directed by John Moore

As many of you know, on Friday nights in our household we order out and watch a movie. Since it was just Halloween weekend, I wanted to see something that would really creep me out. I don’t like watching scary movies by myself; Brian doesn’t really like watching them at all because most of them are so rotten. We don’t have a Netflix account because the DVDs wouldn’t fit in our mailbox, and because we live in an apartment, anyone could just pick up the package from the floor. And…pretty much all of the nearby Blockbusters have closed down, so we rely a lot on Comcast On Demand. Unfortunately, the choices aren’t the best, but the other night we decided to give this remake of the 1976 super-creepy film, The Omen a shot.

I remember being sufficiently creeped out by The Omen, so I hoped this would do the same. Though I was a tween when I saw the original, most of the story seemed the same: a U.S. Ambassador to England and his wife have a son, Damien, who might possibly be the anti-Christ. I especially remember a scene that takes place at Damien’s 5th birthday party and which was effectively included in the remake. The only other thing I remember from the original was that Damien was cuter and that at the end, his father has to make a touch decision.

This movie has an awesome cast that includes Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, Pete Postlethwaite, Mia Farrow, David Thewlis, and Michael Gambon, so my expectations were high. I mean, come on: the (remade) Manchurian Candidate, the chick from most every modernized version of Shakespearean plays, Kobayashi (Keyser Söze’s right-hand man — Keyer Söze? as in the devil himself???), Rosemary (as in the one who gave birth to a devil baby), Professor Lupin, and Dumbledore. In fact, Lord Voldemort has a cameo. I shit you not. I don’t mean the actor, either. The acting wasn’t superb, but it wasn’t horrible; it was certainly more than mediocre.

Though the film was beautifully shot, the cinematographer went overkill on the visual metaphors suggesting all things evil. I don’t remember enough about the original for this version to be ruined for me, but this much I can tell you: I was not sufficiently creeped out.

I was thinking I’d stop writing reviews because I don’t usually write serious, thoughtful, critical ones. But this is my blog and I don’t take such things seriously so I’m going to do whatever the fuck I want.

Romance movies SO do not appeal to me. I might watch a romantic comedy, but full out romantic movies just aren’t my thing. But when I saw the trailer for The Time Traveler’s Wife, the premise really intrigued me. Imagine being married to someone who travels through time but can’t control when it happens. What a pain in the ass. Would you be able to stay with that person? Anyway, the science-fiction-y part is what really interested me.

Still, I was apprehensive so I was really surprised that I thought the movie was absolutely AMAZING. Granted, I’m also a sucker for movies set in Chicago, even bad ones (Touch and Go), though I’m told much of Time Traveler was filmed in Toronto. Still, there’s enough of Chicago there for me to love, including a very authentic-looking Marshall Field’s bag in a scene that takes place before Satan Macy’s bought them out. My minor quibble is in another scene set in the 70s, in which the el car is clearly not one from that time period, as pictured here. But probably only someone like me would notice things like that.

Also, the costumer had Rachel McAdams, who I’ve loved since I saw Mean Girls all of 5 weeks ago (I know, I know), dressed in old lady-ish sweaters. WTF? BTW, Gomez is played by Ron Livingston, better known as Peter, the hero of the classic movie, Office Space. (Ironically, one of the main characters in Office Space is also a main character in Touch and Go. Go figure.)

I’m not sure why the movie is called The Time Traveler’s Wife, when it was more about Henry, the time traveler, rather than his wife — more about their relationship, even. Still, it was a really neat tale. Even BRIAN liked the movie! I can’t wait to read the book.

by Douglas Coupland

Brilliantly, wonderfully depressing. In a witty sort of way. Creative Writing MFA (prospective, past, and present) students, especially, should read this novel.

by Cormac McCarthy

I was looking forward to seeing this movie, since people only had good things to say about it, but then I discovered that the book came first. And when that’s the case, I always read the book before I see the movie. Though I’d never read Cormac McCarthy’s work, I didn’t think I’d like it because I had the impression that his stories are all set in the Old West, which doesn’t interest me. But since I knew the movie is set more recently then that, I gave it a whirl and I’m glad I did!

To absorb all the nuances, I read this book twice — partly because it wasn’t until about halfway through that I was able to understand McCarthy’s narrative style. His use of dialogue reflects the speech patterns of that part of Texas, which is more extreme than say, a Houston accent, which I only know because I lived in that city for a year. McCarthy writes almost phonetically, so I had trouble understanding some of what was being said. For example, he’d write “kindly” when what the character actually means is “kind of.” In addition, McCarthy rarely, if ever, uses quotation marks throughout, so sometimes it was hard to know who was saying what until you got to know the characters. The second read helped a lot.

The narrative is sparse, yet includes so much detail. He makes your imagination work hard! Seeing the movie first would have ruined the aesthetic experience for me. Each chapter begins with a first-person narrative that reads almost like a journal entry, and is what the story is really about. It only took me about 2/3 of the way through the book to figure it out, though!

I’m very excited about seeing the movie — just bought the DVD. It’s bound to be as great as everyone says, considering it’s a Coen brothers film.

by Terry Brooks

Books tend to be better than their movie versions, and in this case, though the movie was released first, the book is still better. I’m not a big sci-fi/fantasy lit. fan (except for Star Wars obviously, and Harry Potter I suppose), so I’m unfamiliar with Terry Brooks’s work, but it’s clear he’s an excellent writer. I just don’t like his writing style.

Brooks wrote in scenes and in some places, entire chapters, but The Phantom Menace isn’t his story. If I read one of his own novels, I may have a different opinion. I realize that what bothers me about his writing style is nitpicky. For example, he often refers to Obi-Wan as Qui-Gon’s protégé, which he is, but I don’t believe that word exists in Basic (the predominant language in the Star Wars universe). “Padawan” and “apprentice” are more appropriate. At one point, Brooks uses the word glass, but in SW, this is called “transparisteel,” just as paper is “flimsiplast” or “flimsi” for short, and concrete is “permacrete.”

As mentioned earlier, TPM novelization is an improvement over the movie. One reason, and this is certainly true for most books-to-movies, is because the storyline is expanded. Brooks’s additions provide more insight into the characters’ qualities and relationships with one another, along with their intentions and motivations. He achieves this even in chapters directly from the screenplay by cutting a bit here and writing in something there, which results in more fully developed characters. The author also allows readers into the characters’ heads, successfully transforming Jar Jar from an annoying fool into a tolerable being with intelligent thoughts and sincere feelings but without the capacity to express them.

If not for the special effects and Darth Maul’s gratifyingly menacing face, all of which are described well, I’d recommend the book over the movie. Without a doubt.