A while back I mentioned that I read Dean Koontz’s “Hideaway.” This book is yet another entry in his pantheon of mediocre horror fiction. There is an interesting author’s comment at the end which noted that the book was made into a film starring Jeff Goldblum and Alicia Silverstone. Interestingly, and rather boldly, Koontz was quite open in his condemnation for the film and he openly cringed at the various details and characters that had been changed from his book.

Now, even though I found the book quite forgettable, I’ve, ever since reading it, had an interest in seeing the film. Last night I discovered that it could be found in a collection of free movies available from my cable company so I checked it out. And it was quite awful. Not only was the plot, dialogue and pacing of the film insipid, but the film was rather shoddily made. For instance, there’s a scene when a knife goes into the chest of a certain character. However, the viewer could clearly see that it it was some kind of rubber knife that folded upon being rammed into the characters flesh. At a later point, Jeff Goldblum’s character drives his car up to a certain spot, and as the car moves closer, you can see a shadow of the head of one of the film crew cast against the fender. I mean, we’re talking amateur fresh-out-of-film-school type mistakes.

So, if you’re like me and take pleasure in seeing others fail, you might enjoy this movie.

Whatever happened to Alicia Silverstone anyway?

During me and my mom’s recent trip to Scandinavia we stopped off at the Moderna Museet (Modern Museum) in Stockholm. There I saw a few minutes of what is considered the first Soviet science fiction film, “Aelita.” It’s a strange tale that involves a trip to Mars, and is both entrancing and rather comic. I dug up part of it on YouTube and am enclosing it here for your viewing enjoyment. This version has a funky modern soundtrack.

Just one of those crazy articles that caught my eye: Bollywood actress killed, beheaded in extortion plot by two fellow actors, report says

Bollywood actress Meenakshi Thapar was kidnapped by two fellow actors, who then beheaded her after extorting money from her family, the Daily Telegraph reports.
Thapar, 26, appeared in an Indian horror film in 2011, where she met her alleged killers, actors Amit Jaiswal and Preeti Surin, the report says.
The two lured her on a trip, abducted her, and then demanded almost $50,000 from her family while threatening to make Thapar star in pornography, the report says.

Okey-dokey…

I’d actually really like to see an Indian horror film.

A couple nights ago I watched one of those classic Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers movies. My take? Great dancing, pretty pointless plot. I mean, sure, you don’t expect a great story from these flicks but I’d at least like something to keep my interest in between the dance numbers.

These movies remind me of that kind of porn that actually sets up the sex scene with a story so you end up watching 10 minutes of something boring to get to the 5 minutes of interest. With the Astair/Rogers movies you’re thinking, “When are they going figure out that she really didn’t marry the Italian guy and celebrate with a big dance under the fake waterfall?” With porn you’re thinking, “When’s the floppy breasted Asian chick going to take her clothes off and get tag teamed by the body builder and the midget?”

Really… they’re a lot alike.

So I saw the new film, “The Hunger Games,” this weekend. If you’re not familiar with the general premise: in a dystopian future selected teenagers must fight to the death in an arena battle that is broadcast like a futuristic “Survivor.” Not particularly original — people have argued that the story is derivative of the Japanese teen warfare movie, “Battle Royale” — but workable.

However, for the most part the film fell flat with me. No real surprises, and it largely avoided putting any of the sympathetic characters in any really morally compromising situations (which I think might occur if you were, you know, fighting to death.)

The film was educational in one way. It’s obviously aimed at teenage girls and thus reflects their mindset. The main romance occurs between the lead female protagonist and a rather emasculated and often befuddled male character whom she needs to nursemaid half the time. I spent my teenage years presuming the girls around me wanted a real man. It turns out what they desire is sort of like a cabbage patch doll — a sexually nonthreatening “friend” they can take care of. This is further proof that women are evil.

I saw the just released “John Carter” film this weekend. My take: nothing you wouldn’t expect but not without a certain charm (and a shockingly high, though somewhat bloodless, body count for a Disney film.)

Of course, after this weekend, the news came in that “John Carter” had bombed at the box office. It cost around 250 million to make and made about 36 million in its opening weekend. The odds of it turning a profit are slim.

So why did it fail? I’ve personally been perplexed at the decision to call the film “John Carter” as opposed to “John Carter of Mars” or even “A Princess From Mars” as the first book in the original Edgar Rice Burroughs series was called. So why was Mars dropped? This site has a few reasons.

The original title of Edgar Rice Burroughs’s first John Carter book was A Princess From Mars. Rumor has it that Disney didn’t want to use that title because they were afraid it would cause confusion with their very profitable Disney Princess franchise. That was part of the reason they decided to call the film John Carter of Mars in the first place. Besides, John Carter was already set to be the main character in Andrew Stanton’s adaptation.
This was followed by the insane decision last year to remove “Mars” from the title after Mars Needs Moms bombed badly at the box office. People understood that Disney was gun-shy, but you can’t just cut it down to John Carter. A name so plain and nondescript that no one even knew what to think of it. Heck, the Untitled Andrew Stanton Project would have been better than that. At least there would have been curiosity factor.

I read an interview with the director (I think) and he mentioned the concern that women would be turned off by the “of Mars” appendage because Mars is supposedly boy territory. So, in the name of appealing to everyone, they watered the title down to be meaningless. What does “John Carter” tell me? Is this another “Jerry McGuire?”

If I’d been directing the film I would have called it “John Carter from Mars (That’s right girls: Mars! Now go and see the film with your boyfriend like a good little whore)*.”

* Sorry ladies. I’m contractually obligated to run any jokes Rush Limbaugh sends me.

In closing, here’s a link to a website about the 1970’s John Carter Marvel Comics series. Some nice artwork.