At Long Last

For all of you who may have wondered… and wondered… and wondered

“…Just what does SDG think of The Wicker Man…?”

…now, at last, the truth can be told.

Review of the 1973 original by Robin Hardy

Review of the 2006 remake by Neil LaBute

Also, for all of you who wondered, “Why does SDG keep The Wicker Man in ‘Other Coming Adds’ for months on end, into years?“…

…well, this is the best answer I can give.

With apologies to all who watched that space for so long, wondering what on earth was wrong with me … and to those who, reading the reviews now, may still wonder.

Of Raiders and Crystal Skulls

Why RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is the greatest action–adventure film in history.

Why INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is worth catching.

Eight years ago, before Decent Films existed, I jotted down a few quick sentences on Raiders as part of a list of 35 or so movies I particularly liked and recommended. Those sentences wound up on the first version of Decent Films, and have remained on the site ever since… until yesterday, when I finally posted a full-length review. I hope to get around to writing up Temple of Doom and Last Crusade sometime soon… I’ll have to see how it goes.

Incidentally, it occurs to me that as an "action–adventure film," Raiders straddles two overlapping but distinct genres: Not all adventure films are action films, and not all action films are adventure films.

For instance, consider Star Wars and Die Hard. Star Wars is a classic adventure story, but I wouldn’t call it an "action film." Likewise, Die Hard is one of the pinnacles of action moviemaking, but I wouldn’t call it "adventure."

Raiders, on the other hand, is clearly both action and adventure. That’s part of the reason that, while all three are four-star classics in my book (though Die Hard in particular certainly isn’t for everyone), Raiders would probably make my personal all-time top 10 list, if I ever drew one up, while Star Wars and Die Hard wouldn’t. (They’d probably make the top 100, though.)

A Little Cylon Speculation

Ellen_tigh_1I’ve been thinking for a while about doing a post on who I think the final cylon is. I’ve even started the post at least once, but I haven’t finished it.

This post isn’t it, by the way. (So let’s not speculate on who the final cylon is in the combox; let’s save that for next time.)

But I thought I would do a little bit of speculating about who is a cylon in this post, and I think that the woman on the left is.

Who is she?

Well, it’s Ellen Tigh, wife of Col. Saul Tigh.

Why do I think she’s a cylon? A big reason is that there was a lot of hinting in the very first episode she appeared in that she is a cylon.

Remember? She was found mysteriously on one of the ships of the ragtag fleet, unconscious, with nobody remembering how she got there. Then she wakes up and is brought to the Galactica, where she proceeds to bring out all the worst aspects of her husband, like a cylon sleeper agent might want to do to undermine fleet command.

And to settle the question of whether she is a cylon, Dr. Baltar gives her his cylon-detector test and publicly says that she’s a human but privately admits to Head Six that the test may have indicated otherwise but that he’ll "never tell" if it did.

So there’s all that.

It later became clear that, if Ellen was a cylon, she wasn’t a sleeper agent who knew what she was doing, because she was willing to risk everything to help her husband during the cylon occupation of New Caprica. Or at least she didn’t care about betraying cylons to help her husband.

But that’s not a problem since not all cylon sleeper agents know that they’re cylons. The original Sharon "Boomer" Valerii, for example, did not know she was a cylon and others, like Sharon "Athena" Valerii have sided with humans against cylons.

So things were looking pretty inconclusive regarding Ellen, until . . .

"Wait!" you say, "I haven’t seen any season 4 episodes! Don’t spoil this for me!"

Okay.

I won’t.

Stop reading now.

"Wait!" you say, "How can you say this post isn’t going to be about who the final cylon is if you’re about to say that Ellen Tigh is a cylon? Wouldn’t her being a cylon mean that she’s the final cylon?"

No, because I think she’s just a version of one of the cylons that has already been established.

Specifically: I think she’s a Six.

She’s just an older version of Six–perhaps one of the first Sixes to be made.

After all, the Sixes don’t all look the same. Even when they’re played by Tricia Helfer, they look different. Some, like the "Gina" Six (the one who was on the Pegasus and later set off the nuke) or the current "Natalie" Six (the one leading the cylon resistance to the Ones, Fours, and Fives) wear their hair notably different than the platinum blond curls of Caprica Six or Head Six (and Head Six herself has worn her hair differently, as she did in the episode where she got Baltar to get the brainscan that convinced him she wasn’t a chip in his wetware).

So Sixes don’t all have to have an identical physical appearance, and thus there might be older versions of some models that have aged in a way that simulates human aging.

But that’s not the core reason.

The core reason is that in the recent episode "Escape Velocity," Col. Tigh interrogates Caprica Six in her cell on the Galactica and, during the course of the event, starts hallucinating that Caprica Six is Ellen.

What they did was bring back the actress who plays Ellen and got her dressed up and coiffed as Caprica Six, platinum blond curls and all.

And, wow, is it convincing.

There are moments, watching the transitions between Six and Ellen, when you say "Which actress am I looking at here? They’re so close once you put the same hair on them!"

And then there’s this . . .

The characters act the same.

They’re both highly manipulative and willing to use their feminine wiles to achieve their ends.

Also, neither seems to mind the concept of extra-marital affairs as long as some kind of fundamental love/loyalty-to-one-spouse isn’t compromised.

And–perhaps most uniquely–they’re both manipulating their Significant Others to make something more of themselves in the world.

I mean, think about it: From the moment Head Six shows up, she starts manipulating Gaius Baltar to ensure that he assumes his "destiny," right?

And from the moment Ellen Tigh shows up, she starts manipulating Saul to get him to assume command of the fleet/increase his influence and power, right?

Both of them are catty, morally loose manipulators who are trying to drive their chosen men reluctantly into positions of prominence and power.

So, not only do they look the same, they act the same. They have the same basic personality and modus operandi.

Okay, that’s it.

Unless the creators of the show choose to establish otherwise on screen, as far as I’m concerned, Ellen Tigh is simply a more mature Six.

Which makes her story all the more interesting.

A new rhyming review

SDG here with my new Seussian review of Horton Hears a Who (opening today).

My habit of reviewing Dr. Seuss adaptations in Seussian anapestic tetrameter began eight years ago with the Jim Carrey How the Grinch Stole Christmas, which I felt deserved to be trashed, if not in the good Doctor’s own voice, at least in a reasonable facsimile thereof.

A couple of years later I continued the conceit with Scooby-Doo, this time writing to the tune of the well-known Scooby-Doo theme song. (This approach permitted only 24 lines in a very limited meter, so I cheated by adding line-by-line annotations. However, it did allow me to sing a review on the air.)

Then the following year I went back to Seussian verse for the Mike Myers The Cat in the Hat.

This time, though, my Horton review is a bit different from these previous efforts.

How?

Three ways: First, the first three were all of live-action films; this one’s a computer-animated cartoon. Second, the earlier Seuss adaptations were both Universal; this one is 20th Century Fox.

Neither of those is the big difference, though (although the big difference is certainly impacted by the first, and possibly by the second).

So what’s the big difference with this review?

IT’S POSITIVE. Never got to recommend a movie in verse before.

Enjoy!

The Tripods are Coming

Tripods
Kewl! The Tripods,
the science fiction trilogy by John Christopher (real name Samuel
Youd), is one of the stories well known and oft quoted in our
household. My son even named his cat Ozzy, after the character
Ozymandias. We read the books and watched the BBC TV series until the
venerable VHS tape finally gave up the ghost a few years ago. We hadn’t
given it much thought for a while, until my son found some video clips
on YouTube. It was fun rediscovering the series and covering old,
familiar ground. I’ll have to look around and see if the series may be
found on DVD.

It occurred to me, after reading some comments on YouTube (always an
intellectual treat) that the themes of the book could be interpreted as
a slam at religion. I’d considered the idea before, but dismissed it, however
that was before Hitchens, Dawkins and Pullman labored to make the world
safe for anti-religious bigotry, dragged it out of the closet and onto
the New York Times Bestseller list.

For those unfamiliar with the story, the world has been conquered
completely by aliens who travel around in gigantic tripods (okay, not
terribly original, but consider it flattery to H.G. Wells) and the
population are kept in line through the use of an electronic wire mesh
"cap" that is stamped onto their cranium around the age of 16 (when
young folk typically begin having serious rebellious thoughts) and that
makes them content, docile and obedient to the tripods. The cap keeps
them from thinking in certain ways, eliminates violent and deceitful
thoughts, but also wonder and inventiveness. Human kind is restricted
to about an 18th century level of technology. The heroes run away as
their "capping day" draws near, in search of a secret enclave of human
resistance,  based on nothing but a rumor and a map picked up from a
"vagrant" (a human whose capping has gone wrong, they are considered
insane).

I never interpreted the story as anti-religious, and in fact saw the
cap in much broader terms as the common tendency for the Spirit of the
Age (any age) to become tyrannical and oppressive, or the readiness of
people to give up thinking for themselves in exchange for the promise
of peace and safety. These are human themes into which religion of one
kind or another might figure… or not.

If the story was meant as a veiled anti-religious screed, it’s
odd that an unabashed religionist like myself would find so much in the
story to relate to and delight in. To me, the Map could just as well
represent Holy Scripture, the Resistance the Church, and the Cap
atheistic materialism. I always assumed that once a person was capped,
religious impulses would be the first thing to go.

I Googled around a bit  and couldn’t find any blatantly anti-religious sentiments attributable to to Mr. Youd (aka John Christopher), but I’d be interested to hear from someone who may know more.

Visit Tim Jones’ blog, "Old World Swine"

The Kind of Story that Vatican TV Really Should Not Do

Popefire_2Okay, so they were having a bonfire in Poland on April 2 (which happens to be the anniversary of JP2’s death) and a guy snapped pictures of the flames and later, after looking at the pictures back home, decided that one looks like John Paul II and must be some kind of manifestation from beyond the grave and Vatican TV does a story on it, complete with an endorsement from a Polish priest saying that’s what it is.

This is the kind of story that Vatican TV really shouldn’t do.

Even if they ran the story with all kinds of disclaimers, those disclaimers won’t make it through into the popular media. The mere fact that Vatican News Service is carrying this story will be taken as indicating that the Vatican supports this interpretation of the bondfire image.

This is bad because it strains credulity enough to have saintly images appearing in tortillas an pieces of toast and on the sides of buildings. Finding one in an image of something as dynamic and as constantly-changing-in-shape as fire is completely beyond the bounds. If you take enough pictures of any bonfire, you’ll be able to find such images in it.

And then there is the fact that fire isn’t exactly the most . . . er . . . traditional symbol of what it’s like in heaven. I mean, if you want a message that JP2 is in heaven rather than . . . one of the hotter regions . . . is a bonfire the best place for such a message?

This is just superstition, and the Vatican News Service abetted it, wittingly or unwittingly.

GET THE STORY.

(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)

The Nattering Nabobs of Know-Nothingism

TheviewcurrentI have never seen an episode of ABC TV’s The View.

Until Rosie O’Donnell got in trouble on it, I hadn’t even heard of the program, though it’s apparently been on for more than ten years.

From reading about the show and seeing clips of it, I have, however, come to hold a very low opinion of it.

What I have seen and read about the show leads me to the conclusion that it is shallow and bubble-headed and frequently shameful, embarrassing, and even disgusting. In other words, it swings between the two extremes of insipid, inconsequential fluff, often with prurient undertones, to completely idiotic attempts to take on serious subjects by a group of commentators who don’t have the first clue what they’re talking about.

Since the commentators are also all women, the show is clearly aimed at a female audience, and if I were a woman, I’d be insulted that ABC thinks this is the kind of junk that I’d be interested in.

The show also seems to deliberately stir up controversy in order to attract ratings by hiring sick puppies like Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg (note that it’s Barbara Walters in the clip who first introduces a disgusting suggestion, which Goldberg then amplifies and makes even worse; there’s plenty of sick puppyism to go around on this show).

So it comes as no surprise that, if this pack of intellectual mendicants (not in the good sense, in which Dominicans are intellectual mendicants) were to choose to take on the subject of Archbishop Raymond Burke’s statement that he would deny Rudy Giuliani Holy Communion that they’d make more errors than you could shake a stick at.

And they did.

Reading the following transcript of part of yesterday’s show (which sure sounds authentic, though I haven’t been able to verify that yet, so caveat emptor,though I have partial confirmation from another source) is like playing one of those "How many things can you find wrong in this picture?" games.

Man, is it painful!

ABC–and its owner, the Disney corporation–should be ashamed of itself that it’s putting out this kind of offensive and brainless twaddle.

Since the hosts of The View obviously don’t have a clue, ABC should get one and cancel the show.

Transcript below the fold (CHT to the reader who e-mailed).

Continue reading “The Nattering Nabobs of Know-Nothingism”