'Casino' (released Nov. 22, 2005)

By DONALD PORTER
Standard-Examiner staff

A ponderous, meandering beast of a crime epic, Martin Scorsese’s “Casino” takes many greatish elements and reduces them to tedious mediocrities.

Scorsese is a filmmaker with an affinity for stories about mobsters and their peculiar manner of doing business -- he directed “Mean Streets” and “GoodFellas,” the latter of which is one of the finest films released since 1990. So he seems a natural for this tale of a mob-run Las Vegas casino in the ‘70s, before corporate America took the gaming racket away from organized crime.

Alas, Scorsese’s affinity for the minutiae of the gambling industry hobbles “Casino,” diverting attention from the characters and the story at hand: how gambler Sam “Ace” Rothstein and his childhood friend, Nicky Santoro, managed to screw up a gig that not only managed itself, but was also making them fabulously wealthy.

Robert De Niro stars as Rothstein, the guy the mob puts in charge of the Tangiers, a casino on The Strip.

The mistake Rothstein makes is allowing Santoro (Joe Pesci), the “made” mob guy who was his protector and best friend in their younger years, to move out to Vegas. Santoro is a nut-job -- a psychotic killer and hardened criminal who pursues life on the wrong side of the law with such gusto he’s eventually banned from all of the Vegas casinos and jeopardizes Rothstein’s position with the Nevada Gaming Commission.

And the catalyst for all this disaster is Ginger McKenna (Sharon Stone), as devious a call-girl and grifter as you can imagine. Rothstein marries her, although he knows she doesn’t love him -- then ruins himself, his marriage and his friendship with Santoro trying to control her like she was one of his business assets.

This story plays out against a macabre backdrop of bent-noses who shoot people in the head, bash out their brains with baseball bats, stab ballpoint pens into necks and, perhaps the most revolting, squeeze a man’s head in a vise until his eye pops out.

This is not a pretty, or subtle, film by any stretch.

The performances are good, especially Stone’s. But good as they are, both De Niro and Pesci are flexing gangster muscles both they, and we, are too familiar with by now.

The film is chock-full of supporting turns by a host of comics and character actors, including James Woods, Don Rickles, Alan King, Kevin Pollak, L.Q. Jones and Dick Smothers -- all of whom are playing it straight.

Even in failure, Scorsese manages to be stylish. “Casino” may be too long by a third, and you may find yourself wishing some of the longer, more laborious scenes would come to a hasty conclusion. But you can’t take your eyes off the screen.

'A Low Down Dirty Shame' (released Nov. 23, 1994)

By DONALD PORTERStandard-Examiner staff

Sometimes filmmakers get it so right, even when they get it wrong.

That’s the case with “A Low Down Dirty Shame,” the new “Shaft” spoof by writer-director Keenen Ivory Wayans (“I’m Gonna Git You Sucka”). It’s a low-down dirty shame that such a talented man -- he created the irreverent Fox TV sketch-comedy series “In Living Color,” too -- has made such an awful mess.

“A Low Down Dirty Shame” is truth in advertising: Sexist, homophobic and derivative of so many better action films, “Low Down” is disappointing at the outset and goes downhill from there.

Wayans takes the structure of a conventional detective movie, then dresses it up in fancy, allegedly hip clothing. It doesn’t work.

Wayans stars as Andre Shame, a former cop who was tossed off the force in the wake of a botched drug bust. Now Shame works the streets of L.A. as a lowly private eye -- poor but honorable, at least in his own eyes.

Then an old cop friend, Rothmiller (Charles S. Dutton), walks back into his life. Vets of the same bust-gone-bad, Rothmiller was the hero of the piece -- landing a job with the federal government’s Drug Enforcement Agency -- while Shame was the goat. Rothmiller is now theorizing that the drug lord they believed to be dead is actually alive and living in Los Angeles, and to find him they must locate his, and Shame's, former girlfriend, Angela (Salli Richardson).

Wayans, who also wrote the script, has built into his plot the potential for action, buddy-bonding and romance. All that’s left is to find some comedy in the mix. But in doing so, the filmmaker resorts to silly, stereotypical portrayals of homosexuals, who Shame alternately ridicules and preserves from doom. He attempts to have it both ways: Insulting gays like a Real Man, while not enough of an ogre to look the other way when a gay man is in harm's way.

How enlightened.

Which is not to say that “Low Down” doesn’t have its moments, infrequent as they may be. After taking a good old-fashioned butt-whipping, a bruised and beaten Shame is greeted by his secretary with, “What happened to you?”

“I been partyin’ with Rodney King and Reginald Denny,” is Shame’s retort.

There’s not enough of that kind of social satire, which he pumped out week in and week out while in charge of “In Living Color.” Instead, he bows to the demands of the Hollywood action genre, which increasingly requires its directors to be outrageous above all else. Wayans seems to have watched plenty of films by John Woo -- the two-fisted gunplay and sliding down stairways on his back while firing are straight out of “A Better Tomorrow Part II” -- James Cameron and John McTiernan, but none of their technical expertise has rubbed off. The action lacks robustness and a sense of danger and grace that is the requisite of this kind of movie.

“A Low Down Dirty Shame,” indeed.

"Amateur": Deadpan humor fills intriguing plot

By DONALD PORTER
Standard-Examiner staff

The landscape of the American cinema is littered with enormously talented people you've never heard of. Hal Hartley is a writer-director you probably don’t know, and that’s too bad. His previous films, “Trust,” “The Unbelievable Truth” and “Simple Men,” are gems savored by the select few who saw them play in art houses or festivals or, possibly, who rented them by accident at the video store.

Now comes Hartley’s latest, “Amateur,” and he’s lost none of his edge or his talent for finding humor in the oddest places.

“Amateur” stars frequent Hartley collaborator Martin Donovan as a man who awakens in a New York City alley, injured and suffering amnesia. He wanders into a cafe, his head bleeding, and is rescued by a former nun, Isabelle (Isabelle Huppert). She takes him home, and together they set about trying to find out just who he is.

Hartley then introduces a parallel plot -- something about a former porn star, Sofia (Elina Lowensohn), on the run from a pack of vicious thugs who work for a European mob boss. But Sofia is somehow connected to Donovan’s mystery man, and we begin to suspect that the amnesiac might have a terribly dark history.

Revealing any more of the story would be a great disservice, because much of the fun in a Hartley film is watching the plot spin ’round and ’round in smaller and smaller concentric circles. (I will say, however, that Hartley leaves a mighty huge surprise -- which could stir some healthy debate among those who see this movie -- until the film’s last moments.)

The filmmaker is perhaps best known for his droll, deadpan dialogue. His characters say the most outrageous things in such even tones that you have to stay sharp so the jokes don’t zip right over your head.

And Hartley is a master of the absurd situation. His talent is singular. His humor is thoughtful and darkly ironic. You’ll enjoy “Amateur.”

"Get Shorty"

Probably my favorite author is Elmore Leonard. I love his work. So when a respectful adaptation of his fantastic “Get Shorty” was made, it was time for a celebration. I had fun with the writing style on this one.
“Get Shorty” one of this year’s best

By DONALD PORTER
Standard-Examiner staff

There’s this guy, name’s Chili Palmer. Works as a shylock for a Miami outfit -- you know, mob.

So, he’s a debt collector, right? Gets sent to L.A., supposed to find a movie producer owes this Vegas casino a wad of green. But when Chili gets to L.A., he falls in with the producer, Harry Zimm. They decide to make a movie together. The movie’s about Chili’s trip to L.A., only Harry doesn’t know about that just yet.

Chili's makin’ it up as he goes.

This is the movie, called “Get Shorty.” It’s based on the Elmore Leonard novel. Leonard’s books have been made into movies before. Or should I say ruined by the movies before? Watch Burt Reynolds’ “Stick,” and you’ll know what I mean.

“Get Shorty” was made by guys who liked the book. Respected the book. Its tough-guy dialogue, its humor, its grit. In Leonard’s books, the characters talk like this. In short sentences. No wasted words.

The book is a great one, and so is the movie. One of the year’s best.

John Travolta plays Chili. He’s just right, having played the smacked-up hit man in last year’s “Pulp Fiction.” His Chili is cool. A sharp dresser and a guy who has the goods. Chili’s tired of the rackets, looking to get out. And, hey, maybe the movie business is his next step.

Chili knows the movies. Even the grade-Z schlock Harry’s been making all his life; his movies have the words “slime creatures” in the titles. Stuff like that. Chili knows all of ’em.

He also knows Karen Flores, one of Harry’s favorite stars. She screams real good in those movies – you know, when the monsters jump out. Now Chili’s met her, in person, and she’s a looker. Definitely Chili’s type. And she used to be married to this pompous actor Martin Weir. Guy won an Oscar. Harry says maybe they can get Martin to play the lead in Chili’s movie.

Wow. And even if Martin says no, Chili explains he’ll just press a gun between Martin’s eyes until he signs the contract. Simple.

But first Chili has to collect those debts. It’s the only way he can leave the rackets. There’s the matter of the money Harry owes the Vegas guys. And Chili’s Miami boss, Ray “Bones” Barboni, is out for blood. There’s been this thing, real personal like, between Chili and Ray Bones ever since Chili busted Ray Bones’ nose and shot him in the head.

But that’s not all. Chili also has to deal with this drug trafficker, Bo Catlett, and his bodyguard, guy called Bear, used to be a stuntman. Always acting tough, these two, so Chili gets violent with ’em. It’s a bother, you know, while you’re trying to put a film deal together.

“Get Shorty” is fantastic. A high-water mark for everybody involved. Barry Sonnenfeld directed it; he made those “Addams Family” movies. Scott Frank, the screenwriter, wrote scripts for “Dead Again” and “Little Man Tate.” He deserves lots of credit.

You also got big stars taking small roles, here. Gene Hackman plays Harry. Danny DeVito plays Martin. Incredible, both of ’em. So are Delroy Lindo, plays Bo, and this top-notch character actor, James Gandolfini, plays Bear.

You gotta, admit, though, Travolta and Rene Russo, that “Lethal Weapon 3” actress who plays Karen, are the ones who come off best. Russo, as Karen, looks great and is twice as smart as any of the guys. Well, except for Chili. Maybe.

This is the movie to see, “Get Shorty.” Do it.

“Pure Formality” a nice surprise; “Paradiso” director turns to intrigue

“A Pure Formality” has one of the best surprise endings I’ve seen in years. I have heard people say they saw it coming, but I don’t believe them.

The film is the latest from Italian writer-director Giuseppe Tornatore, who has charmed American audiences with “Cinema Paradiso” and “Everybody’s Fine.” While those two films depended upon his ability to create bittersweet evocations of nostalgia, “A Pure Formality” sets aside the sweetness, retains plenty of bitterness and cranks up the intrigue.

The film opens with a famous author, Onoff (Gerard Depardieu), running through a raging downpour.The police stop him, take him into custody and transport him to the local police station. The building is a ramshackle affair, with an incessantly leaking roof and big, drafty rooms filled with books stacked hither and yon.

Finally, the Inspector (Roman Polanski) arrives to begin an interrogation. A body has been found nearby, beaten so badly the authorities cannot identify it. The Inspector asks Onoff where he’s been, and what he’s been doing.

Onoff offers nothing but vague answers, punctuated by the refrain, “I don’t remember.”

Does he remember? Is he a killer? Or is he as baffled as he really puts on?

In the midst of the interrogation, Tornatore inserts many quick flashbacks, building to the aforementioned surprise conclusion.

Some will doubtless find “A Pure Formality” little more than a very well-made gimmick movie. But there’s more going on here. Depardieu and Polanski are amazing, locked as they are in combat within the confines of this dank room. It’s fun to see them sparring, and that they’ve been doing so in such a compelling movie makes it all the more satisfying.

A trio of vampire movies

Since the second installment of the "Twilight" series is set to open in theaters soon (I haven't read the books, nor did I see the first film), I looked back and found three reviews of vampire movies to post. The first is a Mel Brooks spoof of the genre, though focused mostly on the classic "Dracula," and it doesn't work too well. The next is an Eddie Murphy romp. And the third -- the one worth a look, if you can find it, is an atmospheric, interesting exercise.

“Dracula” needs more life

By DONALD PORTER
Standard-Examiner staff

Mel Brooks’ new comedy “Dracula: Dead and Loving It” is one of those good news/bad news movies. While it may be better than “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” and “Spaceballs,” it doesn’t come close to “Blazing Saddles,” “Young Frankenstein” or “High Anxiety.”

Brooks’ tenure in Hollywood has been meteoric: It burned white hot, then plummeted.

“Dracula: Dead and Loving It” marks a partial return to old form for the once-master spoofer. He lampoons not only the movies that have been adaptations -- loose, and otherwise -- of the classic horror novel “Dracula,” but also the novel itself. In his own offbeat way, he remains as close or closer to the source material than many previous adaptations, including Francis Ford Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” and Tod Browning’s 1931 version of “Dracula” starring Bela Lugosi.

Leslie Nielsen (“The Naked Gun”) stars as Count Dracula, and Peter MacNichol plays his mad slave, Renfield. Together, they travel from Transylvania to London, where the count sets about gnawing on the necks of a pair of local women. Out to stop him are the uptight Harker (Steven Weber) and famed vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing (Brooks).

The film is about equal parts funny and stupid. The best scene begins with this exchange between Harker and Van Helsing, upon entering the crypt where a vampire sleeps:

“She’s dead,” observes Harker.

“No,” counters Van Helsing.

“She’s alive?”

“She’s nosferatu.”

“She’s Italian?”

The scene concludes with Harker literally bathed in the vampire’s blood, a sick-funny moment fit for a Monty Python movie.

Fortunately, that’s about the extent of the gore. Unfortunately, much of the writing is weaker than it ought to be. Brooks needs to figure out a way to hire back a pair of now-successful writer-directors who worked with him in the ’70s -- Andrew Bergman (“Blazing Saddles”) and Barry Levinson (“High Anxiety”). The writers Brooks has now just don’t have comparable skills.

Murphy bites into another bad film with “Vampire in Brooklyn”

By DONALD PORTER
Standard-Examiner staff

So, when exactly did Eddie Murphy decide to star in nothing but lousy movies?

It was 1988, that’s when -- right after “Coming to America.” And the trend continues with the release of “Vampire in Brooklyn,” his latest. It’s a horror flick directed by Wes Craven (“A Nightmare on Elm Street”), and it wants desperately to be a blend of broad comedy and scary effects. It does neither.

Murphy plays the last of a race of vampires who were run out of Egypt, then fled to the Caribbean, where they’ve been waylaying travelers in the Bermuda Triangle for centuries. Now Murphy’s bloodsucker, Max, has traveled to New York City in search of a half-vampire/half-human woman he hopes to transform into a vampire by the next full moon.

Why before the next full moon? Well ... just because, that’s why.

Murphy arrives in the Big Apple on a boat loaded with corpses; he chewed his way through the necks of the crew. And, as luck -- not to mention contrivance -- would have it, one investigating police officer assigned to solve the case of the multiple murders is Rita Veder (Angela Bassett), the very half-vampire Max has come looking for.

Absent Max’s search for Rita, the film becomes, then, about his attempts to seduce her into the vampire fold. And for someone so desperate, Max surely takes his sweet time; when he wants to gnaw on most humans, he simply uses his overwhelming vampire strength to subdue and bite them. But with Rita, the thought never occurs to him.

That’s only one of many inconsistencies in “Vampire in Brooklyn.” But the film really isn’t about vampires. No, it’s more about Eddie Murphy. Like so many star-tripping actors, Murphy seems attracted to certain movie projects out of vanity.

Just why he does this is anyone’s guess. To show off his range? Because he misses the chance to play different characters like he did years ago on “Saturday Night Live”?

Who knows? In the end, “Vampire in Brooklyn” is nothing more than a profane, frequently offensive sham -- not a comedy and not a thriller. Bassett is wasted, and Murphy wastes everybody’s time.

“Nadja” funny, but it tends to get too artsy for its own good

By DONALD PORTER
Standard-Examiner staff

As thickly atmospheric and comically pretentious as any movie you’re likely to see all year, “Nadja” does the artsy thing with the vampire myth.

The film, which premiered in competition at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, follows the twin children, Nadja and Edgar, of Count Dracula, who are trying to break free from their sordid fate.

Nadja (Elina Lowensohn) cruises through New York City’s nightclub scene every evening, preying on one-night stands with the help of her slave, Renfield. She’s not happy about it and says she wants to change. Still, two centuries’ worth of bad habits and bloodlust are difficult to leave behind.

And there’s a new wrinkle in the lives of both Nadja and Edgar (Jared Harris): Dr. Van Helsing (Peter Fonda) has just recently put a stake through the heart of their father. Surprisingly, Van Helsing seems to take little pleasure in his victory: “He was like Elvis in the end,” he says, allowing that the Count’s fame had gone to his head, and he’d lost his edge. That’s indicative of the kind of droll humor you’ll find here.

But Van Helsing’s job is not done. Now the vampire killer is out to get Nadja and Edgar, and he enlists the aid of his nephew, Jim (Martin Donovan).

“Nadja” was written and directed by Michael Almereyda, who displays a keen eye and ear for the cinema. He borrows his deadpan dialogue from Hal Hartley (“Simple Men”) -- not to mention Hartley’s frequent star, Donovan. And his use of deeply textured black and white cinematography is stunning.

But, as with many independents, there’s that uncontrollable urge to be different, and Almereyda does so with a vengeance.

Interspersed throughout the film are scenes shot with the now-defunct Pixelvision, a camera that recorded audio and video images on simple audio cassette tapes. The resulting image brings new meaning to the word “grainy,” and Almereyda seems to be so enamored with the process he tends to use it indiscriminately; we suspect at the outset the Pixelvision is intended as a vampire’s point-of-view device, but then Almereyda shoots other scenes in Pixelvision that are clearly not from a vampire’s perspective.

As such, the technique is reduced to distraction. Something this jarring needs to have a clearly defined purpose.

“Nadja” is an interesting film, and funny -- especially the over-the-top Fonda, who gives his best performance in years -- but ultimately it’s too self-aware for its own good.

Jeffrey Boam interview, June 1995

This is not a complete transcript of the interview. My vague recollection was that I was facing a pretty tight deadline, and so I skimmed through the recording and only transcribed the notes I thought I might use in the interview story. That said, the nuggets here are pretty interesting, given the way things played out:

* On “Lethal Weapon IV”: Jeffrey got no credit whatsoever. It turned out to be another bad “Lethal Weapon” experience with Warner Bros. and Richard Donner. Before the interview, he sent me a copy of the screenplay. At the time, I suspected he was eager to talk about it because he felt like it might be slipping away and going to another writer, and so he was trying to salvage it. His script, if I’m remembering correctly, involved the Los Angeles Lakers on a jet and a terrorist attack.

* He also mentions “The Phantom,” which he alluded to in our earlier interview. That movie bombed.

* On the fourth “Indiana Jones” movie, he didn’t get a credit, either. But what little he says about it sounds like George Lucas had the story pretty well set even back in the mid-1990s.

Don Porter: THE RIGHT-WING TERRORISM THING SEEMS PRETTY DEAD-ON.

Jeffrey Boam: “It seemed kind of far-fetched when I wrote it. [The Oklahoma City bombing] kind of spooked me a little bit, actually.”

DP: THE WAY YOU’RE PLAYING THE WHOLE RACISM THING, AND THE RADICAL RIGHT-WING, SEEMS PRETTY RELEVANT, ESPECIALLY IN L.A. AND MEL GIBSON’S BEEN SAYING HE’S NOT SURE HE WANTS TO DO ANOTHER ONE. I’M SORT OF SURPRISED THAT YOU WENT BACK TO WARNERS TO WRITE THE SCRIPT, GIVEN WHAT HAPPENED WITH “LETHAL III.”

JB: “So was I. I did a lot of anguishing over this decision, and the deal took about four months or five months, actually, to be concluded. They seemed determined to do another one -- to do another movie -- so they had someone write a script and they gave it to me to read just for my input. And it kind of made me depressed to think that this movie could be made from this script; it was kind of second-rate, imitative and derivative of the other movies. So I thought, ‘Gee, I don’t want to see this movie get made and someone else to have written it.’

“And then they came to me. And then they came to me -- and I hadn’t done anything about it, just held my feelings to myself -- the producer said, ‘You really have to do this. You’re the only one who can do it.’ And so I thought maybe I could really get something out of this, financially, and also get them to agree to certain terms that would protect me from the kind of abuse I felt I’d received the last time.“A lot of that did happen. Not all of, but a lot of it. So, they made it very attractive for me to do it, and so I did it.”

DP: IT WAS A FUN READ. I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY EXCITING, ESPECIALLY DOWN THE STRETCH, WITH THE STINGER MISSILE.

JB: “Well, the whole idea for this one was to write a movie that wasn’t as episodic and as much of a shaggy dog story as ‘III,’ ... we decided to tell a story that could maybe could work if it wasn’t Mel and Danny, wasn’t a ‘Lethal Weapon’ story. So those were my marching orders, really: to write a story where every scene was about the story.

“The director, Dick Donner, is kind of famous for detours and peripheral characters and scenes, which he really loves, which kind of take you away from the point of the story. We decided to come up with a story and just tell the story.”

DP: HAVE YOU HEARD FROM DONNER?

JB: “Only secondhand. ... As far as I know, Mel hasn’t even read it. I’ll BET he has, but no one’s told me.”

DP: WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN DOING IN THE MEANTIME? THE DATE ON THE SCRIPT IS JANUARY.

JB: “I’ve been working on a fourth installment of ‘Indiana Jones.’ I’m just about done with the first draft. Somebody else had also tried their hand at it, and it didn’t work out too well.”

DP: THEY ALWAYS KEEP COMING BACK TO YOU, JEFFREY.

JB: “It’s nice, you know. Actually, George Lucas came to me to do this first, and I was busy writing a movie called ‘The Phantom.’ So I couldn’t do ‘Indy,’ because I had to do that, and when I finished that, George came back to me and said, ‘It didn’t really work out with the other writer, are you available?’

“And, it turned out, I was. Now I’m working on that, and it looks like ‘The Phantom’ might get made also, because Paramount just hired a new director on that project: Simon Wincer. He’s a good director, and he has a long history with ‘The Phantom’ -- he tried to get a movie made about 10 years ago in Australia. It’s very big in Australia; this character’s kind of a cult hero in Australia. Nobody can understand why, but that’s how it is.”

DP: WHEN WILL THEY START SHOOTING THE “INDY” MOVIE?

JB: “Well, it’s conceivable that it could be the movie that Steven (Spielberg) does next. It could go very quickly. George has seen most of the first draft; we put off the first 15 pages because we weren’t really sure what we wanted to do there. So I gave him everything but the first 15 pages, and he’s very happy with that. So I know we’re well on the road to having the script that he likes. And generally when he likes it, Steven’s not far behind. And once Steven’s on board, Harrison (Ford) is much easier to snag, as well.

“But with these people it’s always a big problem getting all these big paydays dealt with. But I find that on both the ‘Lethal’ and ‘Indy’ films there’s a tremendous amount of team spirit and loyalty amongst the principals. They don’t like the idea of anybody else doing it but them. So if it looks like ‘Indy’ is going to get made -- of course you could cast somebody else besides Harrison Ford, if you HAD to -- but Harrison wouldn’t dream of that. ... So these guys play hard-to-get, but then if it looks like the thing’s going to on without them, they go nuts.”

DP: ANY HINTS AS TO WHAT THE “INDY” THING’S ABOUT?

JB: “It’s set in the ’50s, I’ll tell you that. And Harrison will play his own age. A considerable amount of action. We have him (Sean Connery character) back, for kind of a cameo. I’d love to tell you more, but George is secretive about these things.

“Whatever the ’50s conjur up, that’s probably what this is about. That’s all I’ll say. I think you’ll kind of automatically grasp what the story is if you just think about what the ’50s is about and how it might relate to Indy.

“It’s not about Elvis, though.”

DP: TELL ME MORE ABOUT THE TERRORISM ANGLE IN “LETHAL IV,” AND WHETHER IT MIGHT BE TOO SOON AFTER OKLAHOMA CITY.

JB: “I don’t know whether that works for or against it. I can argue both sides of that question.”

DP: A LOT OF PEOPLE MENTIONED THAT BEFORE THE RELEASE OF “DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE.”

JB: “In a review I read in one of the major weeklies, he said he was sure Hollywood was already cranking out next summer’s action-adventure movies about right-wing militia groups.”

“But it’s a good subject that I don’t think has really been done before, except in one little-known movie called ‘Dead-Bang,’ which really just kind of scraped the surface of the whole thing. ... It kind of got some of this world right, but it only dealt with it superficially.”

DP: WHAT’S UP NEXT?

JB: “I’m gonna have to go back and work on ‘Lethal,’ assuming everyone wants to go forward. I owe them probably three more drafts on it if they require it. So if that gets moving I’ll be stuck on that.”

DP: WHAT ABOUT DIRECTING?

JB: [He says he did an episode of “Tales from the Crypt” for HBO.] “I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I didn’t enjoy ALL of it. Even though it was only a two-week commitment, I’d say about half that time I really didn’t like at all. I don’t like pre-production. I just find it a terrible chore to scout locations, and do casting. I thought that that would be enjoyable; it turned out not to be. Shooting was too intense to even comment on. And post-production is genuinely gratifying.

“So, a feature film would be that experience, times 20. ... Interesting writing jobs keep coming along.”

DP: WELL, THEY’RE THE DREAM JOBS, TOO. WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU RATHER BE DOING THAN WRITING THE “INDIANA JONES” MOVIES?

JB: “ ‘Star Wars,’ maybe. It could happen. George is writing the three scripts now, for the new trilogy. But he says he wants to have them re-written; he just wants to get something down on paper so he can start doing the pre-production. But he wants all three scripts re-written and polished. So, maybe there would be an opportunity to work on that.

“This is all stuff that’s just boiling on a burner, and I hope someday it turns into a meal.”