"Barbie;" The Review I Probably Shouldn't be Publishing but to Hell with it.

Only the least media savvy individual in the world missed the absurd conflation of the "Barbie" movie and Chris Nolan's latest film, "Oppenheimer," i.e. the biopic that isn't a biopic because he said so and 

SO THERE!!!

I must confess a lack of interest in either film when they were released into theaters but I knew I would probably see them both once they came to home media. As "luck" would have it, I saw "Barbie" first; just the other day, in fact. And since I haven't felt compelled to review a film on this blog in a long while, it should be obvious that I had a rather strong reaction to it, although not the way cheerleaders and detractors might expect.

The plot of the Greta Gerwig-directed  film can be summed up as follows: Barbie dolls and Ken dolls live in a plastic world made up of their playsets and vehicles and blissfully live out the same scenarios on a daily basis without once questioning any of it. They believe the real world is run by strong, intelligent women whose inspiration came from the very Barbie dolls that reside in this sub-reality. However, one day Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) starts having thoughts of death and a feeling of not belonging.

Wacky antics ensue as our heroine seeks help from (sigh) Weird Barbie (Kate McKinnon in a surprisingly subdued, lackluster performance) whose appearance is bizarre because some psychotic little girl subjected her doll to some truly disturbing shit. Why she's the wise woman o' the mountain is never explained but that's what she is and soon our Barbie is traveling to the real world to find the little girl whose unusual play has caused her ennui. Oh, and Ryan Gosling's Ken comes along for the ride because he loves her even though she doesn't love him.

The first third of this film is rather enjoyable. Most of the jokes work and the acting, minus Gosling's bizarre timing, is very good as well. The juxtaposition of Barbie and Ken in the real world is amusing if all-too-brief, but the world they find themselves in doesn't feel all that real. In fact, it seems equally artificial to Barbie's reality. That's where the first of several missteps takes place.

The real world in "Barbie" is not the world you and I live in, it's the product of a limited imagination designed to make a sociopolitical point one could find in any first semester college student's term paper. For whatever reason, Gerwig and her co-writer Noah Baumbach decided to make an entire movie with that conceit.

Before one can utter the phrase, "Abandoned plot point," Barbie locates the girl she's looking for in record time without an ounce of dramatic tension or struggle. If it's almost as if this isn't the movie's real point...Anyway...

A plot twist worthy of a 1970s sitcom ensues once we realize the identity of the actual "little girl" and suddenly there's a car chase as Barbie evades the incredibly incompetent Mattel executives who want to put her literally back in the box for...reasons.

Let's pause here for a moment: Those execs whose jobs depend on running a successful company seem to want Barbie back in Dreamland so the toys don't change. But when they do change, the profits continue rolling in. So, why are they still chasing her? And when she does go back, why do they follow her at a snail's pace, only to show up when the plot calls for them to help resolve it in the lamest way possible? There's really only one sensible explanation: Gerwig and Baumbach are hacks.

The "why" of it all grows exponentially as more things happen as if plucked from a deceased magician's hat. Ken witnesses examples of toxic masculinity such as guy's talking to each other and riding horses so he can return to Dreamland and install a patriarchal system to replace the matriarchal one he and the other Kens have suffered under for decades. Yeah! Stick it to the...man?

Barbie experiences an epiphany in a matter of moments when she sees people smiling and a lovely elderly woman sharing a park bench with her. "These are people," she appears to think, "Real people doing real people things. How nice. How beautiful. How tragic. Well, time to go live a lie some more!" Now, if that isn't the most poignant statement on how women are often made to eke out their existences, I don't know what is. But that's too introspective for a film that wears its grievances on its sleeve, and so we're whisked away to more wacky antics and self-conscious dialogue as the dreaded third act rears its hideous countenance.

American movies often suffer from lackluster, underdeveloped third acts. Much of this comes from studio involvement and their insistence upon focus groups and sneak previews. I doubt that was what happened here though. Remember, this whole movie is designed to prove a point and what better way to do it than to reverse everything the audience saw at the beginning?

Actually, there are at least three ways that would have been better, but I'm reviewing the movie we got, not the one that exists in a parallel universe where actual thought was put into things like story and plot progression.

The result of Ken's observations of stereotypical masculinity have resulted in a very different world than the one Barbie left on her quest. But worry not, for the triumph of plastic womanhood is a mere long-winded speech nobody would every utter in real life away from retaking Dreamland and instituting an even more oppressive form of matriarchy than existed previously. 

Yay?

I often complain about horror movies lacking third acts but if this is the kind we get in other genres, maybe it's for the best. One unfunny, idiotic sight gag after another takes place as the Kens go to war over something poorly defined like their girlfriends going off with other Kens. The battle takes place using sports gear because I guess that's funny. Then a dance-off happens because I guess recycled Eighties humor is funny, too. By the time the forgettable song started, I had long ago mentally checked out. 

I realize this movie was hailed as some sort of deeply philosophical clarion call for feminism but all it really does is insult the audience's intelligence and diminish the very real issues woman face in society by espousing a simpleton's view of life. And any movie that gives us a terrible, witless catchphrases like, "I am Kenough" deserve their own special place in hell.

I'm looking at you, "Avenger's: Endgame" and , "I love you 3000."

10 Beloved Movies I Hated & 10 Hated Movies I Loved(and Why)

 I often find myself at the crossroads of the cultural zeitgeist. It's not a place I planned to wind up, nor one I thought I existed in until the Internet and its fanboy chatter made its presence known. Until then, I assumed that most genre fans generally agreed with me and, more to the point, I agreed with them.

For instance, I thought everybody enjoyed "Attack of the Clones" as much as I did and considered it an improvement over "The Phantom Menace," which I also enjoyed. It wasn't that there weren't popular things I disliked, but most of the ones I was aware of were genre films that crossed over into mainstream popularity. It's much easier to dismiss something as idiocy when the masses embrace it, despite the opposing view regarding large amounts of people liking things. 

So, the double lesson I have learned is as follows: I am not at home with my so-called fellow geeks because I don't agree with them on things they love or things they hate. Below are two lists based on my experiences with these groups:

Movies I Hate (and why)

The Matrix- I've only seen the first one, but I found the film pretentious, derivative, poorly acted, and over the top. When the only riveting scene involves a character wanting to go back to sleep, it probably means that's what I wanted to do also.

Deadpool- To be fair, I hate the character with a purple, unbridled passion. I consider him one of those Nineties creations that damn near ruined the comic book industry. And I hate the character so much that it has made me hate the actor portraying him. He isn't funny and he isn't cool or interesting. The character either.

Jurassic Park- My mother was obsessed with Michael Crichton's novel, so of course I had to take her to see it when her health started declining. The book she had talked up resulted in what for me was the first dull special effects blockbuster ever. Flat characters, by-the-numbers "suspense," and SFX that failed to impress. I never once cared what was happening.

The Dark Knight- A friend of mine was so convinced I would consider this the greatest comic book movie of all time, his normally cheap ass paid for my ticket. He was disappointed and angry when I told him how awful I thought the whole thing was. Bale's Batman was unconvincing, Ledger's Joker was too silly to be effective, the Two-Face subplot was lacking, and the supposed "real world" approach made the entire affair feel forced and interminable.

Joker- Much has been made of Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of mental illness in this film, and on that level alone, it is something to see. Sadly, the movie itself does not justify his performance no matter how much money it made. Todd Phillips, director  of the increasingly unfunny "Hangover" films, decided to go all serious with this one. Unfortunately, he doesn't have an original idea in his head. "Joker" is four movies in one: Those movies are "Taxi Driver," "King of Comedy," "Falling Down" and "Fight Club," three of which were vastly superior.

The Hunger Games- Again, I only suffered through the first one, but that was one too many as far as I was concerned. I'm not fan of YA Lit as it is, so this one would have been a hard sell for me. Sadly, the one thing I demand from any type of drama was entirely absent from this film. I never cared about what was happening on screen. Also, the concept was well-intentioned but stretched the bounds of credibility even within its own internal logic.

It: Chapter One- Its sequel did not receive the acclaim its predecessor did, presumably because it was awful to the point of unintentional hilarity. Chapter One was awful as well, but in a not-at-all amusing way. Director Andres Muschietti turned an epic novel about childhood trauma and overcoming our fears as adults into a jump scare cliché fest replete with bad child actor performances and none of King's trademark dialogue. It's rare that I've actually been angry at the end of a movie. 

Get Out- This is the film that competed in my mind with "It" for worst movie of 2017.  It's a message movie, and that message is an important one. Sadly, the execution is absolute junk. Jordan Peele's comedy chops are well-established and I have tons of respect for him as an artist. This was not a film that worked for me. The acting was uneven, the pacing was agonizingly slow, the Big Reveal was laughable and not once did I care about anyone in the film. Worst thing that can said about a horror movie: It was boring.

Skyfall- When Pierce Brosnan was let go as James Bon 007, I was not exactly enthusiastic about the less suave and good-looking Daniel Craig taking over the role. I was also growing weary of "back to the beginning" reboots. Happily, "Casino Royale" put my fears to rest and gave us one of the best Bond films ever. But this isn't about that movie. This is about the uneven, poorly scripted disappointment that was "Skyfall," a movie that felt as if four separate teams of screenwriters all wrote portions of it without ever actually meeting. Why Roger Moore thought this was the best Bond ever made instead of "Casino Royale" is beyond me.

Godzilla 2014- I won't go into how much the character of Godzilla has meant to me since I sat in a theater at the age of five or six and watched a double feature. And while I've always questioned the Western ability to really understand kaiju eiga without defaulting to disaster movie mode, which is exactly what happened with the 1998 film, I held out hope for a superior American version. When I saw previews for the 2014 reboot, it felt as if it was over-compensating for the 1998 film's tone by taking itself too seriously and becoming a somber, listless affair. I turned out to be right. It's one of the few movies I nearly walked out on. Happily, the Monsterverse sequels have redeemed this film and made it slightly more watchable.

Movies I Love(and Why)

Thor: The Dark World- That's right, I included this one. I loved this film and its detractors don't make sense to me. There's nothing about this MCU installment that renders it inferior to the others. Is it the best film in the franchise? Of course not. But it continues Thor's and Jane's stories very well, it shows a different side of Loki, and the visuals are nothing less than stunning.

Ishtar- Much maligned at the time of its release, most of the harsh criticism seemed to focus on the then ungodly budget of $50 million. But shooting on location with two huge stars is costly. The result, however, is pure entertainment. Playing against type, Hoffman and Beatty have an incredible chemistry and the terrible songs they created for the movie are brilliant in their catchy awfulness. 

Ghost Rider- The sequel was a mess, but the first Ghost Rider is a lot of fun. Nic Cage is at his scenery chewing best, the effects mostly impress, and the bad guy works. Also, Peter Fonda plays the Devil and Sam Elliot is the Old West Ghost Rider! What more do you people want, a plot???

Star Trek Into Darkness- I'm not a Trekkie, or "Trekker" as some prefer to be called. My mother was one of the originals, however, and I have a healthy respect for the franchise. JJ Abrams' films injected a much needed electric eel enema into a stagnating franchise. Sure, this one suffers from sequel bloat and too much action, but the sets, performances and stakes are outstanding.

Jupiter Ascending- I've never been a big fan of the Wachoskis. I enjoyed some of their films and hated others. This one intrigued me because it was a throwback to the days of pulp space opera but with unique twists that felt original. It was a breath of fresh air that is only made more special by the lack of a sequel.

Cloud Atlas- Despite what I wrote about the Wachoskis in the previous section, they nailed this adaptation of what I consider one of the greatest novels of modern times. If I may channel my inner hipster for a moment, most people who disliked this movie didn't understand it. And that's okay. It's not an easily digested piece of fluff entertainment, nor is it a dime store philosophy diatribe like their more successful "The Matrix." 

Hudson Hawk- When Bruce Willis was at his hottest and it was still inconceivable that he would become a for-the-paycheck punchline, this vanity project was released to near universal disdain. Willis is clearly more in love with himself than the film at this stage in his career, and that just makes it more enjoyable. He mugs, he is still capable of being funny, and the "plot" is so far off the rails one can't help but watch to see what happens next. 

The Adventures of Ford Fairlane- I know, I know. I don't distance myself from my Andrew Dice Clay fandom back in the day. But even if I hadn't been one, the movie about "Mr. Rock 'n Roll Detective" is a fun romp through the music industry and one of the most quotable comedies of all time. Dice could actually act, as he'd already proved on the NBC series, "Crime Story," making this film that rare combination of a comedian's on-stage persona and genuine moments of gravitas.

The Village- This movie had the unique distinction of being released when it became a recreational activity to attack M. Knight Shyamalan. To be fair, he wasn't helping matters by hinging every film on a Big Reveal. He got away with it several times, so it was inevitable that he would eventually be called out on his gimmick. This was not the movie to do it, though. That movie was "The Happening." This one actually works because it immerses the audience into a world it thinks it understands only to pull the proverbial rug out from under us. 

Daredevil- While the Netflix series is vastly superior in every measurable way, that doesn't mean the movie is terrible. In fact, it's pretty damn good, especially the director's cut that restores an entire excised subplot. Ben Affleck is a comics fan and he gets this character. Read his foreword to Kevin Smith's Daredevil graphic novel if you doubt me. My only real issue was the casting of Elektra, which should have gone to someone different.

Movies I couldn't include in the "Hate" category because I've discovered many people who don't like them, too:

Avatar
The Amazing Spider-Man
Van Helsing
Titanic
Forrest Gump
The Suicide Squad

BAD REVIEW

 

Nothing peps me up more than discovering a negative review of my work. It's even better when it somehow slipped under my RADAR for five years, as was the case with a review on Amazon from a guy in India whose screen name is "Perceptive Reader." Clearly a humble, self-aware individual, Mr. Reader found the majority of the stories in the third book of the "Use Enough Gun" anthology beneath his contempt, at least judging by the way he dismissed them with such in-depth analysis as "Crap," "Meh" and the ever-reliable, "Rubbish."

If you've ever met one of those people who disdain every movie they see by claiming there wasn't enough character development, you've probably also suspected that they didn't really know what that phrase meant. Similarly, whenever someone uses buzzwords such as, "Overwritten," or "longish," one wonders if the reviewer is more in love with their ability to sound knowledgeable and too hip for the room. It's difficult to say. We weren't all taught to give reasons for our opinions, nor were we all taught to eschew buzzwords when we do. So, perhaps there's little point in trying to understand the mindset of a man whose reaction to 80% of an anthology was so hostile.

I defy anyone to read the opening paragraph of Perceptive's review and not either chuckle or shake their head. Not to review the review, but come on! Phrases such as, " ...nod sagely while procrastinating about increasing paranoia among the hoi-polloi, in these days of connectivity and terrorism" are clearly meant to be taken seriously but is that even possible? It isn't for me but your mileage may vary.

My short story "Arrival" happens to be one of my favorite stories I've ever written. It is the sequel to "Emergence," which appeared in "Monster Hunter Legends Both Barrels" also published by Emby Press. That doesn't mean I expect everyone else to love it. It's a rather specific type of story, one that combines elements of classic comic books, horror and religious fanaticism. There's no reason to assume Mr. P. Reader would find that even remotely fascinating. I would love to know why he considered it crap, however, as I'll bet many of the other authors whose works were dismissed in like fashion would also.

Alas, there are no answers to be found in this case. P.R. either didn't feel the need to elaborate or that his simplistic reactions spoke volumes. I will close by adding this one nugget of hoped-for wisdom:

Reviews such as these help no one. They serve no one. They say nothing except "Lookit me being all edgy and stuff." No writer learns from the experience in a way that either helps them grow and improve and, in fact, some probably shrink away from the writing for publication world, discouraged and convinced that their Imposter Syndrome was the real thing. And while I know this is a tough field and that people who can't take harsh criticism need not apply, I also feel strongly that irresponsible reviews such as the one in this post are detrimental and destructive to the overall discourse.

So in spite of myself, I will review P. Reader's review with my own one-word choice: Idiotic.

Dispatches from the Coronavirus Days#14- Rain & Marches on Inconvenience

Photo credit: Associated Press

"The highest form of intelligence… is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding.”  -Bill Bullard

It should be clear to anyone who's been paying attention that individuals such as the ones pictured above have either a total misunderstanding of or a profound lack of regard for the above quote. These are, simply put, people whose time spent reveling in juvenalia never ended and has now manifested itself as something well beyond tragic or even amusing.

The concept of freedom to the protestors of mild inconvenience, the weak-willed sadsacks who shamelessly moan about their First World problems, is one of doing whatever the hell one wants without regard for or responsibility to anyone else. Coupled with good old-fashioned doses of racism, sexism, religious fundamentalism, anti-science rhetoric, and impotent rage, mild inconvenience becomes raison d'etre.

The irony that most of these Michigan marches against safety from a currently incurable virus have been rained out is not lost on me. While not a believer, I am certainly open to the possibility that the God they claim supports every moronic utterance from their misinformed mouths has had enough. I mean, what God worth its long white beard would find so-called "haircut protests" in the midst of a global pandemic worthy? I'll tell ya what kind: One that understands how much it sucks to not be able to get your roots done!

Praise the Lawd and pass the hair dye!

Will these people, assuming they survive all the interacting with potentially infected like-minded types, ever have the presence of mind to look back on their actions and realize how stupidly they were acting? Let's not hold our breath...unless they're walking past us, because those idiots are walking petrie dishes.

On the Western side of Michigan, where I'm convinced there must be some type of radiation leak or brainwashing facility, the virus spread has increased because, surprise-surprise, that's where a lot of the protestors live! Can you imagine if something like this catches on? Protest an unstoppable virus by congregating with people and then going home. Why, with that type of dedication, we could wipe out half of humanity in a matter of years.

But let's not dwell on the people who are upset because they can't get haircuts and eat inside restaurants that are still providing curbside carryout. We're in Idiocracy Phase Two now. Governor Whitmer is slowly reopening the state, a move no doubt brought on by pressures from the militia-minded Northern Michiganders who refused to accept her authority because she's an uppity female Democrat. The places that have remained opened all along, the essential stores, are requiring that their customers wear masks, so naturally these Nobel Laureates have taken that little factoid and turned it into some demented crusade against fear and being told what to do.

Apparently there's no braver way to stand up for one's freedumbs than to square off against a virus (it helps if you believe it's a conspiracy to keep Donald Trump from getting reelected even though Trump himself admits the virus is real) by telling it you ain't a'scared of nothin'. I remember once when a tornado ripped through Michigan, I stood on a rooftop and said, "Bitch, please." You best believe it backed off!

So now these would be Rosa Parks's are attacking store employees for enforcing the "mask it or casket" rule. In the interest of fairness, it isn't just steretypical flag-waving so-called "Rednecks" acting this way either. Take a look at what happened in Flint. But that incident, repugant as it was, seems to be an outlier. Most of the perpetators are white males and females with grossly exaggerrated senses of their importance.

It isn't always resulting in violence, however. Take "Flat-Earther Karen" as an example. Her clearly rehearsed, sad gambit to strike a blow for the unmasked is just one example. Another is this jerk.

What's fascinating about this situation is how these same people, drooling along with Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News pundits, supported the Citizens United Supreme Court Decisin to grant corporatins personhood. That makes them private, sovereign citizens with rights equal to (although any thinking person knows they're more equal than we are) any walking, talking, gun-totin' 'Murican. Private entities can require us to do whatever they deem necessary. They're not infringing on our rights, they're exercising theirs. I would urge all of the protestors to think long and hard about that.

And next time we'll deal with the dual issues of you believing nobody is an expert while accepting anecdotal evidence and how you keep confusing illegality with executive orders. In the meantime, I'd tell you to be safe but you won't, so stay the hell away from those of us who are~

Dispatches From the Coronavirus Days #12- Idiot Edition

There's a reason my home state of Michigan was home to the Militia movement of the Nineties and that reason has been hammered home repeatedly by the insanity and abject stupidity coming from the group of people who find a stay-at-home quarantine extention to be an attack on their liberties. And what are those liberties, exactly? I think I'll let the words of those opposed to the health and well-being of their fellow humans explain it to you:

On the Facebook page "Michiganders Against Excessive Quartine" someone posted an article from some bullshit site with a headline declaring that only Trump can reopen the country. Below that, some scholar commented," Please do so Sir. Our grezy Country was not met to be on lockdown like this. Time to Make America Great again. We can't do our part under house arrest."

House arrest. That's how these acolytes of Ayn Rand, half of whom probably never heard of her, consider quarantine in the midst of the worst global epidemic since 1918!

Another comment seemed to find the need to equate gay marriage with Covid 19. She wrote, "I remember when we voted as a state, "One Man, One Woman" marriage for our state, federal government under Obama changed it."

Clearly gays wanting equal rights is where this virus came from. The China thing is little more than a cover story for the Gay Mafia's Deepstate Illuminati 5G agenda.

Another person, agreeing that "libruls" need fear to govern (an ironic statement if ever there was one) commented, "Fear is really, really rambid right now and I believe that's all part of the plan!"

I don't know who "Rambid" is, but apparently he has a lot to answer for! Kinda sounds like a French villain in a James Bond movie.

But fear not. This "movement" has a ringleader and he is no disappointment. Looking for all the world like a sleazy used car salesman who moonlights as a Prosperity Gospel preacher, Garrett Soldano is single-handedly fanning the flames of idiocy. Soldano is a practicing chiropractor for whatever that's worth in this situation. I guess because he has "doctor" before his name, that makes him the go-to expert on pandemics for the anti-quarantine crowd. I know that next time one hits, my first stop will be a guy who works on the body's "meridians." However, if you remain unconvinced by his choice of medical practice, he also lists himself on Twitter as, ""AN ENTREPRENEUR, AUTHOR, PHILANTHROPIST, AND A MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER."

Sensing his time to shine, Soldano is over all the interwebs telling Michigan residents to "stand tall" against the Governor's attempts to halt the spread of the virus because the economy is more important than people not dying. He also does daily video updates on the aforementioned Facebook page lest anyone start thinking he's a smug, self-promoting opportunist who is seizing a moment for his own personal gain. And naturally, all the ill-informed, selfish residents of Michigan are flocking to this individual for guidance in uncertain times. I guess nothing screams "Constitutional Expert" like a guy who cracks backs and peddles holistic remedies. He won't mind my saying this because, in his own words, "...our fight for our Constitutional rights gets fanned HOTTER by every hate comment against us."

These people aren't limiting their protests to Facebook, however. They're planning a "march" of sorts on April 15th. But instead of standing outside, they plan to gridlock the state capitol in Lansing. So, they're protesting a quarantine by quarantining themselves. Feel free to reread that previous sentence as many times as you need.

So much of this insane rambling can be traced back to the Michigan Militia, a group of alarmist anti-gubmint types who basically shot off guns in the forest, wore fatigues and poisoned the minds of their fellow Michiganders. Now we're dealing with their inheritors.

We can only hope the people with sense still outnumber them.

In the Beginnings (Three Beginnings to Unfinished Stories)

Like most and probably all writers, I have lots and lots of unfinished stories and novels just sitting around waiting for me to get back to them. There was a time when something like 95% of everything I started remained that way, but thanks to one of my three mentors, the late Annabelle McIlnay, I became much more disciplined. In fact, when a co-worker recently asked me if I was participating in NanoWriMo this year, I awkwardly informed her I didn't really need to.  Well, I tried to say that but was too busy being yelled at as the co-worker demanded that I not even finish my sentence.

Still, none of that means I am so disciplined that I finish everything. I'd estimate now that my completion rate is something like 70%, which is still damn good.  At the risk of sounding like an even worse braggart, there's also the matter of my output ratio. Simply put, I start more stories than I used to when Annabelle was admonishing me to "Just finish one damn thing" before starting another.

I recently completed a script and a short story that I am still debating whether or not to let anyone else see (read about that here) but there are several stories still sitting in my to-do pile wondering what my problem is. I need motivation. I need that gentle push. I need you, baby.

So, here are the first sections of three unfinished stories for you to read and provide me with one simple piece of feedback: Which one should I finish next or should I scrap them all and go back to scribe school with my wanna-be Hemingway ass?

Leave a comment with your insightful comments and see the story starts below:

Partners

His name isn’t important.

He will tell you the same. For reference purposes, you may refer to him as “Mal.” Whatever his last name is or was, he hasn’t used it in years and no longer cares to remember it. 

What he does care about, however, is what will transpire over the course of the next few hours. He stands before a large group of people -- call them what they are --Call them followers -- that stares at him with grim expectation and damn near blind devotion. He tries to smile reassuringly but the muscles in his face that form such things have long since gone dead. 

Just like his tear ducts.

Final Illumination

Howard stops climbing the wall, turns to me and says, “Do you think he can hear what we’re

thinking all the way out here?”

I shake my head with what I hope is confidence, motion for him to keep climbing. Even brief delays such as these could cost us dearly. 

Below us, the searchlights move frantically along the craggy surface, all-terrain vehicles reflecting the light for an instant as they continue their own search for the escaped dissidents. For us. I can feel Howard’s fear. I can feel his hopefulness as well. He believes in me and my ability to get him to safety. 

Fifteen years ago, one glance at my inhuman face would have sent a human like Howard screaming into the nearest safe spot. But times have changed for the human race, as they have for us. 

And it was all because of one young man in a place called Westphalia, Michigan.

The Wall They Paid For

  The Great and Noble Book of Orange tells the story of a time when the haters and losers opposed the Wall. It’s hard to believe this is true, but since all other information is Fake News, it has to be true. But sometimes, when I’m alone and the Drainers aren’t in the vicinity, I confess I doubt the Word of our founder.

         The story, told in the Book’s typical one-hundred and forty character sentences, features many references to those ancient people known as the Demoncrats, who existed solely to oppose the founder and to hate freedom. There’s nothing in the Book that actually explains why they did these things or really who they were, but that’s a matter for the Church Apprentices to address when they deliver the Sunday night sermons. I haven’t been to church in months, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by the Apprenticeship. They have only mentioned it in casual conversation so far but the time is swiftly approaching when they will become more aggressive. That means I don’t have much time to accomplish my task.

Seeing Sequels to Movies I Hated

I know I've written about this before but feel it needs reiterating: The idea that there are people who see movies, feel underwhelmed, and then say, "But you know the sequel is gonna be really good," is  beyond idiotic to me. It isn't that they needed to love a movie in order to see its sequel. It isn't even that they found a way to become invested enough in the story or characters or both to return. The idiotic part comes from the assumption that the first movie is often underwhelming but just wait for that next one, man!

Seriously? Have we become so addled by mediocrity and cynical marketing that we accept our own stupidity as justification for why our entertainment fails to work?

What bothers me even more, however, is when the people who act this way treat me as if I'm the crazy one when I say there is no way in hell I'm seeing a sequel to a movie I hated. Why would I? Why would anyone? That's anywhere from ninety minutes to over three hours of my life I'll never get back. Why the hell would I want to subject myself to that again? And more importantly, if I'm not invested after the first movie, why should I care what happens in the second one?

For years, a friend of mine has been doing this level best to convince me to see the sequels to a movie I absolutely despised because he sincerely believes I will say the second one was the one the filmmakers should have started with. When I reply that that would just piss me off because I spent time watching the first one, he seems baffled by my response.

That film series, along with the rest, is listed below in where I have compiled several examples of movies I saw whose sequels I do not ever plan to watch even for free:

The Matrix Reloaded: I found the first movie derivative, trite and poorly acted.

It: Chapter 2: Worst movie I saw in 2017. A total rape of the source material by a hack filmmaker and a terrible cast of bad actors.

The Second Pirates of the Caribbean: Come on! Have we met?

Frozen 2: (See Pirates reply)

The Hobbit 2: Not saying Jackson lost his mojo but it was nowhere on display in the first Hobbit film.


You'll notice some of these films are more than a few years old and only one hasn't yet been released. There are others but these are good examples. There have also been films whose sequels I swore I'd never see but did because of my investment in the character(s) via other interpretations, but even then I feel dirty and was pretty disappointed.

I was recently asked if I was going to wait to see the second "It" when it was released on DVD and I merely shook my head. At some point, with the exception of this post, I came to the conclusion that there really is nothing else to be said~

GREATEST QUOTE EVER!

And yes, she said it!

Religious Fanatic Takes "Steal this Book!" to Heart but it's the Wrong Book.

Apparently an anthology I am in offended the delicate sensibilities of at least one self-appointed soldier for the Lord. At least, that's how the anthology's publisher is interpreting it.

It makes sense, based on how the petty crime took place. You can get the whole story here but here's a pull quote in case your clickin' finger is sore:

"...other books were left alone, as was a tablet and some cash..."

B Cubed Press Bob Brown's response to the thief is pretty entertaining because, ultimately, the fact that fiction can still cause this reaction in people means it still has the power to transform and to make people think. That is worth more to me than any financial reward my story gained.

The funny thing is, the only reason I even know about this is because I happened to be on my Amazon Author page where a newer reader review of the anthology mentioned the theft.  You can read that review here and even though the reader doesn't mention my story (how dare they?) it's a glowingly positive one that might not have happened if some jackass hadn't tried to censor what you're able to read.

Hypocrisy Under the Microscope: Bob Dutko

As I was driving in to work this afternoon, I decided to inflict torture upon myself by letting the radio's scan feature land on 103.5 FM WMUZ, a local Christian station. That time of day during the week is dedicated to the Bob Dutko Show, a politically oriented program designed to give the so-called Christian perspective on the issues of the day. Mostly he just calls anyone he labels as liberals hypocrites and sings Donald Trump's praises no matter what he has done or said or, for that matter, not done or said.

In his own way, Dutko is a bigger mouthpiece than Sean Hannity which is no small feat. And this wasn't my first time hearing or even enduring Dutko's diatribes (that would make a much better name for his show, I think) so I am well-acquainted with his approach. He basically delivers the conservative talking points of the day in a nauseatingly matter-of-fact-we're-just-folks-talkin' tone that appeals to an audience that despises formal speech from so-called elitists.

I have never felt the need to write about him until today.

Dutko was in rare form today. With a sob in his voice that sounded like it belonged to a grieving mother whose child was slain on the fields of battle, he went on and on about three "beloved children's' classics" that were being released in China sans all references to Christianity. That's right. His mighty heart was breaking over a Communist country that has outlawed all religion removing references to religion in foreign literature. And as if this wasn't bone-chillingly idiotic enough, he launched into a rant about the New Testament being (GASP!) rewritten to more readily reflect Chinese culture.

I can certainly understand his outrage; this has never happened before...except when it was translated into Greek...oh, and Latin...and English, French, German...you get the idea. This is a brand new thing!

Dutko's biggest butthurt was the fact that they are including Buddhist teachings in the New Testament. I won't even get into how much of Jesus' teachings sound suspiciously like they were ripped out of Buddha's mouth. What prompted this post was the arrogance from which Dutko operates, where he can actually express outrage over the supposed co-opting of his belief system when things like this exist.

Guess what? If there can be no Bible with Chinese cultural leanings, there can also be no Karate with Christian dogma planted inside it like a weed. You don't get to rip off another culture's identity, re-brand it with the Jesus seal, and then act like somebody else doing the opposite is a monster. That's not how reality works. Then again, if his listeners understand reality, they wouldn't be his listeners.

Well, I'm glad we settled that one!

Avengers: Endgame, a Response in List Form.

It has now been four months since I sat in a darkened theater with a fellow comic fan and watched the film both of us had been eagerly and giddily anticipating for a year. Having both become equally obsessed with the previous "Avengers: Infinity War," a movie we both watched over and over in anticipation of an epic conclusion, our excitement could not have reached a higher fever pitch.

The film, clocking in at just over three hours, set out to bring an open-ended conclusion to eleven years worth of interconnected storytelling in one massive, never-before-done cinematic achievement. When it was over, we left the theater in silence, walking past a long line of moviegoers who had come for the next showing. It wasn't until we got in the car that I spoke first.

Sighing, I said, "Y'know. I don't know that I liked it."

"Me neither," he said.

And with that dual admission, I felt my soul sink into a strange sadness that did not let up for two months.

I won't go into my feelings too much in this post but I will admit to feeling incredibly letdown. Predictably, the early reactions to the film were glowing and positive, but once the "feels" wore off, more people started sounding like me. And, of course, they were attacked for it. It was "The Dark Knight" all over again, except perhaps a bit less psychotic. I touched on that portion here.

My movie buddy, who has not seen the movie a second time, has settled into a bit of spin doctoring, where he insists the movie was always expected to be what we saw. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it should have been. That doesn't mean we should excuse lazy writing and arrogant presumption on the part of the filmmakers and, in particular, the screenwriters.

That's why, now that I have what I feel is sufficient emotional distance, I can now list my issues with the film in detail based on my criteria for successful drama.

TONE: One would have to be insane or utterly clueless to expect this movie to maintain the tone of "Infinity War." This is a film about the aftermath of its predecessor's events. The tone should be more somber, more serious and, sadly, less entertaining. That last point isn't a fault of the filmmakers, it's a necessity based on the story. So, the tone of the film is appropriate and mostly effective.

PLOT: Not to be confused with the next point, the movie's plot is a bit of a mess. That would be okay with a stronger story, but in this case there are far too many contrivances and very little realized potential. To start, the idea that the events of the previous movie aren't easily repaired sound great until you realize the plot involves the heroes easily repairing the events of the previous movie. Once the initial, relatively interesting world-building takes place, the film's plot merely dumps the viewer from one uninspired set to another all so it can end with a big battle sequence. The various character sub-plots such as "Fat Thor" and his PTSD (Marvel really seems to think trauma is good for a few laughs) and Professor Hulk definitely have their negative aspects but they don't ruin the overall plot.

STORY: The filmmakers had one job: Maintain the quality of "Infinity War" while telling a different kind of story in the sequel. Due to several questionable story element choices, they failed. How did they fail? For one thing, they got lazy. Time travel to the past is just about the most tiresome trope in science fiction these days and this film embraces it like a lost lover. Of all the alternative solutions to the problem our heroes faced (I came up with five without even thinking hard) time travel was what the writers settled on? I say "settled on" because I want to believe they're smart enough to have considered other options before using one any first semester hack could have come up with. As mentioned in the "Plot" section, "Endgame" moves from one lackluster location to another because the story dictates time hopping. And since the easiest way to get people to like you these days appears to involve turning up the nostalgia meter to eleven, the second hour of the film involves one previously seen location or scene after another until it feels as if this is not so much a sequel as a greatest hits collection. The earlier promising setup of a trip into the Quantum Realm heralded by Antman's return thanks to a rat is abandoned in favor of one of the most interminable hours in MCU history.  That brings me to the next point,

PACING: Oy vey. Sluggish in places, "Endgame" was never supposed to be the pulse-pounding actioner that "Infinity War" was. But the pace never seems to pick up even when the big battle is happening. The part where present-day Thanos is found is over before it starts, plunging the remainder of the film into sloth-like discussion scenes and supposedly touching moments such as Tony Stark's experience in 1970. Unlike "Infinity War," this movie feels like every single one of its 180 minutes.

ACTING: The MCU actors know their roles and play them well. If they seem less present this time, it feels more like an editing issue than a performance one. Although I'd be lying if I didn't admit that Downey seems tired and ready to move on. Interestingly, Paul Rudd's performance is the most dynamic this time, maybe because they gave me him more to do. Josh Brolin, who turned in a phenomenal performance last time around, seems lethargic and bored now.

DIRECTION/EDITING: The Russo Brothers are hit and miss for me. They seem to observe the so-called "Star Trek" rule where every other film is good. This time around they do a fine job but nothing stands out. The editing, however, is where my friend I agreed the major issues with "Endgame" are to be found. Scenes that should be shorter are far too long and scenes that needed to be longer are over much too quickly.

ACTION: Well, there isn't much. Most of the film consists of long stretches of would-be witty dialogue and discussing the plot as if we the viewers forgot it after five minutes. Action gives way to suspense in this installment, which is perfectly fine. There was no way they were going to top what was done in "Infinity War." The problem is, the only real suspense takes place in small pockets rather than a continuing thread and by the time the movie really decides to become full-on suspenseful, it gives way to the required big battle scene. And that scene, which is admittedly well-staged and executed, feels old hat after the less choreographed scenes in the previous film. It still thrills but there was a sense of "Okay, let's get this part over with" when I watched it.

DIALOGUE: "Infinity War" is so quotable. So were the first two Avengers films. But other than a couple lines of dialogue here and there, "Endgame's" dialogue is rather run of the mill. Even the one-liners for which the MCU has unfortunately become synonymous are pretty stale and lame this time around. One longs for Joss Whedon's self-indulgent yet witty dialogue writing.

I know this all sounds like I hated the movie. I didn't. It was entertaining. Had it been a stand-alone film I might have enjoyed it more, but it wasn't and it had a lot more to live up to than that. The filmmakers played it far too safe with the writing aspect. Killing off some beloved characters who aren't coming back in real life is not a substitute for risk-taking. And the strength of the overall story arc makes even a misstep like this, much like the stunningly  mediocre "Captain Marvel" still worth watching.

But I have learned to not let near perfection cause me to assume the follow-up will be just as good but in a different way, 'Nuff said.

Small Presses (A Brief Thought-Stream)

I subscribe to a certain weekly email newsletter that graciously provides lists of upcoming anthologies that are open to submissions. Most of my recent published work has been due to this list, so my gratitude is boundless. Therefore, please note this is not in any way a criticism of the compiler(s) of the weekly list. Instead, it's an observation about the level of expectation smaller publishers often have when it comes to their anthologies.

Anyone who has submitted fiction knows the pay-scale isn't exactly encouraging. There's a double-edged sword these days. There are more markets looking for work than ever before (I refuse to refer to my work or the work of others as "content") and the Internet has made it the easiest it's ever been to submit to them. So on the up side, it rarely costs anything to send out one's stories. No more self-addressed stamped envelopes, for the most part. On the down side, however, the innumerable smaller publishers can't afford to pay very much.

That's perfectly understandable. And while the amount of money involved should not dictate the quality of what they're seeking (I know this flies in the face of supposed conventional capitalistic wisdom) it should dictate what they require in addition to receiving said work.

What I'm getting at, quite simply, is if you can only pay someone twenty dollars for their hard work, don't also expect them to do additional work before you will even deign to consider reading it.
That is not a privilege you should possess until you can at least pay semi-pro rates.

I don't write this as someone who hasn't been on the other side of the submission wall. I have edited and published a magazine as well as two anthologies and never once did I require anything further than the story itself and any agreed upon edits/rewrites. I certainly wasn't full of myself enough to require a written proposal before I would even read their work. Why not charge a submission fee while you're at it?

Better yet, here's a urine sample and a list of the last five people I slept with.

I'm all for lofty goal-setting and aspirations of literary godhood, but come on. Twenty bucks barely fills most gas tanks these days. The "exposure" claim has been debunked far too many times for me to lend it any credence. Publishers are not supposed to remind us of employers that act like their workers should be grateful for minimum wage despite it being a law they have no choice but to observe.

You're supposed to be better than those low-lives. You're supposed to understand what writers go through both professionally and personally. Since your reach exceeds your grasp, try wrapping your hands around a big pile of perspective and get over yourselves~

*Correction*

In reference to the post about my short story "Soulmate Express" not having ever been published, thanks to a keen-eyed co-worker, I know that it was!

She located it on my Twitter page which I haven't used in nearly a decade (image below)

Now if I could just locate the damn thing!

THE SECRET FORMULA DISCOVERED!!!

Now, after years of writing and posting on this blog, I have finally stumbled upon the secret formula to receiving tons of views and, presumably, people reading my posts. The key doesn't lie in the quality of the writing or the point of view of the author. Nope! While those things have garnered me views in respectable number, the real way to get peoples' attention is to be a prick.

Yep, despite all my efforts to the contrary, herculean though they have been, when I let my inner A-hole out for a walk in the courtyard, people flock to this blog.

I get it. My response to an unnamed critic of my work whose point of view I found moronic and poorly rendered has now become my most viewed post. But what does this mean for yours truly?
Am I going to stop posting other things? Since my posts about my latest published work garner a tenth of the views of  the one about the reviewer, does that mean I will stop sharing that type of news? Well, no because that's this blog's primary function.

So maybe it means I'm going to tailor those posts to the people who seemed to gravitate towards the popular post. Again, nope.

Maybe it means I get it and I won't shy away from posting similar things in the future.

Yeah, let's go with that!

Question About the Previous Post

I realize I'm probably urinating into a monsoon, but I'm curious about why the reaction to my previous post responding to a reviewer has become so highly viewed. Without divulging specific statistics, I can tell you it's one of my most viewed posts ever. That's not me using Newspeak and being melodramatic. I'm being literal. This post, something I considered a mere throwaway to keep the blog active, has clearly struck a chord or, at the very least, wound up appearing in many, many online searchers.

But why? How? Which? Where?

Who?

If anyone reading this is willing to provide their insight, even if it's negative, I'd love to hear from you.

Open Letter to a Certain Reviewer (The post where I get a lil' petty but not very)

Foreword: It still makes me giggle uncontrollably when I say I Googled myself. The images it conjures up instill in me a certain middle school level glee and I do not apologize for that. What I will apologize in advance for, however, is the minor descent into writer pettiness you will bear witness to if you keep reading this post. Who am I kidding? Most of you wouldn't miss that for anything!

Well, today you can consider me the Aaron Spelling of bloggers; far be it for me to not give the audience what it thinks it wants.

Dear Reviewer,

Sometimes I Google myself. I'm not proud of it but I'm a lonely, lonely man and when I'm alone in the dark, certain alluring thoughts enter my mind and I --- Never mind that. This letter is to follow up on your review of one of my short stories from 2011. That's right! Two-thousand ELEVEN. 

Before you start thinking you've been in my head like Thanos has been with Tony Stark, (That's a Marvel Cinematic Universe reference, which I'm sure you consider yourself above) I had forgotten about the review until today, when I decided to go against the laws of my religion and Google myself to a satisfactory conclusion. 

I do that on occasion so I can see if there's any new me-related information online that I can share with the readers of this blog. I actually ran across two reviews of my work by you, both from different editions of a particular publisher's annual anthology, and neither was favorable. And that's okay. One cannot go into this field and expect nothing by praise and positive responses. There will be be those who dislike what you offer no matter what it is. I certainly have authors I feel that way about and I would have to be a fool to think I wouldn't have the same effect on others.

So, please do not take the following sentences as an indictment of your absolute right to hate what I wrote, Reviewer. In fact, much like working in a laughingly named "Right-to-Work State," as a reader, you have no obligation to explain why you dislike anything you read. As a reviewer, however, a certain amount of comprehension is expected and, dare I write it, encouraged? Judging by your dismissive review and its incorrect conclusion about my story, I am confident you do not grasp stories that don't spell out their concepts and plots in easily digested bursts of exposition. 

As they say these days, "Do you, man." That means be who you are without feeling pressured to be someone else. Sorry if it wasn't clear the first time.

I suppose if pinned down, I would be forced to say my main issue with your review was its tone. As pointed out earlier, arrogant dismissiveness should come with a working understanding of the thing being dismissed. Your review did not because you obliviously admitted to missing the whole point of the plot. Where I come from --this place called Earth-- that negates your entire point of view. If you aren't even able to tell whether or not the fate of a character is Option A or B when it should be clear by the end, I can forward some sit-com pilot scripts that might be more in line with your comprehension level.

If you think I'm being petty or an asshole or both, you're right. Your review inspired me to act in kind, except in my case I actually comprehend what I'm discussing. I Googled you, too. I found a much older man than I'd expected, which was a tad disappointing. I saw your one professional sale, which was surprising, but I commend you for reaching that level. It doesn't appear as though you ever did again, and that's okay. At least you can say you did it. But I don't think you feel that way about it. I think you're angry at every story you read that doesn't meet your narrow-minded standards precisely because you didn't continue to reach that level. I can only hope you were being intentionally obtuse when it came to my story (and a few others in the anthologies) but something tells me your confessed inability to understand things that aren't made clear is also the reason those professional sales didn't keep happening.

I'm going to bring this letter to a close now. I've already devoted more time and space to your review than you did to my story. Let me close by saying I have also worked as a reviewer. Perhaps because one of my three great writing mentors taught me to focus on the written work rather than the author's intent, I at least make an attempt to be fair-minded. I don't have much patience for bad writing but I also know that's a subjective term. I hope I never become like you and forget that. 

Not-So-Warmest Regards,

Christopher Nadeau
Author

Latest Other Blog Post.

I've been remiss in my link-providing duties because I'm not used to having a second blog anymore. It's been several years and that other blog is no longer fit for public consumption. However, the new one is up and running. The most recent post is our take on the Bill Maher/Stand Lee/Comics non-troversey. We focus on who Maher is and why he seems so content with being a shriveled up little douche-nugget rather than getting deeply into what is already a proven quality medium.

Read it here, Comment there!

Not Sure What This Says About Me...

As I've written recently, my run of luck in regards to getting published this still new year has not been encouraging. It didn't help that I went on my Amazon Author Central page yesterday and noticed a review of one of my short stories from about four years ago. It was a reader review. He clearly put a lot of thought into it and somehow found a single word that perfectly encapsulated his feelings:

CRAP.

I'm not the only one whose story he labeled with this cutting dismissal either. At least 80% of the anthology received what I call the other "C-word" in response to its offerings. I was a bit taken aback, having never seen a review with such negative finality before. Then I got a look at his picture and started laughing because, frankly, he looked like the comic relief in a certain type of film from a certain country that isn't known for its high-end cinema.

Still, my amusement aside, his hilarious appearance doesn't negate his right to have an opinion that doesn't make me feel good about my writing. I certainly would never want to curtail a person's ability to express himself as he sees fit as long as it's not abusive. Besides, the review was from three years ago and, as we say in the field, at least he took the time to write a review. Frankly, the positive reviews still outweigh the negative ones.

When I place my so-called run of bad luck into perspective, most of the stories that have been rejected were actually submitted in the final two months of 2018, basically right on top of one another. Of course they would start coming in the same way they went out! Besides, I have a short story and a piece in a non-fiction book both coming out in the next few weeks. So, how exactly is this a bad start to the New Year?

So, for now, I will cease and desist my whining. Oh, and no, I am not going to share a link to the "crap" review. Do your own research~

The Best Comment I've Seen About Bill Maher so far

This one came from an comment on social media but it perfectly puts into perspective how comics fans should regard Bill Maher's insipid comments about the form:

"He's a pot head drug addict who bangs strippers looking down on people who find entertainment, comfort...escape...in ways that don't harm themselves or others"

Without Further Ado, I Present the Blog that the World Doesn't Know it's Been Waiting For!!!

There was a delay but things seem to be moving forward in a relatively positive direction now, so the first post on the new blog is up and ready for your evisceration!

We wound up not starting with the Spider-Man animated film so don't be too disappointed!

Click here to immerse yourselves in the gooey goodness!