Dayton's Blog: A pimple on the ass of the Internet.

Hey, did you know there was a novelization for the first Librarian movie, Quest for the Spear?

I didn't.



I stumbled across a copy today at a local Half Price Books.

So far as I can tell, there were no novelizations for the next two films in the series. However, Amazon lists a graphic novel for Return to King Solomon's Mines (which I also somehow missed). The book was published by Atlantis Studios, and their website also indicates some sort of ongoing Librarian series in comic form. However, Mines was released in 2006, and the Atlantis site still lists the series as "coming soon."

The Librarian is a franchise I'd love to play around in, should a license for original tie-in novels ever come about. If the rumors are true and the next entry in the films series gets a theatrical release, a tie-in license isn't out of the question.

That'd be fun. :)

Movieline.com has the first promo picture from the forthcoming big-screen adaptation of the classic 80s cheesy action series The A-Team. Check it out:

Movieline.com: Unlocking the secrets of the first A-Team image

My first thought? Holy shit, does Liam Neeson look like a dead ringer for George Peppard, or what? How much of that is airbrushing, and how much is Neeson himself?

When I first heard about this, I rolled my eyes like many of you and asked that now-familiar questions when it comes to Hollywood's movie-making machine: What? Another damned remake? Do these fuckheads know how to do anything else besides retell the stories they watched as kids? However, seeing Neeson done up as Hannibal Smith and Bradley Cooper as the Faceman has me wondering if this might not be a decent-enough summer fun flick. It can't be any worse than G.I. Joe or Transformers, right?

Right? Anyone?

Bueller?

This isn't a movie review. It's just me rambling as I continue to consider the film I watched last night.

Taking Chance was but one on a stack of DVD's I've purchased over the past couple of months, but until recently haven't had time to watch. I knew it was a film I was going to want to watch, rather than simply let play in the background while I tended to other things. I also knew that watching it would bring back memories I had not revisited in quite some time, and to be honest I was reluctant to go down that road. So, on the stack of DVDs it sat, waiting for me to have an evening where I could dedicate my full attention to it.

Last night was the night.

I spent a good bit of time after the film concluded just sorting out what I'd watched, trying to make sense of the chaotic blur of memories as well as scenes from the film which were rushing around and past each other in my head. Beyond simply laughing at a joke, smiling or throwing out the occasional "Yeah!" at cool action, or flinching when something intense or even scary happens, it's a rare occasion for me to have any sort of true emotional reaction to a movie.

Simply put, Taking Chance knocked me on my ass.

It's not a war movie, nor a military propaganda piece. Based on actual events, it's simply the story of one young man and the impact he made on those around him, in death as well as throughout his all-too brief life. The story focuses on Lieutenant Colonel Michael Strobl (as portrayed by Kevin Bacon), a Marine officer stationed at Quantico in 2004 who volunteers to escort home the remains of Private First Class Chance Phelps, a young Marine killed in Iraq. Strobl is at first drawn to Phelps upon learning they both hail from the same town in Colorado. Though he's later told Phelps will be transported to Dubois, Wyoming, because that's where his family resides, Strobl still opts to act as the fallen Marine's escort. The balance of the film covers Strobl's journey from the military mortuary at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to Dubois, accompanying the casket containing Phelps' remains every step of the way.

I've performed escort duty, so I can attest to the care -- even reverence -- with which the body of a fallen service member is handled throughout the process of preparing the remains for transport home. No detail is overlooked, no task performed in perfunctory fashion. It is a solemn undertaking, carried out with precision and respect. In this and many other areas, the film's accuracy is to be praised.

The scenes depicting PFC Phelps' journey were difficult to watch. Unlike LtCol Strobl, I knew the Marine I escorted; he was one of mine. I got the call about his death on Easter Sunday in 1996, and I spent the next eight days inventorying his personal effects, overseeing every aspect of the preparations to take him home, and accompanying his casket. Except for the actual flight, I spent every moment of the journey from Kansas City to his home town in arm's reach of his casket, to include sitting with it in a cargo hangar at the airport. I spent three days with his family and friends, listening to their stories and attending his funeral. I was struck by how loved and respected he was by the countless people I encountered. It was one of the most emotionally-taxing experiences of my life, and it naturally was nothing compared to what the family was enduring.

As I watched the movie, I couldn't stop those recollections from coming forth, but it wasn't until I got to the scenes of Strobl standing vigil alongside Phelps' casket that they all just seemed to push forward and hammer at me. I had to pause the film more than once and just sit there, processing long-dormant memories. Easter never passes without me pausing to remember the young Marine (I do the same thing on Halloween, owing to an unrelated yet similarly tragic incident involving another Marine), though this was something I hadn't really pondered for years. In my head, it was 1996 again, and I had just returned home, drained from the heart-wrenching duty I'd completed.

It may well be the oddest damned thing that's ever happened to me while watching a movie; the closest thing to a "flashback" I've experienced. When it was over, I just let the thoughts and memories roam at will, sorting themselves out. This blog entry was originally going to be about something completely unrelated to the movie or my reactions, but once I started typing it all just came out.

Weird.

A rare night with kids at a sitter meant the Mrs. and I were able to get out of the house and break up the routine for a bit. Having not been to a movie for...oh...a while, she checked the various options available to us and -- much to my surprise -- suggested The Hurt Locker.

What? No Ugly Truth? Thank Christ. Anyway....

It's only playing at one theater in town, the Leawood, which used to be a rundown old-school theater stuck in the basement level of a strip mall, and which is now a restored theater stuck in the basement level of a strip mall. It was my first time visiting the theater since before the restoration and it's now a nice little place. Lots of old-school movie posters lining the interior walls (Superman and the Mole Men; The War of the Worlds, etc.), and a full-scale model of Gort from the 1951 The Day the Earth Stood Still standing in one corner.

Sweet.

The seating was old-school. Low back and no headrests, but with the modern touch of the cup holders. W00t!

As for the movie? "Entertaining" is the wrong word. "Engaging?" "Engrossing?" Yeah, we can go with those, for starters.

The movie is the best "Iraq War film" I've seen yet, but it's not a "war film" in the traditional sense of the term. It details the day-to-day life of a three-man explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) team stationed in Baghdad in 2004. Jeremy Renner (Dahmer, S.W.A.T.) is a sergeant who's just been assigned to the team, replacing a soldier killed during a bomb disarming mission gone horribly wrong. Renner's character, William James, at first is the rebel/cowboy/reckless one-man band which usually descends to cliche in most action movies, but as the film unfolds you see that James is simply really good at what he does, knows that, and accepts it as his reality. Sure, he's got a wife and kid back home, but he just compartmentalizes them into a back corner of his mind, thereby allowing him to concentrate on the needs of his job, which carries with it the risk of getting your ass blown off pretty much every time you leave the relative safety of the Army compound.

I'm usually merciless at picking apart military inaccuracies in movies, and while there are a few in The Hurt Locker, they're inconsequential so far as the story being told. As for that, the movie shoves the story into your face and down your throat. The film is violent, though not grotesquely so. People are shot; people are blown up. When it happens it happens fast and brutally, depicted in a cold, dispassionate style. The immersive, multi-angle camera work pulls you along through the narrow, winding, rubble-strewn streets and dark, twisting alleys. You feel like you're standing right behind one of the soldiers as they move to clear a room inside a building suspected of housing insurgent bomb makers. Much of the story is conveyed through the camera's darting, stumbling, shifting POV (but not in the overdone "ShakyCam" style so many directors seem to favor). When in several instances the camera clues the viewer into something about to happen to unsuspecting characters, it doesn't feel contrived or "Hollywood." Instead, you feel your muscles tense and you recoil into your seat because you know what's coming, and part of you even wants to warn the soldiers.

The ending so far as William James is concerned is a bit predictable, but only because by the 1-hour mark, you've come to accept the world he lives in and--indeed--prefers to live in. This isn't a movie I'm going to run right out and watch again right away, but I'll definitely be catching it when it comes out on DVD.

Reading message boards this evening, I was reminded that today, aside from being Memorial Day, of course, is also an anniversary of sorts.

Thirty years ago today, the first (and still the best) Alien movie was released.

Thirty. Years. Ago. Today.

Though I didn't see it on opening day, my uncle did take me to see it sometime during that summer, much to my mother's chagrin (Hey, I was 12, and it was rated R, by golly). Still, my uncle was known to occasionally do things just to irk my mother. One of these days, I may spill the beans and tell all the stories. :D

Anyway, where were we?

Oh, yeah. Thirty. Years. Ago. Today.

Crap, I'm getting old.

Saw it earlier today, thanks to a special screening here in KC. Kevin and I were contacted by a local PR firm with Paramount as a client, and asked about our interest in attending one or more Trek-related events between today and next Friday. Not being idiots, we accepted. Before today's screening, we gave away a few Trek books to folks in the audience (at least some of whom actually seemed to know us and what we do, which was cool), before all of us settled in to watch the movie.

Wow, was that pretty damned fun.

Old-School Trek Purists: You should probably medicate before you go to see this one. It definitely jacks with the continuity of Kirk, Spock, etc. However, all is explained within the framework of the film.

New/potential fans: Worry not. This is your entry point. You need no prior knowledge or exposure to Trek to understand what's going on. Enjoy.

One thing you've probably already heard about the film is that it moves. I mean moves fast. At just over 2 hours, it felt like 25 minutes. Of the actors/roles, my two favorites are Bruce Greenwood as Captain Pike, and Karl Urban FTW as McCoy. Close your eyes when he talks, and you're going to hear De Kelley. It's eerie, and awesome all at the same time.

I have a few quibbles with the plot, such as short-shrifting Nero's backstory and motivations, some "Bwah?" moments with respect to the "science" moving some of the action along, and a couple of "Wow, that's awfully convenient" moments. The ending is more than a bit unbelievable, but it sets everything up for the next movie with all of the familiar characters in their proper places.

I liked way more than I disliked. Mission accomplished, and I'm already looking forward to seeing it again next week.

Due to contact from a wholly unexpected quarter, it appears that Kevin and I will be attending not one, not two, but three separate screenings of the new Trek flick at different locations here in Kansas City between now and next Friday. The first one is tomorrow (Saturday), for which I am extremely pumped. More info to follow as details come together, but it looks like we'll actually be doing a bit of a Q&A schtick before and after the film, and offering up some giveaways. How cool is that?

Nootch.

Courtesy of TrekMovie.com, here's a look at the new poster for the U.S. market:


(Click to enlarge)

As indicated in the TrekMovie article, the image is sort of a stylized re-imagining of the teaser poster for Star Trek: The Motion Picture back in 1978 (a copy of which I have on a wall in my office, btw).

Check out the posters for the European markets at TrekMovie.com.

Bring it on, May 8th.

During my lunch break, I ran to the store and now I have in my possession Madagascar: The Complete Collection, which features both movies as well as The Penguins of Madagascar. I'm gettin' my Madagascar on well ahead of the forthcoming Nickelodeon series featuring said Penguins. I bought the set for the kids, you understand, and I will in no way derive any enjoyment of my own from the forthcoming viewing experience.

Nope. Not. At All.

Oh, and I really can't leave this entry without typing Madagascar again.

So....Madagascar.

....about this year's Oscars:


What the hell? No love for Clint?


Damn.

Forwarded by a friend:

Scott Frank Tells CHUD, "I'm not remaking Conquest of the Planet of the Apes!"

Let's see...

1) The plot revolves around an intelligent ape named Caesar.

2) Caesar leads an ape rebellion against humans.

Yes, I know, he's changing some of the details, and it's possible that this version may well surpass the original in terms of quality, but come on...let's call a spade a spade, shall we? You're remaking the movie. No, you really are. The story you're crafting has its roots in another story, which the studio already made once. Further, the story we're talking about was itself the third sequel to a movie originally based on a book. The only reason this new project had any chance of being greenlit is because of its association with Planet of the Apes, a property Fox has been looking to restart for years. Otherwise, I would've expected at least one studio exec with a functioning brain cell to look at this pitch and say, "Aren't you just remaking one of those Planet of the Apes movies?"

Well, you think that's what would happen.

One of the many reasons I loathe Hollywood -- when they're not just outright repeating themselves with the same old crap -- is their penchant for taking other people's work, putting some kind of spin on it, and then claiming it as an original work they created from whole cloth. One recent, blatant example was last year's cinematic turd The Invasion, which studio execs had the audacity to claim was not another take on Jack Finney's classic The Body Snatchers. That the movie sucked donkey balls was karmic justice, so far as I was concerned.

I'm not saying this is what's occurring here, as evidenced by Frank's own comments. For all I know, the guy just wants to avoid being painted with the remake/reimagining/re-whatever brush that everybody's getting hit with these days. I can understand that, even though I'm not against remakes on general principle. Some of my favorite movies of the past 10-20 years have been remakes. The Fugitive, Ocean's Eleven to name two off the top of my head. In those cases, the filmmakers acknowledged they were crafting a remake. Looking ahead to the forthcoming remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still, the creators are acknowledging the film's roots -- both to the 1951 film as well as Harry Bates' original story "Farewell to the Master" -- even though the story has understandably been updated to reflect modern concerns and social issues. Last year's I Am Legend paid similar homage and respect, regardless of what you might think of the finished product. "Remake" in and of itself is not a dirty word; it's the execution that counts. The reason so many people are down on remakes these days is that so very many of them have been truly, inarguably awful.

But hey, as an unabashed Apes fan, I'm pulling for this project to succeed. I just want credit given where it's due, is all.

Bought Kung Fu Panda earlier this week on a whim, having missed it in theaters (a recurring theme with regard to movies and parenthood). I figured Addy might get a kick (HA!) out of it. I'm secure enough in my masculinity that I can say I thought it was a lot of fun. There were several sequences that had me laughing out loud. Well worth the coin I plunked down for it.

So far, I've been 3 for 3 on recent DVD purchases for movies we missed over the summer (Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk being the other two).

In other DVD news, I finally got to sit down and reward myself with a screening of the L.A. Confidential special edition DVD, which along with the third season of The Unit I'd forced myself not to dork with until after I'd finished the Vanguard novel. Well worth the wait. This is one of my favorite movies, and I'd bypassed the bare-bones edition that came out a few years ago (opting to hold onto my LaserDisc version).

Waiting in the wings: Heat, which I picked up for a steal, and Futurama: Bender's Game, if only so I can hear George Takei say, "Way to kill the franchise, Bakula!"

Who was the Pezhead who decided that in the midst of these troubled economic times, when consumers are forced to curtail much in the way of their discretionary entertainment spending, that the one thing the home video market needed was a two-disc special extended edition of Waterworld?

I can't get The D.I. with Jack Webb released on DVD, to say nothing of The Six Million Dollar Man, much less an un-butchered release of WKRP in Cinncinnati, but some taint-pimple thought it was cool to release Waterworld TWICE? Yes, because the one thing which can help that movie is more of it.

That person, wherever they are, deserves a boot right in the anus. Somebody get that for me, would ya?

Thanks to friend Kevin Dilmore, we have a link to Entertainment Weekly's new article, complete with the first real photos taken from the film:

'Star Trek': New Movie, New Vision

And for those who may be curious, friend and Showbits.net web pilot Ken Gagne sends links to larger versions of some of the same photos found in the piece:

Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Sulu on the bridge

Kirk climbing out of a hole

Nero, the new bad guy

The U.S.S. Kelvin

Spock goes 'Sylar' on Kirk's ass

So, what to think?

I'm undecided, at this point. I want the new flick to succeed, and in some of these shots I see some interesting stuff. Karl Urban, at first blush, seems to be the one member of the cast who's best "channeling" his/her predecessor (in his case, DeForest Kelley) without straying too close to the line separating homage and parody. That said, I'm not ready to dismiss the other actors without first seeing them in action, walking the walk and talking the talk. I can see hints of what I'm looking for, particularly in Chris Pine as he sits in the command chair, and Zach Quinto (when he looks pissed, oddly enough). The photo on the EW mag's cover doesn't count, as it's a publicity photo airbrushed to the point that last month's Playmate is yelling, "Oh, come ON!"

The updated uniforms look pretty cool. No real issues there. I give them points for trying to update the original look, rather than just wholesale revamping.

The bridge set? If this is the actual, honest to God bridge, and not some alternate timeline/whatever, then I'll be somewhat disappointed. I didn't need it to look exactly like it did in the 1960s, but it would've been nice to see some more echoes of that in what we have here.

The bad guy, Nero, does nothing for me at this point. To me, he's just another brooding villain.

Of course, the pics and the "details" leaked by various people involved with the production offer us nothing with regards to the story, so there's precious little here on which to form any real opinions. That shouldn't stop legions of whiny internet fanboys from committing seppuku with their lightsabers and flinging themselves down the stairs to their parents' basements. You know the type:

[WhinyInternetFanboy]

"That squishy popping sound you just heard was J.J. Abrams pulling out as he finishes raping my childhood."

[/WhinyInternetFanboy]

And so on...

Due to not having much in the way of an outside life, this was one of the movies Michi and I missed during the summer. Everybody I know ranted and raved about it, and I offered the most polite middle fingers I could muster every time the subject came up. Needless to say, I wanted to see this one, and bought it pretty much the microsecond it came out on DVD this past week.

Good Christ, what a fun movie.

Robert Downey, Jr. has long been one of my favorite actors, and he totally owns the role of Tony Stark. Jeff Bridges is another longtime favorite, and he does pretty well with what in most respects is a standard-issue "friend who stabs you in the back" role.

(Speaking of Bridges, anybody else checking out that bootleg TR2N trailer floating around the internet? Can you say "nerdgasm?" I thought you could.)

CGI effects were pretty good without going too far over the line of believability (Yes, I just said that with a straight face), and the story didn't drag much at all. In fact, after watching all of the deleted/extended scenes on the DVD, I really can't take issue with any of the cuts Favreau made, with one possible exception: the scene during the fire fight where we're shown that Stark's Air Force buddy doesn't die. I was wondering about that during the "Stark in captivity" scenes.

(By the way, if those had been Marines escorting Stark, that fire fight would've gone much, much differently. I'm just sayin'.)

Anyway, a fun flick, and one I'll watch again in the not-so distant future.

....but Shoot 'Em Up is the most ridiculous, shamelessly over-the-top, balls-to-the-wall mindless action flick I've seen in years.

And I loved every minute of it.

Just sayin'.

Are you frikkin' kidding me? I love Batman. I really do. Been looking forward to The Dark Knight for a while now.

But this is just idiotic:

Just A Movie? Fans Paying $100 For 'Dark Knight' - CraigsList Overflowing With Fans Desperate For Tickets

Hey, fuckheads: THE MOVIE WILL STILL BE THERE TOMORROW.

It'll be there next week. Next month, even.

Get a grip. Use some of that coin you were going to spend on a movie ticket and buy a god-damned clue, for crying out loud.

Michi convinced her mother to watch the kids for a few hours, allowing us to take in a movie. It was her turn to pick, and Sex and the City was the best option of those she had in mind. Yes, I know, we're Johnny and Jane Come Lately's to this particular film; we've accepted that such is life these days.

Of course, this was a chick flick of the Highest Order, and I was one of only three men brave enough to accompany their women to the theater. I imagine fans of the show dug this, and perhaps it found some new folks in the audience who used the movie to sample these characters and their various "issues." I liked the television series well enough when it ran in HBO, but I've not watched it since it was released on DVD or in syndication on various broadcast and cable channels. Michi was also a fan of the show and enjoyed herself this afternoon, so mission accomplished in that regard.

As an extension of the series, it was fine. My only real beef with the movie was that it was more than a bit predictable, but I guess that's to be expected in this sort of flick. The thing that pissed me off the most had to do with the making of the film: the repeated (and I do mean repeated) appearance of a boom mike dropping into the top of the frame in several scenes. I counted it happening no less than seven times throughout the movie. I expect to see that sort of crap in first-year film students' projects, but it's wholly unacceptable when we're talking about a big-budget feature. It should have been a snap to remove the goofs digitally.

Next up? I really have no earthly idea. Kevin and I might catch something while we're in Baltimore next weekend, but there's no way to predict that sort of thing.

This apparently has been news for at least a few weeks, but I'm just now finding out about it, thanks to The Digital Bits:

"We first mentioned that this title was coming way back in April, and we've known it was in the works for some time. But Warner Home Video has finally officially unveiled the details: The studio will release an L.A. Confidential: Two-Disc Special Edition on both DVD (SRP $20.97) and Blu-ray Disc ($28.99) on 9/23. Extras on both will include audio commentary by film critic Andrew Sarris, an isolated music-only track, 14 deleted scenes, the 2000 L.A. Confidential TV pilot, the Whatever You Desire: Making L.A. Confidential documentary, 7 featurettes (Sunlight and Shadow: The Visual Style of L.A. Confidential, A True Ensemble: The Cast of L.A. Confidential, L.A. Confidential: From Book to Screen, Off the Record, Photo Pitch, The L.A. of L.A. Confidential and Hollywood Center Motel), trailers and TV spots, and the film's soundtrack promo. Additional details and specs are TBA."

Finally! I've had the LaserDisc since it came out, but I held off buying the bare-bones DVD in the hopes that a special edition would be coming. Took 'em long enough, eh?

"Effin' A, Cotton! Effin' A!!"

Okay, so maybe you've seen the trailer for the forthcoming Batman movie, The Dark Knight, the sequel to Batman Begins with Christian Bale reprising the title role and the late Heath Ledger in (I believe) his final performance.

If not, here it is:



Now, have you seen the trailer's dialogue, music, and sound FX mixed with footage from the 1990s animated Batman series?



Or, perhaps a version with Batman Legos?



Or, what about my favorite, the 1960s TV series with Adam West?



Glad to be of service.