclosure, but this lack of clarity is distracting.

Along with the uncertain setting and character introductions, a couple of side plots are mentioned but then just forgotten.

Denny's run-in with drugs and owing drug money? Apparently solved after Johnny and Mark attack the drug dealer.

Claudette's troubles with her brother and a house she's looking to sell? Just noted, and never returned to.

Both of these sideplots feed into the movie's drama, but developing and integrating either or both would have given it a much more consistent feel.

Back to Top
Judgment

Decidedly a weird one to watch, The Room has its merits (it inspired its own indie flash game after all).

Wiseau's strange, quasi-high/drunk, almost entirely eye-contact-less acting style makes all of his dramatic scenes utterly laughable. But as a result the movie's drama is almost always turned on its head and rendered ineffective. Coupled with an awkward handling of what can only be assumed to be an attempt to make Johnny's apartment a main character, too much of the movie's acting and writing undermine the possibility of it all being taken seriously.

The Room is good for a laugh, but its uneven characters, settings, and side stories hamstring its ability to be anything more.

So, Freya, let this one be. It lay already in a prominent place, splayed across a crumbling battlement - there shall all who desire to shall see it, but it simply is not the sort to be raised up.

Back to Top
Closing

Leave your thoughts on this internet cult classic in the comments, and watch for tomorrow's Annotated Links - especially if you're drawn to weird science!

Back to Top

[Freya-dæg] Shocktober Pt.3:Making some Noise about Silent House

{Silent House's movie poster, found on Wikipedia.}

Introduction
Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing

Introduction

Based on Gustavo Hernández's independent horror film, Casa de Muda, this week's movie is a chilling one.

Back to Top
Plot Summary

Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen), her father (Adam Trese), and her uncle Peter (Eric Sheffer Stevens) have returned to their old vacation house to prepare it for sale. But, if working in a big, old house isn't bad enough, there are stories of people who have been squatting in this vacation home while Sarah and her family have been away.

What's more, Sarah hears things as she works her way through sorting old possessions. Her father and her uncle say it's just an old house, but Sarah's ears aren't the only thing deceiving her when she begins to see people who, on second glance, appear not to be there at all.

When faced with strange stories, noises only you seem to hear, and things that only you can see what could be worse than a Silent House?

Back to Top
The Good

The overlooked indie horror movie of 2012, Silent House, has quite a bit to offer.

Much like The Screaming Skull it shows its mastery of atmosphere early on, but rather than pumping up the tension to the point where our patience bursts and we wind up with something comedic rather than horrific, Silent House knows how to moderate its tension. In that regard, this movie is to The Screaming Skull as Edison's DC electrical system is to Tesla's AC system.

Helping to maintain this atmosphere is ace camera work by Igor Martinovic. His handling of angles and long shots is not only effective but convincing when it comes to showing us what perspective we're seeing everything through. Much of the movie is shot so that Sarah is the focus, and paired with the single camera approach, this is a dynamite movie for cinematography. In fact, it should definitely be looked at as a reference for communicating perspective through film.

{Throughout most of the movie the camera focuses on Sarah; putting Peter in front of her fantastically expresses his protective role.}

Of course, the bread and butter of any horror movie couldn't be moderated by cinematography alone. The movie's script and direction are also great at stringing out just enough frights throughout the movie to release excess tension and to make way for more.

Back to Top
The Bad

However. Silent House's strengths are met by its major flaws.

As an experiment in what I'd consider first person film, we aren't given the same information that we'd get if we had different character perspectives or even a script that allowed for omniscient (or near omniscient) story telling/filmography. Because we lack the sort of information that could only be delivered explicitly if we were privy to another character's perspective, we're given an ending that is a shock, but not in an expected way.

At the risk of spoiling the ending - here I go - rather than a final moment that sends shivers up and down your spine (as Paranormal Activity did for me), we get something softer, more akin to the ending of Shutter Island, or Inception even.

It's not a bad ending in and of itself, but it's not what's expected from a horror movie, especially one that tries so hard to combine jump scares with more psychological frights. Ultimately, however, the movie's attempt to balance these two makes it much more lopsided.

It also doesn't help that one of the actors simply has a presence that suggests his/her involvement in some unsavoury activities.

Back to Top
Judgment

Silent House is a sleek, and considerable horror/thriller.

It makes effective use of camera work to tell its story and to create atmosphere.

It withholds a little too much information, and its ending suggests that the next scene could be more interesting than everything that came before it.

This movie's a strange beast because it's really quite a strange movie when considered. Much like Shutter Island it plays with perspectives, and there are twists throughout, but the thing is that despite its admirable attempt to be a story told mostly in the first person, what's lost as a result leaves us to piece far too much together.

This challenge that Silent House presents is a welcome one, and can make for an engaging movie experience, but it's not engaging if you're not willing to do some speculating throughout your watching of it.

Nonetheless, it still offers some chilling scares and an ending that, as far as soft, conversation-generating endings go, is better than Inception's. And for that, as well as Igor Martinovic's masterful work behind the movie's single camera, this is one to save, I say, Freya.

So swoop low and lift this one from the muck and mire - it's a movie to be seen and to be talked about for what it does right as much as what it loses in trying to do too much.

Back to Top
Closing

Check back here tomorrow for Annotated Links #22!

Back to Top

[Freya-dæg] Shocktober Pt.1: Some Screaming Skullduggery

{The movie poster from The Screaming Skull, found on Wikipedia.}

Introduction
Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing

Introduction

Well, it's October proper now, and so there are a few movies that I've scared up for the month that hosts Halloween that I've just got to check out. First up in the four part Shock-tober film fest is the 1958 fright-fest, The The Screaming Skull.

Back to Top
Plot Summary

Eric Whitlock (John Hudson), now happily married to his second wife Jenni (Peggy Webber), returns to his estate after some years away.

Everything within it is just as it was left, and the gardener has been keeping the grounds as if Eric - or his late first wife Marian who tragically died near the property's pond - never left. But as strange things begin to distract Jenni and she starts to see and hear things that Eric assures her are not there it seems that the estate is not yet finished with sorrow.

Bumps in the night become real reasons for terror, but is Jenni truly seeing and hearing things as they are? Or is Eric right and there's nothing at all the matter in their freshly minted marriage?

When it comes to matters of creepy gardeners, strange noises, and bizarre appearances of skulls everywhere, nothing can be certain - even the cry of a peacock could be the sound of The Screaming Skull!

Back to Top
The Good

For better or worse, this movie has one thing going for it: A 1950s car with seagull doors!

Neat props aside, The Screaming Skull definitely has its moments of mild fright. But what the movie does best is create atmosphere. The colonial estate on which the film is set already lends itself well to this, but the tension is also ratcheted up through Jenny's constant edginess.

Much like another ill-thought of movie from the middle of the 20th century - a little picture called Manos: The Hands of Fate - the best character in the movie are those who are on the sides.

The Reverend Edward Snow (Russ Conway) and his wife (Tony Johnson), are interesting, if static figures, but just as in Manos, the greatest character in the movie is Mickey (Alex Nicol), the estate's gardener (and the film's director). Just like Torgo, Mickey's motivations and personality are the most developed and worked through, and so likewise, he is always a curious figure to watch.

Back to Top
The Bad

However, the big problem with The Screaming Skull is that it fails to establish real relationships between its characters. The one between Mickey and the memory of Marian is the best in the film, but even it is terribly thin and shallow. We're basically given a Catelyn Tully/Petyr Baelish situation (if I may be so bold as to jump genres), but nothing as complex develops from it.

Worst of all, though, the one relationship that the movie really needs to make us care about, that between Eric and Jenni, gets no development whatsoever. Eric mentions once (once!) that she's moneyed, and she gives no real indication as to why she's interested in the man.

Despite the insistence of the script, this is not a good show of a madly in love married couple. That most of their scenes come across as reads rather than actual conversation between any truly in love couple does nothing to help their case.

{"We need someone outside of the confusions of our love for each other."}

What's more, the characters of Jenny and Eric, again, those whom we should be made to care about the most, are pitiably underdeveloped. All we know about Eric is that he's been away from the estate for 3 years, he's re-married, and he must have some kind of job (right?).

To be fair, we do learn quite a bit about Jenny's past, but we don't get enough early on to really relate to her. Eric's under-development is disappointing, but with Jenny's downright terrible.

But why are relatable characters so important to horror movies?

Well, horror movies require characters that their viewers can relate to, since when those characters are in danger, or in tense situations, or scared, then we can feel those same emotions.

Jenny, as the new wife who is being introduced into the way of life that Eric is planning for, is the perfect audience proxy character. She, just as those watching, is being brought into a brand new scenario. But, because we're not able to really make a connection with her due to the mysteries of her background and attraction to Eric.

As a result, what is supposed to be a largely sympathetic genre becomes instead a plodding tense fest that comes across as comical rather than scary not because of the era's effects, but because without a character to see ourselves as or to empathize with, we the audience become objective observers, coldly removed from a movie whose genre requires emotional investment on at least some level.

Back to Top
Judgment

The Screaming Skull and Manos: The Hands of Fate are definitely of the same ilk.

Both movies are low-budget, poorly executed horror movies that are just plain bad.

Yet, the difference between them is that Manos is so bad that it's good - it can show people the absolute worst way to make a movie in all of its aspects.

The Screaming Skull on the other hand is badly done, but lacks the main thing that redeems Manos: Interesting characters that have dynamic relationships and that are fascinating in their own right.

Because The Screaming Skull is missing such characters the house in which much of it happens is a perfect self-reflexive metaphor. The estate house is frightening in its own right (it is a horror movie after all), but absolutely empty - and therefore entirely uninteresting. What's more, aside from two throwaway lines, we're never given any clear reason for Eric's actions - unless he is, in fact, bound for the loony bin.

So, Freya, leave this one below as you fly over the field of fallen films. Oh, and don't get too close, you might fall into its bubble of boredom and tumble to the ground.

Back to Top
Closing

Coming up tomorrow - Annotated Links #19. So be sure to watch for more wacky news and information!

Back to Top

[Freya-dæg] Indecision while Meeting Evil

{Meeting Evil's's movie poster, found on IMDB.}

Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing

Back to Top
Plot Summary

John Felton (Luke Wilson) is a father, husband, and realtor floundering in the trough of the housing crash.

He's lost his job, his self-respect, and his passion for living. But on his birthday he crosses paths with a strange character known simply as "Ritchie" (Samuel L. Jackson). As John's attempts to help Ritchie lead from one thing to another John slowly realizes that something is terribly wrong - everywhere they go it seems that people are being killed.

Will the killer eventually strike out at John himself, or the family that he holds dear? Or will John eventually comprehend that in each encounter with Ritchie he's been Meeting Evil?

Back to Top
The Good

For a movie that looks like it was filmed on a steady, many mega-pixel handycam, Meeting Evil has some great cinematography and editing.

For example, after one of the murders, the body is splayed on the road and we get this transition to a convenience store where the scene's opening shot is of a barbie doll splayed out on the floor in the same way. And later in the movie when John is being questioned by the police we see some great use of lights and shadows. And in a similar vein, near the movie's climax there's one shot where the shadow of the falling rain looks like blood dripping down Joni's face.

But, the greatest thing that this movie has to offer is Samuel L. Jackson. He brings all of his chops to the table and really conveys a powerful sense of menace in so many of his scenes.

Just as he's bald in the role, you could say that he's been shorn of all of the ridiculous over-the-top-ness of his role as Jules Winnfield in Pulp Fiction. He still does push things, but each foray into the depth of feeling starts from a calm and centered performance as Ritchie who seems to be as in control of his personality and himself as a martial arts master in a Hong Kong action flick.

Back to Top
The Bad

Yet, at the same time, we're never really told much about Ritchie.

Near the film's end we get a tentative motive for his actions - but it comes from his own mouth, and one of the biggest things that we've learned over the course of the movie is that Ritchie is quite duplicitous. However, this opens up an important question for horror stories based on a single-entity: Is it more terrifying to know the evil that you're encountering, or to not know it at all?

On the one hand, if you know the horror in a clinical, or unremoved way, then it can become less of a threat. That sort of technical knowledge could lead to a technical way to destroy it, or be rid of it and so the threat might be diminished.

Though if the horror was known in a more personal way, then it can seem even more insidious, since it can leave us feeling defenseless and vulnerable. After all, it sets everything on its head.

On the other hand, if you don't know anything about the horror, it gains the element of more widespread surprise. It could come from any direction, it could come in any form, it could do anything. If your imagination has already been slapped across the flanks and sent running, then all of these possibilities give it ample springy space on which to sprint into wild frenzies.

One of the major problems with Meeting Evil is that it never really decides which way to go with its antagonist, Ritchie. It withholds a lot of information until near the end (if what he says about himself can be trusted), but there's also a vague suggestion throughout (made quite clearly as we hear him whistling Dixie throughout the movie and over the end credits) that he is the Devil.

Yet even that possibility isn't fully explored though there's a great set of scenes in which it could be very clearly, but indirectly, established.

Throughout the movie we're shown a little girl wearing red wellington boots who seems to be out walking a little dog. In our first encounter with her, she foils Ritchie's plan to shoot John outright (which is also kind of comical, at least for Ritchie's reaction).


Then, as we look back at the house throughout the movie the girl's always there - like some sort of guardian angel or lurking demon. But even when she and Ritchie speak before he returns to John and Joanie's (Leslie Bibb) house in the last act, all we get out of the interaction is that the girl's dog sometimes bites. So, it's possible that she's an angel working against him, or a demon working with him, but that's all we're left with: a possibility.

The movie also doesn't do quite as much as you'd expect with the fact that John is a victim of the housing crash, and living in a neighbourhood that has been almost entirely cleared out.

In one sense, placing John in this situation might just be a super context-sensitive way to establish how depressed he is and the dire straits of his family, but since it's just there and taken as a given we don't really gain that sense of impending doom that would make Ritchie's confession of motive that much more believable. <*spoilers*>Though, if we really believed what he says about Joanie wanting to kill John, then the ending where they slip into bed and she just asks "everything is going to be okay, right?" before they flick off their lights would make no sense at all.

While we're at it, the way the American family is depicted in this movie is also a little strange. John and Joni are fit and attractive people while their children are both statistics in a survey on childhood obesity. Though the movie does suggest why childhood obesity is such a problem in America right now:

{Just look at all that mac and cheese.}

Back to Top
Judgment

Meeting Evil is the sort of horror movie that lends itself well to discussions of the genre, what works, what doesn't, and what the merits are to either side of the "know the horror/don't know the horror" debate.

In spite of the movie's lending itself to discussion, it doesn't really offer up what a horror needs to: a solid scare that will make your skin crawl each time a stranger knocks on your door to ask for help with their broken down car, or each time you hear someone whistling "Dixie."

What's more, aside from some nice editing and camera work, Luke Wilson and Samuel Jackson not only make up the lion's share of the movie's acting chops, they also seem to have taken up the lion's share of the movie's budget.

So, Freya, it is without any sort of indecision at all that I say let this one be where it lay. Keep it in mind, that we may all discuss and dissect it and its situation in the great Halls of Filmhalla, but don't bother bringing it in from the Field of Fallen Films.

Back to Top
Closing

Check back here tomorrow for the next "Annotated Links," and on Sunday for a look back and a look at the week ahead.

Back to Top

[Freya-dæg] An Audience With Your Highness

{Your Highness' movie poster, found on Wikipedia.}

Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing

Back to Top
Plot Summary

There is an ancient prophesy in the land that says that if a great warlock can lay with a virgin when the two moons meet, he will create a dragon. The Order of the Golden Knights has stopped the warlock before, but many years later all of the knights of the Order have been wiped out, a great warlock has arisen and the moons begin to converge.

Of course, none of that matters to the brash prince Thadeous (Danny McBride), son of King Tallous (Charles Dance) and brother of the all-favoured Fabious (James Franco). He's about as concerned with prophecies and quests as a bear is with a block of cheese. But when his brother returns from yet another successful quest with the virgin Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel) only to have his wedding crashed and his bride carried off by none other than the great wizard Leezar himself (Justin Theroux), Thadeous is forced by his father to join Fabious on his quest to save his bride and ultimately the kingdom.

Will Fabious be successful in averting a doom that will envelope the land, though he is beset on all sides by villains both traitorous and bad? Will Thadeous grow to be more than a spoiled bawd of a king's son? Or will Lazeer prevail?

Only by watching can you find out if this disparate bunch of questors can break Leezar and make him scream Your Highness!

Back to Top
The Good

Your Highness's cast is simply star-studded. Zooey Deschanel, James Franco, and Charles Dance — all of them have sizeable roles in the film and bring all of their acting chops to bear on the film as a whole. What's more, even the lesser known Danny McBride does a great job as Thadeous.

But what really sends this movie over the top in terms of the acting is the sheer devotion that all of the players show to keeping things medieval. The dialogue, the delivery, everything is nicely tinged with the very stuff of high fantasy. It isn't necessarily accurate to actual historical fact, but neither are many high fantasy stories, and neither are many of the medieval romances on which they're based - something which this movie gets quite close to being.

However, rather than being written by some gallant-minded self-styled bard, Your Highness is closer to what might have come about had Geoffrey Chaucer ever wrote a non-historical verse romance.

The movie's writing is also quite strong, and though the plot develops in a more or less expected way, there are enough fantastical elements to keep your interest throughout all of its 100 minutes.

The movie also nicely straddles the line of satire while also keeping the movie's illusion in tact. Watching it, it's very easy to get the sense that the actors know that they're playing in roles and through ridiculous situations, but they maintain their act all the same. The fourth wall is left firmly in place, so much so that the best analogy is that this movie is the way that players of a D&D game might imagine their own games as they're playing them.

And, just like many a D&D game, the movie has some unexpectedly dark moments, such as when the quest seems to be entirely hopeless and Fabious exclaims that "Belladonna will get raped and die" if they don't get to her in time.

But, most importantly, setting this movie apart from In the Name of the King, is that nothing in it is contrived for the sake of action or a good laugh. Instead all of the jokes arise out of the characters' personalities and the setting itself.

Back to Top
The Bad

However, Rotten Tomatoes' consensus on this movie does have it right - the jokes here are almost all based on the same theme. In this regard it's kind of like something that Trey Parker and Matt Stone might have written, and it does run the risk of getting a little thin by the end. Though that remains as only a risk.

Also, there are some things in the movie that are pretty outlandishly off when it comes to medieval culture, even that of a fantasy realm. Such as this:

Powdered wigs and pale faces weren't quite a male fashion statement until the 18th century, which is just a few centuries too late.

There are also some elements introduced early on in the movie that could use some more explanation: Thadeous' distaste for mechanical things (focused entirely on his brother's mechanical bird companion), and why the "triangle face" that Courtney (Rasmus Hardiker) pulls scares him.

{The horrific "triangle face" in action.}

However, as the film picks up and goes on, these things are forgotten by viewer and writer alike. Adding them into the development of Thadeous would have made this movie all the stronger, though. Perhaps, in fact, instead of just temptations to indulge himself, he could have had to face a mechanical being with a "triangle face" in the labyrinth where he and the party find the Blade of Unicorn.

Back to Top
Judgment

Your Highness is a grand farce of a medieval romance comedy. The humour can be overbearing, but the actors, the script, and the chemistry between them all keeps things going at a lovely trot from start to finish. What's more, this movie passed one of the ultimate tests: it was as fun to watch a second time as it was the first.

So, Freya, don't mind the lewd way in which this one comes on to you as you scoop it from the Field of Fallen Films, nor its lascivious words as you fly with it from there to where all great movies deserve to be.

Back to Top
Closing

A Glass Darkly is going to be undergoing some changes starting next week.

Monday's and Friday's entries will continue as usual, but instead of Annotated Links throughout the week and an editorial in the middle, Annotated Links will be moved to Saturday and expanded to five links from three. The editorial is being dropped and will be replaced with a brief update on my writing endeavours that goes live every Sunday.

Check out the first of these Sunday entries on the 17th of the month!

Back to Top

[Freya-dæg] A Good Reason to Swear In the Name of the King

{In the Name of the King's's movie poster, found on Wikipedia.}

Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing

Back to Top
Plot Summary

Trouble is brewing in the land of Ehb and realm-wide unrest is afoot. Though usually unarmed and disorganized, hordes of Krug are ravishing the land, destroying villages, and, strangest of all, taking prisoners. Duke Fallow (Matthew Lillard), the nephew of king Konreid (Burt Reynolds) may have a hand in these goings on. Or perhaps it is the mysterious magus Gallian (Ray Liotta), who has secretly taken the warrior/enchantress Muriella (Leelee Sobieski) as a lover who is pulling the strings.

All that's clear is that amidst this strife the humble Farmer (Jason Statham) seeks only to live a quiet life with his wife Solana (Claire Forlani) and son Zeph (Colin Ford). This idyllic life doesn't last, however, as it's not long before the Krug attack Farmer's village.

Now, with his family dispersed, and a desire to restore order to the land in his own way, Farmer sets out with Norrick (Ron Perlman) and Bastian (Will Sanderson) to set right what seems to be so very wrong.

Will this trio be just another group stricken down by powers beyond mortal control, or will they be the ones to catch the villain behind it all and cry "Stop, In the Name of the King"?

Back to Top
The Good

In the Name of the King boasts some of the best acting talent in a fantasy movie (not based on any written/drawn work) of recent memory. We've got Jason Statham on action, Ron Perlman and John Rhys Davies (the king's magus, Merick) on all-around-awesome, Matthew Lillard on ham, and Burt Reynolds on kingly bearing. It's a great ensemble and quite a treat to see them all together.

Plus, Statham in the role of Farmer, gets into the thick of some pretty good action sequences, but more than anything he weilds a boomerang in this movie. A boomerang. He definitely must have stopped off at his local wind temple before the events of this movie began.


What's more, this movie was filmed in Hollywood North - Vancouver and Victoria British Columbia, Canada. And more business for Canadian film is always good, right?

Back to Top
The Bad

As you might have guessed from the lack in the previous section, this is not a movie with a lot of inherent redeeming features. So, let's start working through where this one failed, starting with the most nit-picky and working our way toward the more general of the film's flaws.

First and foremost, sumptuary laws, the medieval codes governing the clothing colours and styles and accessories that can be worn by different parts of society, are not observed.

Solana, Farmer's wife, is the worst violator of these laws. Not only does she have her face done up to look like a noble woman throughout the movie, she also wears purple throughout the movie. Peasants were not allowed to wear purple under most medieval sumptuary laws since it was considered a regal colour. Therefore, either she is a noble woman and we're never told about it, or she's a peasant and somebody on this movie's production team didn't do their research.

Similarly, Statham's use of a boomerang can slide, since for a medieval (European) setting it's a nice exotic touch. But, his possession of a sword, even if it looks like an old and worn one, wouldn't be permitted. Medieval law restricted the ownership of swords to the noble classes, partially as a status symbol and partially because they could be expensive to make. Now, a counter-argument could be made here, but it involves spoilers. So, skip the next paragraph if you'd rather not have this film's plot ruined.

<*spoilers*>It turns out that Farmer is the son of the king. This makes him a noble by blood, and therefore allows him a sword. But, the thing with that is, he isn't recognized as the king's son until a fair bit of wrangling goes on in the last third of the movie. Up until that point he is, even in his own mind, just a peasant, and therefore has no business owning a sword.

Speaking of the classic medieval weapon: Though they make for decent spectacle, the movie's sword fights are far too simple.

Instead of the movie showcasing sword-fighting as an art, what the movie shows is more of the hack-and-stab school of swordfighting. This style kind of works for Farmer, since, even if he's always had his sword, he may not have ever learned how to use it, but the generals, soldiers, and wizards in the movie definitely ought to be beyond the most basic of sword strike-sword counter drills that are prominently featured in each fight.

Perhaps the action choreographer (Tony Ching Siu Tung) was going for a simpler, grittier style of sword-fighting to match the grit implied by the movie's generous smatterings of greys and browns, but people who fight with swords for a living aren't going to make wide, large, unnecessary swings - they're going to make precise, small, movements that give them exactly the power, energy, and force that they need in any given situation. And, when life-long swordsmen and women make such movements, they're going to look far more graceful than they do in this movie.

Now, it must be granted that the movie's actors all get a fair shake at showcasing their talents in a fantasy setting, but Ron Perlman is cheated in this movie. <*spoilers*> Norrick dies near the end of the movie, but we're not given any kind of scene centering on this. We see him get hit, we see him go down, and then we see Bastian, who's with him, declare that he's dead. There's no big speech, there're no tear-felt last words, Perlman's Norrick just dies and then that's it.

Also, more a matter of casting or make-up than acting, Ray Liotta's Gallian shouldn't be in command of planar magic, he should be too busy with a show in Vegas to learn such things. Just look at his mug:


Moving from acts, action, and acting, to the movie's screenplay, it's about as solid as the non-existent forest canopies that the movie's Amazonian elves use to swing down from during a major battle sequence.

As a writer, I can understand any storyteller's fear that loading the beginning of their story with exposition will leave audiences confused, disconnected, and disinterested. But that doesn't mean that you should put most of this exposition (especially those things that you could use to lead to some really amazing plot and character developments) into the last 20 minutes of your movie.

Nonetheless, in In the Name of the King, it is within the last 20 minutes that we learn how the world's magic works, that Gallian somehow made himself king over the erstwhile kingless Krug, that there are only two magi left in the world, that magi can transfer their powers to one another, and that Farmer knows what to do with a sword both in melees and in single combat.

Putting all of this up front, or at least spreading it out could have made the movie much more interesting. Instead, what carries us forward through it is the promise of action and nothing else. What's more, we never learn anything about the world, outside of what we learn in those final 20 minutes, that relates to anything that isn't directly involved in the story.

{Not Isengard.}

Adding insult to the injuries already inflicted on its audiences' sense of taste, the movie rips off Lord of the Rings fairly openly. Galleon's keep is practically Isengard, and the Krug seem to be multiplying beneath it, just as orcs do in Sauroman's domain. Star Wars is also plagiarized, but there are already dozens of movies with protagonists whose fathers turn out to be very prominent figures.

Rather unsurprisingly, In the Name of the King also suffers from something I like to call Titan-itis. This movie malady is named for Clash of the Titans and Wrath of The Titans since both of those movies focus almost entirely on their male characters and their relationships, only bringing female characters into the story when necessary for romantic or plot reasons.

In the Name of the King does the same thing. It may even have a worse case of this illness, since Muriella, a capable, strong woman (warrior/sorceress) seems like she's been torn right from the pages of medieval romance, but she is never actually shown doing anything in the realm of men.

And, topping off all of the movie's shortcomings, its relative production values are likely trumped by those of the two Blind Guardian songs that play over its credits.

Back to Top
Judgment

Epic fantasy movies are a difficult bunch. Other films in the genre, like Labyrinth, or The Never Ending Story, have it pretty easy since they weave their worlds carefully, draw their audiences in, and tackle some dark themes while being disguised as "kids' stuff."

In the Name of the King does none of that.

Even worse, In the Name of the King has almost no redeeming qualities if looked at as a whole. Its storytelling is backwards, its dialogue is awkward and out of place, its world is poorly constructed, and its characters, unfortunately, show almost no growth whatsoever.

Even after becoming king, it seems that Farmer just stays as he is. In fact, aside from Farmer's new title, things will probably wind up as they were at the movie's beginning since Gallian, upon delivering one of the movie's weirdest lines to Solana ("I can feel him in you"), reveals that she is carrying another of Farmer's children.

The movie's action keeps it going, but if you happen to turn your brain on at all during the proceedings you'll quickly find that doing just about anything other than watching this movie would be a better use of your time.

So Freya, avoid In the Name of the King at all costs, and let it rot where it lay. The Field of Fallen Films is truly the best place for it, though even there it may keep some of the others from fertilizing the earth beneath them.

Back to Top
Closing

Check back here next week for a look at another ill-thought of fantasy movie, However, if you really want to see a good underdog fantasy movie, check out Your Highness.

Also, the blog update continues, but it doesn't look like my regular entries will become regular again just yet. Follow me on Twitter (@the_penmin) or follow this blog via email by typing yours into the box to the right of the top of this entry to keep on top of the happenings here at A Glass Darkly!

Back to Top

[Freya-dæg] All-Request August Pt. 5: This Means War

{This Means War's movie poster, found on Wikipedia.}

Introduction
Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing

Introduction

When I first saw the previews for This Means War I thought that Hollywood had finally moved onto something new in the rom-com genre. I thought that the usual romantic comedy formula had been done away with and things had begun to progress onto something more substantial. I thought, for a while, that we all had a bromedy (bromantic comedy) on our hands.

Of course, thoughts and reality aren't always in accord, I thought as I sat down to watch this movie to round off All-Request August. Let's see just how much my thoughts and the reality of this movie jive.

Back to Top
Plot Summary

Tuck (Tom Hardy) and FDR (Chris Pine) are two of the CIA's top agents. They're great in the field together, and back at the office they're some of the most popular guys in the agency. But there's something that can tear even the closest of friends apart, something that can be more heinous that a plot to destroy the world, more scheming than any mastermind looking to destroy the diamond market, or more maniacal than a mogul interested in assassinating the leader of the free world. A woman.

Lauren (Reese Witherspoon) is busy at being a product testing executive. Maybe a little too busy, or so her friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) thinks. So she creates a profile for Lauren on an internet dating site - and, seeing the same ad on television, so does Tuck!

But little do either of them know that this will lead to a three-way meeting that might just tear apart the two fastest of friends and put the whole of America at risk. In fact, if they can't resolve their differences it might be more than just these two rivals in love declaring: This Means War!

Back to Top
The Good

Full disclosure, I thought right. This Means War does actually do things a little bit differently from the standard modern romantic comedy. Rather than focusing on a couple who has lost their spark, this movie focuses on two friends and what happens when a woman comes between them. Plus, we do see a little bit of a bromance between Tuck and FDR.

It also sort of portrays some strong, independent women. In fact, all of what it says that's positive can be summed up in Lauren's friend's advice: "Don't choose the better guy, choose the guy that's gonna make you the better girl."

What's more, throughout the movie we actually see some real character growth in FDR. He starts off as a stereotypical American alpha male, but he winds up completely changed (more or less) but for the better. In essence, we actually see him grow up over the course of the film in a lot of ways.

Speaking much more broadly, the movie's premise of spies using their resources to woo the same girl could be interpreted as an evolution of Cyrano de Bergerac's romantic-helper sub-plot. However, instead of both friends working together, or in any otherwise strictly co-operative way, they act on a much more individual basis.

They both rely on teams to gather information on each other and on Lauren, but they use all of this information as individuals, subjecting the raw data to their own analysis, thoughts, and figurings. In that way, then, the premise of this movie lends itself well to a celebration of the power of the individual in the digital age (if say, we replace the teams of data miners with other people who provide people with information, like say, bloggers).

Add to all of this some frenetic action sequences that are intense but easily followed and all-around well done, and you've got yourself an incredible movie.

Back to Top
The Bad

However, in the case of This Means War you'll get all of that and about 30 minutes more. Or rather, too much.

The movie hums along nicely through its first act and most of its second act, with nary a care. There's some morally dark, privacy invasion issues raised by Tuck's and FDR's bugging Lauren's home (while she's in it, no less), but that sort of thing is built into the premise.

What's harder to get past is how the movie deteriorates as the third act comes into view and then crumbles entirely by the time it ends.

Up until the penultimate climactic scene where Lauren, Tuck, and FDR are all together for the first time the movie has, though slightly awkwardly, shown character growth, suggested that it's okay for women to be bold and independent, and made the wise-cracking friend role more of a wise-friend role. But, once the three meet all of this falls apart.

In this scene, Lauren becomes a hyperventilating mess, her friend goes back on everything she's said up to that point by saying "I told you you shouldn't have dated two guys at once," after towing the exact opposite line for the first 2/3 of the movie, and Tuck and FDR are broken up without any real threat to their relationship since the movie's big bad has been spotted and it's still their mission to take him down. What's more, the big bad kidnaps Lauren and Trish, as if they're perfectly helpless damsels in the face of gritty reality - contrary to what the rest of the movie has suggested.

What makes this reversal worse is that the movie telegraphs that it's coming almost from minute one.

The emphasis throughout the first two acts is firmly placed on the romantic stuff at the cost of the spy stuff - but the big bad that's out to get Tuck and FDR for what they did in the opening scene is still there, lurking just out of frame and begging to have his part of the plot resolved. This fulfilment comes in a rush of high-paced action. Up to this point the action's just been drizzled over the two agents' comic rivalry. So it's clear that he's going to be the focus of act three.

Between Tuck and FDR, FDR gets far more character development. We learn about his past, a little of what motivates him at present, and we actually see him change over the course of the movie.

However, Tuck remains largely the same as a character. Only his circumstances change, since after it's revealed that he's a secret agent his estranged wife and kid - whom he had formerly convinced that he was a travel agent - come right back to him, no questions asked whatsoever.

And as far as Lauren's character goes, she is portrayed as a successful career woman, but we also get glimpses of her being hung-up on an ex whom she followed to the city while they were still dating. This situation could be made to bolster her as the strong female figure that she more or less is, but at the same time this is clearly an illusion.

Without ever getting a reason for it, we're shown that she still has a thing for this ex in spite of his being engaged and, by the very rules of the movie, thus unattainable. You could argue that this unattainability makes her want him back all the more, but since it's not clear what made him so special in the first place Lauren's jealousy and desire aren't given enough motivation to take full advantage of the unattainability angle.

The negative transformation of Lauren's friend is a little less predictable. Yet, just before she turns into the "I told you so" character that rom-coms are well known for having, we see her in a setting that's more everyday than those in which we've seen her previously. This is also the scene where she gives Lauren her sage advice.

So what's the situation? Helping her son repair a baseball mitt, while sitting on the couch in her living room and talking about how she loves her husband because he's her own man, despite his faults. This is sweet and all, but it entirely contradicts the firebrand that we've seen her as before. This isn't to say that mothers can't simultaneously be firebrands and motherly (real people are complex, of course), but there's no build up to this scene.

Further, it suggests something curious about marriage that the rest of the movie works towards as well.

The motherly scene with Trish, Tuck's lack of development, FDR's full-on development, and Lauren's loosening up all suggest that marriage is some sort of solidifying ritual. That it somehow locks people into what's truly best for them and that this means, to varying degrees, that growth is no longer necessary for a person.

This is why I've taken this away from the movie: all of its unmarried characters change gradually, we see them grow, evolve, and become something different from what they were at the movie's beginning. Conversely, all of the characters who are married do not change (Trish's sudden change is out of character, but not unpredictable since the movie is constantly reminding us that she's married and has a kid).

It may not have been the movie's intent, but since we're given two main characters (Tuck and FDR) it's hard to not compare the two. And any comparison shows that while unmarried the one changes, and while married the other does not change.

Back to Top
Judgment

The story of two men competing for one woman is definitely nothing new.

Chaucer's Knight tells the story of Arcite, Palamon, and Emily in the Canterbury Tales - written in the latter half of the 14th century. And Chaucer didn't create the Knight's Tale from pure inspiration, it was a shortened version of a story by Giovanni Boccaccio, which itself probably has even deeper historical roots.

However, This Means War does show some character growth within its love-triangle.

Yet, at the same time, it's kind of surprising that this movie got made. Especially now, in a world of phone tapping and drone strikes, and all manner of privacy invasions being made possible by the internet and the degree to which we're all connected to it. It would've made much more sense had they explicitly addressed this in the movie rather than just calling it "immoral" right before an action sequence.

The movie also promotes some of the old curious romcom axioms: marriage saves, and women who are all about their career only mellow out once they meet a man.

There is potential in This Means War, but all of that potential, like an unsatisfying story draft, gets crumpled up by the end of the second act and intricately tossed into a decorative garbage can in the third.

So, Freya, this one may yet moan and move about on the littered ground of the Field of Fallen Films, but don't let yourself be fooled into raising it up. Ultimately, it's just muscle memory at work.

Back to Top
Closing

Next week, the blog update continues, but depending on how much of it gets done over the weekend, regular updates might just return to this blog. Regardless of my progress through that to do list, however, I'll be giving In The Name of the King a look next Friday, and am hoping to find something hospitable within it.

Back to Top

[Freya-dæg] All-Request August Pt. 4: (Legend of) Earthsea

{The Legend of Earthsea's DVD cover, found on Wikipedia.}

Introduction
Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing

Introduction

Normally, I don't do things that aren't movies, but when a request for the Legend of Earthsea (later shortened to Earthsea) came through, I simply could not refuse. Ursula K. Le Guin is a master of the crafts of fantasy and science fiction, and anything based on her work is something that I was sure I could find some good in.

So, let's see what I came out with.


Back to Top
Plot Summary

Ged (Shawn Ashmore) is a typical young man living in a small village. He's skilled with magic and learning from a local wise woman while his father (Dave 'Squatch' Ward) tries to corral him into blacksmithing. Amidst it all though, Ged would rather be spending time with his best friend, Diana (Erin Karpluk). However, beyond the island of Gont, trouble brews. The king of the Kargides, Tygath (Sebastian Roché), is plotting to bring all of the 1,001 islands of Earthsea under his command for the sake of peace.

The king's campaign eventually brings him to Ged's village, where the young wizard uses his wiles to outwit the king's soldiers, but at a terrible cost - the loss of his place as a mere blacksmith and the fulfilment of his greatest desire: to be somebody known and important.

With the promise of his powers pulling him onwards, Ged is thrust into a world of magic and wonder that he cannot begin to comprehend. At the same time, the Kargide king's plan to seize an ultimate, dark power from an order of priestesses is in full swing. Can Ged learn to control his power in time? Will the Kargide king's evil schemes come to fruition? The answers are sure shake all of Earthsea!

Back to Top
The Good

The mini-series begins with some typical fantasy things: the village boy with great hidden power, a mysterious old wise woman, and a call for adventure (some key ingredients in Joseph Campbell's theory of the "Hero's Journey"). Yet these elements are presented in a way that develops them.

We see Ged and Diana (with some of the best chemistry in the series) live out a relationship that's similar to Link and Saria's in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

In fact, the scene where Ged and Diana part ways is just as effective as that in which Link and Saria do the same. We also see Ged and his father's relationship very quickly develop as the two are brought into conflict over the death of Ged's mother and their differing views of what's best for Ged. Plus, the introduction of the great wizard Ogion (Danny Glover) is quite well done.

Earthsea's effects are also quite well done, considering that this was produced in 2004 and on the sort of budget that SyFy (formerly Sci Fi) seems infamous for providing its many mini-series.

In some ways these effects are reminiscent of the animations you'd find in Baldur's Gate on the PC, or of those seen in Hercules: The Legendary Journeys or Xena: Warrior Princess.

The effects aren't breathtakingly realistic (for the most part) but they aren't enough to break the magic and wonder that the mini-series is trying to portray.

On that subject, the world's magic is indeed interesting. Being based on the idea of all things having true names, it doesn't go out of its way to be terribly original (the idea was all the rage among Renaissance thinkers), but it does deliver some intrigue here and there.

The matter of Ged's summoning a shadow - a nameless one - is absolutely fascinating. In fact, this might be the single, best-done part of the movie since his shadow, the Gebbeth (Mark Acheson), is a very effective villain. He's just like Ged, but also always lurking and always threatening until the very end. Unsurprisingly, this is one of the few things brought over from the original novels.

The mini-series' climax definitely delivers, largely because it's the only instance of a real sword fight in the whole thing. This brief duel between Ged and the evil king Tygath is a great fight - possibly because it's the only one we see. Nonetheless, it's definitely a good sign when the series' writers and producers don't go and make their hero an instant swordmaster, and when fight choreography goes fairly smoothly.

Back to Top
The Bad

But the same can't be said for directors and those in charge of casting.

The mini-series' major characters (Ged, Tenar (Kristin Kreuk), Tygath, Thar (Isabella Rossellini), and to some extent Ged's fellow wizard Vetch (Chris Gauthier)) are fairly well-cast, but almost every other actor on screen just doesn't seem to be into it.

One of the essential things that an actor must do in any fantasy movie/mini-series is sell that fantasy; they need to become their character more than ever. This need for an actor to get lost in their role is essential because fantasy stories by their very nature ask their audiences to suspend their disblelief. If the actors aren't entirely into their characters or their lines, that disbelief will be awakened.

It's fair to aim the same sort of double-edged comment at the world's magic system.

The idea of "true names" is a good one to work with, but the reason why it was so popular historically is because it was explained. The original "true language" was thought to be some variation of Hebrew (or, in an eccentric case, Old High Dutch) since that's what the Old Testament was written in, or some sort of celestial or angelic language, since lost to humanity.

Regardless of the varying opinion of whatever the true language is, the point is: People latched onto the idea of an original, Adamic language during the flourishing of humanistic thought in Europe because there were logical speculations about which language is the true language. Not so in Earthsea.

Never are we told who spoke the language of the true names originally, nor how anyone learns true names for things (though there does appear to be a wizarding specialty in true names).

Because we don't get any kind of explanation for this concept it falls flat. Magic can be on the edge of logic (and often is), but it's still within logic. If you don't try to explain it, or even simply have a character say something like "that information is forever lost," then it suggests that you just don't care about keeping your magic system logical.

Moreover, late in the mini-series we learn that faith and magic are somehow opposed to each other. This could make sense if it was explained, but once again no effort is made to explain why there's a rift between two things that are ostensibly forms of extreme concentration.

The other major problem with this mini-series is that it simply tries to do too much. Up until the point where Ged leaves Ogion for the first time, we see enough that we can digest and understand and believe. But once he gets to the magic school the mini-series tries to encapsulate more than it can handle.

Where we could have had a fully realized school with a student body that's as dynamic as that in any of the Harry Potter movies, we get one where we only know the headmaster, Ged's fellow wizard Vetch, the bully Jasper, and a bookish girl who may as well have had a spell of silence on her.

{The redhead on the left communicates almost entirely through looks.}

What's more, the other side of the story, that which is going on with the Kargides and the order of priestesses in charge of protecting the seal on the nameless ones just drags and drags and drags.

Nothing of interest or intrigue is successfully accomplished in this plot-line because it's been done before in its entirey, and, what's more, everywhere it's been done it's been done better. Kossil (Jennifer Calvert) and Tygath's plot to force the high priestess into choosing her as her successor so that she can learn the words to break the seal and she and Tygath can become immortal is played out so predictably that it's almost cringe worthy to watch the transitions from Ged's plot-line to that of the order. Though what Kossil does with one of the women she has to murder along the way is kind of interesting.

Back to Top
Judgment

The TV mini-series Earthsea has its strengths and its weaknesses. It presents some decent actors and some curious characters and wraps them in a fantasy world based on one of the greatest works in the genre, but the essential thing to remember is that it's just that: Based on those books.

What the mini-series fails to capitalize on is the main focus of Le Guin's Earthsea: the conflict between Ged and the Gebbeth that he inadvertently conjures. The otherwise cookie-cutter fantasy story that we get is just filler, essentially. Though why they'd want to do this is beyond understanding.

The cost of making a high-intensity drama where a young wizard faces his inner demons couldn't be that large, and the cast of characters could be unaffected, since that wizard and his demons would have to interact to get across what Le Guin's words did in her writing. Yet this is what we get, this is the Earthsea that was committed to film and publicly aired.

It's an all right mini-series, but it just doesn't bring enough of its potential to bear. Alas, like the wizard that never finds a teacher, this mini-series never found a competent team to bring it together effectively. Watch it for its great beginning, cool climax, and excellent magic, but in between these high points be ready to feel like Ged and Vetch do throughout much of the movie:


So, Freya, grasp this one by the hand if you happen to pass over it, but don't pull, lest its muscled and mighty arm come off of its rotting, leprous corpse.

Back to Top
Closing

Next week, check back here for Part Five of All-Request August: a look for the good in This Means War. Also, check back here every two days for updates on the progress of my blogs' updates.

Back to Top

[Freya-dæg] All-Request August Pt.3: Squirm

{Squirm's movie poster, found on Wikipedia.}

Introduction
Plot Summary
The Good
The Bad
Judgment
Closing

Introduction

The movie Squirm is one among many in the "nature-strikes-back" sub-genre of horror movies. And perhaps, since the part of nature striking back is none other than the humble worm, the surprise is supposed to horrify as much as the premise itself.

But is this movie really so horrible as to deserve the 30% (from critics) and 28% (from audiences) that it has over at Rotten Tomatoes? Let's find out whether those tomatoes are rotten or just soft because they're worm-eaten.

Back to Top
Plot Summary

Mick, a young man from the city, comes to Fly Creek to meet with a girl he met at an antiques show named Geri. However, the idyllic Southern setting of their romantic rendezvous is ravaged by a storm the night before he sets out and one thing after another goes wrong.

First, he has to wade through a swamp and forest to reach Geri's house when the debris blocks his bus' path, then he's accused of hijacking his egg-cream at the local lunch counter. But things get really weird when Mick and Geri go looking for old man Beardsley, the best antiques dealer in town. Of course, just Mick's presence alone is enough to leave Roger, the hopeful for Geri's heart, seething.

What happened to Mr. Beardsley? Why are worms cropping up where they shouldn't be? And to what lengths will Roger go to to make sure that Mick is taken out of the picture?

Sit back and relax - but, also, be ready to Squirm!

Back to Top
The Good

The acting in this movie is fine, but the accents - the accents are so bad they rebound into the comical.

Everyone except Mick has a Southern drawl of varying intensity. Some of these are light and breathy like those of Geri, her sister and her mother, while others are as heavy as the hillbillies' from Deliverance.

To top off the overdone characters, Mick plays up the role of red-hot lover to a ridiculous extent.


Yet, despite shots like the above, Mick's act is also restrained enough to keep things from going over the top.

The cinematography at times is also fairly well done, considering the movie's genre. Take this excellent dutch angle shot for instance:

{In this shot Geri's mother is saying "Something evil about it."}

For a B-horror flick, Squirm is a good example of the genre. It takes its scares very seriously, and unlike many of the horror films put out today, it relies more on psychological horror than shock horror.

A prime example of this in the film is a scene where Mick and Geri find the Sheriff eating spaghetti with a woman. They tell him about a skeleton they've found, and mention worms a number of times. The woman seems to be there as the audience proxy as she slows herself down and at one point even puts down her utensils - eating spaghetti while talking about worms is never an easy task!

But, the expected scare never happens. None of the spaghetti bits turn out to be the movie's starring monster.

What's more, the movie clearly establishes the potential for the worm-as-spaghetti scare when, earlier in the film, Mick finds a worm in his egg cream (soda) - the next logical step is to have one on a plate of spaghetti, but it never happens. Although it's a relatively small detail, the film is much stronger for leaving this cheap, expected scare out.

Further, even when it doesn't build up the scares, the movie can be down right terrifying. Things get into spoiler territory here, so skip the next paragraph if you're worried about such things.

When Roger gets attacked by the worms we expect them just to kill him. Just to leave him a skeleton as they did the others they've destroyed. Instead, the worms seem to, well, possess him, making him a strange (undead?) worm-man hybrid. This is terrifying visually (thanks to Oscar-winning make-up artist Rick Baker), and also conceptually as we see the worms wriggle up under the skin of Roger's face, leaving welts in their wake.

Back to Top
The Bad

But, why Roger gets possessed while the worms kill everyone else they attack is never explained. This lack of explanation exposes the films' major weakness: its premise is never given any kind of detailed treatment.

Granted, Roger does tell us that when his dad started the worm farm he tried to use electricity to get them out of the ground and that this enraged them (to the point where they bit most of his thumb off), but we don't get any information on how these enraged worms operate.

Case in point, the worms knock down a tree, late in the movie, destroying the dining room in Geri's house while her family and Mick are in it. But this is the first they've knocked down - such a tree's being selected and knocked down suggests some level of consciousness. It seems that they're out to get Mick, and maybe Geri as well.

The other thing that's ill-explained is the worms' being dispersed by "light." This makes little sense because they couldn't have attacked Roger if such was the case, having done so in broad daylight. However, the way that they react to light later in the movie suggests that it's the heat they don't like, not the light. And if this were established as the worm deterrent rather than light when Mick voices his realization, it would help the movie as a whole make more sense.

Now, the same narrow miss at sense is present in the case of Roger.

Because he had his thumb mostly eaten by worms before, it's possible that he has some kind of bond with them. Pair that with his hatred for Mick as competition in the romantic field (though Geri's mother seems to have the hots for him, for some reason), and you have yourself an explanation for his becoming a weird quasi-zombie after the worms' initial attack on him. But this connection is never clearly established. It's strongly implied, but nothing explicit is ever said about it.

Perhaps, though, this is the result of the scientist character being left out of this movie. There's no one in it to say "don't you see...?" or "Of course!" This character could also point out how why, in the world of the movie, this works:

{I've heard of people being oily - but this is pretty ridiculous.}

In fact, a scientist character would be incredibly useful at the movie's end where there are so many loose ends that you could bait all the fishing hooks in a salmon derby with them.

Back to Top
Judgment

Squirm is the kind of movie that drive-in theatres would show back when there were more than a few handfuls of drive-in theatres left within the Western world. It's got it's cheesy moments, it's acceptable acting, and its genuinely terrifying bits (so it's also the kind of movie any real life, mack-daddy Mick would approve of). But there are no drive-in theatres anymore.

Times have changed, and the horror genre has changed.

The modern horror movie genre is divided into two sides: One that relies almost entirely on shock horror, and another that relies on human psychology for its scares. Squirm falls in between these two, and so were it to be released now it would probably fall into complete obscurity.

Yet on it's own it does still do what a horror is supposed to do: frighten, scare, and induce a kind of contained paranoia or fear.

However, a truly good horror movie leaves this fear, this paranoia lingering in your mind so that when you flick off the lights that fear can manifest in the darkness of your own home.

Squirm does not manage to do this because it doesn't explain itself well enough. Is Roger possessed? Can Roger control the worms? Does the whole town wind up dead? After the power's fixed and the electricity is no longer running into the ground do the worms go back to being docile?

It's a horror movie that scares, but at the same time forgets that it also needs to tell a complete and coherent story.

So, Freya, fly low if you like, but leave your hook empty for another of the movies in the Field of Fallen Films - this one seems too comfortable where it is, down there in the dark with its worms for company.

Back to Top
Closing

Next week this blog is going to be left to fallow. I'm going to take some time to recalibrate my writing activities so that I can get some of my larger fiction projects moving again and so that I can tidy some things up with my translation blog (as well as with this one).

For full details of the temporary stoppage, check back here tomorrow.

But, though I'm not going to be updating Monday-Thursday, I still plan on finishing All-Request August with a look at the TV miniseries loosely based on the work by Ursula K. LeGuin: Earthsea. So, watch for that review in one week's time, and for tomorrow's fully detailed temporary blog stoppage guide.

Back to Top

[Wōdnes-dæg] Plagiarism

Introduction
The Article Summed Up
Plagiarism: A Personal History
Root Causes
Plagiarism: A Crime Against Language
Closing

{An image that's direct and to the point. Image found on the blog Mono-live.}

Back To Top
Introduction

Perusing the day's Globe and Mail, I came across two stories that would work rather well as editorial fodder.

The first was an interview with Robin Pollock, A Torontonian currently at the Scrabble Championships in Florida. This one gave a good sense of what it took to be a champion (or just serious) Scrabble player, and would have been praised as a sign of the status of the wordsmiths among us: Not a story grand enough for the front page, but at least news-section worthy.

Delving deeper into the paper, however, I found an article that struck much deeper than anything about a board game could. I found an article in the Arts section about Fareed Zakaria and the controversy swirling around him because of the discovery of his plagiarism.

Back To Top
The Article Summed Up

The article begins by relating how a blogger discovered that a large part of his recent article on gun control for Time magazine was poached from an earlier piece written by Jill Lepore and published in The New Yorker. It then goes on to show how Zakaria apologized to some of those he wronged, has been put on suspension for a month by CNN and The Washington Post, and how, despite everything swirling around him, he seems to be feeling less guilty than expected.

After relating this instance of a professional plagiarising another's work, Houpt moves onto other cases of professionals plagiarizing before finishing with the hypothesis that journalists (and writers) are spreading themselves so thin that plagiarism is to be expected. Houpt cites Zakaria's own hectic schedule over the past few months in his defense and also notes how many major journalists don't always write everything that's attributed to them.

Back To Top
Plagiarism: A Personal History

All of this gives me, a young up-and-coming writer, pause - especially because of my academic background. Through all six years of my university studies plagiarism was constantly watched for, checked for, double-checked for, and avoided. All necessary citations were made as accurately as possible, and all sources that were used were included in bibliographies at the ends of papers.

Perhaps this extreme prudence came from being constantly warned about plagiarism in opening classes, in course outlines, and through email notifications. Or perhaps it came from being accused twice before.

Once it happened in elementary school where, being a little lazy and full of A's, a large section of a resource was poached to speed a project up. Then, once more I was accused in high school where the advanced argument and style of an essay made a teacher wary, though all evidence - and most importantly, the truth - were on my side.

Of course, in the former case, being guilty, I lost marks, but in the latter case I received an ever-after unthinkable 100% (on an English paper, no less).

Whatever the case in my own history, if journalists are spreading themselves thin and basically backing themselves into corners where they have no choice but to plagiarize to keep things running smoothly, then a few things might be to blame. There are the personal things - greed, audience pressure, the feeling/desire to just do more - and the matter of writers' pay.

Back To Top
Root Causes

The first of these issues can be dealt with easily enough on paper. Though restraint is much more difficult to put into true practice. Simply put, though, if you're a writer and seem to be trapped in a position where you have no choice but to plagiarize to meet deadlines or to keep a blog afloat, then just ask if anything can be ended. After Zakaria's month-long suspension is over his plagiarism will probably be largely forgotten by most of the public, but this isn't something that every writer will be able to weather.

The other issue is more systemic, and less personal, but still a major concern. Anyone can write, but to write things that show up in newspapers, that show up on reputable websites, or in magazines or books, writers need training.

To become a journalist you need to know how to write, but you also need to know about things like the impact that story can have on those involved or readers in general; you need to know about how best to approach topics and subjects; and you need to know about the ethics related to the profession. It's no different with fiction, or with poetry. And those with all this training (or awareness/skill) should be properly paid.

To write for yourself is one thing, but to write for other people - in most cases, people you don't even know, and may never know - is completely different. You need to know how to write so that you can interest people, you need to know how to convey emotion by showing it to a reader rather than telling him/her about it. And you need to be able to put words together in such a way that people can enjoy reading what you write for potentially long stretches.

Back To Top
Plagiarism: A Crime Against Language

Setting aside all personal and industry issues, the fact that plagiarism exists makes little sense.

English is a puny language in comparison to many others (Greek and Latin come to mind - after all, on the dance floor an Ancient Roman could just say crisa rather than "shake it!").

Yet, it's the magic of language to take a finite set of things and put them into a near infinite set of connections and orders, even to get across the same meaning. Some people call a writer's own way of putting words together to get across a meaning that another writer has already conveyed "style." Maybe that's part of the problem.

Outside of fiction and poetry, writing can sometimes drone. There are some journalists with unique voices, but more often than not the sort of thing that you'll read in a major magazine is hardly distinguishable from anything else in the same publication. By and large non-fiction writers, fiction writers, and poets have more unique voices than your standard reporter or news writer.

In part, this monotony in journalism comes from newspapers and news shows and magazines requiring a standardized tone - often authoritative - and it can be hard to maintain that tone if everyone is writing in their own unique style. The internet has helped to give people a platform to show off their own voices in their writing, but one of the trade-offs so far is the loss of that authoritative tone in a lot of what's posted online.

Back To Top
Closing

Check back here tomorrow for another Annotated Links, and don't miss Friday's delve for the deserving in Squirm.

Back To Top