Wednesday, May 31, 2006

UCLA SCREENPLAY CONTEST WINNER

Let's see...

First order of business, I'm up to page 15 in my latest Star Trek fiction rough draft and

I placed as a winner in the UCLA Professional Programs Screenplay Competition. Woohoo!

I don't know where I rank among the five winners, but I'm third in alphabetical order.

I don't know what I'm supposed to feel yet.

The script I placed with is "Heaven's Mandate." It's a tale about a Chinese Joan of Arc who fights with a magic sword to thwart a power-mad noblewoman from making herself the empress of China.

Anyone curious can find an excerpt in my
"Heaven's Mandate" Screenplay Excerpt post.

I'll look forward to learning where I finished and what the winners get.

Also, here's the e-mail I received from the Professional Programs Office:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please join us in congratulating the winners and honorable mentions for the 2005-2006 UCLA Professional Programs screenplay competition.

ALL students who participated in the contest are to be commended for their hard work. It should be noted that this contest is one of subjectivity. Many judges participated in the contest, and while one may not have preferred a particular script, another may have adored it (just like one agent may love your work, and another may say it’s not for them). There were many exceptional scripts that did not make it to the final round, and many of the judges have told us that the quality of this year’s submissions was extremely high. We'd also like to extend our deepest thanks to all of the judges for their participation.

Without further ado...

WINNERS (in abc order)

Barbara Curry
THE NOMINEE

Ryan Gilmore
THE DEVIL’S PLAYGROUND

Boris Layupan
HEAVEN’S MANDATE

David Mango
BLACK’S SONATA

Peter D. Pham
DERAILED


HONORABLE MENTIONS (in abc order)

Adriana Espinosa
SONS OF ILLUSION

Shaun Kosta
THE POSER

Susan Manard
EXTRA INNINGS

Robert Tomaguchi
EXHUME

Russ Tyler
TWOFACE

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

STATUS UPDATE

Let's see...

I'm up to page 10 in my handwritten first draft of my newest submission for this year's SNW contest. Looking forward to eking more pages out soon.

I chatted with JAMES PATRICK KELLY online on Tuesday, 5-23-06. Very good experience "meeting" him.

Now I have to finish off some final assignments for my screenwriting classes as they trickle in, read a screenplay for someone whom I owe a favor, possibly read a fiction story and post a comment on it, and prepare two short stories for critiquing (one down, 2/3 of another to go).

Busy, busy, busy.

Not counting all the normal nonwriting stuff I do.

I also would like to watch a film or two, but I've been busy and word is the current stuff and soon to be released offerings aren't stellar.

Looking forward to the June results of the UCLA script contest and my meetings with film and TV execs in July and August.

This summer may be big.

Tempus omnia relevant.

"Time reveals everything."

Thursday, May 18, 2006

SHORT STORY UPDATE

I've never kept track of my story progress this way like some other people. But I'm giving it a stab.

I'd mentioned outlining 3 Trek short stories for this year's SNW contest. I've since come to loathe one of them and found another to be problematic. Right now, I'm eking out the first. I'm seven handwritten pages into it. Don't know how many pages that'll translate to when typing it out or how many words, but it's a fair start. I know this'll be a sweet tale. I just have to finish the first draft, which I'm doing in my slow, if steady way.

To paraphrase Confucius: "It matters not how slowly one goes, so long as he does."

Maybe I'll start counting words soon.

Oh, on another note, I finished reading the current draft of "XPERTS: The Telekinetic" and gave my impressions to Critter captain Andrew Burt. I won't go into detail, but in a nutshell, the story and universe didn't do anything for me personally.


RETRO FILM REVIEW: HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE

Hi everyone,

I'm willing to bet the farm that at least one person reading this review has seen the fourth Potter movie. I didn't get into the first film, skipped the second, saw the third and was surprised that I enjoyed it.

I later read the first book,which made me understand why Harry Potter is a cultural phenomenon. In my opinion, Goblet of Fire is darker than Prisoner of Azkaban, butnot as stylish. The third film's my personal favorite.

Unlike most other film franchises which've become shells of their former glory by the fourth installment, Harry Potter seems to begetting stronger. It doesn't reach the level of LOTR, but there's still four more coming, so there's time to raise the bar--or fall below it.

The 700 page book has been condensed into 156 dense minutes that don't cover everything. We spend no time in the world of the magicless muggles. GOBLET takes place entirely on the Hogwarts School's grounds where even the teachers have to follow rules of magical behavior. Returning students visit the Quidditch campsite where the dreaded Lord Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) Death Eaters ruin the festivities by burning the site down. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), tormented by a recurring nightmare, foresees that he is in mortal danger.

In this installment, Hogwarts is hosting the Triwizard Tournament. Two other schools are vying for the honorable Goblet of Fire trophy: the Beaux batons (Beautiful Wands) Academy and the Durmstrang (Storm and Stress) Institute. Candidates, who willingly enter by placing their names in the Goblet of Fire, must be sixteen years old to join thedangerous competition of three challenges. The Goblet chooses not three, but four names. Harry, though only 14, cannot be excluded since the Goblet appears to want him to play.

Hogwart's ever-present, involved headmaster Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) asks Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody (Brendan Gleeson) to discreetly protect Harry, since Harry does not have the magical skills required to enter the three challenges.

The three challenges are fighting a dragon, an underwater rescue, and a run through a magical maze. The maze brings Harry face-to-face with tongue-wiggling Lord "No-Nose" Voldemort who needs Harry's blood to resurrect himself.

Now that Harry, Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) are fourteen, they are becoming interested in relationships. And the School's Yule Ball has everyone expected to pair up and dance! Harry, still not claiming his magical heritage, fumbles around girls. Ron, after having a jealous spat with Harry, starts to notice his feelings for Hermione (though he might have a crush on Harry?). Being more mature, Hermione accepts Durmstrang's muscular star Viktor Krum's (Stanislav Ianevski) invitation to the dance. Harry lets his opportunity to ask another girl to the ball slip through his fingers. And Hermione seems to have undeveloped feelings for Harry. Both Harry and Ron blow their opportunities for having a good time with the girls they do get as dates by moping over not being with the ones they wanted in the first place. Typical teen angst. Mike Newell (the first Brit todirect a Harry Potter flick) puts his flair in this sequence, showing his touch for dysfunctional relationships from Four Weddings and a Funeral.

Harry Potter fans demand certain things, so the film is faithful to the book. The dance, while central to the subplot of the development of the main character's sexual awakening, slows the magical pace. And there is just too many old, old wizards and witches. Doesn't magic also suggest enchantment and seduction?

When does magic get sexy? I kept hoping to see more of the Beautiful Wand girls. Tres interessant.

May I ask what happened to the Beauxbatons Academy's candidate in the maze? If the Triwizard Tournament is so prestigious in the world of wizards, the winner never takes the cup! Where's the grand ceremony honoring the triumphant winner?

And something I didn't understand was why the magic ministry didn't send out enforcers of some sort to deal with Voldemort's Death Eaters after they flamed the World Quidditch festivities?

The 156 minutes gives Newell enough time to seduce the audience with fantastic scenes that outreaches the other movies. Each is getting better without cheating the audience. There is a chilling twist I certainly did not see coming. I would have liked to spend more time with Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), and Minierva McGonagall (Maggie Smith), magicians of renown now teaching kids magical manners. What are their histories?

GOBLET is directed and paced well. But it's even less of a stand-alone than the earlier installments, depending on the audience'sknowledge from previous movies and/or the books. To me, the ending was anticlimatic with Ralph Fiennes playing a somewhat subdued Voldemort.

Something I liked about Harry's character is that he's not the classsic hero. Often stumbling and unsure of himself, he rises tothe occassion in a big way when he has to.

Here's hoping the next four Harry Potter films'll be gems.

Monday, May 15, 2006

JAMES PATRICK KELLY CRIT

I got comments on my short story SF "Honor and Justice" from JAMES PATRICK KELLY on Saturday May 13, 2006. Woohoo! I think I've gotten that final break through that I need to take it to the next level.

Market choices are Writers of the Future, Asimovs, and Baen's Universe. I'm going with WOTF.

I'll have to make some generous offerings to the writing gods for pairing JAMES PATRICK KELLY with my story.

All I have to do is rewrite it now. Easier said than done. But it'll be worth it.

And I'm busy on some Trek short tales now for Dean Wesley Smith's consumption.

Must get back to writing and doing all the maintenance stuff in my life.

Friday, May 12, 2006

NYC FICTION NOVEL PITCH CONFERENCE

Hi all,

I've heard of a new novel pitch conference starting up in New York from a generous writer named Jerry Weinberg. It's called NYC '06 Pitch and Shop. The link's at http://nycpitchconference.com/pc-details.htm

This is a conference where editors are willing to listen to novel pitches.

It's extremely new and late for this sort of thing (film script pitch fests have been around for years), but better late than never. I understand the attending editors are all up and coming, and apparently into new things to bring the fiction business into the 21st century.

Some of the people there are:

The Editors at NYC '06

Molly Barton is an acquiring Editor of fiction for Viking, as well as Publishing Coordinator of Penguin Group U.S. (a position which allowsher to be involved with all PGI imprints).

Jackie Cantor is an Executive Editor at Berkley Books, a division of thePenguin Group. and will shortly be moving to Simon Spotlight Entertainment, where she will be an associate editor.

Tom Colgan is Executive Editor at PenguinAlexis Gargagliano joined Scribner in 2002 as the assistant to Nan GrahamAnna Genoese is an editor at Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, where she acquires for both the Tor and the Forge imprints.

Senior Editor Diana Gill is at Morrow Emily Haynes is an Editor at Plume, an imprint of Penguin Group.

Rebecca Heller a is an Associate Editor at St. Martin's Press.

The Workshop Leaders

Michael Neff

Charles Salzberg

Terese Svoboda

Tim Tomlinson

The NYC '06 Pitch-and-Shop Conference is sponsored by Algonkian Novel Workshops and the New York Writers Workshop.

JerryGerald M. Weinberg "Weinberg has written a clever writing manual. On one level it is highly readable and on another it is packed with excellent insights into how toeffectively perfect the writing process with less pain and much moreenjoyment." - Norm Goldman, editor of BookPleasures.com

Weinberg on Writing: The Fieldstone MethodDorset House Publishing ISBN: 0-932633-65-X1-800-DH-BOOKS (800-342-6657)http://www.dorsethouse.com/books/wow.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

RETRO FILM REVIEW: "PRIDE AND PREJUDICE"

Hi Everyone,

I saw "Pride and Prejudice" on the first day of its wide release. It was the only romantic comedy I've enjoyed in the last six years or so.

The only other Jane Austen flick I've seen was "Sense and Sensibility"directed by Ang Lee, which is also a classic. I haven't seen the cheesy Bollywood version of "Pride" nor any of the BBC miniseries.

I hear tell some people were grumbling about why another Jane Austenfilm had to be made. IMHO, that's partly because film makers can tend to run out of ideas and partly because Jane Austen's stories have touched on a timeless theme in Western culture: Love.

For me, at least, this adaptation's worth it.

The film heralds the arrival of veteran TV director Joe Wright and actress Keira Knightley. She shows so much depth that those who've seen her in "Bend it Like Beckham" would hardly have believed shewore a soccer (no, football) jersey.

"Pride" is a manicured, sometimes dawdling romantic drama about five middle-class sisters attempting to marry well in Georgian England,rings true to its classical origin while making the material its own.It's an intricate tale of wordplay and love games.

In the opening sequence: Wright's camera takes us into the Bennet household, where an older married couple and their five daughters share an earthy estate with geese, chickens, pigs, swans, and one shaggy greyhound.

The mother (Brenda Blethyn) is in a constant state of worry andmotion; if her daughters don't start marrying soon, the family will be ruined. The father (Donald Sutherland) stays out of the way, hoping his daughters somehow overcome societal prejudice againsttheir gender and make something of their minds.

Headstrong Elizabeth (Knightley) has done just that. Smart, spirited, fiercely independent, Lizzie promises herself that she won't be one to settle.

After introducing the family, Joe Wright takes us into a ball where men and women meet up like today's American youth find companionship at a singles bar, resort, or (shudder) online.

When Elizabeth's older sister, Jane (Rosamund Pike, a good actress herself), meets the wealthy Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods) at a dance,their future as a couple seems preordained. But when Lizzie is introduced to the morose Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen, overlooked in the new James Bond hunt), an instant dislike is established.

Darcy: "She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me."

Elizabeth: "I will loathe him for eternity."

Which means, of course, that they are meant for each other.

Reminded me unwantedly a bit of an English girl I met, who didn't fail to mention she came from a good family. I argued with her everytime I saw her, which is another story... Elizabeth's character is genuine and sweet and worth getting to know.

The pleasure of the movie comes from the push and pull, waiting for Darcy and Elizabeth to realize their destiny. And because they initially misread each other, and because of complications within their own families, this takes some time - basically, an entire movie. But these aren't run-of-the-mill, romantic-comedy obstacles tobe overcome. Darcy and Elizabeth must ultimately prove themselves tobe worthy of the other - no small challenge, since these are two ofthe most noble characters in the history of romantic literature.

Wright gets every bit of emotion out of the story, which his BBC work shows he has a long history of doing. What's surprising is hisfinesse with the camera. (To reiterate: It's his first movie.) At the dance, Elizabeth and Darcy twirl on the crowded dance floor,reluctantly admitting their mutual affection. They stare into eachother's eyes, and everyone in the background disappears - for just a few seconds, they are alone in the world and have taken us with them.

There's also a stunning sequence midway through the film that takesplace at a costume ball where, in a long, unbroken take, Wright's camera flits through a mansion, capturing character-revealing conversations and emotions high and low. Lesser filmmakers would spend 15 minutes trying, and failing, to accomplish what Wright doeshere in this glorious set piece.

Also, Wright knows when to pull back and let his actors do the heavylifting, using close-up shots later in the film when the emotions become particularly intense. It's here that Knightley fulfills her promise, letting us feel Elizabeth's conflicting emotions in waysthat are palpable and true. She also has a beautifully touching father-daughter scene late in the film with Sutherland that, in and of itself, won her an Oscar nomination and should've netted one for Sutherland, too.

As Wright ushers the leading couple from misunderstanding to connection, he does well by his supporting characters too. We see a preacher, the vertically-challenged Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander), propose to Lizzy as though he were tending to a real estate acquisition (something I've seen in more than one Englishman). We watch as Elizabeth, still prejudiced against the allegedly proud Darcy, turn down his passionate marriage proposal. The imperious,class-conscious Lady Catherine de Bourg (Judi Dench) is eager to have her homely daughter hitched to someone who is not of "inferior birth," like Elizabeth. The relationship between the sisters' mother and her dad makes you wonder how they ever got together, as mom becomes hysterical any time a possible mate for her daughters approaches the estate while their dad wants only for his favorite daughter, Elizabeth, to marry someone she loves. "If you do not marry Collins, your mother will never speak to you again," saysthe aging father, "If you do marry Collins, I will never speak to you again." One needs not wonder why Lizzy is her father's daughter. Macfadyen is admirably awkward as Mr. Darcy, a man of sterling character whose one great flaw is that he hides his feelings too well.

The performers act and react naturally, giggling or standing in stunned silence to emphasize the humor and vivacity of Austen's prose. They communicate entire pages of information with subtle gestures and glances. The characters dance with words, as well as in the ballroom.

As directed by Joe Wright and adapted by Deborah Moggach (whose script was polished by an uncredited Emma Thompson), "Pride & Prejudice" is a briskly entertaining and well-acted extension of JaneAusten's cinematic run.

I say this as someone who's always looking for a good story. I'm in no way a connoiseur of Jane Austen and chick flicks.

Sunday, May 07, 2006

M: I 3 Review -- Mission: Passable

SD 6 -- no, the CIA -- no, APO -- er, the IMF has a serious human-resources problem. Over the course of three Mission: Impossible films, at least one person involved in each nefarious plot to destroy the world has been an employee of the agency that ostensibly represents the good guys. One wonders if Sydney Bristow – sorry Ethan Hunt is the last honest person in the spy game.

With the first two installments, in 1996 and 2000, directors Brian De Palma and John Woo established the Mission: Impossible template as smooth, slick, kinetic and balletic. Now that rule of thumb has morphed into "bigger-faster-louder."

Who better then, to direct this new chapter than J.J. Abrams ("Alias," "Lost"), an A-list television maker who grinds out water cooler hits like they were ice cubes? Abrams has adopted a television style consisting of all peaks and no valleys, thereby giving viewers no time to rest. That may work for a 50-minute TV drama (especially one punctuated by commercials) but not so much for a 126-minute movie, which could stand to be trimmed by half an hour.

In the third installment of the franchise based on the gadget-heavy TV show “Mission Impossible,” Ethan's mission, should he choose to accept it, is to save the planet from a super-duper arms deal that's going down amid so many jaw-dropping stunts that when he gets out the defibrillator, you hope it's for you, not the comely agent about to expire in his arms. The movie delivers the goods, though, frequent Olympian bursts of aerobic activity from Tom Cruise. Mostly, he runs - although he does do some quick calculus equations while catching his breath.

In the six years since we last saw Tom, er Ethan (it’s tough to separate the actor from his characters nowadays), he’s been in semiretirement, training new IMF agents and getting engaged to a pretty and perfect nurse named Julia (Michelle Monaghan, in a thankless role), who thinks he works for the Department of Transportation. Their relationship seems to consist primarily of repeating the name of a lake where they had an early date. Does Julia find it strange that Ethan takes her to a beautiful hospital rooftop to tearfully explain that he has to go away for a few days on a business trip? Apparently not: She leaves the roof and marries him downstairs.
When Ethan’s most promising trainee, Felicity (sorry, Kerri Russell) goes missing, he heads back out into the field, teaming up with his old buddy Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames, the only other actor returning from the previous films), plus new agents Declan (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) and Zhen (Maggie Q). They're up against slimy arms dealer Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who's easily the most evil and most intriguing of all the villains to cross Ethan.

M:I III’s plot is no more nonsensical than the plots of the first two movies. But from the opening flash-forward to the emphasis on personal relationships amid the chaos of spy work, M:I III plays like Alias: The Tom Cruise Years. The problem is that while Abrams (who also co-created Lost and Felicity) is very good at the small, personal moments, that's not what a film like this calls for, and without the luxury of a season's worth of TV episodes to build his relationships, a lot of the emotions come across as false.

So Mission: Impossible III is a mixed bag. Abrams gets in at least three seat-clenching moments of pure excitement, like a stunning Vatican break-in, where our heroes snatch Davian from a fancy-dress party to prevent him from selling a MacGuffin called the "Rabbit's Foot," (something toxic and dangerous and never explained). However, when it comes to the really, really big sequences, such as blowing up a bridge, where Davian escapes and vows revenge of Ethan’s girl, Abrams loses his grip. Likewise, it seems, for certain conversational sequences; he goes with a super-duper close-up -- all pores and nostrils -- combined with the dreaded hand-held shaky cam.

Cruise has been America's reigning actor for so long now that all his moves have become signatures. There's the over-the-shoulder smile (shot in profile), the all-weather cocky grin, the "intense" look with cheeks sucked in, and, my personal favorite, the two-handed clutch of the head of his beloved.

Abrams stages the action scenes thrillingly in a modern, quick-cut, disorienting way, but flurries of close up shots in certain sequences are used that work better for the small screen, like during a balletic helicopter chase through a field of windmills. He slows things down on occasion, like when Ethan leans out of a speeding Range Rover for a precision pistol shot. The great "Aaaah!" moment of M:I3 is a leap from the top of a Shanghai office tower, but with digitization the way it is, was the jump real? We’ll have to wait to see the DVD featurette to know for certain. That's why the film's analog tricks were a pleasure: a clever scene involving lip-reading and some good old-fashioned heart-wrenching mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

The Italian interlude marks the film's high point, as it allows the Authorized Personnel—no, Impossible Mission Force its greatest opportunity for subterfuge, surprise and disguise, none better than when Ethan, wearing a mask of Davian during a glittering Vatican function, steals the rabbit's foot and kidnaps the crook. Even captivity doesn't diminish Davian's insolence, however, and soon the tables are turned on Ethan and his crew in a spectacular ambush on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. One must wonder though how Davian’s organization knew to ambush the IMF convoy there and have a highly trained German extraction team with the latest military spec hardware in place.

Cruise has bumped his intensity up a notch, scorching through the picture in a way that seems restrained only in comparison to his appearance on a certain television talk show last year.

None of the impressive cast is given much to do character wise. (Jumping out of helicopters is another matter.) Rhames’ screen presence shines out in his brief moments, though, and newcomer actress-model Maggie Q (from Hong Kong by way of Hawaii) sizzles and scores some immediate points. By contrast, the little-used Rhys Meyers gets lost in the shuffle. Only Laurence Fishburne, playing IMF top brass John Brassel, gets to chew on any crunchy dialogue, like "don't interrupt me when I'm asking rhetorical questions." Simon Peg, an understated English version of Marshall, makes the most of his fleeting but key moments as a motor-mouthed agency analyst.

As for Hoffman, this Oscar winner’s stature as a superior actor invests his scenes with a special weight and interest. On the other hand, his involvement hasn't been fully exploited. Hoffman, with his blond locks and moderate girth, looks a bit like Gert Frobe, the actor who played Goldfinger. It’s reinforced when Abrams replays the Bond scene of Goldfinger’s death by having Ethan threateningly dangle Davian out of a private jet.

What the comparison points up is how this picture denies Hoffman a chance to fully express his character's personality, to show a little nuance, a mentality behind the evil, some humor or self-awareness behind the malevolence, or to toy with Ethan beyond the simple threat. A great moment is a throwaway one where he petulantly grabs a drink being served to him. Better yet is his dressing down of Cruise, which was splashed all over the trailer: "Do you have a wife or girlfriend? Whoever she is, I'm going to find her, and I'm going to hurt her ... " He radiates evil. If you have an actor like Hoffman on board, you'd think it would behoove the writers to cook up at least one big scene to let the man loose to really do his thing.

Production values are all supercharged in line with the tenor of the production. Locations effectively span the continents as well as the centuries, with Caserta, once again effectively doubling for the Vatican, representing the past, high-tech U.S. locales holding down the present and millennial Shanghai providing a look at the future. An explosive Berlin sequence is capped by a nocturnal helicopter battle staged amid a forest of wind turbines that looks suspiciously like the one in the desert outside Palm Springs.

An inspired middle-hour pumped by some solid action gives you an idea how good the franchise could be, but Ethan Hunt seems a bit lost in a post-Bourne, recalibrated-Bond universe. Action fans will love the big explosions, but will be impatient with the first hour. Spy thriller fans will be disappointed by the sheer implausibility of the script, which delivers conventional twists Abrams has taken from other spy films and shows, even his own. Under Abrams, M:I 3 runs like an average two and a half hour episode of “Alias” on the big screen. Check out the first few seasons of "Alias" on DVD for cleverer and more thrilling hi-tech spy games from Abrams.

Incidentally, I doubt Abrams will bring anything new to the upcoming Trek XI flick due out in 2008.

This review will self-destruct in five seconds.
UPCOMING JAMES PATRICK KELLY CRIT

Being an alum of Clarion (the original, not Clarion West), I've got the great luck of getting crits on a story of mine that I'm grooming for WOTF/Asimovs from some published Clarion alums.

I've already gotten two: one from Tracy Taylor and another from Nancy Etchemendy. JAMES PATRICK KELLY is moderating the critique thread on my tale for the next two weeks. He'll offer his crit in about a week.

What can I say besides AWESOME!

My story was already at a high pitch and if it's not up another level once I get all my crits and process 'em, something is seriously wrong.

Now I've got to keep eking out my current Trek short tale, write up some crits for a fiction group I'm exploring, read the EXPERTS novel, and write up my Mission Impossible III review.

Not to mention work and take care of chores. Ughhh.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Retro Flick Review -- "Pirates of the Carribbean I: Curse of the Black Pearl"

Hi Everyone,

I saw "Pirates I" twice when it first came out in theatres three years ago. And I saw it on ABC one night. I should buy me the DVD.

Yo ho-ho and a "Pirates" flick for me.

In this writer's opinion, this is the way a swashbuckling flick ought to be done. Supernatural curses, peg-legs, parrots, hidden treasure, plank-walking, broadsides, sword fights, and romance. Every element we associate with pirates has been thrown in and weaved into an adventure quest plot a la Indiana Jones on the high seas.

Set in the the 17th century, Pirates of the Caribbean is the story of a roguish, handsome, dashing -- and yes, often bumbling -- pirate, Jack Sparrow. Sparrow teams up with a comely young woman (Keira Knightley) and a somewhat effete (to me) guy (Orlando Bloom) to putthe kibosh on the diabolical plans of the undead pirate Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), who has stolen Sparrow's beloved vessel, The Black Pearl, and sails it across the Caribbean sea, manned by his motley and also undead crew.

Gore Verbinski's both a top notch and versatile director with a string of eclectic hits from "Mouse Hunt," "The Mexican," and "The Ring." He certainly can pump up viewers. I could taste the salt spray, smell the gunpowder, and feel the swish of blades slicing theair.
Depp, lost himself in the person of... Keith Richards. I thought he was playing Mick Jagger playing Sparrow, but Depp himself has said in interviews that he modeled Jack Sparrow on Richards. It was a risk, but it worked. From the kohl-lined eyes, to the flamboyant togs, tothe accented and muttering speech, to the sweeping and fey mannerisms... it's all there, and yet it's not a parody. Captain Jack Sparrow is a fully realized and unique character, brought to life by one of the best actors working today. Depp's co-stars aren't tooshabby, either. Keira Knightly made memorable what could've been a minor role as the English governor's daughter Elizabeth, drawing us into her plight and making us care about her. The other standout isRush as the monkey-toting, floppy-hat wearing, rotten-toothed Captain Barbossa. Bloom did a respectable job playing Will Turner, Elizabeth's devoted blacksmith lover. He wasn't so out of depth in this role as he was when playing Balien, defender of Jerusalem, in the 2005 flop "Kingdom of Heaven."

And thanks in part to "Shrek" scribes Ted Elliot and TerryRossio, "Pirates I: Curse of the Black Pearl" is a live-action adventure with the spirit and energy of an animated feature. I can only hope that "Pirates II: Dead Man's Chest" will live up to the original, unlike "Legend of Zorro" which was a major come down from "Mask of Zorro."

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

New Fiction Short Stories

I've outlined the broad strokes for 3 Star Trek Strange New Worlds (SNW) submissions on Monday 5/1/06. Woohoo!

My Decatur script rewrite is ongoing, but it's not consuming all my writing now.

I'm looking forward to putting together a kick ass group of submissions for SNW 10 and making Dean Wesley Smith go wow.

I of course have nonTrek stories in mind, but I've got my Trek hat on now.

Monday, May 01, 2006

Designated "XPERTS" Reader

I answered a call for readers by Critters workshop captain/former SFWA VP Andrew Burt to read some an English translation of a German novel set in a mutant human universe a la X-Men, I'd say.

I was among the few Andrew selected (thanks a million, very flattered :-)) and I'm looking forward to diving into the manuscript for the first book in the series. I hear tell XPERTS has been selling like hot cakes over in Deutschland and talks are in progress for a movie deal (European, I suppose).

Some novels and an anthology of short stories are planned. Those who read this first novel will of course have a leg up on what the series and universe is about if they want to fight for novel assignments/anthology slots. I'll be curious to see what XPERTS is all about.

Tchus! "Later" auf englisch.