Return of High Adventure

I always loved high adventure films and stories.  You know, James Bond, Indiana Jones and the like.  They all owe their origins to the fiction pulps of the 1930s  through 1950s, movie serials of the 1940s and many radio programs of that era as well.

Well here comes a new book that recreates the fast-paced style and improbable cliff hangers of the high adventure genre.  THE RETURN OF THE OWL is available now in book Kindle and paperback format from Amazon.com
 http://www.amazon.com/Return-Owl-Adventures-ebook/dp/B006VWSVMK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1327765587&sr=8-3

It will absolutely fry you with its clever style and plot twists.  Plus it is a terrifically fun read.  And it is only a buck!

Check it out.

Running James Bond

Despite the fact that MGM is struggling to survive (as a new owner is sought) and the future of the James Bond film series hangs in this balance, the owners of the Bond property (Ian Fleming's estate) have continued efforts to at least keep the literary Bond alive.  


The cool Website "MI6"  http://www.mi6.co.uk/mi6.php3 has the official announcement that US author Jeffery Deaver will be carrying on the Fleming tradition:

American author Jeffery Deaver has been named as the new James Bond continuation author by Ian Fleming    Publications.

He has already started writing the book, which is out next May, and promised it would retain "the persona of James Bond as Fleming created him and the unique tone the author brought to his books", while also incorporating his own "literary trademarks: detailed research, fast pacing and surprise twists".

This had me thinking about the previous Bond authors.

• Kingsly Amis apparently wrote the first official non-Fleming Bond book "Colonel Sun".  It is a bold and brash read and very Ian Fleming in it's style.
• John Gardner picked up the mantle in the 1980's and did a credible, though mixed job.  The best of his Bond books had more of a cinematic flavor than any that Fleming wrote.
• Raymond Benson was next.  Benson had written some interesting materials related to the films and authored a few Bond computer games.  His take on Bond read more like "Man From UNCLE" than the Man From MI6.   But they were well-constructed, exciting novels.  Both Benson and Gardner needed to slog through dreary adaptations of Bond films.
• Sebastian Faulks delivered "Devil May Care" a few years ago.  Not content to say he was writing a Fleming/Bond pastiche, the book took the audacious perspective that Faulks was "writing as Ian Fleming".  My opinion...not even close.  What Faulks did was to take Bond back several decades into Fleming's Bond era.  Sort of Bond meets "Mad Men".  The story itself was a bit pedestrian .

There have been a few other authors along the way, but now comes the announcement that Jeffery Deaver will be JB's handler.


Deaver is a New York Times Bestselling author of the Lincoln Rhymes novels and is an old hand at solid, atmospheric mysteries.  His supporting characters are mere cardboard most of the time, but his stories are pretty solid and well-thought through.  I am personally looking forward to reading his first Bond novel.




M

Tarnishing TV's Current Golden Age

There has been much discussion in the past about defining TV's "Golden Age" -- a series of years where television entertain consistently reached the pinnacle of entertainment, art, good story telling, etc.  There are cases to be made that this happened in the late '50s (great writing, superb talent), mid-to-late-'60s and now, there is talk that the best TV has been seen in the last decade.

I would refute this point -- for the fact of ubiquitousness of Reality TV alone -- which to me has always been a mad scientist's cross breeding of "Beat The Clock" and the "Newlywed Game" taken outside of the studio.

However, this decade has also introduced us to unique forms of story telling and big-budget, movie quality production values of four series that have changed the environment of scripted series:  "24" and "Lost" and "Law and Order" and "Modern Family".  While the first three are having their good-bye moments this year, they have spawned real change in our perceptions of good TV drama.  You can see their influences everywhere and hopefully, hopefully, their quality alone will continue to keep the bar set high.

There have been decent sitcoms in the past, some funnier than others, but "Modern Family" has reinvigorated our  sense of subtle comic acting by a large ensemble cast coalescing into something that is very funny, charming heartwarming and resonant.  It is very tough to keep the quality of sitcoms high ... but I have faith the strong cast (top to bottom fabulous) and the only slightly bent view of real life, will keep "Family" modern. "Cheers" did it, as did "Frasier" and to a slightly lesser extent so did "Everyone Love Raymond" and "The Cosby Show".  But, "Modern Family" plays more to our hearts than our funny bones, and in being so honest, makes us laugh.


Mub

24 is 86-ed

I read today was the final day of filming for the TV series "24".  Although it looks like the movie version is in the works (will they call it "2"?).

TV shows are no the sort of thing that get me to was too nostalgic, and "24" was a decent series that you could count on for at least half of it's episodes.  But it really tried to do something different in the TV world.  And it should be remembered for that bit of groundbreaking if nothing else.

The first season of "24" was really different, exciting and well acted and well plotted.  The same was true for most of season (or "day") 2.  But the remainder of the series run was really a pale imitation of itself.  Not a parody of itself -- an imitation.  It looked and smelled like "24", but it was slow and preposterous where it should have been nail-biting and realistic.

Still, it was always a notch better than most TV programming at its time.

Farewell to Jack B and company.  And, Kim, may you never come face to face with another cougar.


M

Dan Brown and the Lost Ability to Write Thrillers

I read and finished Dan Brown's latest opus "The Lost Symbol" months ago. It has taken me this long to comment on it because of the time needed for my brain to recover. Generally speaking, it was a poor version of "The Da Vinci Code" which wasn't that great to begin with (see my 2005 review below).

To me, the biggest mystery here is why are we buying soooo many copies of these poorly conceived, poorly written and even more poorly edited books? It is too easy to fault the writers, but in their minds they are delivering what they perceive their public wants (successfully too if you believe the sales numbers).

It just rankles me that we've lost touch with what makes good thrillers -- or the good thrillers being written today are not getting the play needed to be be widely discovered/read. I would encourage anyone reading this blog to search out and read these gripping thrillers and positively review them on websites like Amazon, etc. I'll be talking about a few of my recent favorites in an upcoming post.

Here is my post from a few years back (I dug it out of the bowels of an old laptop -- an appropriate metaphor, by the way):

My Eyeballs Still Burn From the "Da Vinci Code"

I can't believe that after a few years Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" is STILL way up there on the bestseller charts. I am now more convinced than ever in the theory of putting nine monkeys in front of typewriters and eventually ending up with "War and Peace".

Mr. Brown, it seems, has at least three monkeys working for him.

The Da Vinci Code is a horrible suspense story, a terrible "historical" novel, an awfully researched bit of contemporary fiction and the biggest waste of anybody's valuable time. Ever.

It is so poorly written, one has to wonder how much Brown's editors were drinking while working. Turn to any page, find some dialogue and read it out loud. You will be amazed at how stupid you will sound. Even on the parts where the characters attempt to sound intelligent, you will sound stupid. Nobody talks this way. Especially characters who are ostensibly smart.

The plot is so predictable one is somewhat reminded of the serials from Republic pictures -- but the crummy serials only. You may have seen some of these: they end a chapter with a cliff-hanger, but the resolution in the next chapter "cheats"; it has been fudged enough to allow for an impossible solution (I once saw a "Captain Marvel" episode. Captain Marvel is supposed to be as invulnerable as Superman. During a fight scene, Captain Marvel is slammed with a chair to his head. He collapses onto a conveyer belt that leads to a giant circular saw. Oh no! To be continued! Next chapter: Cap's head reaches the saw. Being invulnerable, his head mangles the saw and breaks the conveyer system. Hunh?! Wasn't this the same guy who in the earlier chapter got knocked-out by a folding chair? C'mon..!)

Dan Brown never ever answers the question to the biggest mystery: why are people (still) buying this book? Is there a religious element? Maybe a rebellion? Or has the public been mesmerized in such a fashion they will feel "left out" if they don't purchase this book?

Must buy book ...

Must buy book...

Must buy book...

Zombies. Brown's Zombie Army. That's what they are.

If you haven't been sucked (or suckered) in yet, don't waste your time. Don't let "Da Vinci" lobatomize you.

Hope that Mr. Brown regains some respect for the public and gives us more readable material in the future (his earlier stuff wasn't bad, and "Angels and Demons" was actually a decent read).

M

May Sweeps Me

That annual TV circus known as "May Sweeps" begins tonight and runs through the end of May. Season and series finales have mostly replaced the running of big name variety shows and red-hot controversial documentaries, but the purpose is the same: to show advertisers (and the folks who book the Prime Time time) that the Networks can still draw millions of eyeballs (demographically diverse, of course) to their programming.

There are a few interesting things I'm looking forward to this year.

• "Fox Rocks" week. Where all of Fox's scripted shows will feature musical numbers It's an interesting concept ("Cop Rock," anyone?), but I think it would work better if Fox's musical shows also ditched their singing. How about Shakespeare week for "American Idol? (Actually given this years's lame passel of singers, I'd rather have Marcel Marceau week). Maybe the kids on "Glee" could put on an Edward Albee play? That's gotta be better than the thought of the cast of "Fringe" belting out musical numbers (Hey, how about "People are Strange"?)
• May 9th - Mother's day is celebrated with a finale of "The Amazing Race" and ... the best gift ever ... the end of "America's Funniest Home Videos" Hard to believe that show is still on (after 20 years). Even harder to believe anyone still cares about it (apparently not to many folks do which is why it end May 9th).
• Scott Bakula returns for a two-part season-ender for "Chuck" (May 17th). A cool show, surprisingly well made and acted with verve and heart. Let's hope NBC does the right thing and renews it for season 4.
• May 24th is the end of the road for Jack Bauer and "24". A great concept and a well executed series that sadly became a "Groundhog's Day" version of itself. If you miss the show when it's over, scowl into the nearest mirror and yell "DO IT! NOW!"
• The next night wraps up "American Idol" and the great drama find of this season, "The Good Wife".
• Of course, "Lost" finally wraps up with an entire evening (!!) dedicated to this terrific series (Sunday May 23rd). Two hours of recap and two hours of finale. I'm hoping for a great pay-off and a memorable closing scene that we'll be talking about for a long time. Though I don't know how any series will ever top the ends of "St. Elsewhere" or "Newhart".

Are you excited about Sweeps 2010?

ME

The Perfect Movie Comedy in 90 Minutes or Less

Check it out... the best movie comedies typically run about 90 minutes. The Marx Brothers films (like "Duck Soup"), "Dr. Strangelove", early (funny) Woody Allen movies, "Blazing Saddles", the "Airplane" and "Police Squad" movies all clock in in the 90 - 95 time range.

There are some major exceptions, of course. The comedy that tops AFI's Top 100 Comedies list is exactly two hours. That would be Billy Wilder's "Some Like It Hot" and the uber-comedy "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" has a running time of 2 hours and forty-one minutes ... but it seems like 90 minutes!

The aforementioned Woody Allen once said in an interview that no comedy should last much longer than an hour and a half. When I heard this, I began a significant period of research (OK, I spent an hour) and checked the running times of my favorite comedies and of many purported comedies. Sure enough, the vast majority of my faves fell into the 90 - 100 minute time frame.

Why is this?

Well, for one, if a picture has a comedic premise or sharp, comedic dialog, it is a very difficult thing to sustain over a period of time. Tune into any "Saturday Night Live" episode and you'll see what I mean. The comic premise of most sketches can't even last more than a few minutes (but they milk it anyway).

Or try to watch a marathon of your favorite sitcom. After an episode or two, it is tough to stay interested, let alone laugh at something you may have thought was funny when you saw it first run.

In Hollywood, many experienced script readers or savvy producers look at the page count of new comedy scripts handed to them. One producer told me if a script is a comedy and it's longer than 100 pages he'll send it back to the screenwriter unread and tell the writer to "give it a haircut first." (In a properly formatted screenplay, each page is equal to 1 on-screen minute).

So why, then, are so many successful comedies of recent years over two hours long? You can chalk it up to Hollywood egos, the needs for the stars to be on-screen longer, or even a lack of craft.

I think it's simpler. These films just don't stack up to the successful comedies of the past (and not too distant past). The majority of the filmgoers today -- teenagers- haven't had the pleasure of seeing these movies, and they have no desire to see them. However when they are introduced to the classics of the Zucker Brothers, or the Marx Brothers or Hope and Crosby or many others, they laugh and laugh and laugh.

And they say how great these films are. And how they don't make 'em like they used to.

But then they buy another ticket to watch another movie stretching a cloying premise over two hours. For the second time.

By the way, before anyone thinks I am chronologically prejudiced, "The Hangover" which I though had some decent laughs runs 100 minutes (five in credits, making it really a 95 minute film). "Knocked Up" which I wasn't as crazy about ran over two hours and ten minutes. Most Adam Sandler films -- the good and the really bad -- 90 - 95 minutes.

My rule is not a hard and fast rule. Most of the time.

M