‘Skin Trade’ is a slave to tedium

Skin Trade


See it at Amazon 


Pros: A couple of decent action moments

Cons: Mostly a wash considering the talent involved

It used to be that one could expect to get their money’s worth when they saw a flick that boasts the likes of Dolph Lundgren, Michael Jai White, Tony Jaa, and Ron Perlman; for good measure there is even a cameo by Peter Weller. Sadly, all of these elements end up being a wash thanks to some uninspired fight choreography and an almost complete lack of urgency in the film’s pacing.

Dolph Lundgren and Tony Jaa play Nick and Tony, law enforcers from opposite sides of the world running parallel investigations against notorious human trafficker, Victor Dragovic (Ron Perlman– looking like lethargy itself), who eventually find themselves partnered up after a rocky Martial Arts Meet Cute.

A Martial Arts Meet Cute, you say? Allow me to explain.

After successfully arresting Dragovic, Nick’s is left for dead in an ambush that killed his family. He is conveniently given information about what the authorities intend to do next, and he follows them to Thailand  to mete out his own form of justice.

Nick’s FBI buddy, Reed (Michael Jai White) has been working with Dragovic and frames Nick for the murder of Tony’s partner in order to distract Tony. I assume this will make Reed’s sabotaging the case easier. Spoiler: it’s not. In spite of all this, Nick is so single minded in his focus that following him doesn’t hinder efforts to find Dragovic at all. In fact, once Nick gets to Thailand it’s all too easy for any and everyone to run into something or someone around every corner that is absolutely essential to moving the plot forward than dragging it out in a belabored fashion.

So eventually Nick and Tony meet in an old grain warehouse, Tony ready to duel to the death and Nick willing to show a little mercy to prove he isn’t the killer he’s been set-up to be. The fight has more close-ups and medium shots than I was expecting. It rarely works to display the grace of Jaa, but the fights do serve Lundgren better. The close-ups serve to underscore Lundgren’s intimidating size, making the fight seem all the more intense and claustrophobic.

But I’m really searching hard to find positives. The direction doesn’t do the actors any justice. Violence is not an art that is lost on Lundgren, Jaa, or White and yet no one really takes advantage of the assembled talent. The shootouts are rote and I can’t help but feel like the action is mostly designed to obscure the fact that the talent is getting old. To be perfectly honest, the few elbows to the head, cartwheel kicks, broken limbs, throat stabbings, and other acts of violence that aren’t as well displayed as they could be aren’t going to do much to disabuse anyone of that notion.

In the end, I’m much more comfortable taking an alternate, more cynical approach. That the makers didn’t have much more to their vision beyond “let’s get a,b, and c together for a movie and see if the damn thing makes itself.” I was more than ready to enjoy this film and what I got stuck with was a movie that seemed thoroughly disinterested in carving an identity for itself out of the gifts it was given.

Mood Over Matter in the Worthwhile but Messy LOST RIVER


image-placeholder Find it on Amazon 

(3.5/5) decent

Pros: Commanding visuals and overall weirdness make it fascinating for those with adventurous tastes Cons: Lacks a strong story and narrative; absolutely NOTHING like the typical Gosling movie

Featured prominently at 2015’s South by Southwest Film Festival after having premiered at Cannes in 2014, Lost River, Ryan Gosling’s debut effort as a director, has polarized audiences ever since, and it’s not difficult to see why. A vaguely futuristic (is this what America is going to be like in a few years???) and very dark tale about a single mother and her two sons who live in squalor in a section of America that’s clearly been passed over during any supposed economic recovery, Gosling’s film is about as far removed from the sort he typically acts in as can be imagined, reminding me of something Harmony Korine might make. That alone should tell you something about what to expect here: this would have positively no appeal to the rom-com crowd – or those who enjoy blockbuster films in general for that matter. iInstead, Lost River might just be the grimy and unsettling piece that fans of David Lynch’s peculiar brand of cinema have been looking for, an artistically satisfying, visually striking piece that’s as perplexing as it is clumsy. lost-river-01 Living in a dilapidated, graffiti-covered section of America (the film was made in Detroit – and it shows), single mother Billy is about to lose the rundown house she lives in with her two boys due to foreclosure. A particularly seedy banker gives her a potential way out however, offering her a job at a weirdo nightclub that he operates which caters to, well, specific tastes. Meanwhile, her teenage son named Bones is having troubles of his own – a vicious crimelord named Bully has put a stop to his copper-stripping operation, leaving him to fend for himself in an effort to make a few bucks. While talking to a female neighbor named Rat, Bones learns that a nearby reservoir hides the remnants of a town which was flooded during its construction, and eventually comes to believe that the flooded town may hold a sort of mystical power that can provide his family with the means they need to escape their troubling surroundings before it’s too late.

To be completely honest, Gosling’s story is very difficult to come to grips with while watching the film and his script is easily the worst element of the picture. Confused and plain messy, it seems to be a cut and paste collection of scenes more than a consistent or remotely coherent narrative, and the fact that so much of what is seen in Lost River was tackled in works by the likes of Lynch, Nicolas Winding Refn, and others winds up being problematic – viewers well-versed in the dark side of cinema would have seen much of what’s here before. Hell, I could make an argument that Gosling’s picture very much resembles Refn’s Fear X, an intriguing little film which was universally misunderstood by critics and audiences to the point that it nearly ended the director’s career, or even Andrei Tarkovsky’s divisive Stalker. Like those pictures, Lost River is much more concerned with establishing a quietly creepy atmosphere than with giving the audience much in the way of answers or even a logical story arc. This ultimately means that many viewers will simply be baffled by this film – it’s just not at all designed for viewers with mainstream tastes. lost-river-official-stills-billy-04 Those willing to allow themselves to fall under the spell cast by the film are likely to enjoy Gosling’s effort quite a bit however. Photographed extraordinarily well by frequent Gasper Noé collaborator Benoît Debie, the film is plain gorgeous to look at, chock full of astounding and memorable visuals which include many repeated motifs which foreshadow events that happen later. Odd camera angles and vantage points are utilized extensively, a fact which only accentuates disorienting nature of the picture and heightens its level of eerieness. Since a large portion of this film takes place in underlit or flat-out dark environments, instances of vivid color are all the more arresting and eye-catching. Considering the way in which many of today’s directors relish shots of gore and bloodshed, I appreciated the fact that, although there are some scenes of intense violence, Gosling chooses to show the effects of the violence more than the act itself  – which actually makes these moments more shocking since a viewer’s imagination fills in the gaps. maxresdefault I thought the acting here was generally decent. Mad Men‘s Christina Hendricks seems a bit overwhelmed playing Billy, appearing to be as confused in her portrayal as some viewers are likely to be with the film. Some of this is intentional and works in context, but I’m not entirely convinced that Hendricks knew where to go with the character at certain points – more the fault of the muddled script and unsure director than hers. Iain De Caestecker, playing her son Bones, is frankly given more to work with in the script and fares better in his performance. While Billy is left to go about her business, the film mainly focuses its attention on how Bones views and is affected by what’s going on around him and DeCaestecker is up to the task of relating the character’s fragile emotional state. Saoirse Ronan (playing Rat) provides about the only genuinely bright character in the piece, and though she comes across as a fairy-like being who guides Bones toward his destiny, it’s refreshing that the film didn’t go overboard with the inevitable romance between the two. As the villains, we have Matt Smith playing Bully and Ben Mendelsohn as the slimy and nefarious banker named Dave who makes the viewer’s skin crawl whenever he’s onscreen. Finally, former scream queen Barbara Steele appears as Rat’s comatose grandmother – it’s cool to see her here, but she’s wasted in a very minimal, thankless role. cdn.indiewire.com Boasting a wonderful, John Carpenter-like soundtrack from electronic producer Johnny Jewel, Lost River clearly positions Gosling as a director of note and is a more-than respectable first effort. The film has an almost uncomfortable air of desperation throughout, and is quite harrowing to watch at times. Still, it’s problematic in many respects particularly with regard to the script, indicative of a director’s ambition exceeding his actual ability at an early point in his career. Idiosyncratic and just plain weird, this is a ready-made cult film that will undoubtedly leave a bad taste in many viewers’ mouths – and may be downright shocking to those accustomed to seeing Gosling involved in more wholesome, mainstream entertainment. Personally, I liked this film but it seems tailor-made to suit my (admittedly outlandish) tastes. Though I’d certainly recommend Lost River to adventurous viewers looking for something unusual, those in the market for a sure-handed, purposeful piece may as well avoid it like the plague. lost-river-film-ryan-gosling blood & guts 6/10 : Though not nearly as graphic as some films out there, the violence in this film is rather disturbing and the film as a whole is very unsettling. smack talk 7/10 : Generally pointless use of harsh four-letter profanity: almost seems like a case of having the language thrown in to secure an R-rating right off the bat. fap factor 4/10 : What it lacks in actual nudity or onscreen sex, the film tries to make up for in sleazy implications. whack attack 8/10 : A genuinely strange movie (and ready-made cult film) that would be an acquired taste – at best – for many. That said, I dug it. GI JOE “Everybody’s looking for a better life somewhere…maybe you will find some, someday…”

Nathan’s Run – Decent (if unrealistic) thriller

Nathan’s Run by John Gilstrap



See it at Amazon 


Pros: exciting story

Cons: unrealistic portrayal of a child, extreme levels of violence

It’s a thriller.  But it’s a bit different from the typical book in the genre.

I’m referring to Nathan’s Run by John Gilstrap.  What makes it so different?  It’s about a twelve-year-old.

The premise is as simple as can be.  Nathan escapes from juvie after killing a guard, and is now on the run.  The police are hunting for him and more bodies will pile up before all is said and done.

Simple premise, right?

But trust me, it’s not as simple as it sounds.  Because while we read all about the hunt for Nathan from the point of view of the authorities, it’s the half of the story that’s told from Nathan’s point of view that will tug at your heart.  For we will know the real story.  And trust me, this is not black-and-white.  There are a lot of extenuating circumstances to consider.  And, if nothing else, Nathan’s Run will give its readers a thing or two to think about.

Gilstrap did some clever things. I loved the use of the nationally syndicated radio show to allow Nathan to have a voice to the public.  I enjoyed the legal situation facing the radio station, in terms of whether to give up its phone records or not.  And I very much enjoyed the back-story of the one policeman chasing Nathan who actually wants to consider all of the angles before jumping to any conclusions.

But this is not to say that the perfect – it’s not.  I felt that Nathan’s character was written more like a sixteen-year-old than a twelve-year-old.  Some of his thoughts and actions simply did not read like a child, but someone far wiser.  As a result, his journey felt more like a fantasy ride than an actual thriller.  If he wanted the story to ring of any truth at all, Gilstrap needed to make Nathan a bit older, or he needed to tone him down into more of a typical kid.

Finally, be forewarned – there is an extreme amount of graphic violence in this book. Despite being about a twelve-year-old, this book is NOT for kids.  Given the level of violence, it’s not even for some adults, quite frankly.

Still, Nathan’s Run is an exciting book, and I definitely wanted to know how it would all turn out.  Give it a try, but know going in what you’re in for.


TRUE SUPERNATURAL on Destination America Channel

Destination America Website 

(2/5) meh

Pros: Interesting subject matter

Cons: …oh, it’s another one of these shows…

Midway through a third season of Mountain Monsters that’s proven to be the most absurd yet, the Destination America channel has unleashed a mostly straight-faced program dealing with mysteries and monsters that provides an alternate to watching supposed investigator “Wild Bill” Neff grill corn on the engine block in his Ford or explain his tendency to name his push mowers after American presidents. Though its name might indicate that it falls more in line with the many “Ghost Hunter” shows out there, True Supernatural has more in common with Science Channel’s The Unexplained Files since it seems to be more wide-reaching in its approach, tackling most any subject that exists outside the realms of normal explanation.

Gee…d’ya suppose they’re going to drag out that dead “Chupacabra” again at some point?

Featuring the usual assortment of reenactments, talking head interviews and a spattering of actual “evidence,” the series premiered on April 8, 2015 with an episode that covered a pair of stories, at least one of which should be very familiar to paranormal enthusiasts – the alien abduction case of Betty and Barney Hill. Occurring in 1961, this incident is regarded as the first of its kind, and the program does its part to provide a (relatively toned-down) crash course in the particulars of the case. The other point of focus for the debut episode is the so-called “Rocky Mountain Demon Wolf.” After years of anecdotal reports, many of which came from AmerIndians, a bizarre, hyena-like creature actually was shot and killed in the late 1800s. After being lost for decades, the preserved carcass of the creature was recently rediscovered, leading to renewed interest in trying to identify the beast.

you'd look like that too
You’d have that morose too if you’d been kidnapped by aliens…Betty and Barney Hill.

Like many other modern Unsolved Mystery-type programs, a main idea of True Supernatural is to apply science to these enigmatic stories. In the case of the Hill abduction, this mainly involves DNA analysis of the dress that Betty was wearing when the alleged abduction occurred. Past examinations of the article have revealed strange, pink-colored stains in certain areas which were reportedly handled by the extraterrestrial beings, yet new scientific techniques may be able to provide new information and maybe even an explanation as to what actually occurred more than five decades ago. The carcass of the “demon wolf” is also subjected to expert analysis during the course of this episode, although a squabble over ownership of the specimen has hampered efforts to test the remains.

beast of gevaudan
The Beast of Gevaudan which terrorized France in the 1700s – could the “demon wolf” killed in the late 1800s be a similar, unknown creature?

While all this actual science sounds great – and believe you me, the narration throughout the program does its best to “sell” the potential bombshells that analysis could reveal, I don’t think I’m really giving anything away by revealing that nothing much comes out of any of the hoopla put forth in the show. As is standard with regard to this type of speculative documentary, a viewer is left with more questions than definitive answers once everything is said and done – which isn’t necessarily a bad call considering how willing some people are to declare that a conspiracy is going on if science doesn’t provide the answers that they are looking for. If True Supernatural finishes things off by not explaining everything, all possibilities still exist…which means that the believers out there can keep on believing.


Another area in which True Supernatural is quite similar to other programs of this sort is in its choice of subject matter. Browsing a brief list of future episodes, it seems like the producers have chosen to cover a nice variety of topics, alternating between stories about genuine mysteries and ones dealing with unknown creatures such as Bigfoot. Considering how popular monster/cryptozoology shows have been in recent years, this seems like a good call, but I’m forced to again go back to a point I’ve made before: how many times can these programs cover the same sorts of material? Is there honestly anything new to be added to these arguments…or perhaps I should ask whether additional scientific testing will reveal anything earth-shattering. In covering the same topics that have been explored elsewhere, True Supernatural, like many shows before it, seems mostly to be recycling material, which doesn’t much make for ground-breaking television as far as I’m concerned.


What is somewhat new is this program’s format: instead of using the usual investigative report format in which the show is broken down into separate segments, True Supernatural presents both stories covered in its episodes concurrently. This does mix up the (very tiresome) formula one might expect in a show of this nature, but I don’t think it’s an especially effective way to relate information. The debut episode seemed a bit awkward as it randomly switched back and forth between its topics, and I also found that the omnipresent narration was extremely repetitive, apparently designed specifically for viewers made brain-dead through exposure to too much awful reality television. To be completely honest, this program drags significantly and seems almost entirely to be composed of material that’s little more than glorified filler. Once the background information into the Hill case and demon wolf was presented, the episode proceeded to repeat information ad nauseum in an attempt to build anticipation for a “big reveal” moment that simply didn’t materialize nor actually provide any new information. The question then becomes why anyone would waste an hour watching a show that could easily cram its information and arguments into about a fifteen minute block.

Cue the Bigfoot episode now for maximum tie-in value!

If anything has been proven over the years since In Search Of…, it’s that so-called “paranormal television” provides a reliable – and increasingly easy – way to get butts in the seat. Hell, even if most of these shows are complete bunk and aren’t at all what I would label as being good television, I can’t help but be fascinated by the subjects they cover. In the end then, I suppose that True Supernatural provides a viewer with exactly what he would want from a show of this nature. It’s not a great series by a long shot and almost certainly won’t solve any longstanding mysteries as it goes along, but there’s no doubt it would appeal to curious viewers.


Jury Double by Edward Stewart – great premise, disappointing story

Jury Double by Edward Stewart



See it at Amazon 


Pros: exciting premise

Cons: turned out to be a real disappointment

A bit of a convoluted mess, quite frankly.

I’m talking about Jury Double by Edward Stewart.

Reading the back cover, I was intrigued.  A pair of identical twin sisters.  One convinces the other to take her place on jury duty.  I was expecting an exciting story about the consequences that sometimes occur as a result of a seemingly simple decision.  In this case, I thought there would be huge ramifications in store for the sisters.

Instead, what we got was a mess of a story, that wasn’t all that exciting.  Sure, the switcheroo had its consequences.  But that was a very small part of the story.  The rest of the story unfolded without anything to do with the jury switch.  In other words, the very premise that hooked me ended up being of very little consequence to the story.

You’ve got a cult-leader bad guy.  Accused of a terrorist-style bombing, and murdering an elderly couple.  You’ve got the cult-leader’s devoted follower – someone who is easily manipulated into doing the bad guy’s bidding.  And you’ve got a court trial that appears to be run by a bunch of clowns.  Neither the prosecutor nor the defense council seem to have an ounce of professionalism.  And, of course, you’ve got the twins.  One serving on the jury, and the other – well – she’s got an agenda of her own.  Let’s just say there’s a reason why she wanted her sister to take her place.

But then you have some really dumb things going on.  The worst was sister Kyra.  The one who was supposed to be on jury duty.  If you’re going to switch places with your sister then don’t show up – as yourself – all over town.  Don’t be seen.  Or, if you must be seen, then at least pretend to be your sister.  Otherwise, how long will it take before someone notices that you’re in two places at once?

Then there’s Anne – the sister who’s serving on the jury – she’s actually pretty smart.  She manages to outsmart the legal system time and time again.  Supposedly under guard while sequestered for the trial, she sure manages to flout the rules!  Now I’ve never been sequestered, but I imagine there’s a bit more security surrounding the jurors than what Edward Stewart would have us believe in this book!

In the end, there’s a messy, convoluted story that eventually comes through.  But, honestly, I just didn’t care anymore.  I was really intrigued to read about the jury-switch, and that turned out to be a minor part of the story.  And the rest of the story just bored me.  Skip Jury Double.


Chike and the River by Chinua Achebe




Pros: engaging African children’s story

Cons: none for what it is

At the start of Chike and the River, the eleven-year-old title character moves from the Igbo Umuofia (Achebe’s native town and the site of his breakthrough 1958 novel Things Fall Apart) to the city of Onitsha on the Niger River, living with his uncle and going to an English-language school. Though his mother warned him to stay away from the river, Chike becomes obsessed with riding a ferry back and forth across the Niger (Asaba is on the other side, not notably different from Onitsha to Chike), before a bridge renders the ferry obsolete. The problem is not the boy who does not know how to swim fearing drowning, but lack of the three-pence each way for passage on the ferry. “Chike was so anxious to find the money for his trip across the river that he very nearly went into bad ways.” -

 Before he achieves his goal, which leads directly to new terror on a lorry he chose as a safe place to seep, Chike fords a stream with water up to his chest, learns to ride a bicycle, learns to play football (soccer), and observes some shady urban characters.

Achebe wrote the book for his daughter when she was learning to read (ca. 1966; it was published in South Africa, but not in the US until 2011) because she was assigned nothing not written by and about white people. It does not seem to have occurred to Achebe that to fashion something for his daughter with “characters just like her, living lives just like hers” might have related more easily to a female African character than to a male one. The male focus of his other fiction written before the catastrophic Biafra secession war recurs here.

The novella was written for a pre-teen about a pre-teen, but it has some of the same conflicts (albeit with a happier ending) as Things Fall Apart: social change in Nigeria (which became independent in 1960 and has not been well-governed as one kleptocracy has succeeded another (“black stooges” for the old masters in Achebe’s words) and Biafaran secession in 1967 was brutally suppressed). Achebe-chinua

The book includes a forerunner (by long-distance snail-mail) of young Nigerians trying to scam naïve foreigners. The American edition has mostly red and black woodblock-like illustrations by Edel Rodriguez. (His cover caught my eye in the Smithsonian’s African Art Museum. I thought I had read all Achebe’s novels and was surprised to see a 2011 one — which was really a 1966 children’s book —, so I was right that I had read all his novels, plus a collection of stories).


Neo-noir/paranoid East Texas thriller

Cold in July (2014)



Pros: cast  Cons: plausibility

“Cold in July” (2014, directed by horror-movie director Jim Mickle from a Joe R. Lansdale novel set in1989 in East Texas (but not filmed there) is puzzling in several ways. Genre is one: it’s a sort of detective story, eventually including a PI, and sort of a horror movie, but I would class it as a pulpy neo-noir at the paranoid thriller end of the noir perspective (with some black humor). A lot of it takes place at night and official conspiracy is at the center of the movie.

The motivations of the protagonist, Richard Dane (played by Michael C. Hall with none of the self-confidence of Dexter Morgan), puzzle me and the movie fails to deliver an explanation of the set-up, what Richard sought to find out.

It is difficult to discuss the movie without plot-spoiling, so I’ll just say that the other two male characters (in their order of appearance)—Russell, played by a laconic Sam Shepard and Jim Bob played by Don Johnson—are also very good. The main female role, Ann Dane (played by Vinessa Shaw) is underwritten: mostly a nag with some moments of fear.

There is some very graphic violence and the frustration of plot holes and implausibility. The local police (headed by screenwriter Nick Damici as Ray Price) might perhaps do what they are shown doing, but there would need to be some reason and none is provided by Damici’s screenplay, which Lansdale (in a Q&A included as a bonus feature) says stuck closely to his novel, more so than he had expected.


I’m surprised that Johnson did not  get an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor. His character recurs in other Lansdale novels, so there may be sequels with Johnson?

A very bland beer that can be skipped.

Breckenridge Vanilla Porter

Price: N/A


Pros: Not really bad as a social drink due to light ABV%

Cons: Nothing really stands out at all

This is a brew I tried out of pure curiosity and to say it did nothing for me at all would be a huge understatement. Brewed in Denver, Colorado, Breckenridge Brewery’s Vanilla Porter attempts to live up to its namesake even going so far to outright mention it’s made with real vanilla beans. Unfortunately, this porter simply comes up short and it’s nothing I would recommend to anyone outside of curiosity.

The beer pours into a dark body with an off white head that appears to be more beige. The carbonation is fairly soft, the head quickly disappears into a mild lace. While the beer looks nice it’s definitely prettier than it tastes. There’s a bit of a hoppy flavor, and even some chocolate along with roasted caramel that can be tasted; but it’s nothing truly memorable though. The sweetness is bland as hell and while there is some decent dryness in this porter, the after taste is pretty bitter and weak. Well rounded craft drinkers won’t be the least bit impressed I’m sure, and new craft drinkers would definitely wonder what the fuss is all about. The aroma really isn’t that inviting either with a faint smell of vanilla that did not rope me in at all.

I think some of the problem in this beer also lies into the near unnoticeable alcohol feel. This has nothing to do with it being at 4.7%; I think the alcohol was pretty weak in general, and simplly not as upfront as what I’m use to.  It’s no secret that stouts are my pride and joy, but even if this is compared to other low ABV drinks such as many of the Samuel Adams line of brews for example, it simply comes up way short because I don’t think it enhanced the taste enough.

In closing, this is definitely a beer I’m not bothering with again. The $11.99 price tag for this almost felt like high way robbery for me. To veteran craft drinkers I would recommend just about anything else besides this. To new craft drinkers looking for something with a taste that stands out but not too strong; Samuel Adams line of beers would be a great start: Cherry Wheat, Boston Lager, and even Irish Red. I would also recommend the hoppy, and rather strong Victory’s Hop Devil. Vanilla Porter is something that should be left alone. However, if this beer has any purpose at all; the ABV level makes it a change of pace from the Coor’s, Buds, etc. as a decent social drink.

Into the Dark – Rick Mofina – Where’s the surprise? Where’s the thrill?

Into the Dark by Rick Mofina



See it at Amazon 


Pros: the book had some interesting characters

Cons: absolutely nothing thrilling about it

Bland.  No spark whatsoever.  Definitely not “thrilling”. Such is the case, with Rick Mofina’s Into The Dark.

Serial killer on the loose.  Cops haven’t a clue.  Yeah, Yeah, we’ve heard it all before. But normally these books keep something hidden from the reader, something that the reader can’t wait to be revealed. Something that will come as a very cool surprise, worth the wait.

But not this book.  Mofina lets us in on the secret almost from the very beginning. That’s right.  We know exactly who the bad guy is.  No hidden identity.  No false clues.  No red herrings.  Just a blatant, linear story about a serial killer, his clueless family, and the equally clueless cops.

You’ve got a wife with some past baggage trying to move on with her life and start a new family.  At least she was pretty cool… I liked her and really felt for her.  You have friends and co-workers who haven’t any idea.  And you have the serial killer who is well aware of the horror of his “secret life” but who doesn’t try all that hard to change it.  And his near-super-hero ability to thwart detection at every turn.  And, finally, you have the cops running around like chickens.

Until, finally, the cops start to get smart and piece things together. In fact, it was horrifying how many mistakes the cops made early on in the investigation.  Let’s hope this is truly a work of fiction!

In the end, there’s really not a whole lot here to recommend.  I like my thrillers to thrill.  I enjoy clever surprises.  But Into The Dark has none of that.  So beware going in – if you like a point A to point B story about a serial killer, go for it.  But if, like me, you like to zig and zag, give this one a pass.

I kept waiting for the exciting twist.  There wasn’t one.

James Franco pretending to be Hart Crane

Broken TowerTheBrokenTower2011Poster


See it at Amazon 

[Rating: 1.5/5]

Pros: some black-and-white images

Cons: concept of biopic, execution, long recitations of Crane poetry

As a commercial movie, “Broken Tower” (2011), written by, produced by, directed by, edited by, and starring James Franco, is untenable. As a master’s (MFA) thesis (at NYU), that is, as a “student film,” its amateurness and failure to reach out to potential audiences is more tenable, though IMO Franco the editor is a failure, and I’m none too sure about Franco as a writer.


Franco reportedly was inspired by Paul Mariani’s biography of Crane, also titled The Broken Tower, a line about language from Hart Crane (né Harold, 1899-1932). The succession of images, which seem mostly to be of Crane walking in NYC and Paris, is mostly chronological, with some foreshadowing images of the deep blue sea (dark gray on black-and-white stock), though there are several scenes of Crane being fired from jobs, one of him chopping wood, one of him performing fellatio (and I do mean “performing,” not “simulating performing,” though I am not entirely sure if he is fellating a prosthetic phallus (as Chloë Sevigny did in “The Brown Bunny”) or a human penis), simulating being anally penetrated by Michael Shannon (whose character’s name, Emil Opffer, a Danish merchant marine, only registers in the closing credits), runs into trouble in Marseilles for a bar tab he could not pay, is fagbashed by some of his desired sailors, and awkwardly reads “For the Marriage of Faustus and Helen” for eleven long minutes in a reenactment of a 1920s NYC poetry reading. (The notorious fellatio scene occurs fifteen minutes in, with 95 long minutes still ahead. There is, btw, no nudity, despite there being two sex scenes, one oral, one anal.)

hart-crane1Franco does not look at all like Crane (pictured above), not that very many people know what Crane looked like, …and fewer still understand his poetry. Through most of the movie, Franco sports a cropped mustache. Though there is a lot of Franco intoning Crane poetry (not just at the poetry reading), there is rather little dialogue. Nothing other than the Brooklyn Bridge that inspired his poetry appears and the movie cannot be a Bildungsroman, because there is no Bildung (growth). Crane is shown as an alienated aesthete as a youth in Cleveland, who continues to love and/or lust after men in New York City, Mexico City, Marseilles, and Paris, having difficulty making a living (though receiving formal and informal grants). Franco’s Crane is a type — the alienated homosexual aesthete who has a lot of sexual encounters, gets beaten up pursuing straight young men, and despairs (killing himself before he can get old in this case).

The handheld camerawork (credited to Christina Voros) is jerky in a pre-Stedicam way (say a 1960s Nouvelle Vague way; Franco is on record as admiring Godard’s cubist “Vivre sa vie”) that likely annoys mainstream audiences (including Franco fans) as much as the pretentious reading of difficult poetry does. There was much more entertainment and information in “Howl,” in which Franco played Allen Ginsberg. He definitely is into impersonating poets, planning to do Charles Bukowski next (I don’t see much similarity between Crane’s poetry and that of Ginsberg and Bukowski; Keats has recently been done, I guess, though Ginsberg has been done multiple times in recent years, as Capote writing In Cold Blood has).