Change Your Image
spiderspinner
Reviews
Dune: Part Two (2024)
Slower Paced Than Someone Sand Walking
I read the first two books in the series in the early '70s and saw David Lynch's movie sometime in the '80s. I was prepared to be impressed (due to all the glowing reviews and box office success that Dune Parts 1 and 2 received). I just watched them back to back and have to say I am mightily UNimpressed. Since I only remember the major plot points I wasn't necessarily irked by what appear to be substantial changes in characterization as noted by other reviewers, although I do miss the powerful, lisping child Alia from Lynch's movie. (By the time the kid's born in this movie she's already going to be, like, 3 years old!)
Sadly, there was a whole lot of other stuff that was very irksome indeed. I thought the acting was no more than passable, with Chalamet's performance drier than Arrakis itself.
The special effects look good but by now gorgeous special effects are par for the course. Although - since so much of the movie took place at dusk or night or indoors - you often couldn't really see much anyway, so there's that.
A gripe: How come if you stick a single thumper in the sand in about a minute and a half you've got a huge worm approaching and yet, you can have a few hundred fighters charging in all directions as they fight hand to hand, like so many two-legged hors d'oeuvres... and what? There's only deaf sandworms in that area?
And another: What's with all this sword fighting, anyway? You telling me they couldn't invent a projectile gun or a ray weapon that would somehow slow down just at the point of reaching its target so as to enter the vaunted personal force field / aura? Even if not, a lot of the bad guys are shown dying, their force fields dimming as somebody slashes them with a swiftly whizzing sword which is being wielded at such speed that it never should have gotten through the force field at all.
Also: The movie is at pains to show (as in the book) that you have to be careful in the desert to "sand walk" so as not to attract any worms. Except of course when you don't have to be doing that at all: like during the aforementioned fighting or when somebody may traipse up (and not "sand traipse", either) a very high dune (to get yet another glorious view - and is this the first such shot or the 15th milking of same? - into the distance) and apparently no worm can detect it. Maybe they had all just had a really big dinner?
All in all I thought it was a pretty boring movie and the first one, while better, wasn't all that exciting, either. So, after this snoozefest _finally_ approaches its end we realize there's going to have to be a Part 3 before you get anything to actually happen in the Holy War? Not for me, thanks.
Happy Birthday, Bob (1978)
I Saw The Dress Rehearsal and Was There That Night (My Personal Recollections)
My ex's brother-in-law was James Lipton, who was an executive producer of this truly star-studded tribute show. I saw the dress rehearsal from the second row and also was in the audience for the live show. It was amazing to be so close to so many legends, Lucille Ball and Dorothy Lamour among them. At the dress, when (for the second time) someone interrupted Ms. Ball as she went through her segment, she reacted by giving a classic I Love Lucy type of "reaction take" and a voice came over the speaker system to say, "We'll give Ms. Ball her notes after her performance". I (selfishly) most recall when, during the broadcast, Tony Orlando went into the audience to interview the head of the USO. The General was seated one row behind me... so I got on camera., too! Later at the after party, I was seated at a table munching away when who should happen to seat himself at an open place right next to me but... Danny Thomas!!! I was agog, let me tell you. I got autographs from Charo, Charles Nelson Reilly and Telly Savales. And on a separate souvenir program I got an autograph from Mr. Hope himself.
These memories of something that happened over 40 years ago are still very fresh in my mind; so when I say the experience was unforgettable, you know I am not kidding!
Saturday Night Live (1975)
Wasn't The Writers' Strike Supposed to Have Been Settled Already?
I am just now, one hour in, bailing on the first episode of this new season for SNL. It has always been "hit or miss" in re: the sketches - far too often miss; if not for the opener and WU, the show is best viewed when you have the chance to fast forward the unfunnny parts (and don't get me started on the so-called "musical" guests). But I fugured I'd give it a chance as they have had, you know, months with no show and I figured those writers must have been sitting on so many great ideas during the hiatus... but, no. It's like it's the workers' spouses doing the writing or something. Sorry, but a big MISS for me. And how many times is poor Pete Davidson gonna bring up the horrible tragedy of his heroic father's death, even if here he can credibly shoehorn it into a discussion of the Israel/Hamas war?
Mama's Boy: A Story from Our Americas (2022)
Outstanding Documentary!
Before watching "Mama's Boy", I was aware that Mr. Black had won an Oscar for writing "Milk", about the gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk. I was also aware of his relationship with the charming, uber-cute British diver, Tom Daley, and that there is a large age difference between the two. And that was pretty much it.
The structure of this documentary is such that I have come away with what feels like a deep understanding of what makes Mr. Black tick, as well as an appreciation of the obstacles he has overcome. He describes his mother as having a "strong heart" and it is clear that her good-heartedness is a trait that she passed on to her children. The documentary focuses primarily on his mother, and from that life, on the family she created despite almost overwhelming odds. The narrative flow is very smooth as it derives from a strictly linear chronology (excepting the very opening scene), and the use of in-person interviews and family records rounds out the storytelling quite effectively.
For me, the only unanswered question was why Mr. Black, after changing his surname to the name of his first stepfather - and, given his natural father's behavior, rejecting his birth name seems completely understandable - felt no similar desire (given, once revealed, that latter man's far worse behavior) to instead honor the man (his mother's third husband) who was a loving husband and better father than the first two combined. In other words, I would think he would rather be known as Dustin Lance Bisch.
Ultimately , the story we witness is positive and uplifting. I recommend this documentary, and not just to the GLBTQ community and their allies, but to all those whose opinions are not set in stone. Mr. Black shows how bridge-building is always possible, and, indeed, common ground is the "land" we all hope to arrive at, and all can thrive on.
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022)
Well, At Least It's a Genre Show... But With Major Flaws
Full disclosure 1: I created this IMDb account specifically to be able to comment on this series.
Full disclosure 2: My first reading of "The Lord of the Rings" was in 1971 and since then I've been an avid fan of all Tolkien's Middle-earth writings.
Full disclosure 3: I enjoyed Jackson's LotR trilogy (the Extended Editions, to be sure) despite the many non-canon revisions (e.g., no Tom Bombadil; Elves fighting at Helm's Deep; no Scouring of the Shire) because it was clear Jackson knew the source material very well (and indeed lifted many passages and lines of dialog directly from the book - to the movies' benefit).
"The Lord of the Rings - The Rings of Power" is (mostly, and especially for the visuals) fun to watch - but NOT as a story about the Second Age of Middle-earth; rather this seems to be the Second Age of some alternate Middle-earth: let's call it "Middle-earth II". Even though, in advance of its release, I had read that the Tolkien Estate required the story not to alter what Tolkien had written about the Second Age (and, when you consider things like the "Unfinished Tales" and the published "Letters", there is a LOT of published material). The producers were allowed, or so I understood, to develop new characters and story lines that did not contradict canon. Surely, that left lots of room for creativity in those 3,441 years of the Second Age!
But this is exactly the opposite of what has happened. Contradictions to the written history of the Second Age abound - almost beyond counting.
An increasingly and annoyingly lengthy list of them revolve around the show's main character, Galadriel. Short Galadriel? Galadriel on Numenor shortly before its Downfall? Galadriel not shown as the Lady of Lothlorien (and, per "Unfinished Tales", by the time of the show's story she had been in Lorien for about 2,000 years)? How can the Tolkien Estate possibly permit any of this?
This multi-Season series - potentially with so much history to reveal - starts not, as one might expect, at the beginning of the Age but, rather, near its very end. How they are going to stretch this out for years of episodes seems impossible without slowing the story line(s) to a very boring and hugely padded crawl.
The acting is passable so far. CGI and costumes are at least OK.
Overall, I just tell myself this is NOT Tolkien but rather "inspired by" - although often (poorly) imitative of - him and I can then watch it pleasurably, even though much of what it shows and where it seems to be going is disappointing.
But, overall, it seems like a golden opportunity to create something that Tolkien's fans will enjoy (if not treasure) has been intentionally squandered.