Artmarque

I had a woman tell me yesterday that she would literally KILL to have my eyebrows! Lol. I'm a guy, so I'm wondering how to take that...a compliment?

IS ZOE SALDANA TO BLAME? ( OR IS IT JUST ME? )

Avatar...I've seen it twice in under 24 hours, and I'm pretty much speechless. It's made me do a lot of thinking about my character, and I'm beginning to wonder whether or not something is wrong with me.
How is it that I'm completely smitten with a fictitious, computer generated creature?

Zoe Saldana plays a character, named Neytiri, who I am absolutely head-over-heels for! I kid you not...this particular creation is the computer generated equivalent of the type of woman that I would consider perfect. She's honest, direct, spiritual, and incredibly sensitive...yet tough and warlike all at once. PERFECT.
Perhaps my ridiculous infatuation with a fictional non-human can shed some light on why I'm so very picky and I avoid 'normal' women like the plague. They just cannot hold my interest. For me, there has to be something unique about a woman, be she a foreigner, an artist, some type of teacher, or a combination thereof. I can't really put my finger on what it is that I need, but she absolutely positively CANNOT look at the world just like the average human being does.

Just recently, I spent several evenings with one of the most magnificent beauties I've ever met. ( 'Several,' because I was trying to give her a chance and not be such an elitist, holier-than-thou, know-it-all, artistic-genius prick! I fucking HATE that side of me, but it's there, nonetheless...it makes no sense for me to pretend like I don't know myself. ) She latched on to me rather quickly, and if I was a jerk, I could have completely taken advantage of her. But I couldn't. Not only do I have no wish to disobey my moral compass and mess up my Karma, but there was something else as well...I wasn't even mildly attracted to her! Seriously, that was the weirdest  thing that has ever happened to me, because I'm usually really, really into beauty. But, with her, I felt nothing...except a mild irritation with the bluntness of her mind. Do you know this girl asked me to tone down my vocabulary? LITERALLY! My words were just too big for her! And keep in mind that we were just talking when she asked me this...I do not speak as I write, and even when I write, I rely on simplicity. )  Alas, I guess it takes more than a face to hold my interest!
It wasn't just the fact that she was ( I hate to use this word, but- ) DUMB...it was her personality and outlook on life. She couldn't see past an hour in front of her. I don't want someone, who cannot 'see beneath the veneer.' Women who observe the world with a veil over their eyes will have no place in my life.
It's funny that a devastating human beauty, like the one I was just seeing, could completely bore me, but this DIGITAL, BLUE ALIEN ( an alien with a tail of all things! ) had me in the theater salivating!


Most will probably dismiss this as nonsense, thinking that I'm merely smitten by Zoe Saldana's beauty, as her facial features are slightly noticeable underneath all the computer generation. But I really don't think that's the case, guys. Look at it like this...a few of you have read early versions of my stories, and the vast majority of you have seen the things that I draw and paint. So how can we blame my condition on Zoe Saldana?! The truth of the matter is that I'm probably just weird enough to fall in love with a blue humanoid creature!
THAT IS SO ME! I promise you all, if aliens ever visit our world, and their women look and act like Neytiri, you can bet all your money that I will be the first one walking down the street, holding hands with one of them...tail and all!

© Marque Terrynamahr Strickland/18th December, 2009

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS/2009

I simultaneously love and hate this film. It's a brilliant concept but not brilliantly executed throughout, as, in the same fashion of Chuck Palahniuk, Quentin Tarantino is too talented for his own good. At his level of fame, fortune, and prestige, you're typically surrounded by 'yes men,' who are far too smitten by your talent to challenge you. Hence, no one with influence has the nerve to criticize him-they just don't.
Those who have an exceptional amount of patience are going to absolutely LOVE this movie. However, I cannot see it being appreciated by many outside of Quentin's core audience of diehard fans (people like me). In fact, I would not be surprised at all if there was solely love/hate reactions to this film. One of my screenwriter friends absolutely hated the movie, and I understand his feelings completely, for he, like I, is a writer and understands the pacing problems with this story. However, I shall be very interested in what, Oliver, my friend and actual screenwriting partner in Hollywood, has to say about this movie.

Awhile back, before I had gained a full understanding of the craft of writing, my editor, Lisa, would rip into me for little things, such as details.  She'd say such things as: “Marque, why the crap would you spend time describing this character in such vivid detail, only to kill him the very next paragraph?”  After hearing this enough times from her, I came to an understanding, and it was a most invaluable lesson...

WRITERS:  BE WARY OF THE PLACEMENT OF YOUR DETAILS, FOR YOU DON'T EVER WANT TO UNNECESSARILY SLOW THE PACE OF YOUR STORY!  
This is not a written law, but it should be.

In the case of novelists, let's say that you're writing a story about ghosts. In the beginning of your tale, when you've barely introduced the main character(s) and haven't made it anywhere near the 'inciting incident' (or the event which throws your protagonist's life out of balance)...WHY IN THE BLAZES would you insert a nonsensical description of a newspaper advertisement for sofas, when, not only does it kill your pace, but it also has nothing at all to do with the rest of the story! Chuck Palahniuk does this. However, it's not completely his fault, for, as I mentioned, he's so talented that no one has ever had the courage to tell him NOT to do that.
Quentin Tarantino has the exact same problem.  His excessive writing utterly destroyed the pace of his latest film. I want to be clear that I'm not poking fun at the dialogue, which he is so known for, as we all know that it is masterfully written. However, the bottom line is that there is, plain and simply, too much of it. I could deal with gangsters 'shooting-the-shit' at a restaurant in “Reservoir Dogs,” and I had no problem with Vincent and Mia's 'foot massage/uncomfortable silence' conversation in “ Pulp Fiction.” I had a similar reaction to Bill's 'superhero' dialogue in “Kill Bill,” and it was the same for the girls in “Death Proof.” Though there was an excessive amount of talking, at least the dialogue is highly amusing and comes from wonderfully interesting characters. However, in the case of Quentin's latest project, these elements take their toll. As a Tarantino fanatic, this marks the first time ever that I've found myself saying “C'mon, Quentin, pick it up!” while watching one of his films. I promise you all, I have never seen him take so long to get to the point, as he did in 'the bar scene' in this film. That ten or fifteen minutes he spent on that marvelously written dialogue, was precious time that could have been used to further develop 'the Basterds,' as they are called. Let it be known that I am, typically, not a huge fan of films, named after characters that you don't even get to see!

...And this brings me to my next point: WHERE THE HELL WERE 'THE BASTERDS!?' Because of his excessive writing, Quentin spread himself thin, and therefore devoted time to unnecessary areas when he should have been showing us more of the Basterd's exploits. Even if you love the film (as some of you undoubtedly will), mark my words, most of you will be less than pleased that you get so little time with this magnificently interesting group...it's a tease!
This is also the problem with the other actors...there isn't nearly enough of them. I don't mean to suggest that they don't have enough screen time...I'm merely saying that they don't have enough 'interesting' screen time. There are some superb actors in this film, who have absolutely NOTHING to do. This is especially evident with Diane Kruger (Bridget von Hammersmark) and the young French beauty, Melanie Laurent (Shosanna Dreyfus). In fact, the only actor with the screen time to match his marvelous performance was Chistoph Waltz (Col. Hans Landa).  The remainder of Quentin's wonderfully interesting characters are left to die (some of them literally!).  Once again, this goes back to his excessive writing with dialogue. The story is so 'talky' that it lacks a decent number of entertaining scenarios. If Quentin learned to cut his dialogue down by half, it would be a great credit to his work, saving time to add a few more meaningful predicaments for his protagonists.

Although I am less than pleased with many aspects of this film, do not let that deter you all from going. It is merely the fact that I'm an artist and writer (who was lucky enough to wind up with the most brutal editor on earth) that makes me so very critical. When you're an unusual talent, it's very important to have people in your circle, who aren't afraid to rip your heart out if it's going to make your work better. Quentin desperately needs this!

Before I close this review, let me make it clear that I DO actually like this movie. I merely have issues with it. The acting, cinematography, and characters are all magnificent.  However, because of Quentin Tarantino's style, these positive attributes come with a huge downside:
As mentioned, the film is HORRIBLY paced because of excessive talking. And, like jam spread over too much bread, the majority of the actors do not get to shine to their full potential, simply because it is so poorly paced. Also, it is inappropriately titled, for it is named after vastly interesting characters that you don't get to see much of...again, because of excessive talking in unnecessary areas! Other than those irritating aspects, the “Inglourious Basterds” is superb.

(And, as I've finished writing this review at about 1 AM, a friend just called, saying that the film was absolutely brilliant and that it's amongst his film favourites. See what I mean...mixed reviews. Aside from someone like me, who's sort of 'middle ground' with his opinion, most people's views will probably be on love/hate extremes.)

EDIT, AS OF SEPT. 03, 2009:
I have now seen the film again, and though I still like it, I haven't changed my mind. With this viewing I actually TIMED scenes, as I wanted to be sure I wasn't crazy...and I wasn't. In fact, the pacing is worse than I thought. The opening scene takes approximately 18 minutes before Quentin gets to the point, nearly 20 by the time guns are blazing. It's the same for the bar scene, except this time there was roughly 23 minutes of dialogue! TWENTY-THREE MINUTES! I mean, c'mon, man...seriously! That's 3/4 of an hour...do you all realize how much more we could have seen of the Basterds with this time?!

© Marque Terrynamahr Strickland/2009

The City of Lost Children (Cite des Enfants Perdus, La)

Though this film is now about 13 years old, I thought I'd write on it in hopes that more people will turn to this amazing bit of cinema. Even with the vast array of films that I've amassed in my mental library, this still stands out as the very best thing I've ever seen. It's been my favourite since the first I laid eyes on it, and (believe it or not) there was even a point in my life in which I was watching this film once a week for at least two years straight. Though I've only been studying French for just a short while, I could still probably recite the dialogue word for word.


This is a complex tale with several important characters and subplots. There is no way that I'll be able to touch on as much as I would like, but I will still try to give you all a general idea of what a superbly woven web of artistry this film is.

First off, I must commend Marc Caro and Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the creators, for the magnificent look to their film. Though the film has nothing at all to do with the apocalypse that is exactly what one will assume when first laying eyes on it. It looks to be a post-apocalyptic world, bathed in all shades of crimson with a perpetual setting at dusk. The clothing of the citizens in this City of Lost Children is not dirty but old and worn looking, giving the people an appearance of those who just survive or 'get by,' but by no means are they living lives of excess.
The city has the look of a gigantic slum. Though you don't really see any waste disposal sites, you get the impression that the apartments are all built upon heaps and heaps of garbage, being that everything on screen is so incredibly dirty.
Also, there's a lot of filthy green water in the film. Several of the film's most important scenes take place in or near water, making this place seem even more morbid and inaccessible due to the murky green enemy in the surroundings. Lost is quite an appropriate word in the title.


It is only a few minutes into the film that you find the story is so named after the children that are being kidnapped by the 'Cyclops' army. These men with a single mechanical eye are a cult of religious freaks employed by our antagonist, Krank, who needs the children for their dreams.
Krank is one of several brilliant creations of a mad scientist that has lost his memory and disappeared. Because Krank has never had a dream, he attempts to steal those of the children he's kidnapped. Though it is never really made clear, it appears that Krank believes this is the key to becoming more human and perhaps attaining a 'soul.' Irvin, a migraine ridden brain that resides in a fish tank, really strikes a chord with Krank when he teases him about not having a soul. Krank rebuttals and defends his terrible kidnapping crimes, saying that their creator (the missing mad scientist) was the true monster, not him. Krank feels stealing dreams is his sole option, as to him that seems the only way to attain that which he lacks.
However, Krank's plan is severely flawed. The dreams that he attains from the children are useless, because they do nothing but have nightmares…he scares them. Krank is searching for a child that is completely uninhibited and afraid of nothing. He finds such a child in Denree, the little brother of our protagonist, Mr. One.

One is a very entertaining protagonist, as he is a gigantic, muscle-bound man that is truly just a big softy who loves his little brother and wants him back. Often referred to as idiot, big moron, and Cro-Magnon, One is humorous to the last-the type who chastises himself and beats up things whilst doing so. He is especially funny when drowning his sorrows in liquor at a local bar.
"Radiator!"
(That's an inside joke. You'll have to watch the film in order to understand it…Imagine it said with a French accent too!)

Along with his sidekick, Miette, who he later adopts as his little sister, One goes on a hunt for his kidnapped little brother, Denree…

I refuse to give anymore than this away, as I'm expecting you all to actually SEE the movie! All you need to know is that the remainder of the film is a melting pot of humorously dark fantasy with visuals that are to die for…especially the 'Flee Assassin' scenes.
Also, I think I should point out another of Marc Caro and Jean-Pierre Jeunet's trademarks, which you can always count on seeing at least once in their films-the chain reactions. Never before have you seen the like of these in a live action film, I guarantee you! They are so good that the only comparisons you'll probably be able to make are to those of the "Looney Tunes" cartoons. Imagine a chain reaction, in which a little girl's tear drop results in a cargo ship smashing into a dock, obliterating it completely. This is what you all have to look forward to…you will not be disappointed. The chain reactions are that detailed and creative!


Marc Caro and Jean-Pierre Jeunet are brilliant, and I highly recommend all works by this amazing duo. You can't go wrong with the magnificent Amelie; Delicatessen; or A Very Long Engagement. All are solid films. However, before any of these, I employ you to see my favourite film of all time. Incredibly lush visuals, combined with one of the most creative stories ever written, The City of Lost Children is a must see for any 'art film' or 'fantasy' enthusiast.

© Marque Terrynamahr Strickland/Moviespot Magazine 2008

Some of you lot had valid points (even though you are NOT going to make me change my mind, as you'll clearly see towards the bottom. The bottom line is that you do NOT go into a film, like Transformers, expecting to see 'ART.' Shit, you're lucky if you get that from any summer film!).  

This rebuttal I found particularly interesting...
HYPNOS'S RESPONSE:
"It was a complete piece of shit. The only thing that would have made me happy is if they cut out all the human actors and stuck with the robots. Every time Shia or any of the other people opened their mouths i just wanted to shoot myself, the dialogue was horrible.

"They're acting as if they wanted a film with no story!" and that's exactly what they got. I wasn't going in there expecting much from Michael Bay, i knew that explosions were going to be used to cover up a shallow plot and apparently the poorly written dialogue.

"The middle portion of the film is so well written, you are not human if it doesn't entertain you. Hence, you have no business going to summer, action blockbusters in the first damn place!"

So if we recognize poorly written dialogue that's passed off as genius by someone who doesn't even know how to write a review and instead just nerd-rants about the film they just saw, then we shouldn't see summer blockbusters?

I find it funny that people dismiss flaws in movies as "oh, well, it's alright, because it's a summer blockbuster". Is there some unwritten rule that states that movies made for summer releases shouldn't be critiqued as harshly as films made during other seasons, or that summer is reserved for the general populace that knows nothing about film?"


MY RESPONSE:
"So if we recognize poorly written dialogue that's passed off as genius by someone who doesn't even know how to write a review and instead just nerd-rants about the film they just saw, then we shouldn't see summer blockbusters?"

Dude, I specifically said that as far as artistry goes, there's much out there that exceeds this. When you go to something like this, you don't expect the brilliance of CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, CITIZEN KANE, or AMERICAN BEAUTY. Bottom line. And you most certainly shouldn't go if you're not a fan, which I can tell you aren't.
First of all, if I consider something 'GENIUS,' like the above mentioned films, you better believe I'll say it. Being extraordinarily entertained by something that's ridiculous is completely different, as you clearly don't understand. You're an an 'art film' buff, I can tell, because you talk like one. See me, I'm film buff, period. Art films are my favourite, yes. But that doesn't stop me from being able to enjoy something with an intellectual stimulus level that is nearly sub-human. That's the difference between you and I. Don't be like these clown ass critics that I dissed, dude, because you're clearly smarter than that. The reason I have no respect for them is because, by nature, most critics are jaded. They would LOVE to be able to CREATE, and since they cannot (for whatever reason, albeit a lack of talent, enthusiasm, etc.) they are left with no alternative except to rip things apart that they wish they could do themselves. They go in expecting to hate the movie, even HOPING to do so! The film is defeated before they even take their seats. And that's why they get no respect from me. Most critics are critics, because they're slightly jealous.
Again, WHY did you go this film when you are clearly not a fan? As an art film person, you understand what a great story is, so you KNEW what to expect.  And don't tell me you didn't, because I'm not an idiot. It seems that you went specifically so that you could have some sort of response to those who are ranting and raving about its entertainment value. So in that sense, you share similarities to the average critic-though not in a bad way, as artistic folks are allowed to be critical.  You can create, and you're clearly not a mindless, bubblehead fool, who takes shots at things other people make, simply out of jealousy. So therefore your opinion is valid to me. But what I'm saying is that you CLEARLY defeated the film before you even saw it...and I KNOW you did.

"Is there some unwritten rule that states that........summer is reserved for the general populace that knows nothing about film?"
The answer to your question is 'YES.' And that, my friend, you should know simply because of the fact that all the wonderfully crafted films that they KNOW are going to be OSCAR NOMINATED are released towards the end of the year...and don't tell me that you haven't noticed that trend, because you'd be lying.
As far as summer movies go...my Hollywood writing partner can attest to this...you would not believe how many meetings are held everyday, in which the studio execs talk about how poorly written a film is, but they put it into production anyway because of the fact that they know they can dazzle people with eye candy. The attitude is "blow shit up, and we can make a gazillion dollars, no matter how bad it sucks!"

Getting back to ROTF, I know you knew what to expect, dude.  You don't go see a films like that for amazing dialogue, are you crazy? You go simply for mindless entertainment, and ENTERTAINING it was. But, like I said, you wouldn't notice, because in your mind you'd already beat the film up before you even sat in your seat. I can tell you did just by the way you talk. And don't give me any nonsense, telling me that you expected a film in which they put as much effort into 'story' as 'effects,' because that's bullshit. An 'art film' lover ALWAYS knows the difference between 'art' and 'fluff,' so I know you knew what to expect from the film. But just so you could have some sort of response to people who are ecstatic over the movie, you went in and noticed all of the awful things, which YOU SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED TO SEE IN THE FIRST PLACE...so, again, in that sense, you share many similarities with critics.

(I may be arrogant, but at least not mindlessly so...I know what I'm talking about.)
-M
Oh, by the way, keep in mind that with movies as bad as "Ghost Rider" and "Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun Li" in the world, movies like Transformers will always have a scapegoat. Always.