shinolah

I saw willard at the AMC Kanata outside of Ottawa, which is a chain theatre (I think the actual auditorium where I saw the movie previously showcased that talking kangaroo movie for adults). I can't entirely express my gratitude to the filmmakers for first placing Crispin in a lead role. Haven't seen that since 'Little Noises'. Secondly, a relatively mainstream film - not since Back to the Future has he been so prominent in a blockbuster (his performance in Charlie's Angels saved the film in my opinion, but he has only 6 minutes of screen-time)

once more: I saw this relatively big-budget movie, with Crispin Glover IN THE LEAD, in a chain movie theatre! I mean how funny is that. It's like seeing a Tarkovsky or Bresson film in Blockbuster's 'recommended' section.

I've been a Crispin Glover fan for years and to no surprise he gave another brilliant performance this time. Later that night my friend and I listened to a Crispin Hellion Glover album and marveled again at his cover of 'these boots are made for walking', delivered in a gut-wrenching whine somewhere between apology and a slammed door.

Looking at Anthony Perkins for contrasts/comparisons to Glover's willard is not the place to start. If you need it, Willard is more akin to The Young Poisoner's Handbook, Dead Alive (or Braindead in the UK), The Birdman of Alcatraz, and yourself. Glover's performance is so profoundly human it's uncanny. He's a pre-lingual actor; the body language is the key, and also, like good jazz, the choice of notes, or words. An emotionally arrested man befriended by rats, berated by his mother and boss, asexual. - how would you portray him? With lots and lots of unnecessary exposition? No, you'd keep the mystique.

R. Lee Ermy is hilarious (anyone who didn't laugh at his brief disgust looking at a fat housewife on the 'married couple' nudist website is dead inside), the art direction was flawless, great score, and, by the way, the pacing is perfect. I wasn't bored for a minute. There's something to be said for patience, my man. MTV kids find explosions boring nowadays.

From the brilliant animated opening credit sequence to Glover's haunting rendition of 'Ben' in the closing credits I was pinned to the screen. Morgan is promising - great use of pans and dollies and a subtle crane.

a 9 from me. A masterpiece, like most Glover performances, that will be unappreciated in its time.

I posted a comment about the stand a year ago and take back most of it, having finished the book just last week. I was too complimentary.

Um. I guess I'm struggling with the idea of a broad survey of armageddon and whether or not the scope chosen by the novel is actually the right way to go about it in the first place. The book is totally engaging - you start imagining how it could play out in a movie. It would have to be 35mm, seen on the big screen, and it would have to be a trilogy with each part about three hours. The writer is American, very American judging by his obvious affinity for Steinbeck and rock and roll and cars and other cultural references. I think my favourite armageddon film is probably 'The Hole', which is a Taiwanese film. Small scale - really only two characters (everyone in their country has fled and their neighbourhood is pretty much empty ): a raving drunk and a pack-rat who lives below him. They watch eachother through a hole in his floor / her ceiling. Brilliant, hilarious, dark stuff.

good parts in the tv movie 'the stand' in my opinion: Harold's fingernails breaking the skin of his palm after he's discovered fran and stu.

• the shot on the highway where nick and tom ride their bikes against the backdrop of a beautiful sky - tom swerving side to side like a child.

• ralph and lloyd and the rat-man are well-cast.

• the opening montage with 'dont fear the reaper' - the montage of the appliances coming back to life after the power kicks back on. - the art direction of tom's house and town

BAD THINGS (well, the down-right laughable things) - the terrible blocking in Nick's fight scene on the highway. It's like they were just waiting to react to the hits. - the digital effects look like they were designed by a community college student (especially the Flagg bits, but especially when he walks thru the fire) but maybe thats because it's 1994. - Nick's expression as he hold's Tom's hand in the national anthem sequence. - The score is just lame. Sorry, I know that everyone involved in the project and many fans of the series love it, but i guess i imagined a lot more silence. The score is like a bad version of Cooder.

• I dont like fran s a character in general, but what little i did like about her was just vacuumed out by molly ringwald's mediocrity. some of the looks she gives just make me want to shake to see if she'll come out of hypnosis.

If i was gonna make the film it'd be a whole lot more pretentious, but i'd take the criticism just to make an adaptation that actually, y'know, had heart and subtlety and looked like thought went into it as opposed to just a process of avoidance. Avoidance of natural locations, of curse words, of expensive actors, of sets (oh man theyre bad - especially the farm). - the soap-opera acting and general tv-drama feel.

Here's a question: was HBO not an option?

I don't understand how the book's writer [altho i find the book incredible at times in both scope and character, i think it loses steam toward the end (the 'hand of god' stuff from revelations is just downright goofy in both the book and the mini - "...do you see it? The hand of God!")] could have sold himself out like this. I just don't think his characters and atmosphere translate well into film. Good evidence: his best adaptations (the shining, stand by me, misery, carrie, christine) are written by other people, sometimes not even fans of King's. They take the powerful parts of his novels to heart and improve upon their weaknesses. King himself and the world of film simply don't mix. The one film he directed sucked beyond belief, he's a terrible actor and a pretty bad screenwriter.