“Why aren’t we flying? Because getting there is half the fun. You know that.”

The National Lampoon magazine debuted in 1970, as a spin-off of the Harvard Lampoon. In contrast to its parent magazine, it came out monthly and was distributed — as its name suggests — on a national level. The magazine rapidly grew in popularity, and by the end of the decade was successful enough that the company was able to branch out into movies, with 1978′s Animal House. The film was a comedy hit, especially among the college students who were both the subject and the target audience of the Lampoon’s brand of humor.

A follow-up, however, proved more difficult. Class Reunion, released in 1982, only made $10 million at the box office; by comparison, Richard Pryor’s The Toy made nearly five times as much the same year. Movie Madness was meant to come out in 1981 as the company’s second film, but was delayed — getting only a limited release in 1982. It would eventually get a full release in late 1983, and bomb. But success came with the third film, one that broke a bit from the college-oriented mold of the others. Although it was R-rated, and thus not for children, it nevertheless appealed to those adults with families thanks to its familiar themes. Released in the summer of 1983, National Lampoon’s Vacation became the company’s second hit.

“Who’s the moosiest moose we know? Marty Moose!
Who’s the star of our favorite show? Marty Moose!”

For their third film, National Lampoon went to the same screenwriter as for their second, John Hughes. In this case, Hughes was to adapt a screenplay out of a short story he had written for the magazine, “Vacation ’58″. The story was a fictionalized account of a family’s trip to Disneyland, and was supposedly inspired by actual trips Hughes’ family had made — though greatly exaggerated. For the film adaptation, a few changes were made. The number of children was reduced to two from four, and the year was updated to the year the film was being made. Most importantly, the destination was changed from Disneyland to a fictional equivalent, “Walley World” — although the similarities are deliberately obvious. One reason cited for the change was that Disneyland, unlike the Walley World of the story, is open year-round.

“Sorry folks, park’s closed. Moose out front shoulda told ya.”

Many of the elements from the short story wound up in the screenplay and the final film. The strange relatives they have to deal with on the way, the fate of Aunt Edna’s dog, and the scene when Clark is getting fleeced by unethical repairmen are taken almost verbatim from the story. In fact, although most of the names changed from story to screenplay, the father is Clark W. Griswold, Jr. in both. The screenplay was the third one John Hughes had ever written for film, after Class Reunion and Mr. Mom. It would be his first out-and-out hit… but it would not be his last. Hughes went on to be one of the most successful writers and directors of the 1980s, with his films still being remembered today as some of the most iconic of the decade.

“We’re not from around here.”

There were, of course, changes and additions to the story as well. The ghetto scene, which director Harold Ramis has since said he would do differently if he had to do it over again, was original to the screenplay, replacing a scene in which the station wagon is attacked by Indians. Ramis and star Chevy Chase were on board for the film from the beginning, and had a hand in some of the re-writes. Many of the other added events in the script were based on Ramis’s own experiences driving his family across country. But most of the changes were simply to change the focus of the film. In particular, the short story was told from the perspective of the teenaged son, and the initial script kept Rusty as the focal character — making it one of the coming-of-age stories that would become John Hughes’ trademark. Ramis and Chase felt that Clark, the father who had to work fifty weeks a year and was trying to be a super-dad during the vacation, was the more interesting character. Thus, a thirteen-year-old girl who was supposed to repeatedly encounter Rusty during the vacation was changed to a young woman, played by Christie Brinkley in her film debut, to test and tempt Clark as his frustrations with his family grew.

“This is crazy! This is crazy! This is crazy!”

Playing the role of Clark’s initially-patient wife, Ellen, was Beverly D’Angelo. D’Angelo had some initial reservations about auditioning for the role: “I was twenty eight and I was to play the mother of a fifteen-year-old, but my husband laughed out loud at the script, and I idolized Chevy, so I went in for the audition.” Chase and D’Angelo quickly became friends on the set, which helped sell the characters not just for the film but for the eventual sequels.

“Sit down and shut up! Move outta that seat and I’ll split your lip!”

The kids were played by Dana Barron and Anthony Michael Hall. It was the second film role for each of them. Only 16 and 14, respectively, at the time of filming, their ages were approximately the same as their characters — though Rusty was supposed to be the older one. While Barron would have occasional minor roles as her career went on, Hall would go on to become a star in his own right — thanks, in large part, to more John Hughes films. The film also featured the debut of character actress Jane Krakowski. Krakowski, who would become known for roles in Ally McBeal and 30 Rock, played the part of cousin Vicki, one of the numerous children of cousin Eddie.

“I’m going steady, and I French kiss.” “So? Everybody does that.”
“Yeah, but Daddy says I’m the best at it.”

Cousin Eddie himself was memorably played by Randy Quaid. Though it was a small role, it proved to be a memorable one — perhaps because so many people have that one relative who is just a few cards short of a full deck. Although he didn’t reprise the role for the immediate sequel, European Vacation cousin Eddie was brought back for the other films in the series, even earning a TV movie of his own (although the movie, much like cousin Eddie, isn’t spoken of in polite company.)

But while Eddie would become iconic as the relative who causes Clark the most inadvertent grief, in the original film he only introduces Clark to his nemesis for much of the film: Ellen’s cantankerous Aunt Edna. The Griswolds are talked into taking Edna with them for part of their trip in order to take her back to her home after she was staying with Eddie and his family, and she tries the patience of Clark and Ellen and both children. Imogene Coca, who had been a famous comedienne on Your Show of Shows, played the shrewish old woman, and had to be talked into taking the role because of how mean the character was. Even during filming Coca would express sorrow over how malicious she had to be to her co-stars during scenes.

“Is this your idea of a good restaurant, dog killer?!”

Aunt Edna’s death scene, which culminates in the family driving with her corpse on the roof in order to drop her off at her son’s, underwent one small change during filming. Originally, Coca was to wiggle her fingers some while on the roof, to indicate that she was actually still alive. However, the idea of driving with a live elderly person on the roof, even one as mean as Aunt Edna, was deemed to be too cruel.

There was one other change made to the script in order to make it more palatable to audiences, and it was a big one. The final sequence, where the family finally arrives at Walley World only to find it closed for repairs, originally culminated with Clark breaking into the home of Roy Walley (Eddie Bracken) and holding him hostage. The scene was filmed, and shown to the test audience. According to Ramis, “It didn’t play at all. The audience was with us for seventy-five minutes, embracing the film, and then dead silent — not another chuckle.” Ramis brought Hughes back for a rewrite on the ending. The original ending, however, was not completely discarded — it served as an inspiration for the ending on the third film, Christmas Vacation.

“If you were me, wouldn’t you do the same thing for your children?” “No.”

Ramis realized that the funnier ending for the film would be if the family hijacked the park itself. Due to the scene being shot several months later, sharp-eyed viewers can notice a small difference, as Hall’s growth during the intervening months now left him taller than D’Angelo. John Candy was brought in to play the role of the security guard that Clark takes hostage. Ramis was a fan of Candy’s, and thought he and Chase would work well together. For the theme park, they filmed at Six Flags Magic Mountain. Although the Walley World backdrop is a matte painting, the rides shown are real, not props, and the actors are actually riding them in the film. Because the shots required multiple takes, it was a difficult experience for the cast. Dana Barron suffered from motion sickness and had to take pills for it, which left her passing out between takes. Anthony Michael Hall has said that his expressions of fear on the roller coaster scenes are genuine.

“That’s not a real gun, is it Clark?”
“Are you kidding? This is a Magnum P.I.”

What makes Vacation work — and what makes the better of the sequels work — is a combination of absurdity, sympathy, and familiarity. It takes the common hassles of vacations that most families can relate to, and elevates them to comic levels. Meanwhile, even as Clark gradually loses his mind, the audience maintains sympathy with him because they know why he’s losing his mind. It’s not just that the audience has been there, it’s that they can see that, despite it all, he really is trying his best to do what’s right by his kids. He just doesn’t always know how to go about it, and life keeps getting in the way. It provides a bit of balance to the film’s zaniness, as although the whole point is to watch Clark fail repeatedly, some part of the viewer wants to see him succeed in the end.

“We’re not really violent people. This is our first gun.”

The film was a major success at the box office, taking the #1 spot and earning $61 million — four times its production budget. It went on to be considered a classic family comedy even despite the R rating. Aside from Animal House, it is the most popular film film in National Lampoon’s line-up. Total Film‘s readership ranked it as the #46 greatest comedy of all time in a 2000 poll, and it has a 95% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Vacation spawned a number of sequels. Two years later, it was followed up with European Vacation, and in 1989, Christmas Vacation. Both films were successful, with the latter being a comedy classic in its own right (and another of my favorite films). In 1997, a more belated sequel, Vegas Vacation was produced, and 2003 brought a TV-movie spin-off focusing on Cousin Eddie’s Christmas. Though neither was as well received as the 1980s originals, the brand remains vital, being referenced in more than one ad campaign in recent years. And work is currently underway for another sequel, featuring Ed Helms as a grown-up Rusty taking his own family to Walley World one last time before it closes its gates for good. Chevy Chase and Beverly D’Angelo are reprising their roles as Rusty’s parents.

National Lampoon’s Vacation is one of the touchstones of 1980s comedy. It’s a film which has had lasting popularity, and it remains relatable to new viewers due to its strong sense of humor and its familiar problems. It cemented Chevy Chase’s popularity by creating a character who was instantly recognizable — we all know someone like Clark Griswold because to some extent, we’re all a bit like Clark Griswold. And it created a formula, the family vacation comedy, which is still frequently imitated today — from The Great Outdoors to RV — though most of the successors have been less successful. It’s a film which is instantly relatable and always funny, and it’s one of my favorite films.

“This is no longer a vacation. It’s a quest, a quest for fun.”

What got me thinking about the Oscars, and awards in general, was checking out info on a few films on my watchlist and finding that they had been Best Picture nominees. I had put them on my watchlist due to having heard high praise for them, so it didn’t really come as a surprise, but it was nevertheless news to me. (The films in question, if it matters, were His Girl Friday and The Ox-Bow Incident). This got me to thinking. There are certainly Oscar-nominated films on my watchlist, but only in a few cases were films there specifically for that reason. And then I got to thinking that, as somebody who tries to be informed on movies, I really ought to be sufficiently informed on these films to have an opinion on what should and shouldn’t have won.

Which means I need to add the whole lot of them to my watchlist, minus those I’ve seen already.

I seem to have a knack for giving myself projects with long, indefinite completion dates. After 85 years of the Oscars, there are 503 Best Picture nominees — 506 if one counts the first year’s Award for Unique and Artistic Production, which I think one should as it was meant to be an award of equal prestige. I’ve seen 62, a little less than an eighth of them. My watchlist is growing by 444 titles (well, minus those already present). It’s a little bit daunting, but it does come with the benefit that any time I complete all of a year’s Best Picture nominees, I’ll be able to make a blog post ranking them with respect to each other. I already know a couple years where I disagree with the Academy’s choices.

Of course, I also know that it will take me a while to complete any year (except possibly 1994, where I’m just one film away), especially since I’m not going to go organizing a marathon of them or anything. Some will even be impossible, as there are a few films from early on that are currently lost — or as close as makes no difference (a film with one copy in the UCLA vault hardly seems accessible to me). But I’ll be paying at least a bit of attention to them when making my viewing choices, in amongst all the other stuff.

But something else I know is that there will occasionally be films that, if they weren’t nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, I would be very unlikely to check out. Which — 500 words into the essay — brings me to my point, and a question for the readers: How much importance do we put on the various movie awards, and why?

For me, the importance of the Oscars, and the value I assign to a film receiving a nomination or win, is down to a couple things. First is that this is a prestigious award and one that’s long established. It’s a bit circular — “it’s important because it’s important” — but movie fans by and large will agree that, whether we agree with the choices or not, the Oscars are kind of a big deal. And part of that is because, even when we think something doesn’t deserve to win, it’s not really easy to get there. There are hundreds of films released every year. Plenty of them are good films. Only a handful can conceivably make it to the nomination stage. There’s a degree of elitism in that only Academy members — a select group of people from different roles in film making — can vote on the Awards. But that elitism, although it sometimes causes a disconnect with the public, does have an advantage to it: it’s not as easily swayed. Even if I don’t agree with a choice, I respect it a bit more when it’s people who know what they’re talking about, as opposed to a bunch of high schoolers who have time to repeatedly click on a Yahoo poll.

That said, a personal recommendation always carries more immediate weight for me. It is, after all, a question of my entertainment.

Of course, not all awards are created equal. I’m adding the Best Picture Oscar nominees to my watchlist, but I’m not doing the same with most of other Oscars. Maybe Best Animated Feature, because it’s a category that interests me (and is also mercifully smaller). But I don’t expect I’ll be squaring off against all the Best Supporting Actor nominations; I have a feeling that by the time I saw all the films for a given year, I’ll have trouble remembering that detail. It’s easier to keep track of “Best Picture”. I don’t really picture myself making quite a point out of adding films from other awards shows either. Maybe it’s just me, but the Golden Globes always seemed like a bit of an also ran; I like the split on drama/comedy in Best Picture, but it still seems as though if the Globes disagree with the Oscars, it’s the Oscars that everybody listens to. And with other awards, well, nobody’s even paying attention anyway. I could go through the Saturn Awards for Best Sci-Fi and Fantasy film, and maybe I’ll do that just for my own sake, but I don’t know that anybody would be interested in reading my opinion on what they got right and wrong.

So, for now, I’m just in the process of adding Best Picture to my watchlist. But my question to the audience remains open: How much importance do you put on awards, and why?

But when you throw somebody like Steve Martin the mix, as director Arthur Hiller did with 1984′s The Lonely Guy, then there’s the potential to be one of the more entertaining films in the genre… and also to be that true rarity, a romantic comedy that one can enjoy while not on a date. Arguably, it’s even better for those who aren’t romantically involved at all…

…so long as they aren’t sad sacks like this.

Steve Martin plays Larry Hubbard, a greeting card writer living in New York City. When his girlfriend dumps him for another man and throws him out of their apartment, he finds himself unexpectedly joining the ranks of the “lonely guys”. He initially figures he’s just having a bad turn, but finds that people are able to immediately peg him as a lonely guy just by how he looks and his behavior. His guide into the life of the lonely guy is Charles Grodin, turning in a hilariously depressed performance as long-time lonely guy Warren. Warren and Larry meet on a park bench, and Warren is immediately able to tell that Larry is not just a lonely guy, but a first-time lonely guy. Warren takes Larry under his sad little wing and instructs Larry on how to purchase plants to furnish an empty apartment, how to throw parties when nobody comes, and the best bridges from which to contemplate suicide.

He’s like Forrest Gump, if Gump were a carrier for clinical depression.

The other driving force in Larry’s life as a lonely guy is, of course, a girl. He meets Judith Ivey’s Iris and the two hit it off… but Iris is terrified of falling in love and losing. So even once Larry finds somebody who may be the one, he’s still a lonely guy.

Ivey does a fine job as the slightly goofy commitment-phobe, but Martin and Grodin are the real standouts here. Grodin plays such an extreme case of the sad sack that he is almost impossible to take seriously, but he pulls it off with natural ease, making the whole thing that much funnier. And Martin’s character is just on the verge of being a normal guy, but with just that extra bit of pathos and frustration to show how easy it would be for him to wind up on Warren’s path. There’s a lot of verbal humor between the two. In fact, there’s a lot of humor, period; one of the best moments is when Larry finally deals with his ex-girlfriend, but there are funny moments almost constantly. Some of it’s subtle, and some of it is just short of the wild takes of Martin’s earlier comedies.

It gets to be downright satirical with its take on relationships and loneliness. Through Larry’s journey, the film shows many different forms of being a lonely guy. You can be a lonely guy when you’re just dumped, or when you’ve been alone for some time. You can be a lonely guy whether you’re rich or poor, employed or unemployed. You can be a lonely guy with no friends, a few friends, or surrounded by friends. You can be massively popular and still be a lonely guy. And you can find the girl of your dreams and still be a lonely guy. Although it’s still a romantic comedy to the degree that it has the audience rooting for Larry and Iris to get together, the overall effect is such that there’s a sense of parody about the whole thing… and not just that it’s parodying romantic comedies, but that it’s parodying the entire concept of centering one’s life around romance.

It’s a very smart film, and a funny one besides. Most of the time, a “romantic comedy” is so called because it’s romantic and it has an upbeat tone; the “comedy” part is in the classical sense of “a story that ends happily”. But with The Lonely Guy, it’s a comedy in the modern sense as well. Romance provides the setting for the comedy, but it’s the comedy that will reward people who watch this film.

Rating:

It’s not exactly on the level of Queen, but you roll the dice and you take your chances…

As the title implies, the theme of the song is pretty much “that’s life, take what you get and roll with it”. The lyrics aren’t anything special, but they’re not bad either. Just run of the mill “my life is rough, but I can deal with it” sort of stuff. It’s been done better, and it’s been done worse. The song — lyrics and melody together — is one that falls just a little bit short of “good” for me, though. It gives the impression that it’s something that could be really good with the right singer, but Robbie Nevil isn’t it. Nevil wrote the song himself, with a couple of co-writers, but it was first recorded by Beau Williams in 1984. Nevil then covered it on his 1986 debut album. I gave Williams’ version a listen after I finished Nevil’s, and I think I like it a bit better, thanks to Williams having a slightly richer voice. Nevil is just a bit too whiny sounding to me, and there’s a shallowness to the performance that reminds me of the later boy bands; his mannerisms in the video also have something of that element.

Speaking of the video, it’s also a miss for me. There are a few nods to the scenes being described in the songs, but a lot of it’s taken up with dancing. That’s not a bad thing, necessarily, but the choreography here leaves much to be desired. It’s as if the people making the video were aware that women dancing in tight dresses is considered attractive, but were unable to figure out why. The dancing here is stiff and almost lifeless, as are the expressions of the dancers. Ironically, for a song about accepting life, the performers here act like they’re burned out on life. Combined with Nevil’s singing, the video as a whole comes across as the creation of somebody who just didn’t quite get what they were doing.

But maybe it’s just me. Certainly it seems to have had its moment in the spotlight. The song was all the way up at #6 on the Billboard year-end chart for 1987, and was #75 on MTV’s top 100 of the same year. At the video music awards, it took home the award for Best Cinematography and was a nominee for Best Editing. And while Nevil’s career never really took off as a performer, he did make his way in at #45 on VH1′s list of the top one-hit wonders of the 1980s.

So the random video selector has given me a bit of a puzzler this week. It’s a song and video I don’t like, but which had some definite popularity. Am I going to see agreement when this goes live? Or a legion of Robbie Nevil fans who think this song was terrific? Either way, I don’t think this is as strong a winner as Queen’s “You’re My Best Friend”. But that’s how things go when you decide to let something be selected at random. It’s not always something you like. You just have to grin and bear it, and wait for the next go-round. C’est la vie.

However, that has changed in recent decades. With the massive successes of The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, Hollywood now seems to be eager to adapt fantasy to films. So, being reasonably well-read in the genre, I have compiled a list of what I feel are the top fantasy series that have yet to be brought to the big screen.

There are, of course, a few caveats and rules in play. First, although my preferences have a heavy influence, it isn’t the only factor; popularity of the series, and its chances of actually happening are also considered. For example, though I love the Vlad Taltos novels by Steven Brust, the anachronic order could be a significant deterrent to Hollywood, at least while the novels are still ongoing; the episodic nature would make any individual book easy to adapt, but adapting the series would require either sorting them out (tricky while it’s unfinished) or having an actor whose age can reverse between films (thus greatly increasing the need for special effects). Secondly, I’m only looking at series, not individual novels (though of course, Hollywood may not want to adapt every book in a series). Third, when considering whether a series is “unfilmed”, I’m only looking at whether it has a theatrical release or not. Direct-to-video and TV movies do not count. Animated films count if and only if they’ve been released theatrically. Of course, TV adaptations do factor into the prognosis; A Song of Ice and Fire is certainly unfilmed by this definition, but it’s questionable whether the fans would really be clamoring for a film given the success of Game of Thrones as a TV series. And fourth, I had to have at least some familiarity with the series. While I’ve read a lot of fantasy novels, there’s always going to be something I haven’t read. If I’ve left off one of your favorites, it may simply be I haven’t gotten to it yet. Of course, some of the entries are ones I’ve only read a few novels in.

Those were the rules for the list; now, the list itself.

#10: The Belgariad

Author: David Eddings
Synopsis: In a world with several gods, one of them went mad long ago and was sealed away to protect the world. Now the mad god is breaking free, and a boy learns that prophecies state that he will be the one to slay the mad god. Guided by his ancestors, two of the most powerful sorcerers to ever live, he goes on a quest to acquire a mystic orb that is supposed to aid him in his quest.

Thoughts: The story, it has to be said, is not one of the more inventive ones in fantasy. But the series has had an enduring popularity due to a few factors. First, it’s written at the young adult level; neither too simplistic for teenagers nor excessively complex or difficult to read. Given that Hollywood enjoys targeting people in their late teens and early twenties with this genre, it’s not hard to see the appeal to them there. Secondly, while the story isn’t very original, the characters themselves are highly entertaining. Belgarath the sorcerer and Silk the assassin would be very popular among theatre audiences. I could see this happening, although if Hollywood has sense, they’ll avoid the largely-repetitive sequel series.

#9: Dragonlance

Authors: Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman
Synopsis: A diverse group of adventuring heroes reunites to regale each other with stories of their quests. However, one of their number is missing, sending only a mysterious note. The group reforms to seek her out as different nations and religious factions start to make war. Their quest quickly takes on global significance as they find themselves seeking an object of great magical significance.

Thoughts: I apologize if my synopsis is a bit vague or incorrect; it’s been close to 25 years since I’ve read the trilogy. What brings it to mind is that Hasbro and Warner Brothers have been feuding lately over the idea of a relaunch of Dungeons and Dragons as a film franchise. The previous D&D films were poorly written and didn’t have a lot of complexity to them — nor much resemblance to the sprawling stories that dedicated D&D players can create with their roleplaying. However, Dragonlance is a series created as a setting for D&D. They essentially have a story they could adapt easily for their purposes, so it’s somewhat surprising they haven’t done so (although there was a direct-to-video animated version of the first novel; still, as noted above, that doesn’t count for this list, especially as it was by no means as well-publicized as a theatrical film). Perhaps of particular note is that with a playful halfling, noble and heroic human and half-elf warriors, a cynical mage, and more in the party, there’s a character for everyone in the audience to latch onto. If one studio or another is going to do a Dungeons and Dragons film franchise, this is the direction they should look.

#8: The Wheel of Time

Author: Robert Jordan (and Brandon Sanderson)
Synopsis: A young man learns that he is the reincarnation of the man who locked the Dark One away but devastated the world in the process, and that he is destined to face the same fate. He must come to terms with his magical powers, the politics of the world, and his own impending insanity. Meanwhile, his friends and allies have their own deeds to accomplish before the Last Battle comes.

Thoughts: I read and reviewed all the books in the series on this blog, so regular readers already know a lot of my thoughts on the series. An overview is here for those who want it. Because it’s such a major series, it essentially demands to be mentioned on any such list… but I have to say the chances for it actually getting a film adaptation as a series are pretty slim. Not counting the prequel, there are 14 books in the series, and it’s an ongoing story, not a discrete set of episodes. It’s simply too much, especially given that the books are each the size of novels that Hollywood has taken to splitting into films (such as the final Harry Potter volume). 14 films would be highly questionable; 28 is inconceivable.

However, a series adaptation isn’t totally impossible. It’s just that fans would have to be willing to accept the abridged version. If all the fat is trimmed out, it might be possible to get it down to seven films. It would mean some subplots would have to be lost and others simplified, but there’s an ample amount of storylines would don’t do much to serve the overall story anyway, or which simply go on too long. On any other series, this amount of trimming would be a hatchet job — but this series could probably survive it, and quite possibly could even come off better for it. If nothing else, skipping the entirety of Crossroads of Twilight would be a mercy.

#7: Shannara

Author: Terry Brooks
Synopsis: When the Warlock Lord resurfaces, the Druid Allanon seeks out the last descendant of Jerle Shannara, the only person who can find and wield the fabled Sword of Shannara — the one weapon which is known to be able to defeat the Warlock Lord.

Thoughts: The Shannara series, particularly The Sword of Shannara, is (rightly) criticized a lot for closely paralleling The Lord of the Rings. But that’s not to say it isn’t entertaining, and it’s certainly popular — just doing a bit of research here, it was the first fantasy paperback to appear on the New York Times bestseller list. The series has only grown more and more sprawling as time goes on. Since the resemblance to its inspiration is merely close, not exact — and Hollywood is not overly concerned with originality anyway — there’s certainly room for it in Hollywood’s pantheon of fantasy films. And in this case, it’s looking like a definite possibility. IMDB lists The Sword of Shannara as currently in development — though this may be a TV series rather than a film. Although IMDB isn’t listing it such, Terry Brooks’ website mentions it being picked up as a series. Of course, that news is several months old, and things can change.

The website also mentions (and IMDb similarly lists) that the first novel in Brooks’ Landover series is being adapted to film — reportedly with Steve Carell to star. In the first novel, Magic Kingdom for Sale, a man from our world buys a fairy-tale kingdom through a classified ad and has to adjust to his new home and responsibilities as king. Personally, I always enjoyed Landover more than Shannara, and felt it was more inventive, but there’s no question which of the two is more popular overall.

#6: Discworld

Author: Terry Pratchett
Synopsis: Set on a flat world where common sense need not apply, Discworld is a comedic fantasy series with numerous different characters and storylines. There’s Rincewind the Wizzard whose inability to spell is exceeded only by his inability to cast spells, Granny Weatherwax the most fearsome and pragmatic witch in the mountains, Commander Vimes of the City Watch and, of course, Death… who has taken a confused liking to humanity.

Thoughts: Normally, a series being as long as Discworld would lower it’s chances, but the episodic nature of the books means that people who want to film adaptations are really spoiled for choice here. It’s possible to cherry-pick the more adaptable ones, and the others won’t affect things by their absence. And since the books generally don’t require that the reader be familiar with previous novels, the films could have the same trait. There have been several TV adaptations of the series in its native United Kingdom, but so far attempts for a theatrical release have fallen flat. This is at least partly due to executives simply not getting it, such as one incident Pratchett has related where it was suggested that Mort (about a boy who becomes Death’s apprentice) would make a great film “if it lost the death angle”. Still, if a producer with a brain makes the right approach, it’s conceivable the comic fantasy series could be seen on the big screen.

#5: Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn

Author: Tad Williams
Synopsis: A generation ago, King Prester John united his continent into a single nation. But with his passing, his sons fall into feuding and a civil war breaks out. With the Sithi King Ineluki seeking to reenter the world, one of the sons makes an alliance with the supernatural being to seal his rule. An orphan kitchen boy, seeking merely to survive, flees the castle and finds himself getting drawn into a quest to defeat Ineluki.

Thoughts: Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn would probably adapt very well to film. It has a plot that looks simple at first glance, but becomes more complex as it goes on, with twists and curves that will surprise an audience. And it maintains a sense of epic grandeur while not putting a great strain on a special effects budget. Plus, the series has a format that’s practically tailor-made for how Hollywood seems to like adapting series nowadays: it was released as a trilogy, but the third book was long enough that it was split into two for paperbacks. It is easy to picture Hollywood putting out films of The Dragonbone Chair, Stone of Farewell, and To Green Angel Tower Parts 1 & 2.

#4: Elric of Melniboné

Author: Michael Moorcock
Synopsis: Elric is the King of Melniboné. He is also frail, sickly, and an albino. Filled with loathing of the traditions of his people — which he feels has led to their stagnation — he is unpopular and his rule is threatened by his cousin, the heir to the throne. In order to preserve his rule and his people he resorts to extreme measures, including sorcery and pacts with dangerous beings. None of them are more dangerous than the very sword he wields, a sentient black blade called Stormbringer, which drinks men’s souls and wants nothing more than to bring about the destruction of all Elric holds dear.

Thoughts: Supposedly directors Chris and Paul Weitz were once planning on bringing this to film, but the news on that was from 2007. We can probably assume it isn’t happening. But as one of the more influential works in the genre, there’s little doubt that there will be another attempt at some point. The story of Elric is an exceptionally dark one, but in this day and age, that isn’t necessarily a deterrent to Hollywood — all it means is that it would stand out some against other fantasy series, which have their dark moments but are ultimately more optimistic.

#3: The Dresden Files

Author: Jim Butcher
Synopsis: If you want to find Harry Dresden, just pick up the Yellow Pages and turn to W, for “Wizard”. The only openly-practicing wizard in modern Chicago, Harry operates as a paranormal private eye, solving strange cases for clients and assisting the police when they have to face the unexplainable. Harry has to deal with both supernatural threats and organized crime, as well as the White Council of Wizards he’s a member of. The Council has laws of its own, and Harry is under constant threat of a death sentence should he ever again break one of the laws…

Thoughts: Not all fantasy has to be medieval. The Dresden Files are urban fantasy, mixing detective story tropes with fairy tales and a large dose of sarcastic humor. It’s a combination that isn’t really seen much in films yet, though TV has dabbled in it a few times. Examples include a one-season series based on The Dresden Files themselves, as well as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Grimm. But film examples are few and far-between — and generally not well regarded, such as the film version of BtVS or Dylan Dog. A film version of Storm Front and the other novels in the series could be very successful if they’re handled with greater care than those other films. The books are high quality and it’s a film niche that hasn’t been filled yet.

#2: Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser

Author: Fritz Leiber
Synopsis: Fafhrd is a seven-foot-tall barbarian warrior, prone to idealistic views but with a sense of practicality. The Gray Mouser is a diminutive and cynical thief. Together they seek out adventures for both money and a form of entertainment.

Thoughts: The tales of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser are some of the most influential fantasy stories out there, forming a lot of the classic sword-and-sorcery genre. In fact, to find anything more influential, one has to look to one of its inspirations, the Conan novels — though Leiber stated his purpose was to draw a contrast to Conan with characters who were a bit more grounded. The first stories were written in 1939 and the 1940s, and Leiber continued writing them until the 1980s. As influential as they were, their absence in film remains one of the more glaring omissions in the genre. This is especially true as, although lots of works have been inspired by them, the stories themselves still stand out from the crowd in style and content. The recurring attempts to bring Conan back (with the reboot a little while ago and the upcoming return of Arnold Schwarzenegger to the role) show that Hollywood is still interested in the sword-and-sorcery genre. Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser could work out very well, and deserves a chance to happen. Of course, the recent Conan reboot shows, much like sci-fi sword-and-sandal epic John Carter, that care must be taken to both make a good film and do a good job of marketing.

#1: The Chronicles of Amber

Author: Roger Zelazny
Synopsis: A man awakens in a hospital with no memory. He’s told he was in a car accident, and that he’ll be healing for weeks before he can walk. But his wounds have already healed. He finds he’s stronger than mortal men, and quickly pieces together that his accident was not so accidental. As he tries to recover his memory, he learns he is a prince of Amber, the one true world of which all others — including Earth — are merely shadows. He sets out on a quest to restore his memory, get his revenge, and claim the throne.

Thoughts: There is no fantasy film news that would leave me as excited or concerned as news that somebody was tackling Nine Princes in Amber and its sequels (though news of an adaptation of Zelazny’s other novel Lord of Light would come close). The novels were some of the first fantasy I read, and still rank as the best series. Constantly exciting, there are twists and turns every step of the way — and as anybody who has done a re-read knows, these twists aren’t just thrown in spur of the moment. There are hints and clues setting things up even several novels in advance. If Hollywood approaches these intelligently, it would be easy to adapt them into a great film series. The novels share an overarching plot, but each has a clear beginning and ending, and each novel is relatively small for a fantasy novel (at least by today’s standards). It wouldn’t be necessary to trim anything significant out. The characters have deviously complex motivations, even the protagonist, and it’s not always possible to tell who is on whose side. I would be inclined to think that Hollywood should probably just focus on the original five novels, and not the sequel series, but it’s possible those could be adapted successfully as well, though they’re not quite up to the same quality. But the original five are absolutely a possibility. I’d be worried about the possibility of the studio screwing it up, but I would still love to see the attempt made.

There you have it. Ten fantasy novel series that Hollywood could adapt into films. Anything you think doesn’t belong there? Or something that was left out which should have been included? Or perhaps you think that Game of Thrones doesn’t preclude a film adaptation of the same material after all. Whatever your thoughts, let me know in the comments.

Like most children of the 80s, I was familiar with Angela Lansbury primarily from Murder, She Wrote or from her voice-acting as the kindly Mrs. Potts in Beauty and the Beast. If I had ever stopped to think of it, I’m sure it would have been obvious to me that she didn’t simply stroll into Hollywood as a senior citizen. But it’s not something that really occurs to a person until one sees the evidence of it, and so it came as a bit of a surprise to see her playing the role of Myra Leeds in Please Murder Me, a 1956 film noir directed by Peter Godfrey. And in this film, she’s not a meddling crime solver; rather, she’s at the center of the crime herself, as a young woman accused of murdering her husband.

And millions of Jessica Fletcher detractors cry out “I knew it!”

Though Lansbury’s Myra is the central figure in the murder case, it’s Raymond Burr who is the star of the film. Burr’s character, attorney Craig Carlson, has been friends with Joe Leeds (Dick Foran) for many years. One night, however, he has to come clean with his old friend, though he fears it’ll cost him his friendship: he and Myra are in love, and Myra is looking to divorce Joe and marry Craig. Joe is visibly distressed, but rather than getting angry, he tells Craig to give him a few days to think things over. A few days later, Myra fatally shoots Joe, claiming self-defense, and Craig finds himself having to defend his lover in court for killing his best friend. The film is centered around the trial and the aftermath on Myra’s and Craig’s relationship.

The lead actors both put in terrific performances. Burr’s role requires a multifaceted display of emotions, as his character has to run through the full gamut of feelings rapidly as the circumstances change. His charisma is on full display as he attempts to sway the jury, and the feelings he has for both Myra and Joe are easily read. Lansbury, meanwhile, has a more subtle role as Myra, the femme allegedly-fatale of the piece. She puts on a good display of being the damsel in distress while in court, but her nuanced mannerisms, coupled with a reasonably strong script, plant just enough doubt to make the audience wonder if she’s really all she appears to be. This is added to by the brief performance of Dick Foran as the slain husband, as the audience’s sympathies are quickly established before he is killed. Solid performances by John Dehner, Lamont Johnson, and Robert Griffin round out the film with side characters are just as believable and entertaining as the main characters despite their smaller roles.

Despite the fact that this isn’t a who-dunnit so much as a why-she-dunnit, the mystery at the center of this film is still compelling. Most of this is because of the gradual change in Burr’s character as he begins to question his own belief in his lover’s innocence. Please Murder Me provides an interesting story with characters that provide the drama which keeps it exciting. The facts of the case take a sideline to the motivations of the characters, and it’s in those motivations where the mystery and interest truly lies.

Rating:

Kiefer Sutherland is going back to playing Jack Bauer for a limited series: 24: Live Another Day. The series will run for 12 episodes representing 24 hours (reportedly still maintaining the real-time premise, which raises some obvious questions). It will air on FOX during the summer of 2014.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is in talks to star in a remake of campy cult classic The Toxic Avenger; although he will be in “a lead role”, he will not be playing the title role. There is no part of this news that doesn’t have me laughing.

Last week, Warner Brothers declared their intention to create a new Dungeons and Dragons movie. This week, Hasbro is saying “not so fast”. WB’s prospective film is coming through a partnership with Sweetpea Entertainment, who held the license for the previous films. But Hasbro is suing Sweetpea, claiming that the rights have since reverted back to them (as the company which owns the game). Hasbro reportedly was trying to get Universal to pick up the movie reboot when the Warner Brothers news broke. I obviously don’t know the specifics of the contract, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the final result was Sweetpea getting squeezed out while WB and Hasbro come to an agreement based on their mutual love of money.

Scarlett Johansson is the latest actor to turn director. She’s working on an adaptation of Summer Crossing, a Truman Capote novel that would have been his first had he not initially discarded it (it was later salvaged after Capote’s death and published with his editor’s blessing). The story is about a romance between a debutante and a Jewish parking attendant in the summer of 1945.

Aaron Foley may be stillborn. CBS has declined to pick up the pilot for the Beverly Hills Cop TV series focusing on Axel’s son. Producers are exploring other options.

The “CTHD” sequel — now titled Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2: The Green Destiny is still moving forward. The good news for fans of the original? Ronny Yu (Freddy vs. Jason) is no longer set to direct. Instead, it’s Woo-ping Yuen, fight choreographer from the original film and director of Drunken Master. Also good news is that Michelle Yeoh is confirmed to be returning.

Rumors and Speculation:

If you were among the few who watched Dredd and were hoping for a sequel, your hopes aren’t quite baseless. Star Karl Urban says he’s been talking with Alex Garland (who wrote and produced the film), and that due to strong Blu-Ray sales a sequel isn’t out of the question.

This “almost but not quite” familiarity left me with an odd form of anticipation when Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg came out with The Adventures of Tintin in 2011. I knew what Tintin was, unlike most Americans, but I knew very little more. I knew the general tone of the stories, but not the specifics. I could recognize Tintin, Snowy, Captain Haddock, and Thompson and Thomson… but I didn’t know the characters. Seeing the previews was an odd mix of nostalgia and novelty at the same time. It became one of my most anticipated films of 2011… but as bad luck would have it, I didn’t manage to see it until now. That said, it was well worth the wait.

Amazing what you’ll find when you start looking.

The Adventures of Tintin opens up with a great silhouette-based animated credit sequence, but the majority of the film is animated using CGI. Human characters were done using motion-capture; it’s essentially the same technique as with 2004′s The Polar Express, but with the better part of a decade to improve things, Tintin‘s characters look considerably more alive. There may still be some audience members who find the characters fall into the Uncanny Valley, but on the whole, the combination of motion-capture, skin tones utilizing subsurface scattering, and comic-book-based proportions results in characters that look like cartoonish humans rather than dead-eyed automata. Pixar showed that CG humans could be acceptable if made with traditional cartoon proportions; here Spielberg and Jackson show another approach can work as well. It works sufficiently well, in fact, that I recall hearing from some people who thought it was a mix of animation and live-action.

I can almost understand it in the case of Tintin, but Thomson and Thompson are another matter.

The film simply looks gorgeous. The characters move fluidly and realistically thanks to the motion capture. Hair looks realistic, and the characters not only look good, but seem reasonably true to the comic book appearances — at least, from what I can remember or look up of the books. Backgrounds are beautifully detailed, and I find myself wishing I’d been able to see this in 3D, as it was probably a great use of the medium.

The story, adapted from parts of a few of the comics, is engaging and exciting. Tintin (Jamie Bell) is an investigative journalist who stumbles into a new mystery when he buys a model ship and suddenly finds himself the target of people who seem to be willing to do anything to get their hands on it. His inquiries into why the ship is so valuable lead him to meet and befriend Captain Archibald Haddock, whose voice and motions are performed by Andy Serkis, undoubtedly the best-known motion-capture actor in the business. Serkis brings the drunkard Haddock to life brilliantly, and it’s a good choice to put the veteran actor in the role. Tintin fits into a fairly solid heroic archetype, of the young adventuring investigator persona, but despite being the title character, it’s not precisely his story. It’s Haddock whose family heritage is at the center of the mystery, and it’s Haddock who undergoes all the character growth in the film.

There’s a lot of pressure on a guy who needs a stiff drink to act sober.

In the parts of identical Interpol agents Thomson and Thompson are Nick Pegg and Simon Frost. The comic duo work perfectly as the bumbling detectives; their vocal performances are similar, but just barely different enough to, paradoxically, make it even more confusing to figure out which is which. Between the policemen and Captain Haddock, there’s a fair amount of humor in the film, but its heart is a solid adventure story in the vein of the old pulp action stories (which, indeed, is about the era the first Tintin stories were created in). Daniel Craig rounds out the major cast as another character chasing after the model ship, and provides an energy and sense of urgency to the quest, which takes the heroes on a tour of several Mediterranean locations which are all brought to life beautifully.

The Adventures of Tintin is sometimes funny, often exciting, and always beautiful. I wavered just a bit on how to grade the film, wondering if perhaps the relative shallowness of some characters might warrant lowering it a mark. But I realized as I was considering that I was altogether too curious to find out how different aspects of it were done, how it was written, and all the rest of the details of its creation. The movie didn’t just excite me with its story… it excited me with the movie itself. That’s more than enough to outweigh the minor characterization issues, especially if Tintin himself winds up getting more development in later installments. The next chapter, The Adventures of Tintin: The Prisoners of the Sun, is due out in 2015. I’ll definitely be buying a ticket.

Now… is it too much to hope for that somebody puts a similar level of effort into an Asterix movie?

Rating:

The three films? The Three Stooges short Brideless Groom, Georges Méliès’s famous A Trip to the Moon, and the Charlie Chaplin Keystone short The Rounders.

Brideless Groom (1947):

Directed by Edward Bernds, this is another short featuring the Shemp configuration of the Stooges. In fact, this one has Shemp in the lead role as “Professor” Shemp Howard, vocal instructor, giving him a role that demonstrates some of the differences in his performances and Curly’s. As funny as Curly was, it would be difficult to picture the jovial and juvenile Stooge in this role. Professor Shemp is too irascible, being as abusive to Larry as Moe usually is; at the same time, though, he has a degree of insecurity that would have been out of place had the role been filled with Moe. This comes into play with the fact that although Shemp is a bit of a ladies’ man, he’s nervous about the idea of marriage — which, in an idea paralleling the earlier Buster Keaton film Seven Chances, is a requirement for him to inherit a half million dollars. The plots are fairly similar overall — even down to this film also eventually devolving into the protagonists dealing with a mob of money-and-marriage-crazed women. The short has a somewhat different sense of humor than the Keaton film, though; while both are slapstick, of course, the fact that it’s active caused by the interactions of the Stooges makes it feel different than the simply unlucky Buster Keaton, and the Stooges have a different method of dealing with their problems. Aside from a deliberately-painful singing performance by Dee Green in the beginning (which has to be praised if only because that’s exactly what they were going for), Brideless Groom is a fun and funny take on the concept.

Rating:

A Trip to the Moon (1902):

Georges Méliès directed, wrote, and starred in this extremely early science fiction short. Inspired by stories from Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, it tells exactly what the title implies: a very fanciful take on what a trip to the moon might entail. A group of scientists fire a bullet-like rocket to the moon, encounter and fight moon men, and make their escape back to the Earth. The story is very simplistic — and being well before any real exploration is full of incidents that are more fantasy than sci-fi by today’s standards — but it’s enjoyable and pretty easy to follow. There is also narration for the film (rather than the title cards that would become the norm for silent films), available in both the original French and in English. The English, however, is still spoken by a Frenchman, and the narrator has a sufficiently thick accent that it is sometimes hard to understand him; the first several times he referred to “the president”, it sounded to me as though he was saying “the prisoner”, and I’m pretty sure prisoners aren’t generally allowed to organize trips to the moon. So the narration is something of a mixed blessing; it clarifies some details, but sometimes it’s hard to make out what’s being said, and other times it’s simply redundant. On a technical level, the film also has to be mentioned as one of the keystone moments in film (indeed, it’s probably for this that it’s remembered, more than anything), as it involves the use of several forms of special effects that still work reasonably well more than a century later.

Rating:

The Rounders (1914):

Although this is a Charlie Chaplin short, that isn’t actually why I decided to check it out. I decided to watch this film because it also stars Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, who I haven’t had the opportunity to see in action before. The film does show some of Arbuckle’s comic ability — and comic agility — but it doesn’t ever really get to show either of the comic stars to their fullest. It doesn’t quite get off the ground, perhaps because it is just 15 minutes long and thus doesn’t have time to build things up. The Rounders stars Arbuckle and Chaplin as two neighbors in a hotel, both being drunken sots and both having violent relationships with their wives. The wives — Minta Durfee and Phyllis Allen — berate and batter their husbands for their drunkenness, all the while protesting how they’re the victims in the relationships. This could be a very early take on inverting the lopsided stereotype of domestic violence and highlighting the hypocrisy of a wife being allowed to batter her husband with heavy objects while he isn’t allowed to strike back even in self-defense. This is particularly apparent when the title cards quip “Pity the poor weak women” while Chaplin is helplessly battered near to unconsciousness. However, the theme rather loses something when Arbuckle’s character resorts to trying to strangle his wife to get her to back off. Still, what drags the short down isn’t a lack of coherence in its theme, so much as it’s just a lack of anything to really laugh at. The comic antics aren’t comic enough, aren’t varied enough, and aren’t creative enough. As a result, The Rounders is a disappointing outing from comic actors who can clearly do better.

Rating:

As I am mostly a movie blogger, and read movie blogs, one of the questions I see come up often is how we all go about writing our reviews. I’ve generally just given a few short lines, but I thought I’d do a full post on my process here. People might find it interesting, and other bloggers might find it useful — or have suggestions that I’ll find useful. Either is good.

Selection & Viewing

Obviously the first thing to do when reviewing a movie is to select a movie to watch and review. Sometimes this is easier said than done, of course. Obviously, like anybody else reviewing movies, I like to check out the latest releases. But truthfully my theatre budget is pretty small at the moment; other than The Hobbit (which was a 2012 film held over), I haven’t even managed to get to a theatre so far in 2013, and here it is, mid-May. Not good. But fortunately, there’s an abundance of alternative sources for somebody who watches and reviews classic and vintage films.

Hulu, Crackle, Amazon, the Internet Archive and recently DishAnywhere provide the bulk of my viewing, with TV, cheap DVDs and the occasional theatre trip filling out the rest. Like I said above, I try to watch a lot of the bigger recent releases, and I watch a lot of classic films. I’m also drawn to films of the 1980s, since that’s the era of my childhood — it sort of leaves a permanent mark on one’s sensibilities. I favor sci-fi, action, and 80s comedies. I tend to avoid rom-coms and documentaries, but otherwise most genres are fair game. Priority is given to major films or movies which are on my “need to see” list (currently 759 items long). I’ll usually give a quick look to a synopsis to see what a movie is about and who is in it before I decide to watch it. And if I’m short on time, I’ll also factor in how long the film will take.

If I’m watching a movie that’s new to me, it’ll almost certainly get a review. Short films I’ll occasionally “hang on to” to accumulate for a larger group post, though. When I’m doing a Favorite Films review, I’ll watch the film and possibly watch it again with the commentary on as well.

When it comes to actually watching the films, I prefer to watch them late at night, with the lights off. This allows for a minimum of distractions. I’ll occasionally watch a film during the daytime, but it’s more likely to be an old short film in those cases — there are simply too many things that can interrupt a person during the day, as well as too many things to do.

Images

Most of the time, my reviews have anywhere between 1 and 4 images, depending on the length of the review. Favorite Films reviews will have a lot more. These are mostly there to help break up the “wall of text” effect, and also to give me a chance to make smart aleck remarks (whether the jokes actually work or not is variable.) For movies I watch on TV or in the theatre, I usually just grab promotional images that the studio has put out. It’s a limited selection, but what can you do? For movies on my computer, however, I take screen captures.

When I first started doing that, I did it the hard way. If I was watching a DVD (using PowerDVD), I pressed the screen capture button when I thought it was a good time to do so. If I was streaming a film, I pressed the button to accumulate images in a small (and rather limited) clipboard program I had downloaded. Either way, it wasn’t all that great. I had a limit of about 20 images in the clipboard program before I had to do some manual shuffling, and regardless, pushing a key is distracting. I don’t want to think “Screenshot Now” when watching a movie, I just want to watch the movie.

Fortunately, I’m a programmer. Coming up with arbitrarily complex computed solutions to minor problems is practically my job description. I wrote a couple Java programs to take care of things for me. One for the DVD films simulates a keypress on the C key, which PowerDVD uses for screen captures. The other, for streaming and downloads, takes a screenshot, saves it to a folder, and labels it with the prefix I’ve selected and a number. The first time I did this was with Desperado, and I had a mental glitch while writing the code, which is why the numeric suffix on those images have a lot of zeroes…. The programs run off a config file which tells the stream screencap bot where to save and what prefix to use, and tells each bot how long to run and how frequently to activate. I usually have them set to fire every 5 seconds. This allows me to sit back and watch the movie without worrying about getting screenshots. Sure, there’s a chance that some great screenshot will be missed… but it’s a relatively small chance, and odds are something else great will be gotten.

And to be frank, I wind up with plenty of choices.

As to which comes first, the quip or the chosen screenshot, sometimes it’s one, sometimes it’s the other.

Writing & Posting

Ah, yes, writing. I think that was related to the topic here, wasn’t it?

Generally after I watch a movie, since I watch them late at night, I fiddle around with other stuff for a little while and then go to bed. Yes, I literally “sleep on it”. There are a few reasons for this. One, just for the sake of clear writing; I know by that point I may not be at my best when it comes to writing. Two, waiting allows me to think more on the film and to evaluate whether it was good or I just got “caught up in the moment” from a few good scenes (such as with Superman Returns, which I really liked after I saw it, and then had a gradually lowering opinion with each subsequent day.) It also lets me think on different things I want to talk about, and to reevaluate whether my mood at the time was affecting my enjoyment of the film. And third, in the case of the Halloween Haunters, this gives the films the chance to give me nightmares. None of them have actually succeeded yet, but should any do so, I want to be able to note it properly in a review.

I generally write my reviews (and other articles) somewhere between mid-afternoon and late evening, when I’m at my most alert. I load up IMDb for cast info, grab the poster, and get started. I don’t take any notes during the movie; I keep it all mental. I’ll still usually have an idea of what points I want to hit, though. The beginning is usually the toughest part, for some reason. Once I figure out an intro, the rest generally comes fairly smoothly. I’ll usually try to give a summary at the end as well. I rate movies on a 5-star scale based almost entirely on how I feel about them from — how entertained I was, how much I enjoyed it, and how well done it was. Historical context is seldom a factor. I generally decide on the rating before I start writing the review, but occasionally I’ll find that by the time I’ve finished writing, I’ve talked myself into raising or lowering the score by a star.

Once the review is written, it’s scheduled for the next available day. Thus the way it works out (when the buffer is at its usual levels) is if I watch a film on Sunday, I write the review Monday, and post it on Tuesday. Favorite Films reviews have a longer lag time between viewing and posting — both because there’s research involved, and because they take me longer to write. A typical review is the work of between 30 and 60 minutes. A Favorite Films review takes several hours.

And you thought these things took a long time to read.

I typically schedule the posts to go up at 5:30 am Pacific Time. This makes it an early morning post for people on the East Coast of the U.S., and still not super-likely to be lost in the shuffle by the the time West Coast folks get up. This is to help it be visible in WordPress’s feed, to attract new readers. Not sure how well it works though.

The posts are automatically publicized through Facebook and Twitter. I’m subscribed to my own blog, so I also get an email when the post goes up. I’ve rigged Thunderbird to highlight it in red so I can remember to take care of a few last minute things. I post a brief review on Letterboxd with a link to the full review, and I also add it to the external reviews section of the film’s page on IMDb. These don’t bring in a lot of traffic, but it’s enough to justify a moment’s effort. And finally, I add the link to the review to my review indices. And after that, then I start reading and replying to comments.

And that’s pretty much the (very) long and (not so very) short of it. Fellow bloggers, what do you do?