@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 05/26/00 -- Vol. 18, No. 48
Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@lucent.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@lucent.com
HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@lucent.com
HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@lucent.com
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the
second Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call
201-447-3652 for details. The Denver Area Science Fiction
Association meets 7:30 PM on the third Saturday of every month at
Southwest State Bank, 1380 S. Federal Blvd.
===================================================================
1. I missed what is now called the Golden Age of Radio. Not that I
am too young for it. The best days of classic radio were before I
was born, but radio drama was far from dead when I was born.
Technology is really the reason I missed most of the good stuff.
Some time around when I was born my parents got their first
television and as far as I can remember never listened to radio
drama again. Not that I would not have enjoyed it. By the time I
was six or so I was already nutsy-cuckoo for science fiction and
horror stories--probably an artifact of seeing back to back on TV
"Commando Cody, Sky-Marshal of the Universe" and "Captain Midnight"
every Saturday morning. Had I known that science fiction and
horror radio shows were on the radio, I would have been all over
them like ants on a picnic basket. (At least I think I would have
been. Perhaps my attitude toward no-picture TV would have been
like today's kids reaction to non-color films. I was young and
knew a lot less than I do today.)
I remember in English class our textbooks, just a little behind the
times, would ask us to describe our favorite radio shows.
Everybody had a good laugh and the teacher told us to describe TV
instead. By that point nobody listened to radio for stories any
more. Music and disk jockeys they might listen to, but no half-
hour programs.
I finally realized that there was something to classic radio when
in the early 1960s rerun episodes of "The Shadow" went into
syndication and were broadcast on a local radio station. By then I
was 13 and sure, I would listen to Lamont Cranston clouding men's
minds, but I don't suppose it occurred to me that this could be a
standard form of entertainment the way TV was.
I finally discovered (or started discovering) the scope and
pleasures of classic radio when I was in graduate school and would
listen to an old-time radio program on KSFO in San Francisco,
hosted by Scott Beach. (Beach, who has a great sonorous voice,
also occasionally worked in film, being a friend of George Lucas
and the person who invented the name "wookie." He played the lead
German scientist in the film THE RIGHT STUFF.) Currently there are
old-time radio programs on many radio stations around the country.
Of late I have gone a little crazy on classic radio having bought
myself three sixty-program collections of programs of radio which I
found discounted at a local warehouse store. I have taken to
working around the house in half-hour increments, listening to one
radio show each session on a Walkman. It kind of takes the sting
out of drudgery like cleaning a bathroom when you are engrossed in
listening to Gunsmoke.
Why with cinema now able to create such wonders on the screen and
in this age of satellite TV with all our entertainment choices,
would somebody go back an get so interested in Old-Time Radio? I
will get into that next week. [-mrl]
===================================================================
2. DINOSAUR (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: This is an utterly enchanting film.
In fact it is the best family movie since BABE.
Adults and children alike will be captivated
and see some sights never shown on the screen
this well before. Even if there was no story
this film would be time well-spent watching
pure animation virtuosity. The story is a
little familiar, but myths are meant to be
repeated. Rating: 8 (0 to 10), high +2 (-4 to
+4)
Walt Disney was able to do some really impressive things with
animation in his time. But if he saw the kind of work his studio
would be capable of before the end of his century, even he would
probably not believe it. DINOSAUR creates a beautiful and long
lost world and totally pulls the viewer into this world. Talking
dinosaurs become perfectly believable as characters.
Aladar (voiced by D. B. Sweeney) was a real traveler even before he
was born. His egg was knocked out of its nest and stolen by one
predator after another in a terrific visual sequence that
introduces the viewer to the world of the dinosaurs. As a flying
reptile becomes the temporary owner we see huge vistas of herds of
dinosaurs. It is a view that has not been seen for 75 million
years and it's terrific. The egg finally comes to rest in a jungle
where it hatches and the baby dinosaur--perhaps a maiasaur--is
adopted by a family of lemur-like monkeys. (Well, we all know that
Disney Studios has a love of the theme of inter-species adoption as
in JUNGLE BOOK and TARZAN.)
Flash to the end of Aladar's adolescence and he is one big ugly
brother to the young lemurs. As they play the young Aladar sees
the beautiful sight of meteors shooting across the sky. (Remember
when the worst thing dinosaurs had to worry about was volcanos?)
As the meteors crash into the sea, the sight is spectacular. But
it does not stay so benign for long. In seconds the world is
ignited into a hell-like inferno. Lemurs and dinosaurs alike are
thrown out of Eden. When the worst is over Aladar wanders the
spoiled land with his adoptive family on his back. He escapes from
raptors (another new cliche) to the relative safety of a caravan of
dinosaurs headed for the dinosaur breeding ground. But even with
other dinosaurs things are not so great. The Caravan is led by
Kron, a mean social Darwinist dinosaur who looks forward to the
death march as a good time to thin the pack and leave the weak
behind. And between the parching sun and the predatory carnivores,
it may do just that.
Throughout there are little lessons, mostly for the younger set, to
have the courage of their convictions; to cooperate rather than
compete; that it is important to care for the weak. They are
little reminders that this is a film for children, even if adults
can have a good time with it. And if the story is a little
familiar, it will not be to the younger set who may not have seen
even these themes yet done in their lifetimes. James Newton Howard
has turned in a great score, approaching epic. The film is
blessedly free from the Phil Collins songs that Disney all too
often relies on. Yech! The voices of characters include
celebrities with names like Joan Plowright, Ossie Davis, Alfre
Woodard, and Della Reese.
Every new Disney animation film the studio seems obsessed with
raising the bar and far outclassing the animation of their previous
success. The dinosaurs do not look as real here as they did in
TV's recent "Walking with Dinosaurs." But the differences are
intentional. The look of the dinosaurs is softened just a little
and the faces made more human to give the audience more to identify
with. Aladar has a slightly horsey, if likable face. The vistas
of herds of dinosaurs are as majestic as any dinosaur animation
seen to day and already outclass JURASSIC PARK by a wide margin.
The dinosaur images are flawlessly matched to live action
landscapes where birds filmed at a distance turn out to be really
flying reptiles when seen more closely.
"Yes," I hear you ask, "but how good is the science?" And thank
you for caring. Well, to start with, I believe these are all
dinosaurs of the Upper Cretaceous. I have not checked, but there
are no jarring juxtapositions of non-contemporary dinosaurs that I
caught. And as far as I can tell the dinosaurs are depicted
visually consistent with current theories. There are no tail-
draggers in the bunch. The meteor storm is very nicely done. It
will scare the bejeezus out of younger children, be warned, but
ages seven and up will think its pretty rad. (Do they still say
"rad?") What is noticeably wrong is that the meteors do not come
in with parallel paths. They are some times seen streaking across
the sky, sometimes coming straight down, and often coming from
different directions. They would not come from different points in
the sky and just happen to converge so close to the ground. The
question I had is was this intended to be the extinction event at
the end of the Cretaceous? Perhaps it was a small storm leading up
to that event, in which case the end of the film is much too
optimistic. If this was the extinction event, why were the skies
so clear afterward and why was there a pleasant place of safety?
But this is quibbling. The word that immediately comes to mind to
describe DINOSAUR is "charming." When I was a kid I would have
given my eye-teeth to see a film like this. No wonder kids are
screaming to see DINOSAUR. Take them. Even I, jaded adult that I
am, rate it an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4
scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: What might have been a decent James
Bond film plot (with a little patching) just
shows that the writers do not understand or
want to ignore what a "Mission: Impossible"
script is. See Tom Cruise climb rocks, ride
dirt bikes, and race cars in the name of saving
the free world from a new and deadly virus.
This is a film with a lot of action, a lot of
vanity, and not much thought. Rating: 4 (0 to
10), 0 (-4 to +4) A minor spoiler follows the
main review.
The new "Mission: IMpossible" film is out for early summer
audiences. It will have stiff box office competition from Disney's
current DINOSAUR which offers material that will appeal to adults.
Once again we have a "Mission: Impossible" movie without a "Mission
Impossible" plot. What is a "Mission: Impossible" plot? It is
like a jigsaw puzzle. Through most of the plot you see the pieces
being fit together, but you have no idea what they build. Suddenly
toward the end you go through an "Ah-ha!" experience when you
understand what it is all for. Then you see what you built do its
thing. Maybe doing its thing is to make some banana republic
would-be Hitler suddenly appear to have been stealing from the
country's treasury. It is a spy film powered by gray cells instead
of testosterone. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 is as clueless as its
predecessor what its title claims it to be. It is like me saying I
am going to write great romantic sonnets just like Shakespeare, but
I am going to write them in four lines.
Instead of a "Mission: Impossible" plot it has something that might
have worked as a James Bond script. And evens so, it would have
been a Bond script a little heavy on chases and fights. For too
much of the screen time Cruise is just showing off for the camera.
Cruise is trying to be the Douglas Fairbanks, Sr., of our
generation. He wants to be dashing and handsome and superb at any
number of sports. This film is too intent on glamorizing Cruise.
As the story opens we have a scientist in Sydney, Australia, who
had developed a great anti-virus. And to prove the anti-virus
works he has also developed a great deadly virus for his anti-virus
to counter. (Yes, that's what he did.) Now he wants to take the
virus and the anti-virus to the CDC in Atlanta so he injects
himself with the deadly virus. The deadly strain will be benign
for exactly 20 hours, then it will attack him like Ebola. Our
brilliant scientist wants to get to Atlanta and inject himself with
the anti-virus and not become the Patient Zero of a virus that
could destroy the world. And what does he do to be sure to get to
Atlanta in time? He boards a commercial air flight. (Is this
making sense to you?) But there are baddies who will stop at
nothing to get the virus and anti-virus. On the commercial plane
the pilot happens to be one of the baddies' gang. (However did
they manage that? They didn't even know what plane he would be
taking.) The baddies, led by Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott), seize
the biological agents and escape the plane, leaving it to crash.
The Impossible Mission Force has to call in the vacationing Ethan
Hunt (played by Tom Cruise) who is having fun by climbing about
half a mile up a sheer rock face without benefit of equipment. The
IMF brings in Ethan and tells him to pick two team members as well
as recruit a third, one a beautiful jewel thief named Nyah
Nordoff-Hall (Thandie Newton). (With a name like Nordoff-Hall one
wonders if there was a bounty on her head.) In the best traditions
of Hitchcock's NOTORIOUS, she is asked to go not just under cover
but also between the sheets with former lover Ambrose.
The film stars Tom Cruise as the lead agent of the IMF. Thandie
Newton is a new face and a different one, but she does not have
enough to do on the screen. Tom Cruise plays the athletic miracle
man. In an unbilled role, Anthony Hopkins is around to give Cruise
his orders. Tom Cruise plays the great lover secret agent.
Dougray Scott is a little lackluster for the villain, but perhaps a
lackluster villain is more realistic. Tom Cruise is there as the
quick-thinking super-agent. The Impossible Mission team also has
the talented Ving Rhames returning as Luther Stickell. He gets to
ride a helicopter and shoot a gun. Rounding out the crack team of
four agents was some dude with a thin moustache and beard. I don't
remember if he did anything or had any speaking lines. I seem to
remember he flew the helicopter. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 also
features Tom Cruise.
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE 2 was badly in need of another script re-write,
particularly by someone who was a fan of the original series. John
Woo keeps the action coming, but not the intelligence. And Woo is
not able to make the action scenes believable or enjoyable. The
climactic fight is as funny as it is contrived. MISSION:
IMPOSSIBLE 2 is more just a Tom Cruise vanity piece than anything
else. I rate it 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4
scale.
Minor spoiler... Minor spoiler... Minor spoiler... Minor spoiler...
I am starting to have a real problem with this whole mask thing.
The idea seems borrowed from the opening of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE,
where it was fresh. But let us be clear that to masquerade as
someone else with one of these masks requires a lot of preparation
ahead of time. It cannot be easy to make a mask that would fool
someone into thinking they were seeing someone they knew when it
was really someone else. The voice disguise would also take a
tremendous amount of preparation. Probably neither could be done
without the cooperation of the person who is going to be
impersonated. Further, people recognize each other by more than
just face and voice. There is skin-tone, body dimensions,
clothing, scent, word-choice, accent, memories, and dozens of other
parameters. The original series used impersonation very, very
sparingly giving the person a lot of preparation time and even then
it was really a credibility stretcher. You do not just attack a
building with a back-pocket full of these impersonation masks ready
to use. In addition dramatically it is a poor idea. It distracts
the audience making them constantly wonder if they really know who
they are looking at or not. The script uses it entirely too
frequently, whenever the writer wants to throw the audience a cheap
and easy curve ball. [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. ENDER'S SHADOW, by Orson Scott Card (Tor, 1999, Hardcover,
$24.95, 379pp, ISBN 0-312-87297-6) (a book review by Joe Karpierz):
I had given up on Orson Scott Card. I really had. I had become
increasingly disappointed in Card's writing ever since SPEAKER FOR
THE DEAD came out back in 1986. SPEAKER, as you may recall, was
the Hugo Award winning sequel to ENDER'S GAME, the Hugo Award
winning novel that was expanded from a shorter version of the same
story. After SPEAKER, things seemed to go downhill. Card's latter
two Ender novels, XENOCIDE and CHILDREN OF THE MIND, were a mere
shadow of their two predecessors. The "Homecoming" series was a
major disappointment, and the "Alvin Maker" books, while
interesting, were not up to the standards that Card had set for
himself in ENDER'S GAME, in my opinion.
And maybe that's the problem. ENDER'S GAME is one of the greatest
science fiction novels ever written. Its surprise ending is one of
the most astounding in the history of the genre. Believe me, by
1985, when Ender was written, I thought nothing could surprise me
in an sf novel. SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD was terrific in it's own
right. It's no wonder that those two novels won back to back Hugos
in 1985 and 1986.
So Card set himself up for failure buy writing two spectacular
books.
I wasn't going to read ENDER'S SHADOW. I had been too disappointed
in XENOCIDE and CHILDREN OF THE MIND. But I was hearing good
things about ENDER'S SHADOW. So I caved - what else could I do?
ENDER'S SHADOW is the story of Bean, the little runt that attended
Battle School at the same time that Ender did. It turns out that
Bean was found as a streetwise urchin in the city of Rotterdam,
fighting for food and the chance to stay alive. He attracted the
attention of Sister Carlotta, who was working for the International
Fleet, the organization that was putting together the army that was
going to defeat the Buggers once and for all. Sister Carlotta was
supposed to find promising little children to send up to Battle
School to be trained to fight the alien invaders.
You see, Bean was very, very smart. He was also very, very little.
He was a runt who looked younger than his age. He was reading at
an age where kids are still learning to walk. He knew things. He
could reason beyond his years. So he was recruited for Battle
School, and the rest, as they say, is history.
ENDER'S SHADOW is a story on two fronts. One is the story of Bean
himself. It turns out that he's been genetically altered, but that
alteration comes with a terrible price. It's the story of a
genetically altered genius making his way through Battle School and
finding out the truth about what's going on there long before
anybody else does, fighting the admistration of the place every
step of the way.
It's also the parallel story to ENDER'S GAME. That is, it's the
story of ENDER'S GAME as seen through the eyes of Bean. And this
is interesting not only because we're seeing the events from
another perspective, but because we're seeing Ender from another
perspective.
So in some ways, we already know what's going to happen as we read
this novel. Of course, at this point that big surprise is not a
surprise, not only because we've already seen it, but because Bean
figures it out.
I have mixed feelings, however. Is this novel as good as I think
it is because it's well crafted, telling the same story from a
different perspective, making it fresh all over again? Or is this
novel good only because the original was good, and it's essentially
the same story.
I don't know the answer for sure, but I do recommend that you pick
up the book and read it yourself. I recommend it. [-jak]
===================================================================
5. SHANGHAI NOON (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Jackie Chan brings his martial arts
antics to the Old West, A Chinese Imperial
Guard from the Forbidden City in Beijing is
sent to the America West to rescue a kidnapped
princess. The performances are fun, but the
plotting is a string of cliches. Rating: 5 (0
to 10), low +1 (-4 to +4)
Even worse than the spy genre, the Western genre is in clear
decline. The film industry has lost the recipe for making good
riveting Westerns. Now they can make only repetitive parodies that
mock the conventions of the Western and which do not have the soul
that made Westerns great. The features that used to come cheap--
the horses and the scenery--now make Westerns prohibitively
expensive to make. Perhaps the Western will return with digitized
horses and blue screen sunsets, who knows? I spared myself last
year's THE WILD, WILD WEST, but SHANGHAI NOON looked moderately
better. It probably was.
Bringing a Chinese martial artist to the Old West has some of the
same possibilities as bringing a samurai in the only partially
successful mixture of genres of RED SUN (1971). Sure enough, this
film has all the standard Western cliches we could have listed
BEFORE seeing the film. We have a moving train robbery (only
slightly less cliched is the fact it is committed by amateurs and
incompetents). We have a visit to a cathouse. We have an escape
from an evil sheriff's jail. We have a visit to an Indian village.
And, of course, there is a saloon brawl. And there is a showdown
on a town street. Miles Millar and Alfred Gough seem to have
written the script with a checklist. Each cliche circumstance is
revisited with an eye toward how it might be a little different if
a comic Chinese martial artist involved. Even so nothing more
creative than a three-way fistfight is attempted. There are also
wide vistas filmed to stirring music whetting our appetites for a
real Western, but the film only reminds us that the film industry
has lost that particular ability.
The film opens in Beijing, in the Forbidden City. Chon Wang
(played by Jackie Chan) is a hapless member of the Imperial Guard,
charged with scrubbing floors and protecting Princess Pei Pei (Lucy
Alexis Liu). The princess, wishing to avoid an arranged marriage,
agrees to be taken to Carson City, Nevada. Along the way she
realizes that her companion is really kidnapping her. Wang is sent
to Nevada with his uncle to rescue her. The uncle is killed when
the train is robbed by a band of inept train robbers. Chon teams
with their leader Roy O'Bannon (Owen Wilson) in an attempt to save
the princess. What does all this have to do with Shanghai or noon?
Not a thing. But by giving the film a pointless name the writers
could squeeze one more joke out. Many of the gags will be familiar
including the "horsing around" of a trained horse. One weakness of
the script is the dependency on one character, who shall remain
nameless here, who gets the characters out of several nasty
patches, but otherwise seems never to be around. This is just too
easy an answer for how the main characters are going to escape
their problems.
In spite of the rather unimaginative plotting and scripting Owen
Wilson and Jackie Chan each turn in engaging performances.
Remarkably, Wilson holds his own against Chan, perhaps even making
himself the more interesting character. The stress is less on
Chan's martial arts than in his classic films. These fights still
seem very orchestrated. I have no doubts that if Chan got into a
real fight he would probably still give a very good account of
himself, but I suspect it would look very different from the
stylized and contrived fights he has in his films. These are
choreographed to show off his natural grace.
Daniel Mindel's cinematography is frequently quite good, though
many of his effects are overly familiar. When bullets shot through
a wall each gave rise to a column of light in BLOOD SIMPLE, it was
an impressive effect. Now it is over-used and once again here we
see it used. He does get some nice Nevada landscapes and it is
hard not to make the Forbidden City in Beijing look impressive.
Oh, and yes, I can confirm what Jackie Chan fans already know. The
viewer should sit through the credits to see the out-takes from the
filming.
Overall SHANGHAI NOON this is just a passable entertainment which
gets from me a rating of 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +1 on the
-4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
6. SMALL TIME CROOKS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Woody Allen's best film of the last
few years is still little more than a mediocre
effort which from anyone else would be only a
minor comedy. It is, in fact, little more than
a glorified Honeymooners episode. A small time
criminal and his wife come into a great deal of
money and see high society from both sides.
Not even as intelligent and insightful as it
sounds. Rating: 5 (0 to 10), low +1 (-4 to +4)
Woody Allen has been riding on his reputation for several of his
most recent films. After several good films in the 1980s, crowned
by CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, his 1990s film crop seemed one
disappointment after another. At least in my opinion, BULLETS OVER
BROADWAY was his only above average film in that time. SMALL TIME
CROOKS is the best film he has done since BULLETS OVER BROADWAY.
It still is a lackluster situation comedy that leaves one feeling
one has seen a Honeymooners comedy.
Ray Winkler (played by Woody Allen) is just what the title calls
him, a small time crook. He constantly bickers with his wife
Frenchy (Tracy Ullman), a former exotic dancer, who verbally bests
him at every turn. Currently Ray has a plan for how to get big
money. He knows of a bank that has an abandoned pizzeria just two
door down. The pizzeria is for rent and he and some of his friends
intend to rent the building and to use the basement as a start
point to tunnel into the bank. Frenchy tells him that he and his
henchmen are just too stupid to pull the plan off. But she finally
agrees to provide a front for the gang. She will run a cookie
store out of the building above the building where they are
digging. Things go from bad to worse for the boys since none of
them knows how to dig a tunnel or to follow the map that tells them
where to dig. The bumblers seem to make every possible mistake.
Causing even more problems is the cookie-baking operation which is
rapidly becoming more effort than digging the tunnel. The team
brings in May (Elaine May), a half-witted cousin of Frenchy, to
help with the cookie operation. This makes things only worse.
Still an odd turn of events leaves the Winklers with a great deal
of money. Suddenly they are thrust into high society, but Frenchy
is afraid that her low origins have left her, well, vulgar. She
decides she and Ray must learn about culture. Ray feels more at
home playing poker. The issue will eventually drive a wedge
between the two.
Indeed, any plot which juxtaposes the nouveau riche with older
money will invite some interpretation as social criticism. Allen,
however, is no F. Scott Fitzgerald and a 96-minute film is not the
best medium for such comparisons in any case. We see a very small
spectrum of the old money people and their reactions to the
Winklers. However most of the points made are subtle or blunted.
Whatever insights are gained are small payoff for even so short a
story. The writing is at its best, and still not so very good,
when the Winklers are bickering. This writing is not really funny,
but it is occasionally smart and the lines come fast.
Tracy Ullman is probably Allen's best acting partner in quite a
while. As the harpy-turned-social-climber she is the best thing
about this film. Second best is not even Allen but Elaine May.
The character May plays is by now a familiar one for her, but it is
still a pleasure to see her acting. There are those who say that
the writing of SMALL TIME CROOKS is like the old Woody Allen. It
does not strike me that way, but there is one reminder of the older
Allen films. Once again Allen is playing a loser and that is
really what he does best. It may not be the real Woody Allen, but
he is at his funniest as nebbish, not as a winner. The film is
full of distinguished-looking people playing the denizens of high
society whom I feel I should have recognized. I didn't.
It is hard to walk out of SMALL TIME CROOKS believing I had seen a
film I will remember in another month. For one afternoon there was
some amusement. I rate it a 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +1 on
the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
Mark Leeper
HO 1K-644 732-817-5619
mleeper@lucent.com
The world is so dreadfully managed one hardly know to whom to complain.
-- Ronald Firbank
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT ALMOST BLANK