Book Review: BORRIS KARLOFF: THE MAN REMEMBERED By Gordon B. Shriver

I’m a huge fan of the highly regarded character actor Borris Karloff whom most people will remember played the immortal character of Frankenstein’s monster in the James Whale directed film Frankenstein (1931) but I remember him most from another Whale’s film The Old Dark House (1932) and Scarface (1932), which are both two of my all time favorite films. In writer Gordon B. Shiver’s book Borris Karloff: The Man Remembered we get a look at who the man – Karloff, really was through some of the stories told about him and from conversations recalled by the people who met and worked with him.

Shriver’s book is a very basic account of Karloff’s life not only in films but in radio, commercials voice over, and just about anything else that he could get his hands on. Karloff is described in the book as a very soft spoken person whom people loved to work with and was well liked by everyone. If there was anything disheartening about the man it’s that he over worked himself up until the day that he died but working on films no mater how great or how small was the greatest joy that the man ever felt.

Although Shriver has a very dry way of putting down the life of Karloff it is befitting a man that was so well admired and respected among his peers even though the industry itself was not always kind to him. Karloff starred in every known type of film and genre but was always known as the man who played Frankenstein’s monster and thus never escaped that image which marked his career even though he starred in such films as The Strange Door (1951), Black Sabbath (1964), and most importantly Targets (1968).

Although the book is short it is concise and to the point and a very easy read for those who know little about the man and just are curious. For those who know much about the man already, the book may seem a little repetitive and mundane but the book is filled with 15 pages of photos throughout his career and has an extensive list of all the projects and productions that Karloff was ever involved it. This alone is worth picking up the book.

FIGHTING Can Be Good For You

It’s easy to dismiss this by-the-books action film Fighting but then you’ll miss one of the more fun and entertaining films of the year. Starring Channing Tatum as Shawn MacArthur, a down on his luck street urchin, just trying to survive from day to day. When Shawn gets into a street brawl with several thugs a street hustler by the name of Harvey Bourden (Terrence Howard) sees potential in the young man.

Harvey’s idea of potential though is underground street fighting, which he has connections to. He sees in Shawn the opportunity to make some money and get back on top after being disgraced many years ago (since everyone seems to look down on him). After several lucky wins on the underground circuit, Shawn has the opportunity not only to make a lot of money but to redeem himself when he must fight an old acquaintance in his final battle.

This film is very much in the vein of the Cuba Gooding Jr. & James Marshall Gladiator (1992) and like that film the fun of the film is watching at times real and brutal fights. This is far different from the over choreographed Jason Statham films and the over reliance of CGI in the more recent X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which is why the film is such a pleasure to watch.

One of the worst things about most Hollywood films of today is that they feel over-produced and you never feel like the characters are ever in any real danger. This is not the case here as Shawn barely makes it out of his fights winning some simply by luck. Street fighting hurts and you feel bones crack in this film. Writers Robert Munic and Dito Montiel (who also directs) do an excellent job with the film in terms of presenting a gritty look at the under belly of the city. The story itself may be simple and straight forward but life for these characters is anything but.

ADVENTURELAND is in the Blood

This film first interested me because I worked at a theme park myself so I had an inherent need to see how accurate to theme park life the film actually is. Adventureland is an interesting mix of drama and understated comedy in a coming of age story about James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) who is forced to take a summer job in order to pay for his college education. James represents the ideal “virgin” who has a lot of naïve ideas about love and relationships who comes to learn about living real life through his experiences with the people he works with at the theme park none more then Em (Kristin Stewart), whom he slowly falls in love with.

Written & directed by Greg Mottola (who directed Superbad) this new film is a mixed bag as it has the same charm of his previous film but falls short in the comedy department as it stirs closer to the dramatic category, which may turn away some audiences looking for another Superbad. The film is peppered with a great supporting cast including Ryan Reynolds as Mike Connell, a former musician who works as a repair man at the park and dreams of the halcyon days of his former glory. Reynolds is channeling Monty from his film Waiting in this film and is a boon for those who liked that film.

After the over publicized Twilight, Stewart shows more range in this film as a woman who finds herself numb to true love and living a lie at a dead in job with no means of escape until James enters her life.

The film has its charm and for people like me (who spent some time of their life at a theme park) it’s nostalgic and bitter sweet at its core (despite its flaws).

Is STAR TREK the Best Summer Movie of 2009?

I’m not a “Trekkie” and I’ve only seen a handful of the various television series (I’ve not even seen that many of the original Star Trek series) but I’ve seen all the films and am very familiar with the characters through the movies. Being a little bit fed up with the whole remake/reboot and sequel mentality of Hollywood’s current brain-trust, I was not interested in this new Star Trek film. In fact, the only reason why I even bothered to go see it was because J.J. Abrams was directing and Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman were writing and these are the people behind the exceptional television shows Alias, Lost, and now Fringe. The movie had such great talent behind it that I couldn’t pass it up even if I wanted to. I’m so glad I didn’t as Star Trek has thus far been the best film of the summer season.

Prequels, in my opinion, rarely work and can destroy a franchise by claiming to go back to the beginning to explain how certain characters became who they are. Star Trek is no different as it takes our familiar crew of the Starship Enterprise back to the days of Starfleet Academy where many of them first met. Having learned most of this info from the original television and the films you’d think that there would be no where for the new film to go but Abrams and crew have crafted a familiar story that’s retold through a past that is changed when Romulans from the future journey back in time to change the past and thus their own future.

Now the whole time traveling thing has been done numerous times in the television show not to mention several of the big screen movies, so, using the same device in the new film felt a little like cheating at first but Orci and Kurtzman decide not to dwell on this device too long but instead focuses on its effect on the past (the present of the film).

I could go into more details about the plot but frankly its better if you watch it yourself as Star Trek is the best of all the Star Trek films thus far produced as it is not only a great sci-fi film but a great dramatic film as well with the peppered humor of Abrams Alias and Felicity through in for good measure. The other thing is that audiences of all ages and people who don’t even like sci-fi will enjoy this film. This cannot be said for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, which is now the second best film in the franchise (this film is liked by Trekkies the most). Before this new film general audiences only connected with the Erath friendly Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (which also relied on time travel) but this film has dated the most over the years of all the films.

Abrams cast is point on perfect at the iconic original crew of the Enterprise and all the characters get their moment to shine in this film (whereas in the later films the supporting characters became mere background characters at times). Abrams and crew should be commended in changing my views on remakes/reboots because up until this film I was willing to give up all hope on a summer with an actual good film.

I'm Seeing ANGELS & DEMONS! Please help Me!

I’ve never read a Dan Brown book and I didn’t really care all that much for The Da Vinci Code but it was entertaining and I generally like Tom Hanks, whom I can always trust when it comes to films (he can make a mediocre film watchable which is why I saw The Da Vinci Code). The only reason why I bothered with Angels & Demons was because Hanks was in it and I tend to give more credit to a film if it has Ewan McGregor in it since I think (like Hanks) this is an actor who can do just about any genre of film.

I have to say that I enjoyed Angels & Demons a whole hell of a lot more then The Da Vinci Code. Although both films move at a break neck pace Angels & Demons has streamlined the film to make it more accessible to mainstream audiences. This could have been disastrous but in Hanks and director Ron Howard’s hands the film has a great energy that the film lacked (and in my opinion slowed it down). This film also has more interesting supporting characters and a story that is neither clean cut nor too overly complication (unlike its predecessor which got convoluted in its own terminology and far too many occasions).

Unlike The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons is a fun and entertaining summer film with just the hint of a great murder mystery behind it which bolds well with its box office future.

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE a Waste of Time

Let me first say that growing up in the '80s & '90s I read a lot of comics one of which was The X-Men from Marvel so I'd like to think I know a lot about the characters. I know that sometime at the end of the '90s and '00s Marvel's brains were scrambled and they decided to re-boot their comics (most of which from what I've heard was a disaster but some did stick).

I love comic book films of which BLADE, SPIDER-MAN, SPIDER-MAN 2, HELLBOY & HELLBOY 2: THE GOLDEN ARMY are among the best recent examples. If you notice none of the X-Men films are included on this list and that is for good reason as none of the films are all that good (although I do consider X2: X-MEN UNITED the best). The only reason why any of the films suceeded is because of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and Ian McKellen as Magneto because the screenplays are pedestrian at best with no sense of what the X-Men truly were, which was a team of mutants who banded together in order to combat majot atrocities to their kind as well as humankind. Now the theme is present in all three films but the word "team" is lacking in all except the 2nd film (hince why I think it is the best). The first film is nothing more then a film about Wolverine and Rogue who just so happen to meet the X-Men (since no one in the team is given nearly as much screen time as Wolverine & Rogue nor as much of a story/plot). The 2nd film managed to have plenty of great subplots amongst the great action set pieces and actually tried to be a good and well rounded film and Wolverine didn't hog all the screen time (although Cyclops the leader of the X-Men is still under used). The 3rd film was a total mess as old characters from the first two films are killed or completely discarded to make room for all the new characters who were just on hand as popcorn eye candy. It was one big action film mess withy no redeemable qualities.

The same can be said of X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE which rewrites X-Men lore to suit whatever the filmmakers thought would be "cooler" in a story that's so uninspired that I almost fell asleep in the theatre. Fleshing out events already alluded to in X2 this new film tries to explain the origins of Wolverine which is the least interesting story to try and tell. With so much history to pull from with the Wolverine character the filmmakers decided to go with a story that pretty much told itself it the previous film. Let's not even mention the complete overhaul done on the Sabretooth character and the complete misuse of the Gambit character (another one of the X-Men's most popular characters who bares has a comeo in this film). The film comes off as nothing more than a marketing ploe to get butts in the seats with lots of things that go "boom" and "pow" and I for one never bought it.

The film is an uninspired mess of which I'm shocked that Jackman didn't have more input into (especially since they plan on making a trilogy of these films). I don't recommend this film to any one unless you ust love Jackman or just can't wait to see the film on video.

Seeing Robots Everywhere in TERMINATOR SALVATION

Am I a TERMINATOR fan?

Having enjoyed both of the James Cameron films I delved into the continuation of the franchise in the four-colored world of comics first throw NOW comics original series TERMINATOR: THE BURNING EARTH and later through Dark Horse Comics who published various limited series based on the franchise (all fairly good although like most franchise tended to run out of steam towards the end of their run).

Then came TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES (2003) directed by newcomer Jonathan Mostow who did an excellent job small thriller BREAKDOWN (1997) and U-571 (2000) but T3 ended up an ill-fated mess only enjoyable to those who have never seen the first two films. This film had a bigger budget but no brains and ended up nothing more then a very good paycheck for the current Govenor of CA. Sorry to say that I no longer was a Terminator fan.

Then in 2008 TERMINATOR showed up on the small screen with THE SARAH CONNER CHRONICLES, a spin-off with a great cast but messed with the continuity of the franchise so much that I'm not sure that in even belongs in the TERMINATOR franchise or if it's just a bad dream (like what eventually happened with HALLOWEEN 4, 5, and 6 to that franchise). Although this show was cancelled after only two seasons it has its fans (because frankly the show wasn't that bad).

Now we have TERMINATOR SALVATION (2009) a film that tries to be a sequel while also trying to reboot the franchise (ala STAR TREK). I'm not going to say the film is great but it's a whole hell of a lot better then the previous film which is mainly because of the good writing and great cast on board. Whereas the 3rd film poked fun at itself on several occassions this film is a gritty war film that asks the question - in a world ruled by robots is humanity dead? After watching that 3rd film you'd think so but stars Christian Bale (as prophet of doom John Conner) and Sam Worthington are great foils for one another. It's tuff to play opposite rising star super giant Bale but newcomer Worthington does a great job of holding his own in the film which is a testament not only to his talent but also to the great screenplay by John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris.

It film not only has a gripping (and intellent) story behind it but it also has the action and excitement required of a summer popcorn film. I give great praise to director McG for putting together such a great team of experts (especially after the rumors of how hard he worked to get Bale interested in the film). Some people only see him as the guy who directed the CHARLES ANGELS films but I was willing to give him a chance (especially since Mostow - whom I like - screwed up the 3rd film).

My interest in the TERMINATOR franchise has been rekindled, for now, and I hope that they continue to do it right with any subsequent films.