There’s a scene in District 9 when the main character, after enduring a lot of pain and humiliation, has to make the choice of either running into battle guns ablaze or retreat. He chooses the latter knowing full well that his actions are driven by fear and selfishness.

District 9 or “D9” is many things all rolled up into a hard to describe package. Among them it’s a sci-fi adventure with all the elements you’d expect like blaster guns and an enormous spaceship. It’s also an unrelenting social commentary and an action-packed romp that refuses to let down its guard.

The effects and cinematography compliment each other quite well and at times it’s hard to distinguish between the two. That said, they are not of the slick variety that other films convey, but the grimy texture is beautiful and perfect for the portrayal of a enslaved race of aliens living in South African slums.

It’s an unforgiving, ravished and selfish environment, leaving barely any room for survival. It’s a film that is best experienced without digging for holes in the plot (of which they are a few) or making assumptions dealing with the character portrayal or progression.

I enjoyed it because it didn’t reveal too much of itself and yet what it did expose was raw (human and alien) emotion, flaws in the human fabric and a detached feeling of humanity, or at least I felt detached at times.

He’s also responsible for some real stinkers. Movie stink that could quickly foul a room full of underdeveloped daisies and seldom come up in conversation for fear of one being exiled or worse, thrown to a bunch of ravenous movie critics. Now I’m beginning to feel nostalgic for the cartoon, The Critic, but anyways…

Howard the Duck is perhaps the worst movie on George’s resume (yes, fouler than even Clone Wars), failed miserably at the box office and yet it retains a charm all its own. There are even days when the movie strangely hovers around in my thoughts from time to time.

If this were VH1’s Behind the Music, this is the part when the guy would say.. “And now, the story behind the story.”

It all started with some comics

From Wikipedia:

[Howard the Duck] first appeared in Adventure into Fear #19 (Dec. 1973) and several subsequent series have chronicled the misadventures of the ill-tempered, anthropomorphic, “funny animal” trapped on human-dominated Earth. Howard’s adventures are generally social satires, and also often parodies of genre fiction with a meta-fictional awareness of the medium. [Wikipedia]

If you were to pick up a Howard comic during this time you’d notice very little difference between him and Donald Duck. This was intentional on the part of its creators but for obvious reasons wasn’t carried over in the movie.

Quack, Quack!

The movie adaptation, released in 1986, retained some of the traits from the comic in the form of its star, Howard, who was still ill-tempered and anthropomorphic. Instead of doing an animated feature, which would’ve been an ideal presentation, the film was instead live-action and the duck would be part animatronic puppet, part diminutive actor.

It starred a very young Lea Thompson and Tim Robbins. Tim Robbins, up until this point (with Top Gun’s release looming) had been known for bit roles in TV and film. Lea Thompson was (and will probably always be) known as the Marty McFly’s mother Lorraine in Back to the Future.

Together, they were supporting players to their feathered star and despite the sub par script and kooky special effects, managed to give somewhat convincing performances. However, there is something to be said about the human/duck relationship that is, to this day, uncomfortable to watch. I don’t think I was ever fully up to speed on the “birds, ducks and bees.”, but I digress.

Above all us, Howard the Duck, like The Dark Crystal, was a childhood favorite of mine because it was something I enjoyed watching with my family.

It was a fantastic, awful, bewildering and grossly underrated cult classic.

The Trailer

Additional Reading:

• http://www.fast-rewind.com/howardduck.htm
• http://www.toonopedia.com/howard.htm
• http://www.norcalmovies.com/HowardTheDuck
• http://www.answers.com/topic/howard-the-duck
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_the_Duck

Apart from the great acting, the writing continues to amaze me because the story is chock full of interesting twists, turns and free falls.

There are so many layers and angles the writers have chosen to explore and the story itself is rich in character exploration and interaction. At it’s surface it seems like just a show about people with various talents and powers, but if you look further you begin to unravel the puzzle and mythology that is Heroes, which transcends the small screen in the form of an online comic and web blog.

Over the course of the first season I’ve made some mental notes (mostly spoiler-free) and I’d like to share some of those with you. In turn, I invite you to share your own, as I know we all have our own thoughts and theories on where the story arch might lead and where it’ll continue to go.

Theories on Heroes

• Biblical names used for some of the main characters; Gabriel (arch angel), Mica, Eden and Peter.
• Overall story arch (so far) has a deliberate sense of urgency and foreshadowing: some plot points uncovered, questions both answered and unanswered
• Reminds me a bit of Steven King’s The Stand in that a group of people, who previously had no contact with each other, have come together for a greater purpose
• The writing is multi-faceted and intriguing, much like Lost, and while it’s intentionally serialized it does seem more self-contained than Lost.
• The characters themselves and their stories are intriguing because of the emotional state they share; urgency and for the most part a deep rooted nonacceptance of their talents, almost a resilient self-doubt.
• Hiro (named appropriately) comes across as the glue holding everything together. He seems to be the favorite for most viewers and that’s because of his personality and willingness to work within the limitations of his power.
• Mr. Bennett (Claire’s father and codenamed: HRG for Horned Rim Glasses) seems almost as if his alignment is neutral. He’ll protect those he cares for, but also obeys his superiors’ wishes. The writers have mentioned that he is a but a cog in the bigger wheel that is his employer and at the moment their true intentions and/or motives are still unclear
• The Haitian, while mysterious and obeying of HRG’s commands, seems like he has his own motives beyond the scope of his employer

Now, what about your theories? If you have some, please share by commenting or sending me an email at erik(at)kartooner.com.
 

Claude’s interviews with directors, screenwriters, advertising executives and actors/actresses are often fascinating, if not enlightening, especially if you share an interest in how films are created like I do.

In his interview with actor/director Jon Favreau entitled “No Special Effects, It’s Really Director Jon Favreau”, Jon reveals his love/hate relationship with CGI effects and why home brewed effects are still relevant and useful. His philosophy is that while computer generated imagery has its place (namely a toolbox of endless possibility) it can also cloud the visual aesthetic of a movie.

While CGI has improved over the years, providing the backbone for things like sci-fi vistas and mythological creatures as well upping the ante on disaster sequences it’s also — in most cases — immediately recognizable if it doesn’t blend in with live action.

Recently Favreau was chosen to direct the film adaptation of Iron Man, a task not to be taken lightly and even though the film itself has a much bigger budget than his other films, he’s also made the decision to budget the special effects. His reasoning is two-fold; that the film’s budget is targeted at a specific amount and to effectively blend CGI with live action without going overboard.

In all honesty, this is something that I wish more directors (including George Lucas) would come to terms with. Audiences are typically overwhelmed with joy when a superb CGI sequence is pulled off but to echo Favreau’s thoughts, in most cases it’s easily noticed and can take you out of the movie, detaching you from the film’s otherwise engrossing atmosphere and aesthetic.

Yet, to play devil’s advocate I suppose it’s a tricky thing to avoid and I’d imagine why most directors and producers go out on a limb blindfolded, hoping that whatever is put together by their masters of illusion comes across successfully not only in a visual manner but also allowing various CG elements to interact with live action in a realistic way. 

After releasing Finding Nemo — one of my all-time favorites, right up there with Toy Story — Pixar announced that they were working on a film about cars. When I first heard the news I think I might’ve been reading an issue of Wired and sat in disbelief.

While the talking animal shtick has worn out its welcome, there’s a certain safety net that accompanies an animated film of that nature. Especially considering that talking animals is a formula that has been used by several animation companies (Disney and Warner Brothers comes to mind) in the past and for the most part, if done correctly, appeals to a vast audience.

While I passed up the opportunity to see the movie in the theater I did manage to rent it this past week and it’s safe to say that Cars, despite it’s main characters being talking vehicles, does work and only because Pixar is at the helm. I’m not entirely sure whether someone else with this material would’ve been able to make it as interesting and worth watching, which goes to show that Pixar could probably make talking rocks watchable.

The plot is surface deep, but the general outline is that it involves a pompous NASCAR race car named Lightning McQueen (perfectly voiced by Owen Wilson) who through the course of the movie humbles himself thanks to a few small town denizens who teach him how to slow down in life.

There’s a life lesson here that resounds in all of us, that life is sometimes too fast paced for us to realize that everything is coming at us at a blur. It’s been tackled before in movies but never using a car as the protagonist, who is quite literally the embodiment of fast-paced life.

On the other side of the spectrum, there’s even a deeper lesson about how we are willing to sacrifice beauty to shave a few minutes off our travel time. In the movie, it’s Route 66 that at one point in time flourished with tourists and car enthusiasts and now stands as reminder of what once was and will never be.

The movie itself is full of chuckles from the supporting cast and when it’s all said and done it really does stay with you. I’m an advocate of slowing down every once in a while, taking a step back, enjoying the sweeter aspects of life (like love, family and relationships) and figuring things out instead of letting everything fall into place.

As the Racal Flatts’ song ‘Life is a Highway’ tells us, “Life’s like a road that you travel on, When there’s one day here and the next day gone.” 

Ask anyone who knows me about my fondness and utter boyhood joy for movies and most likely you’ll begin to piece together personal fragments that ultimately led to the person I am today.

Like Michael, I’m like a kid in a candy store — gnawing on an enormous Gobstopper — when it comes to watching movies, especially those rare cinematic experiences where you feel as if you’re a part of what’s occuring on screen.

There are very few movies that have immersed me in such a vivid manner that when I’m amongst the audience I forget about reality until the credits appear on screen. One such movie, which debuted in the early 90s, totally captivated me at the time as well as reminded me what a good movie could be.

Several months prior to the official opening of the movie I can remember strolling past the cardboard display, a medium-sized advertisement with a jeep and the words “Jurassic Park: An Adventure 65 Million Years in the Making”.

At the time, my brother and I stopped dead in our tracks and just examined the advertisement wondering to ourselves whether or not it was a dinosaur movie or a cheesy horror flick. Despite our attempts to figure out what the movie was about, I do remember thinking that the logo was fantastic, a silohuette of a dinosaur on a blood red background with huge bold letters, that alone guaranteed our prescence at the film’s release.

However, there was one tiny detail I had initially overlooked upon first glancing at the cardboard stand, that Jurassic Park was not only going to be a movie about dinosaurs, but that Steven Spielberg was directing. I decided then and there, without a moment’s hesitation, that I was going to see this movie, no matter what.

After doing some more research on the film, which if I remember correctly, consisted of watching every entertainment medium that I could, it was revealed that not only was this going to be a movie about dinosaurs, it was going to be about a “dinosaur amusement park”. In my opinion, mixing giant reptiles of the past with Disneyland seemed like a superb idea.

Having no prior knowledge of the book I decided to purchase it and read it before the movie, something I try to avoid since they rarely ever compliment eachother. A few chapters into Jurassic Park my eyes glazed over and I tossed the book aside in disbelief and frankly disappointment, mainly because of the long passages of text dealing strictly with medical terminology and the fact that the story itself dragged on.

Luckily, Steven Spielberg and crew took creative liberties with the story, something I was happy with considering the original storyline, while similar and I suppose appealing to some readers, wasn’t exactly “adventure” material (years later I would end up changing my mind, after reading the book cover-to-cover).

The movie Jurassic Park, unlike it’s book counterpart, was simply one of the most energetic and visually mind-blowing cinematic experiences since Star Wars. The breakthrough CGI, bringing to life dinosaurs you could only imagine beforehand, made these dinosaurs seem lifelike and in some instances downright horrific, especially the T-Rex and Raptors.

Almost 13 years later, I’ve since revisited Jurassic Park, having watched the DVD and airings of the movie on television and I’m still captivated by it. The performances are and characters themselves are stellar, especially that of Ian Malcolm as played by Jeff “The Fly” Goldblum. He plays the neurotic, know-it-all character in many films and pulls it off particularly well in JP. The special effects, which were pinnacle at the time, still remain convincing and dramatic.

Jurassic Park is and was truly one of the most fulfilling movie experiences that I’ve ever witnessed and because of the amount of detail and the thrilling aspects to the film it’ll always remain a classic, earning its spot next to other wonderful movies that will be watched and remembered by generations to come, mark my word. 

Pre-production

Before production was to begin, Henson partnered with Gary Kurtz, who served as producer on Star Wars and Brian Froud, conceptual artist, to bring the story to life. The next step was brainstorming and outlining how The Dark Crystal was going to be created within their projected budget. According to Froud in an interview about the Making of Dark Crystal;

There were so many differences of opinion and so many compromises had to be made to accommodate the characters to the physical limitations of the human body. But everything did turn out all right in the end.

Recognition

The film opened on December 17th, 1982 with a final budget of $15 million, funded and distributed by Universal Studios. Critics either hailed it as a “bittersweet spectacle” or nothing more than an “overblown puppet show”. Through my eyes it was something that broke the mold and pushed the boundaries beyond conventional Hollywood productions. It’s somewhat unsettling that movies that seldom break any molds garner critic appraisal and yet “unique” films with a sense of vision — especially independent productions — rarely receive widespread recognition. Henson’s The Dark Crystal, while fantasy in nature, was also an explosion of colors, textures and culture. As you watch the film you appreciate the amount of work that went into researching the characters, history and special effects.

Special Effects

In an age before CGI (or Computer Generated Imagery), The Dark Crystal utilized extremely detailed and yet complicated puppetry. In some scenes, people small in stature were used for the Gelflings and full-sized actors for many of the supporting characters. Like any Henson production this was needed to envoke a sense of realism and yet, with the addition of layered puppetry, it gives the illusion that the creature on screen is living and breathing. These methods, if used properly, can be very successful in filmmaking, but it’s also nothing new. Since the advent of film, people have dressed up in costumes to represent creatures plucked from their creator’s imaginations. However, in recent times, filmmakers have added more realism by coupling the costume with nothing more than gadgetry (for the eyes, limbs or other protrusions) covered in material such as latex, foam or fur which is usually controlled by radio receivers or computers.

The Dark Crystal will forever remain in my mind as one of the movies which influenced by own interests in puppetry and special effects. As a kid I must have sat down and watched it a few hundred times and never, even to this day, have I grown tired of repeated viewings. It’s a classic in my opinion as far as Henson and fantasy films are concerned and should be a part of anyone’s movie collection, whether you be a die-hard fantasy or science-fiction film aficionado. 

The center of attention, however, is two teenage boys who have brought these legendary figures to the present-day to help them pass a history class.

It’s all part of the madness of Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, a high-spirited comedy-adventure ranging from the Dawn of Time to the 27th century. With the futuristic assistance of Rufus, played by George (Outrageous Fortune) Carlin, Bill and Ted travel the circuits of time to round up the ingredients for a successful history project. But are the likes of Billy the Kid and Napoleon Bonaparte ready for shopping malls and waterparks?” Starlog Magazine (May 1998, Number 30)

Nothing sums up the late 80s and early 90s like Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure (1989) and it’s sequel Bogus Journey (1991). Starring Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves as Bill and Ted, the movies depicted their “excellent” adventures and the characters they meet along the way and ultimately take back with them to their own time in San Dimas, California, dude.

Nowadays, San Dimas is only known for Raging Waters and sadly no futuristic Academy dedicated to Bill and Ted, although the city council should consider such a government investment. You’d have to see the second movie to appreciate that comment, otherwise its just confusing, isn’t it?

As far as the stars are concerned, since Bill and Ted they’ve approached a multitude of projects. Alex Winter’s Freaked, a movie about freaks stars Winter as a normal Joe who is transformed into a green disfigured winged creature. He meets other freaks along the way and eventually, through careful sluething, figures out why the freaks exist. As far as Keanu Reeves is concerned, he’s done quite well with the Matrix trilogy and of course that role in Steve Martin’s Parenthood in the early 90s. George (Outrageous Fortune) Carlin has been making comedy appearances all over the globe and various guest spots on television and in the movies.

Let us not forget the role of Death (aka Grim Reaper) in 1991’s Bogus Journey played by the fantastic actor William Sadler. Sadler’s most recent movie appearance was in the Green Mile playing Klaus Detterick and as the Sheriff in WB’s ex-Alien series Roswell.

Despite the 12-year gap from Bogus Journey to now, according to Keanu and Winters they plan on revisiting their characters in a movie that will depict Bill and Ted in their excellent 40’s. Considering both of the actors are nearing their 40s (pending mid-life crisis), it’s a bold step for each but a welcomed one at that. Let’s hope that they craft a excellent script and ultimately create a most excellent of a movie.

Dude.

For more Bill and Ted-related info, please visit BillandTed.org and XE’s Bill and Ted’s Excellent cereal write-up. 

E.T. at the time featured a cast of moderately ‘unknowns’ — aside from Peter Coyote and Dee Wallace-Stone — including younger cast members Henry Thomas, Drew Barrymore and Robert MacNaughton. Henry Thomas’ performance was notably excellent because he emoted fear and sadness successfully onscreen, all in front of a mechanical puppet.

I love E.T. and it will remain my all-time favorite film out of every movie I’ve seen in my lifetime. It’s as simple as that without complicating things. The movie is a constant reminder of the special attributes of friendship. Looking past the fact that it was a movie about an alien and his first-hand encounters on Earth you start to peel away at the layers and find something special, almost indescribable and more importantly, heartwarming.

To this day I still see it as one of the pinnacle movies of the early 1980s.