MEETINGS WITH HEADS OF MOVIE PRODUCTION COMPANIES

I'm back.

Where to begin...?

I meant to blog while meeting with producers, managers, etc. in LA from July 12-15, 2006, but I've been busy.

The long and the short of it was: I met. I saw. I learned.
LA's also still expensive and has lots of traffic--except on Sundays.
And I didn't notice till the first day how many songs there are with the word "California" in it when I played my rental car radio.

July 11.
I checked into my room at the Orchid Suites in Hollywood and saw my cousin who works as an events planner at Universal Studios. We caught up and she generously offered to contact an assistant she knows--sort of--at Focus Features Productions, which is co-headed by James Schmaus, who co-wrote and produced "Crouching Tiger." He also collaborates with Ang Lee. Hope he likes my Chinese Joan of Arc script.

I plan on pitching it to Focus Features after I get some distance from my script and then rewrite/revise it for the Chesterfield, Scriptapalooza, Austin, and Nichols contests next year.

July 12.
I met the people in my ScriptForSale group for the first time. They were OK. A whole mix of personalities and talent. We then met with independent producers, managers, etc. Very interesting. Lots of good stuff. They work with lower budgets and want good stories, but not necessarily high-priced A-list talent. Meetings went from 10 A - 5:30 P. Whew!

On my own, I went to L'Ermitage Hotel in Beverly Hills to meet with an entertainment attorney from a top talent firm. She'd contacted me on the same day the UCLA professional programs office put out a
press release in the Hollywood Reporter about the UCLA contest winners this year.

Following mapquest (ugh) I got lost a few times on the side streets, but got directions here and there and still showed up 20 minutes early for my 7:30 P appointment. I asked a few women if they were the attorney, but no dice. I had some nice conversations, though.

At 7:40 P, I called the attorney on her cell. She said she saw me then and we started talking.

Very personable.

I'd say it was a promising start and I look forward to working with her. Just have to find a manager/agent to help submit stuff.

July 13.
My ScriptForSale group and I went to Sony, where we got the big studio perspective. Big budgets, franchise movies, and big name talent and directors. If one has a period (that is, historical) or SF/Fantasy story, the odds're uphill, but ya gotta find the producer who's into that kind of genre. It'll just take longer, but it'll be worth it. James Schmaus is at the top of my list for my Chinese Joan of Arc script.

Going on 50 minutes of sleep on July 11 caught up with me. I kinda crashed midway through the meetings. I stayed awake just enough and the Sony people didn't notice. :-)

The marathon lasted from 10 A - 5 P. We were invited to watch the screening of an indie film, forgot title. I bowed out. A few later said they liked it, but more said they didn't. I didn't miss out on anything, I'd say.

July 14.
I went to another round of meetings with my associates. We saw more indies and heard more of the same.

July 15.
My final round of meetings.

My group went to the Burbank Hilton. There we attended a nice lil' memorabilia show where we chatted with actors who worked in old and recent TV shows and films. The meetings with the guests were great, too. We got the low down on the writing and directing side this time around. I also met a script consultant/agent broker. Very personable. I think I'll like working with her.

I learned from some "V" actors that the series could be coming back in the next year or so. The lizards are as bad as ever--and hungry for human munchies. And there may be other aliens who aren't too fond of 'em or us.

And I had a nice chat with Ray "Darth Maul" Parks. He shared some bits about his wushu training and what it was like on the Star Wars and X-Men sets. He says he has some upcoming projects that I'll look forward to seeing. When I told him about my Chinese Joan of Arc script, he said I should try Quentin Tarantino's production company also. Doh! I should've known since he released "Hero" in the US a few years back.

I also got 4 signed pictures from Ray and one from Marc Singer of "Mike Donovan" fame on "V" (plus another for free which Marc signed, but didn't like). All nice shots.

After our event ended at 4:30 P, the ScriptForSale group scattered to the winds. I'd followed some people to the Burbank Hilton hotel, but they didn't wait for me to follow 'em back.

Nichevo. Or c'est le vie.

I made my way to Universal Studios, where I met with my awesome cousin. She got me into the press junket for the upcoming "Miami Vice" flick. Saw where the reporters got some snacks and where Jamie Foxx, Colin Farrell, and Gong Li were being interviewed. Gong Li's English has an interesting accent.

I also saw a bit of Wisteria Lane, the crashed 747 from "War of the Worlds," and other sets that showed up in umpteen some films and TV shows.

July 16.
Went home and am getting back into the groove--till I meet with TV execs and attend the Emmys in August.

Must take care of some fiction now.

FLICK REVIEW-- PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 2: DEAD MAN’S CHEST

Avast, mateys!

Here be the swashbuckling sequel to that seaworthy treasure “Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.”

‘Tis a long-winded tale with a plot a mite complex this be, but loaded with twists and merriment and a final hour that will blow ye down. So gather a ration of hardtack and a bottle of rum — or a hotdog and soda, if that be yer choice — and drop anchor with “Dead Man’s Chest.”

Swaying about in a constant state of bewilderment, three sheets into the wind, Johnny Depp’s second turn as our favorite, mascara-wearing prancing pirate is the prize of the seven seas — equal if not superior to the performance that won him an Oscar nomination in the first film. The thrill of discovering Jack Sparrow the first time around is gone, but it's still a joy watching him play this narcissistic, word-slurring anti-hero. Just seeing Depp run — and Capt. Jack runs a lot in this movie — is to behold a live Loony Tune chracter.

When we last saw our beloved sea dogs, Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) had battled cursed skeletal pirates to retake his beloved ship, the Black Pearl, and his unwilling mates in piracy Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) were on their way to the altar. But before the happy couple can say, "I do," they're arrested by newly appointed Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) of the evil East India Trading Company for helping Jack escape the hangman's noose. To barter for their freedom, they must find Jack and retrieve his compass that doesn’t point north. But the good Captain has problems of his own. Thirteen—Thirty—whichever—years ago, in exchange for his captaincy of the Pearl, Jack offered his soul to Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), the undead, half-octopus captain who controls the sea depths and his damned, barnacle-covered crew from his ghostly ship The Flying Dutchman. Unfortunately for Jack, Jones has come to collect.

Davy Jones and his crew are fantastic, flawless creations — you can't take your eyes off them. John Knoll's Industrial Light & Magic visual effects team have gone above and beyond the call here, creating a band of characters that impeccably serve the story without needlessly calling attention to themselves.

There's a Hammerhead Shark Man, a Hermit Crab Head ... Although they're almost entirely computer creations, they feel as real as the flesh-and-blood humans.
More real, in fact. If Depp was the Oscar nomination waiting to happen for "Black Pearl," it's Nighy's turn for "Dead Man's Chest." Here, even though everything about the squid-faced Jones, even the eyes, are artificial, Nighy's performance comes through loud and clear, full of magnificent menace, a villain for the ages.

Disney put back together the filmmaking team (Elliott and Rossio, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, director Gore Verbinski) and set off on to film Pirates 2 and 3 (titled At World's End, and scheduled for release next summer) back-to-back. Unfortunately, it seems Elliott and Rossio, felt bigger meant better. That's not to say “Dead Man's Chest” isn't good. It's just not as good as the first “Pirates” film, but it could have been.

"Dead Man's Chest" seems to believe that there needs to be more of everything to work. We’re given two of everything — villains, self-sacrificing fathers, love triangles — when one would have been plenty. I'll sail with Captain Jack any day, and the writers have crafted a fine story with Davy Jones and his famous chest that will keep you guessing and interested, but there are too many action scenes that go on a few beats too long. Jack's lengthy rescue from gibberish-speaking cannibals is a Disney cartoon adventure come to life, but does nothing to move the film ahead that couldn't have been done an easier (and shorter) way.

Still, one mustn’t miss a three-way sword duel between Jack, Will, and Norrington (Jack Davenport) atop a runaway mill wheel.

Lucky for us, Verbinski always finds a lighthearted moment or joke to keep the audience interested, which saves “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” from getting lost in a sea of confusing plot twists and average dialogue. Plus, you get a great set up for the next “Pirates” movie.

Miss Swann, who was so fresh and rebellious the first time around, seems more like an anchor in this film. Jack is being chased by Davey Jones and his pet sea monster, the kracken, while Will reunites with his dead father, Bootstrap Bill (Stellan Skarsgård). The writers give such attention to these two stories (as well they should) that Elizabeth's mini-adventure to join their company seems pointless in comparison. She sheds the frills and finery of home for the smelly rags of a pirate, and looks prettier than a school of mermaids in doing so. And she’s learned to swing a sharp sword. But once she meets up with the rest, her intentions are cloudy and she starts showing sudden feelings for Jack (the second triangle here). She’s not the bonnie lass we thought she was.

While action and effects are plentiful, it’s the characters who drive this nautical tale. Will continues the exploration of his inner pirate and whether that's such a bad thing, and Captain Jack keeps the other characters and the audience entertained and unaware of his intentions until the very end. All the eccentric side characters from the first go-round are back as well, and Elliott and Rossio keep the jokes flying as fast as the swords and cannon shots. The film ends on such a surprising one-two punch that it may take you a full hour to realize that neither shock made much sense -- a perfect summation of “Pirates of the Caribbean 2” and its charm.

Though the script sometimes gives us too much of a good thing, when the scenes cook they’re the essence of summer moviemaking. They shiver your timbers and make you feel like a kid eager to keep a weather eye on the horizon as you wait in line for the next “Pirates” voyage. See you “At World's End.”

WEEKLY STORY UPDATE

I put on a spurt because I know I'll be busy in the next few days and I've typed up my whole 1st draft of my latest Trek short story now. It's at 5854 words and 44 pages. Woohoo!

I expect I'll fine tune it some, but this sucker's done.

Then I'll see if I can cook up another story for this year's Strange New Worlds contest.

T-minus 2 days to LA now. This should be interesting.

Weekly Update

I'm up to page 33 or 4,395 words in my latest Trek short story now. The end is in sight. Only 1/3 left of my handwritten draft to type up. I'm loving this story.

I've also been told by the UCLA Professional Programs office that a second press release for the contest results will come out in this week's edition of Variety Entertainment magazine, which is... today.

Woohoo!

I've also had another manager call me up, asking to read my Chinese Joan of Arc script. Bene as an Italiano would say.

And it's T-minus 4 days to my trip to LA with 20 or so film producers and studio execs. Things're looking busy.

I'm also planning on watching "Pirates of the Carribbean II: Dead Man's Chest," though the buzz is it's not as good or fresh as the original. :-(

Nichevo.

Later.

"Superman Returns" Review

After having viewed a 10 P showing on Tuesday night before the wide release, I come away with mixed feelings.

“Superman Returns” is heads and shoulders better than the average Hollywood summer movie, but it suffers from a variety of problems, some of which aren’t even its fault (like the high expectations that’ve been placed on it). Singer’s over-reliance on the Christopher Reeve films is nice at first, but eventually it gets a bit grating. Snippets of dialogue and entire scenes seem lifted from Richard Donner’s “Superman: The Movie.” It’s been almost 30 years since that film was released. Why not start completely from scratch with a new incarnation of our hero?

As the title indicates, "Superman Returns" isn’t a true franchise reboot like "Batman Begins," but instead, a very late sequel that builds on the events of "Superman" (1978) and Richard Lester's "Superman II" (1980). (Thankfully, "Superman III" and "Superman IV" are ignored.) This visual and emotional continuity is what's right and wrong with "Returns" IMHO.

One of the things that made last summer’s “Batman Begins” so interesting was the way in which it answered origin questions big and small, but also used these details to drive the story forward in a fresh and organic way. “Superman Returns,” by contrast, has little of this type of innovation going for it.

Screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris — working from a story devised with Singer, their boss on X-Men 2 — have at the center of their movie a suitably thorny interpersonal hurdle in the form of Lois’ romantic entanglement and son, but the eventuality of this strand is fairly obvious from its introduction, and not just because Richard, says to Clark upon first meeting him, “No matter how close I get to her, that woman is always a mystery to me.” Trading in the same sort of elegance and high-stakes emotionalism that made his work on the X-Men franchise so enthralling, everything here seems stretched like taffy. When a big interpersonal reveal comes, we’re still more than an hour away from the finish line; when disaster for Metropolis is averted, 50 minutes; when Superman plummets to the ground in a moment of sacrificial grace and glory, 20 minutes.

The film, too, is hamstrung by a few inconsistencies, whether it’s Clark seeing Lois off in a cab, immediately donning his Superman get-up and arriving at her home after her commute, or Lois taking Jason with her when she decides to snoop around Lex’s hideout, a massive boat. Brass tacks: the film feels less essential than either of the first two Spider-Man and X-Men films, and even Batman Begins. For all its flash, Superman Returns is way too long at 156 minutes— particularly its first hour, which could stand to be trimmed almost totally.

Instead of starting off “Superman Returns” with the Man of Steel (Brandon Routh) crashing back on his mother’s farm (“Hi, Mom. I’m home”), we have to wait awhile. Not exactly an iconic entrance.

Set after a five-year absence, during which he’s traveled to the destroyed remains of his home planet of Krypton, Superman returns to Earth. Returning to work in Metropolis as clumsy and bespectacled Clark Kent, where it seems only cub photographer Jimmy Olsen (Sam Huntington) has really noticed Clark’s absence. Superman is shocked to discover "fearless reporter Lois Lane is now a mommy," according to Jimmy. Not only does Lois have an asthmatic and "fragile" young son (Tristan Leabu) and a handsome fiance (James Marsden, who plays Cyclops in the "X-Men" movies), but she's also the recent winner of the Pulitzer Prize for her essay, "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman."

In other words, Lois is suffering a crisis of faith, although her desire to believe is signaled by the fact that her boyfriend is a pilot -- another guy who can fly. (And while Lois may have earned journalism's highest honor, the first time we see her on the job, she asks a colleague: "How many f's are there in 'catastrophe'?")

On Lois’ home front, Jason believes Richard is his father. Richard believes Jason is his son. Lois has not married Richard because she is still in love with Superman. Has she deceived the worshipful Richard? I felt sorry for Richard.

What parents do not know their son? Lois and Richard take Jason to work with them. They are a close family, but they have never noticed that Jason is “different.”

When Superman returns to action in a lengthy and exciting space shuttle rescue, Daily Planet editor Perry White (Frank Langella) seems more excited than Lois. "Three things sell newspapers: tragedy, sex and Superman," he barks, ordering his reporters to find out if the mystery hero still stands for "truth, justice -- all that stuff." Note that "the American way" -- a phrase added to the Cold War-era Superman TV show but absent from Superman's earlier radio and cartoon adventures -- is left out: As TV news reports show us, this Superman is a savior-citizen of the world, which apparently doesn't worry Luthor. "Bring it on!"

Like Donner, Singer is adept at action (the highlight is a robbery with a "Wow!" moment in which a bullet flattens against Superman's cornea) but he excels at quiet. "Superman Returns" allows Superman and Lois another romantic flight together; more effective and inspired is a scene in which the lonely superbeing uses his X-ray vision to spy on Lois' seemingly happy domestic life -- a sequence that vividly literalizes the hero's outside-looking-in status.
Unfortunately, Singer, like Donner, falters in his depiction of the villains. Gene Hackman's Luthor at least seemed somewhat lecherous, which justified the presence of Miss Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine) in two films; but Spacey's female foil, Kitty Kowalski (Parker Posey), seems to serve little purpose, sexual or otherwise. Here especially, Singer's fidelity to Donner rather than to DC Comics is a mistake in my view. The comic books have seventy years of great frights and menaces, but the Singer team didn't seem to look beyond 1979 and the cinematic precedent of a toupeed and real-estate-obsessed Luthor in its search for an evildoer. You'd think a budget of $200 million could have paid for a few back issues. Dark Seid is one baddie who’d give Superman all kinds of problems.

Bosworth as Lois Lane comes across to me as too far young and over her head, and has none of the edge or aplomb of Margot Kidder’s depiction of the character.

One key star does return from the Donner film, in recycled footage: the late Marlon Brando, who again appears as Superman's Kryptonian father, Jor-El, resurrected at the Fortress of Solitude in a crystal-powered projection. "Even though you've been raised as a human being, you're not one of them," Jor-El reminds his son. "They can be a great people ... they only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all ... I have sent them you ... my only son." In case the parallels are too obscure, Singer depicts the exhausted Superman falling from orbit with his arms outspread, like a man on a cross. The religious references become redundant and distracting, and we wonder if Singer is trying to justify his serious approach to the squarest and most wholesome of superheroes.

Superman may lack the edgy, misfit cool of the X-Men, the neurotic humor of Spider-Man and the spookiness of Batman, but his uncertainty regarding Lois Lane in the new film makes him easy to identify with, despite his near-invulnerability. His cloudy frame of mind is matched by the relative darkness of the movie's handsome cinematography and even by the tone of Superman's slightly redesigned uniform: The red of his cape is now wine-dark instead of cartoon-bright, and I'd like to see it flapping through the breeze again, in a more original context.

Brandon Routh is great as Superman, though, but perhaps even more so he is amazing as Clark Kent, providing healthy doses of geekiness undercut with sadness that works very well. His Superman is as close to the mark as you can get, rivaling only Reeve’s portrayal of the character. The film’s willingness to diverge from canon – in a big way – is, well, super, and in some ways I’m surprised the studio let Singer do what he does here. And the subtext of the film, the Supes-as-savior theme, approaches real art at times, with imagery that truly, finally reflects what Superman can and should be capable of.

In the end, Superman Returns’ success relates somewhat to one’s level of expectation. Measured against the relatively high bars of other recent superhero fare, it feels uncomfortably familiar. For those looking for a slice of high-flying entertainment, however, it sure pays off.

WEEKLY UPDATE

I've typed up about 14 pages of my latest Trek short tale using Courier 14 pt rather than 12 pt. That's about p. 7 of my handwritten copy. Word count 1559. I'm trying out the larger font since a little birdie (Robotech/Conan novelist Loren Coleman) told me that editors going through thousands of manuscript will find it easier for their worn out eyes.

I'm eking along, but this story's gonna be sweet!

Work, screenwriting work, and dealing with attention from the UCLA press release on my contest win are slowing me down. But what's a person to do?

I'll find a way to deal with it. :-)

I also got my Advanced Program certificate, Contest Award certificate, and a modest lil' check from the UCLA Professional Program office. I can't not love UCLA right now.

And I'm looking forward to watching "Superman Returns" this Tuesday evening, plus as many times I can spare this week and the weeks to come.

I sense another review coming up....

UCLA SCREENPLAY CONTEST PRESS RELEASE

Hey all,

I've been notified by the UCLA Professional Programs office that an announcement for the winners of the 2005-2006 UCLA Professional Programs Screenplay Competition has come out in the current issue of Hollywood Reporter for the week of June 26-July 1 2006.

The announcement's on page 19. And it's also online.

Woohoo!

I've already gotten a few e-mails from some entertainment lawyers, managers, producers, etc. It'll be interesting to see what comes up over the next few days.

Boris

UCLA GRADUATION

I've completed the requirements for the Advanced UCLA Screenwriting Certificate program and the ceremony was held on the UCLA campus today.

Very low-key. No caps and gowns, degrees, obnoxious paparazzi, etc.

No major industry players showing up to network with neither, which is the down side.

People who showed up got their certificates and if they won in the UCLA screenplay competition (like yours truly), they got an award for that and a nice little check, which is good for paying a monthly bill or two. (For more details on my contest win, new readers can see my
UCLA Screenplay Contest Winner post.

Grads also get to go to a nearby coffee shop and shoot the breeze with classmates and teachers. Very cozy.

I couldn't show up, though, but I'll get my certificate and award in the mail.

C'est le vie....

If I were Russian, nichevo.

Time to move on, continually improve, write, sell, break in, that sort of thing.

Story Update

I've finished the hand written rough draft of my newest Trek tale (on Monday June 19, 2006 that is). Woohoo!

It's at 28 legal pad pages.

I'll see how many that leads up to when I type it out (and fix as I go.) It's rough, but I like it. I can hardly wait to polish it and mail it off to this year's Strange New Worlds Contest.

Later.

Weekly Update

Let's see...

I'm up to page 22 of my first draft Trek story.

I had to buy a new computer today when the two I'd used for the last 4 years spontaneously broke down. Bloody, overrated HPs...

I learned in a teleconference with a screenwriting mentor about how I've got to write some marketing pages better. Doh!

Up and down so far.

Looking forward to Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" flick. Too bad he couldn't also work on "X Men 3".

And I'm expecting a crit from another pro writer on a fiction story in a few weeks.

Later

RETRO REVIEW: "THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA"

Hi everyone,

After watching some recent flicks, like "X Men 3," "Over the Hedge," and "Da Vinci Code," I couldn't summon the enthusiasm to write about 'em, so I'm saying something about "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch,and the Wardrobe" instead.

I wasn't brought up with C.S. Lewis and didn't know what the story was about before seeing the film.

For those of you expecting an epic in the vein of the LOTR trilogy and the Harry Potter films, I'd say that "Chronicles" is fantasy lite.

IMHO, "Chronicles" a pale imitation of LOTR, better than the first two Harry Potter films, and a step below the last two. No wrongs are too great to be unforgiven and the good will be resurrected if they're pure of heart, so there's no consequences to be paid.

C.S. Lewis' "The Chronicles of Narnia" novels seem tailor-made to follow up "Lord of the Rings" as a movie cycle. Written in roughly the same era (seven volumes between 1950-56), the books may aim at a lower age group but compose a similar fantasy saga set in a similarly complex, make-believe world.

I'd say "Chronicles" doesn't go beyond being a competent kids movie. The special inspiration and magic that makes an instant classic, accessible to all age groups, is not there. Shrek director Andrew Adamson capably adapts the tale, with flashes of magic--in Narnia, at least. The scenes leading up to the kids' escape into fantasy are drably everyday. The 1942 London blitz forces their mom to send the kids--big brother Peter (William Moseley), big sis Susan (Anna Popplewell), kid brother Edmund (Skandar Keynes), and kid sister Lucy (Georgie Henley)--to the safer country manse of Professor Kirke (Jim Broadbent, wasted amid this tedium).

In snowy Narnia, the pace picks up. Lucy, the movie's heroine, first stumbles upon a portal to an alternate world in another dimension that's been enslaved for the past 100 years by Jadis, the White Witch (Tilda Swinton). She visits a terrified faun (James McAvoy) in his Hobbity home for a few hours, then returns to the real world, where time stood still. Lucy excitedly tells the other kids the Good News. They're secularly skeptical until she, a little child, leads them tothe land of truth, which an ancient prophecy has proclaimed they are destined to free from the spell of the witch. Edmund, a selfish, disobedient boy, frighteningly flirts with Jadis and winds up clappedin irons in her igloolike castle keep.

The White Witch is a truly excellent villain played by the fabulously intimidating Tilda Swinton (Broken Flowers). With her ash-blond dreadlocks, erect icicle crown, frosted eyelashes and imposing attire -- what looks like the world's least comfortable wedding gown -- the Witch is only part of the intensity that might make The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe a tad inappropriate for most kids younger than 10.

Lucy and her siblings, minus Edmund, must make a perilous journey across the frozen land of Narnia, aided by a pair of cockney beavers (voiced by Ray Winstone and Dawn French) and Santa Claus himself, so they can join forces with Aslan, the noble lion of the title, andlead his army in a climactic battle with the witch.

The special effects are respectable, but less epic and awesome than those of the PG-13-rated Lord of the Rings. Fauns clip-clop convincingly, beavers waddle through authentic snowdrifts, winged creatures angelic and scaly ply skies in Newtonianly sound and quite thrilling arcs. Aslan has his fauns and centaur, the witch her Minotaur, plus scary Hags and Orclike Boggles. The chase scenes, across woods and a perilously thawing frozen waterfall, work well, and the battle scenes, if judged against anything this side of LOTR, are OK.

Little glitches in the special effects can be seen from time-to-time, though. The most persistent of these is the look of Aslan, who never appears real. He looks like a computer-generated lion. If one wishes to view Aslan as "more" than a big cat, then one could considerthe "unrealness" to be an asset. To me, it looked like the computer animators couldn't quite get it right.

Lewis was a noted Christian apologist and his story has a moral, but the movie is more interested in delivering an empowerment fantasy: the vicarious thrill of ordinary kids finding themselves elevated to royalty and leading vast armies against the forces of evil.

The movie does this well enough, and it also has an engaging young heroine in Henley, who could not be more charming and natural (she looks like Natalie Wood as a child). The acting is fine, although lacking in the recognition category. The biggest stars are Tilda Swinton and Jim Broadbent, neither of whom would be considered a "household name." Swinton does a good jobboosting the evil quotient of her character, while Broadbent's part qualifies as little more than a heavily made-up cameo. Liam Neeson has a sizeable vocal part providing Aslan's voice. Also lending their voices are Rupert Everett and Ray Winstone. Three of the four children are portrayed by actors in their first major roles. Only Anna Popplewell has a prior resume.
Some scenes in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (such as the one featuring Father Christmas) are childish. Others (which I will not mention here to avoid providing spoilers) are poignant. The film's central tragedy is handled with sensitivity, and tears will flow. On balance, more of the movie works than doesn't, but this isn't 140 minutes of unqualified successes. The film drags some in pace. I dozed off for a few minutes midway into it.

Aslan also keeps interrupting Narnia to save the kids in a way that makes allegorical sense, not storytelling sense. But I guess you could say the same about crucifixion and resurrection in the Bible. And this is only a PG-rated crucifixion, not The Passion of the Christ. Idly I'd wondered what Aslan needed the kids for?

I felt that the film's character development was fairlyunconvincing. I wondered when the kids got good at handling swords and bows and arrows? When they were told they were the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve come to fulfill a prophecy they never knewabout? Did being four siblings automatically make them the ones prophesied to come? How did their coming make the snow magically melt and bring the spring back? And were there other humans in Narnia before the White Witch took over?

My biggest reservations relate to the climactic battle scene. Director Andrew Adamson decided to show a clash between armies in which hundreds of creatures are killed but, in doing this, they avoid blood and gore. It becomes a clean, perfunctory war, and that's anodd and unsatisfying approach. If we're going to be shown a battle, the entire thing should be depicted in its ugliness. Instead we get a cleaned-up version with plenty of "look away" edits. It gets the movie its PG rating, although I'd say that it still has material that's too intense for young children.

I'd heard a little about the movie's "Christian connections." However, while it's true that Lewis' books are allegorical (with Aslan representing Christ), the movie doesn't hammer home this point. It's on-screen for those on the lookout, but it didn't strike me asa "religious picture," which should satisfy scientific rational types and nonChristians. I hear that Volume II, "Prince Caspian" was a popular novel. The sequel's scheduled to come out in 2008, so fans may be in for a treat.

WEEKLY UPDATE

Gods I've been busy--not writing as much as I'd like. I am up to page 18 in my handwritten rough draft of my latest Trek short story for this year's SNW contest.

I'm really looking forward to finishing, then polishing this piece.

To paraphrase Confucius, "It matters not how slow you go, so long as you do."

I do, which is good all things considering.

A speed demon I am not.

As for what's been keeping me busy, I'll have to blame work and all the stuff that comes with winning a screenplay contest, which isn't too bad, I suppose.

Later.

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

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."

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.

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.

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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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.

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.