Late to the Party: Dead Space

I love horror. It might not always be high-brow (And in fact it rarely is) but it's constantly entertaining. Even in its worst incarnations, there's occasionally something to enjoy. Whether it be laughable acting (Troll 2), dubious special effects (Troll 2) or just insane stories (You know where I'm going with this). But horror remains dear to me because on the whole it's just out to entertain. Like a good Theme Park ride it's main concern is to get your heart racing, your pulse pounding and to just tap into that part of your brain that switches off and thinks "Holy shit!".

Don't get me wrong, horror doesn't ALWAYS have to be like that. It's often been used to comment on other facets of society, whether it be Consumerism (Dawn of the Dead), Alienation in a digital age (Kairo) or the constant threat of James Earl Jones (Exorcist 2: The Heretic). Often those films are the most rewarding, and bare repeated viewings. Mainly because like a Ghost Train you've been on one too many times, you know where all the thrills are hidden. But for 90 minutes you can rely on some of the more Brainless films for purely visceral scares.

'Dead Space' falls right into the latter. Though they do attempt a little of the former as well. Yes it's a videogame, but it's more encompassing than any film can be, obviously just by its nature. The story, such as it is, is that you play Isaac Clarke, a engineer who along with a handful of other personnel, are sent to the USG Ishimura as it's been unresponsive of late. You board the Ishimura and find it largely deserted...apart from 'necromorphs', or "Space Zombies" as my one friend described them.

The game falls firmly into the "Survival Horror" genre, one which was made famous by 'Resident Evil' and 'Silent Hill' respectfully. You're only in radio contact with the two remaining shipmates and you have to make your way through the ship, collecting various things to help you get off the ship and to find your girlfriend, Nicole, a Doctor onboard the Ship.

So far, so derivative. And it completely is, but it's all part of the fun. In a competition when the Game was released you could win the 100 DVD's the developers used as research in the Game. From 'The Thing' to 'The Omega Man', most mainstays of the genre are represented here. But 'Dead Space' takes all of these influences and combines them into what can best be described as the best Ghost Train ever.

The game oozes atmosphere. Lights flicker on and off (And in some cases shut off completely, leaving you almost in complete darkness), you can hear things crawling in the vents around you and on more than one occasion you hear a woman's voice sing the creepiest rendition of 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star' ever. As it so happens, that song was used in this trailer here, and a wonderful trailer it is too. Apart from the atmosphere the game mainly relies on jump scares to keep you on edge, and obviously how you feel about those effects the way you play the game. I hate them, and by hate them I mean they almost always work on me. So in the initial stages I cautiously poked my head around each corner, gun aimed, waiting for the next aberration to jump out and try to take my head off.

Like 'Bioshock' and 'System Shock 2' before it, 'Dead Space' tells the majority of its story through audio, text and video logs that are left lying around by now dead and gone crew members. Some are integral to the story, others are just plain disturbing (Like the crew member who learns that if he's dismembered when he's dead, he can't come back and kill anyone. So he dismembers himself. You don't see it but you hear it, and that's disturbing enough).

Oh and it's gory. It's incredibly gory. The only way you can kill the enemies is by dismembering them. That's how gory we're talking. This definitely isn't a game for children.

Sadly it's not all perfect. The game does run into problems later on, but mainly from a storytelling point of view. Despite the back story provided by the logs, the game is basically the 3rd part of an ongoing tale that starts in the form of motion comics and then onto a prequel movie, the latter of which leads straight into this Game. The story told in the two prequels is pretty simple stuff about Science and Religion but the Game ties it up in an incredibly convoluted way in an effort to provide 'twists'. It's just poorly thought out, and while it does work on a superficial level, it crumbles under closer scrutiny.

It also misses the chance to go for an emotional, poignant ending in favour of a cheap jump scare out of every cheap horror film.

Still, I look forward to the sequel, here's hoping they can lock down a story that's good enough for the Game that surrounds it.

To adapt or not to adapt.

I'm going to spoil 'Watchmen' here, both the film and comic. So be warned.


Adaptation. It's a tricky thing. Like almost every writer I've tried my hand at adaptation, mainly more as an exercise in writing than anything I was seriously pursuing. It serves as a good way to get back into the groove of writing as most of the work is laid out for you. Just work on adapting some pages until you're back into the swing of things and it leaves you ready for whatever next big project you're working on.

The biggest problem though is just how to adapt? Do you stay slavishly devoted to the text or do you make it palatable for the screen (Or Stage)? More often that not the biggest problem comes from the fact that what works in one medium simply doesn't work in another. A book offers a much richer insight into any given character as we're given a glimpse behind their thoughts and feelings. Film doesn't offer the same comfort unless you're planning on overlaying every single scene with voiceover.

Moreover, there's just simply no way to replicate what's on the page. It's a problem that often faces anyone who's tried adapting Stephen King. Not to spoil it but the ending of 'IT' in book form involves a psychological battle through time and space...sort of. In the film it's against a giant spider. Two different mediums, two very different results. It's no surprise that the biggest success when it comes to King is in his more Human stories. Take 'The Shawshank Redemption' or 'The Green Mile' (Both from Frank Darabont). The former is a straight up drama, but the latter is more fantastical. But both work on the screen. 'The Shining' works because Stanley Kubrick tossed out everything in Kings book apart from the basic story. As an adaptation its terrible, but as a film it works great. Even King himself failed when he adapted a faithful version of 'The Shining' for TV. There's just something not scary about killer hedge cuttings.

So how do you adapt the unadaptable? Well don't. But if you're the persistent sort who has to then theme is always the key. If you have the same destination but take a different road to get there well then there's no harm there at all.

Let's take 'Watchmen' for instance. Spoilers obviously...

The end of the Graphic Novel features a Giant Squid that lands in the centre of New York city, dying on impact. As it does it sends a Psychic shockwave throughout the city, killing everyone unfortunate enough to be close by. It's all a plan on the part of the bad guy (I won't say who) to scare the World off from the brink of Nuclear War. The threat is no longer each other, the threat comes from outside.

The film tackles it differently. In the film the only true "Superhero" Dr Manhattan is tricked into having his energy harvested and placed in bombs throughout all the major cities in the world, all being set off simultaneously. It sets Manhattan up as the villain, that he launched an unprovoked attack on the World. Same destination, different roads.

There was a lot of fan uproar over the change (As fans are want to do), particulary as the rest of the film is so close in content to the Graphic Novel, but the ending works, and dare I say it might be better. For 2 reasons...

1) The original ending never worked that well for me. It often felt like the most poorly thought out part of the whole thing. It helps that it lays the groundwork for it throughout the Novel and admittedly there's a genuine shock when you first realise what's happening. However, there's always the thought "Really? A giant squid?" in the back of your mind.

2) 9/11 happened. America WAS attacked, and most of the world (Even the enemies) rallied behind them. But only for a time. Not to get into American foreign policy but the calm was only short lived before things went back to normal (And then got worse). In this version though the world lives under constant threat that Dr Manhattan is always going to be watching them, like an Old Testament God.

If you are working on an adaptation then consider what works and what doesn't. Also don't be afraid to change things ('LA Confidential' veers wildly away from the Book and works great as a film, 'The Black Dahlia' stays faithful and well...doesn't). If you keep the essence of the story and don't betray it then it's hard to go wrong.

Same destination, different roads.

Film review: Zoo

Director: Robinson Devor




"When someone dies there's nothing trivial about it – there's people that loved that individual and they'll never see them again, and that's a tragedy."

I love animals. Aside from an incident with a Dog named 'Shaky' when I was younger, I've almost always got on with them. Sure I occasionally distrust the odd Dog, and used to cross the road when I saw one on the street, but on the whole me and the Animal kingdom are A-OK. But I know that I don't quite like animals the same way the characters of the film 'Zoo' do.

'Mr Hands' was the title of an internet clip that did the rounds of a man being loudly penetrated by a Horse. I did think of ways to ease you into this little article but I figured I'd just throw you in the deep end like that.

If you're still reading then good on you.

Anyway, due to what I'm sure is a common occupational hazard, 'Mr Hands' later died of his injuries. All of this, and more, is documented in the film, which takes a look at the Man's family, and the other members of his 'Community'.

In reality Mr hands was a Boeing executive, he was a good looking man who, although divorced, was still friendly with his ex Wife and their Son (He was also setting up a new home for them to live in so they could all be closer together). Most oddly of all, there was no law against Sex with animals in Washington state, so the people responsible for filming it were never prosecuted.

There's no easy way to deal with such a tricky subject as this one. We have actors playing the parts in reenactments (Though not of the act, I hasten to add) while the original people involved provide their story in the form of audio interviews. They paint a picture of a community that bonded over their love of animals. With the money donated by Mr Hands they set up a ranch which bread stallions and would regulary meet there. They would hang out and share stories, watch War films and play guitar. I know that reading this it also makes it seem like some sort of cult, but the film presents them as Men who could only really be themselves around other like minded men.

There's obviously an opposing force, coming from a lady named Jenny Edwards who rescues Horses and is one of the few participants in the film willing to appear on Camera. After the 'Incident' the horse in question was handed over to her, and she promptly had it castrated. More on that later.

Watching the film I wondered if Edwards has seen it. There's a striking similarity in the way both she, and the men involved, talk about their love for animals. One of the men mentions that he loves his animals the way a man would love his Wife and children. Later, Edwards talks about how she spent all night just sat with her Horse when she learned she had Cancer as the horse gave her emotional stability and goes on to describe a connection with the animal that's all too similar to the emotional connection described by the Men in the film. What her Husband thought about that we don't really know. It's not to say the film is trying to paint her as a hypocrite, but it does show there seems to be a fine line in the definition of 'Animal lover'. Edwards represents the 'Moral voice' that I'm sure makes up the majority of the film's audience, and yet the castration scene leaves a bad taste, least not for it's implications. Edwards feels she's justified in what she's doing as its "Best for the Horse" while at the same time admonishing the men for their acts, and yet both are said to be done out of love for the animal. And so, can a Man (Or Woman) feel genuine love for something which isn't Human? Both parties seem to think so, but then where should that love end? Or is it all a fallacy because the Animal can't reciprocate? At least not in an emotional sense.

And suddenly a Black and White issue becomes a little grey. I'm obviously not supporting what Mr Hands et al have done as it could be rightly condoned as Animal cruelty but the film shows that the people who are into this type of behavior are not necessarily sexual deviants who have preyed on defenseless animals the same way a Pedophile preys on Children. In the end 'Zoo' didn't have me sympathising with Mr Hands, but then it didn't have me convinced that these are Men who should be locked up either.

It's a testament to Devor that the film looks as great as it does. There are endless dream-like scenes of sunsets and vistas that add an off kilter feel to the film. In fact it reminded me of 'The Bridge', a similarly gorgeous looking film that I'll be taking another look at soon. Devor shows all too perfect scenes of Suburbia that immediately conjour up images of David Lynch's 'Blue Velvet' and shows that just like Mr Hands himself, outward appearances, no matter how perfect they might seem, can often be hiding something much much darker.

I don't like you in that way.

Would you spend 2 hours in the company of someone you didn't like?

It's not an unreasonable question. There's been times when you've HAD to spend time in the company of someone you'd rather not be around. Whether it's that really loud obnoxious "Friend of a friend" that tagged along with you on that night out, or just a potential in-law. But would you be willing to voluntarily spend time with someone who had little to no redeeming features?

The answer is usually "No".

So then why are unlikeable protagonists usually so...likable?

I've been watching HBO's 'Eastbound and Down' recently and so far it's pulled off the quite remarkable feat of making Kenny Powers thoroughly loathsome at times. And yet he's the central character. For those not familiar, Kenny Powers was a star Baseball player with a gifted right arm. His motto was "Your fucking out!" which he loved to deliver every chance he got. But for Kenny fame was short lived. He crashed and burned as so many do and by the end Kenny was a shadow of his former self. Some years later he's taken to living with his brother while teaching at a local school (PE naturally) but still harbors dreams of getting back to the big leagues, even though it's clear to all those around him that he's never going to come close.

So not only is he pretty much an asshole, he's a deluded one too. Oh and it's a comedy. A very funny, dark, vicious comedy.

By contrast look at something like 'House'. A brilliant man (Molded on Sherlock Holmes) who's pretty rude and abrasive to everyone he meets, including his long suffering best (And only friend) Wilson (Watson - see?). But the show does 2 things. Number 1 is that it gives House an excuse for his behavior. He's lives in constant pain, and his endless supply of Vicoden seems to do little to ease that. And number 2 is that it more often than not justify's House's actions because the people he usually talks to are idiots. That's not to say everyone, his colleagues just put up with it because he's a brilliant man.

With Kenny Powers there's no such crutch. It's entirely possible that he was that big an ass when he was younger too. It's just the way he is. And being famous made him all the worse for it.

There's a moment at the end of episode 1 where Kenny's brother delivers a speech that in a lesser show would turn the character around, make him see the error of his ways. But they don't take that route here, instead Kenny suddenly feels more justified than ever in his actions. And insists that he has to remember that he "IS better than everyone else".

Yet I keep coming back to Kenny. Why? I think its because he simply refuses to change course. He's exactly how he is, and there's something to be admired from a character that won't bend. Too many shows or films have to lead the character along a path of redemption, so that by the end they aren't the same person they are at the start. It's a classic journey throughout art. But more often than not it just doesn't work. It's an artificial device so that by the end everyone feels better about themselves. There's a feeling that Kenny does consider other people's feelings, they just aren't as important as his. He is the celebrity after all. It's also a neat touch that the show has probably said more about the nature of celebrity in 3 episodes than 'Entourage' has in 4 Seasons.

I've no doubt that by the end of the show Kenny may experience some moment of clarity, that it'll provide him with the tiniest slither of hope; but unlike so many other characters I think Kenny has earned it. People change, and sometimes it just takes the smallest thing to make us do it. 'Eastbound and Down' has so far only allowed Kenny the tiniest bit of humanity. There's a scene where he's selling off all his old merchandise including some horrible looking Kenny Powers masks, and as an old flame tries it on he remarks she looks like a "retarded Michael Myers". It's a genuinely funny line, but it's done without him being vindictive and for the briefest of moments we can see why people liked Kenny. This, by the way, comes in the same episode where Kenny convinces his (Probably mentally challenged and/or Gay) assistant to beat up a High School baseball player because they're now in "Direct competition".

So it all balances out.

First, an apology....

Contrary to my belief that no one actually reads this thing I had an email from a user asking when I was going to do an update. Not an unreasonable request given that I did say I'd be regularly updating this thing.

Well my friend you're going to get 2 updates today, take that!

First off take a look at the "Little blog of inspiration" It's a fun little blog from a charming little writer.

Secondly I'm working on an post to come very soon (Later today - I promise) about making a protagonist likable, and if it's actually necessary.

Til then my friends.

Mahalo