CherryBlossomBoy

I've tried to read Frank Herbert's "Dune" and made it to the page ten. After that I got bored by the uninspired writing and dismayed by the conceit of it. I didn't throw the book away, though. It's stored in my smartphone, so it would've been a waste of a good smartphone. So, I'm keeping it for a possible future attempt at finishing it. But it most likely won't happen.

In any case, kudos to David Lynch for making it work on screen. People complain that he didn't follow the source material very closely, but his film made for a captivating and enthralling watch. I must have watched it a dozen times. People also complained that it's very campy, but... why does the camp always have to be a bad thing?

Denis Villeneuve's version much more closely follows the source material. Apparently he's a fan of the novel and he wanted to do it justice on the big screen. And he's spot on. His take is solemn and serious - and nearly as uninspired and conceited as the novel itself. Those who complained before are probably satisfied now, and I can see by the ratings that it is the case. But I'm not one of those people.

I did watch the film through, though, but I sure did wish it ended already, several times over the course of it. Admittedly, the visuals are stunning. Most of them, anyway. That's what Villeneuve always brings to the table and that's what makes the film watchable and that's what's created all the buzz in the trailers.

What Villeneuve never brings to the table are the sense of pace and the work with actors. He's got no time for that. He spends all of his time trying to make his set-pieces look as cool as possible. After he's milked them for all the awe they're worth, just before we completely lose attention, he moves on to the next one and so on and so forth. In the end all his films are like that: a string of overly long set-pieces without much in the way of coherence and motion. Some films and stories benefit from this kind of treatment, but "Dune" needs motion and exploration. There's none of that here.

The cast is completely lost in all of that and the director didn't help them along. The only one that seems fit and prepared for his role is Timothee Chalamet, but his job is easy: just do a Kyle MacLachlan all over again, but act more fragile and sensitive. Of the others, Zendaya just plays Zendaya and Jason Momoa just plays Jason Momoa because nobody told them to try anything else. Rebecca Ferguson is just crying and acting distressed in every scene. Oscar Isaac is gratuitously naked in one of his scenes and that's the high point of his performance. Stellan Skarsgaard gives a surprisingly bland and insipid villain. Perhaps it's got something to do with the generic villain look he sports throughout, as well.

For conclusion, I don't see anything in this rendition that justifies stretching the story over two parts. Not in an artistical sense. The novel itself is a single volume, so what gives? There are more novels in the "Dune" series, but that's another story. Here, it's all about milking the fans for more money over this first novel. Villeneuve is only here for his ability to make that unnecessary stretching look meaningful. No doubt, if the "part two" is a success, they'll film the rest of Herbert's opus in multi-part money-milking formats.

Won't be my money, though. I've seen all I needed to see in this "Part One".

This show is best described as a continuation of the "Wheeler Dealers" series, but with two different guys hosting it, instead of Mike Brewster and Edd China. The concept is, at the core of it, the same: every episode the hosts of the show buy a decrepit old vehicle ("banger"), restore it, breathe a new life into it and sell it on for a bit of profit.

Just as in the "Wheeler Dealers", we get to see the entire process, all the way from the purchase, which is always spiced up with a bit of haggle; over the restoration, where there's a lot of informative DIY stuff to learn, albeit at the most superficial level because the 30 minute format doesn't allow for much more; to the selling of the restored and improved vehicle off to a keen buyer, again with a bit of haggle.

There are natural differences to the "Wheeler Dealers". The hosts in this one, Will Trickett and Gus Gregory, both do all the phases together, because they act as partners. Both are equally adept at the economical and the mechanical aspect of the job. Unlike Mike Brewster, none of them comes across as sleazy or bullish, when it comes to purchasing and selling, which is a good thing, nor is either of them an eccentric know-it-all car mechanic genius, like Edd China, which is any way you take it. They pose as common, down-to-earth blokes that just love the job they do, nothing more, nothing less. They are also quite likable, particularly Will with his wild mutton chops, and that is enough to make for an enjoying half an hour of watch per episode.

Then there are contrivances by the show makers, aimed at really setting "Flipping Bangers" apart from "Wheeler Dealers", which are really unneccessary to my mind, because, when I start thinking about them, they take away from the show, instead of adding to it.

The first one is that Will and Gus try to pose as good friends, which is ridiculous. Everyone can see that there is no real chemistry between the two and any type of banter between them, such as Gus picking on Will for humourous effect, just feels staged and forced, and falls flat. The second device is all that business with making tea and having tea all the time, but with no follow up. I'm aware that it's England and all, but does the tea have to be mentioned every five minutes, without us ever even seeing the blokes actually sipping it, enjoying it or discussing the taste?

The third device is their so-called "business model" for which they had "quit their day jobs", and making it seem real-life. Apparently, they buy one "banger" per week, allocate one day of their time to procure it, four days to restore it and one day to sell it on. They invest their own cash into the car and into all the neccessary reparations, and they have no time to do anything else because the car consumes all their time. They cash-in between 500 and 1000 pounds of "profit" after every sale, then they move on, buying the next car with the money they've earned previously.

It's really ridiculous when you think about it. The sales make in total between 2000 and 4000 pounds monthly to split between the two. I doubt you can live in England on 2000 pounds a month. And that's without counting in the running costs: the rent for the garage, the electricity, the tools that break and need to be replaced, the storage of cars they don't sell off right away? Not to mention taxes. These things all eat away the "profits", don't they? On top of that, it so happens that they manage to buy a completely different brand of car every single episode. Who in real life does that? In real life people concentrate on only a couple of brands, preferrably ones they can "flip" quickly, and they do the same chosen brands over and over again. That's how you make your job better, faster and more viable. It's a fantasy to think you can quickly move from a Beetle to an Alfa, then to a Lada, then to God-knows-what in a matter of days, especially when it comes to vintage models, which they all are in this series.

There's no reality in any of these contrivances and the only reality is that the show makers create them to keep the audience engaged somehow. It does nothing for me, other than making me deduct two stars from what would've been a ten-star rating. To me it would have been enough if they just kept it educational. Education is what I expect when I turn on a documentary channel. Entertainment is secondary. And I certainly don't care for those Yank-type "reality TV" tropes.

Even as a kid just reading comic books, I found Hulk the most captivating superhero of all of them. Because even kids can relate with someone who's got so much pent up anger stored inside him that the slightest trigger can result in an epic mayhem around him. It's in fact the childhood when we know this firsthand, because we're still allowed to release some of that anger with relative impunity. But, as we age, we become more and more like Bruce Banner, who starts out putting up with frustration and trauma of his existence with a stiff upper lip. Then, after a freak accident in his laboratory, his inner self, through Hulk, becomes his outer self. And he answers our adult question for us: what if I just go berserk on everyone one day? Because Hulk does and does it in really awe inspiring manner. As a monstruously strong green creature of uncontrollable rage, he smashes everything in his path to pieces as long as this state of his lasts. All the while, and I'm talking about the comic books, he remains very introspective and precocious about what he has become, and guilt and shame quickly take the place of rage and destruction. Then something triggers him again and the cycle repeats on and on.

"Hulk" from 2003 is about the fairest and deepest portrayal of the character of Hulk to date. It follows the source material not only in content but also in form. The director Ang Lee has really put some effort in innovation and gave us the film that not only covers the inner Hulk as well as the "smash" Hulk that most want to see, but also looks like a comic book itself. And that makes for a refreshing and artful visual experience. The cast must have recognized the value in the script and they didn't just go ahead and phone their perfomances in.

It's a captivating and memorable experience and it's too bad the owners of the rights to Hulk chose to go different avenues after this. As of late Hulk has been relegated to an ineffective and cliched sidekick in a bigger story of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but the character really deserved better. "Hulk" from 2003 was better.