Interesting (if superficial and somewhat late) article regarding how the movies are looking in on graphic novels (and comic books) for inspiration... http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/02/08/graphic.novels.mainstream/index.html?hpt=SbinI say somewhat late with regard to the article because it seems graphic novels/comic books have been a big source of movie inspiration for several years now. Maybe its harder to ignore that reality, but the fact is that at least for the past ten years or so there seems to be plenty of examples, both good, bad, and very ugly, of movies based on comic books. Ah well, maybe one day my graphic novel will make that leap...
...will they be streaming it, too?! http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/43920I've mentioned many times before my love for the film and I'm eager (that's putting it mildly) to see the "restored" edition. Granted, the restored elements were in pretty bad shape and I suspect there will be an obvious difference between the recently found minutes and the remainder of the film. Further, even this restored edition will be missing a few seconds of scenes found at the end of one of the reels (it was, apparently, too degraded). But who cares?! The Fritz Lang cut of the film was thought lost forever. And as fantastic as the current Kino restored version of the film is, it too lacks several minutes of footage. The fact is that everyone currently alive who has seen this film (unless, of course, you somehow saw the premiere back in 1927), has seen a truncated version. And that version is fantastic in and of itself. I can only imagine how much better the Fritz Lang cut could be... We'll see, soon enough!
And that's the reason I never, ever make any bets. I thought for sure Indianapolis would win. I even wondered if this might be one of those SuperBowls that's over in the first quarter. Mind you, I had no dog in this particular fight. I knew both teams were quite good, but I had loyalties/interest in neither. I just figured that New Orleans was looking so woozy coming into this SuperBowl (let's face it, in the semi-final game before the SuperBowl the Vikings (whom I also have no loyalty/interest in) did almost everything humanly possible to lose their game against the Saints rather than the Saints winning it). So I figured: The Saints, who looked so damn good through most of the regular season, were sputtering a little too much at the end while Indy was looking like it was coming together. And, of course, my predictions were completely wrong. Ah well... Btw, I was floored by this commercial. Hilarious!
Way back in July, and at the prompting of another list I found by Will Ferrell and Adam McKay, I listed my "14 Films to See Before You Die". Of course, any such list is incredibly subjective, but I noted that the first three films on the list were indeed my three favorites and that the others were in no particular order. Yet #4 on the list wound up being Steve McQueen's Bullitt, and I'm inclined to think that while it may not be among the top 3, it most certainly deserves the #4 spot. I wrote then: Bullitt
(1968) - Steve McQueen's absolutely best film, and one that I can watch
over and over and over again. The plot: Cop McQueen is told to keep a
mob witness safe, but things go bad very quickly. McQueen equally
quickly realizes he's been hired to this job to take the fall, but
those manipulating things behind the scenes underestimated him. Bonus:
Probably the all time best car chase ever filmed.Yesterday, on TCM, they aired the movie and, one again, I simply couldn't stop myself from watching it. There's something so damn good about the film that continuously attracts me to it, from the very original plot to the many things that, subsequently, became cliched in the 1970's, particularly in their TV cop shows. To begin: The movie features perhaps one of the boldest slights of hand ever in the history of motion pictures. A member of "the organization" is running for his life. He's stolen from the mob, for protection, is willing to talk to a Senate subcommittee about what he knows. He's fled to San Francisco, and Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn at his slimiest), is the ambitious politician who plans to have him testify...if he lives to make it to the hearing. Chalmers personally asks for detective Frank Bullitt and his men protect the rogue mobster, and things get very interesting from that point on. To reveal more would be a disservice, but suffice it to say not only do you get a great detective story, you're also presented with a fascinating "day in the life" view of Bullitt's world. He's a weary man who is more intelligent than he lets on, and knows the behind the scene intrigue better than Robert Vaughn's Chalmers wants...and hopes. But the cherry on top of this particular cake is the car chase sequence. Everyone who mentions this film points this chase out, and I'd go so far as to say it may well be the best ever committed to film. And it's not just the chase, which is fantastic in and of itself, but it works because we get the slow burn build up. Hero and villain play a little cat and mouse before going full speed. And the cars involved in the chase...! But don't see the film only for this. The rest is pretty damn fantastic too. Very worth of your time.
If you're a comic book fan(atic) then the above headline must cause you to pause dead in your tracks. A few of you out there are probably outraged. Yes, there is a rumor that DC Comics, the publishing company that owns the characters in the series, is interested in presenting further adventures in the "Watchmen" universe. Those familiar with the graphic novel/12 part series, which was the basis for the movie of the same name, know that the original author/creator of the works, one Alan Moore, is currently very much on the outs with DC Comics and would, one assumes, not be happy at all with new adventures set in this universe he co-created with artist David Gibbons. However, before getting a little too outraged, consider this blog entry from Peter David, another noted comic book (and book) author: http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2010/02/05/watchmen-2/I tend to agree with Mr. David about several issues. But let me backtrack and say that, during the mid to late 1980's, there was no comic book author out there like Alan Moore. I first experienced his work in Saga of the Swamp Thing as it was released (I was one of the only people at my local comic shop actually buying the book when Mr. Moore took over. Even the store owner, who presumably profited from my buying the book, ridiculed the fact that I spent money on it!). I was so impressed with Mr. Moore's writing that I searched for any and all other works, eventually buying every issue I could find of Warrior Magazine. And it was there I read his incredible Marvel (soon to be renamed Miracle) Man and V for Vendetta stories. At the time, I could truly be called an Alan Moore fanatic. But the best was yet to come, and it proved to be Watchmen. And then came the strange times... Mr. Moore, it seemed, was, if nothing else, something of an eccentric. Early on he lambasted Marvel Comics and swore never to work for them. But after Watchmen was done, he vented plenty of ire toward DC Comics. The crux of his negativity toward DC, it appeared, was that they held the copyrights to the story and characters of Watchmen and it upset him that he did not. The interviews wherein he stated this view I found odd. Did the man not read the contracts he signed with DC before doing the series? And weren't the Watchmen characters, after all, based on the Charlton characters, characters that DC had at that point bought, anyway? And, further, shouldn't Mr. Moore be somewhat appreciative about DC Comics and the faith they had in hiring him in the first place? Would he have this fantastic career had if not been for them? (This later point I'm sure can be argued, but note that Warrior Magazine folded and his other British works weren't huge sellers. In the end, DC Comics finished up V for Vendetta while Eclipse and others "finished" Moore's run on Miracle/MarvelMan. It is certainly possible Mr. Moore could have enjoyed great success without DC, but even he, I suspect, would deny they helped his career tremendously). But the thing that was most peculiar, at least to me, was seeing this man who rallied against the "big bad company" that owned his best known works...went on to write "pastiches" and "homages" and, in the case of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, stories that used well established characters...created by other authors. Particularly nasty, it seemed to me, was to write Supreme, a book that was so clearly an "homage" (the nicest way of saying rip-off) of Superman. What was he doing? Was he "sticking it" to DC Comics, the publisher of Superman? It was possible, but subsequent works revealed that Mr. Moore seemed to relish writing these "homages", although of course there were exceptions ( From Hell, the already mentioned V for Vendetta). Still, I have to agree with Mr. David's concise points. I doubt I'll buy any "new" Watchmen material, but also doubt its existence, should it ever come to be, will lesson my feelings regarding the quality of the original work.
Always curious to read reviews of web browsers. Mr. Manjoo, the author of this article for Slate Magazine, reviewed various browsers. His recommendation is... http://www.slate.com/id/2243727/
Absolutely fascinating interview with British journalist and Times of London columnist David Aaronovitch regarding his new book, Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History. I tend to fall into Mr. Aaronvitch's camp, at least philosophically. I think almost every conspiracy theory out there is bunk. As much as I thought President Bush's presidency was one of the worst this country has had the misfortune of living through, there was no way I could subscribe to the idea that people in government were involved in 9/11. Similarly, I subscribe to Mr. Aaronvitch's conclusions regarding why we look for conspiracy surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy (and, yes, I believe Oswald acted alone):
After the JFK assassination, it was unbearable to many people that they
could live in a country where a lone gunman could kill a president. In
those circumstances, it’s not surprising that an overarching conspiracy
theory emerges. It suggests that somebody is in control, rather than
that we’re at the mercy of our neighbors and to some extent of ourselves. Regardless of your opinion, here's the interview: http://www.salon.com/books/history/index.html?story=/books/feature/2010/02/03/david_aaronovitch_conspiracy_theories
I know this might not mean much to most people, but I've enjoyed The Smoking Gun Presents: World's Dumbest... show, and not just for video of people doing silly (or downright stupid) things, but for the commentary by motley crew of has beens, never-was, and comedians. Leif Garrett's comments were/are, like many of the others, quite humorous. Alas, it appears Mr. Garrett hasn't overcome his own personal demons: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/03/leif.garrett.arrest/index.htmlHere's an amusing clip from the show, featuring commentary from, among others, Mr. Garrett: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmXtZZFRkrE
So last night was the premiere of Lost's final (sixth) season with the two parted LA X. One of the more intriguing things that the producers and writers of the show have managed to do these past seasons -and very effectively- is reveal a lot in an hour...and yet not reveal all that much at all. In some ways, questions are answered while a slew of other questions are asked, and the constant interest in providing resolution(s) propels viewers like me to stick around week after week. Not to diminish, of course, the wonderful acting of the large cast. All the main characters of the show, flawed though they are, are compelling, and each and every one of their story lines is fascinating in its own way. The show ended last season with (SPOILERS FOLLOW!) Jack Shephred, perhaps the closest to a "main" lead in the show, convincing the others that by detonating an atomic bomb in an anomaly within the island, time would be reset and the crash that brought them to the mysterious island would be averted. In the action packed finale, the bomb is hurled into the well with the anomaly, but it doesn't detonate. Juliet, another fascinating character within the show, is thrown into the well and, ultimately, detonates the bomb. After the bang, we're hurled into LA X Part 1, and find that Jack's plan worked... Or did it? The two parter presents viewers with yet another mystery: The flight of Oceanic is recreated, only this time it does not crash into the island. This time, the island is revealed to be submerged beneath the water, perhaps for many, many years. And yet, a concurrent storyline finds the exact same cast waking up bruised and bloody on the island. The bomb apparently hurled the group to the present time (did I forget to mention they were in 1977?) but kept them otherwise intact. So which reality is the "real" one? Another mystery to ponder. And the link below, from Entertainment Weekly, offers a mini-interview with the show's producers. They offer some thoughts on what we've just seen: http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/02/02/lost-premiere-damon-carlton/
Feeling a bit under the weather (combined with a slew of work to do) equals less time to post. However, I'll MAKE time tonight to see the premiere of the final season of Lost. I don't think enough good things can be said about this show. Granted, it is episodic TV and there will be highs and there did come some lows (the second season, which focused way too much on the passengers of the "tail section" of the airplane was, to my mind, ultimately the least intriguing thing the show has done, even worse than the whole Nikki and Paulo subplot the fans were livid about. At least with N & P they cut it off fairly quickly. They spent the whole season with the tail section characters and ultimately did away with pretty much all of them with little lingering aftereffects...although I did appreciate Michelle Rodriguez's cameo last season). An early review of the first hour of the two hour premiere can be found here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43842As is the case, there are some spoilers there, if you highlight the blank spaces. Not terribly big spoilers, but they had me curious...
I generally love her articles for Salon.com (her reviews of TV shows are never less than very clever...and sometimes brutally devastating). Here, she ponders our current information age: http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/frontline/index.html?story=/ent/tv/iltw/2010/01/30/frontline_digital_nationSomewhat off topic, but it is something that's eating at me: A few days ago Apple introduced the (very unfortunately named) IPad. There was much rejoicing among those present at Mr. Job's announcement, even if many critics subsequently found reason to complain about the machine's deficits. But the thing that sent shivers down my spine was that Steven Jobs felt this machine would be a rival to other e-readers. Those who read this blog, and I know the number vary wildly from day to day, do so, I hope, because I offer interesting links to interesting articles. I am also an author of, to date, five works available on amazon.com (the link to them can be found on the upper right of this page). For my latest novel, Mechanic, I decided to release it both in regular print and through Amazon's Kindle. I figured that would open up the possibilities of wider readership. What I didn't realize was that it also opened me up... possibly...to the dreaded reality of illegal downloading. One day, either a google or bing search by me found one of those file sharing sites that allegedly had the book (in four different versions) there for download, and, according to the site, the novel was downloaded a little over 26,000 times. At $5.99 a pop for the legal download at Amazon, a purposely low price, it nonetheless means I'm out an awful large amount of money... ...if this is indeed the case. I haven't downloaded the files and can't help but wonder if indeed it is my book there, or someone simply labeled a file as such and posted who knows what in its place. So, as I near completion of my latest novel (I'm hoping to finish it up in the next month) and will soon enough post it on Amazon, I'm left wondering if its worthwhile to offer the book via its Kindle services, or if by doing so I'm essentially slitting my own wrists. Like the music industry, it appears the book market is also facing off against the juggernaut that is the internet.
As much as I love Football (of the major professional sports out there, it is easily my favorite), over time it has become all too clear that this sport is very dangerous to the players. Not too long ago there was mention on either a radio or ESPN show that a professional quarterback (I'm thinking it was Carson Palmer, but I could be wrong) noted that he feared one day someone would die on the football field. Another player noted that each game he played produced the equivalent trauma of several serious car crashes. This article, from Time magazine, notes another of Football's many dangers to the players' health: Head trauma... http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957046,00.htmlSo, what is the solution? Is it even possible to remove the violence inherent in the sport or lessen its danger to players' bodies while still retaining what makes it such a great sport to watch? I suspect, at least with regard to concussions/head trauma, this can never be entirely eliminated. Further, while I still love the sport, it does make me feel uncomfortable that I'm watching people doing things to their bodies (albeit for large quantities of money...at least on the professional side) that, in time, they will suffer from.
Now that's more like it! I noted my general disappointment with the previous, first new episode of the second half of season three (did you get all that?!), "A Dark Road", and lo and behold Burn Notice comes back with the smoking hot " Friendly Fire". This is what Burn Notice, at its best, is: Clever and funny yet dramatic and tense. Well done! I'm looking forward to the next episode!
And so it ends... If there was ever a show that had me this close to walking more times in its brief, 27 episode or so, two season run than Dollhouse, I couldn't name it. Come to think of it, I actually did walk away from the show toward the late middle of season 2, and its pure luck that I got sucked into it again. Despite all the lame episodes, unfocused plots, blank (literally!) characters, I'm glad I more or less stuck with it. I suspect time will be kind to the show. People will now have the option to focus on the show's truly good episodes (granted, they may amount to something like 30-40% of the 27 episode run) and ignore all the pretty bad ones. And once they're shifted through Dollhouse's entirety, they'll find there was something good going on, after all. Yes, it took waaaay too long to get to this good stuff. Yes, the show was incredibly unfocused at times, and one wondered what exactly the point of it all was. Yes, the show was also too meek about its subject matter...the Dollhouse was a whorehouse, even if the loftier concepts of what makes a human personality and an exploration of the dangers of technology were its deeper core issues. But despite it all, the show ended with a very pleasant bang. In fact, I'd put the last 6 episodes of the series on a par with some of the better works supervised by Joss Whedon, and while Epitaph Two, the concluding episode of the show, was a little confusing with some of the new characters that, at least to my eyes, were introduced (I have yet to see the DVD exclusive season one finale Epitaph One), it featured a satisfactory wrap up of all the concepts of the show, and a particularly touching (even if sad) resolution of the Ballard/Echo relationship. If there was one element that struck me as almost too expected, it was the return of Alpha, the show's arch villain. As Joss Whedon has done a couple of time, perhaps too many times in other shows, he's made the arch villain turn into, if not a hero, at least a "good guy". I preferred the maniacal villain we saw previously, and its hard to swallow given some of the grotesque murders he was responsible for that the cast would seemingly accept his conversion to good guy status so completely. Then again, I suspect that plot line, like several others, was compressed in an effort to offer the show a proper, complete resolution, and I can't be too unhappy that, in at least this respect, they did give the viewers an ending. So Dollhouse, you perplexed me, annoyed me, made me feel like I was wasting my time. But in the end, you found your voice, you found your wings, and you soared. Too little, too late, some might rightfully argue, but I'll be the first to admit you entertained me on the way out.
I've been curious about this film, a remake of a pretty damn good 1985 British mini-series (loved, loved, loved Joe Don Baker!) and to finally see Mel Gibson return to the big screen as an actor in an action film. He's taken his (well deserved, alas) lumps for some very inappropriate behavior. There are those who cannot look past it, but despite the fact that I too found his actions at the time very disturbing, there is a part of me that is a big fan of the man's movies. Way, way back in 1981 I was blown away by The Road Warrior (aka Mad Max 2). And I admired the hell out of his Three Stooges act in the original Lethal Weapon, a movie that started all somber and serious and then, incredibly, took a sharp turn into action/comedy and clicked. (An admission: I don't care for any of the sequels. Not a one. They just didn't work as well as the original film, IMHO). And I also have to give Mr. Gibson credit for allowing the director's version of Payback its video release. I've never seen a film improve quite as much from its terrible theatrical cut. This movie could well be the best argument for allowing director's to make a film as they intended. But having said all that, I return to my original point: I can't fault those who lost respect for Mr. Gibson and aren't interested in seeing anything by him. While I'm not among those, I can certainly understand where you're coming from. For those still interested in seeing Mr. Gibson in film, here's a review of Edge of Darkness: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20339641,00.htmlUPDATE: While EW was kind regarding this film, others were most certainly not. I'm putting a link to the review below because the reviewer points out Robert DeNiro was originally to play in the film but took a walk (I'm assuming this is the role that was originally played by Joe Don Baker, mentioned above). Mel Gibson and Robert DeNiro in a film together? Ah what might have been: http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/story/1449839.html
...something I've always felt was very worthwhile: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/27/world.cinema.foundation/index.html?hpt=SbinThe above article from CNN notes the efforts of director Martin Scorsese and others to preserve films that are in danger of disappearing forever. While film is often fiction, it is nonetheless fascinating to see things that no longer exist. Most recently, I was blown away by seeing the New York of 1960 in the, until recently pretty much forgotten film Blast of Silence. Granted, the film may not be on the level of, say, Metropolis, nonetheless seeing New York as it existed back then was an incredible experience. Time marches on, and the value of some films to give us, at the very least, visuals from another time is invaluable.
Last week the second half of season 3 of Burn Notice kicked off with "A Dark Road". The big draw, I thought, was a reunion of Sharon Gless and Tyne Daly, buddies for many years on the popular cop show Cagney and Lacey. Alas, the episode itself was something of a mess, at least to me. Mind you, I love Burn Notice. I love the interactions of the characters and the quirky A-Team meets James Bond meets Mission: Impossible vibe. However, like many things, the best episodes present a great balance of elements, and in this case I suspect the episode was a disappointment because too many things were stirring in the pot. We have, of course, a need to give viewers a re-cap. Season 3's first half ended on a particularly tense note, wherein we witness our hero, Michael Weston, coldly assassinated a man who was trying to pull his strings (and get his girlfriend, Fiona, killed). Michael killing someone was shocking enough, but the resulting fallout results in his contact within the CIA also being killed. This is apparently the first step in an effort to "clean up" the resulting messes, by people unknown. Next on the target list... maybe...is Michael Weston himself. But before you can say "Could they have the guts to make Tyne Daly the cleanup woman?" (hey, stranger things have happened, and I knew Ms. Daly was involved in the episode!) we're introduced to the show's main subplot, wherein Michael Weston performs his good samaritan act and gets a recently widowed woman out of some nonsensical danger involving a group that instigates car crashes for fun and profit. It is there that Tyne Daly shows up as a public record keeper who is befriended by Michael's mom (played by guess who) who must, in the course of the episode, use Ms. Daly's character in ways she comes to regret. Perhaps my displeasure with the overall episode lies in the fact that the show built up such a good head of steam going into its mid-season break. I was eager to see more of the "Michael has to deal with a deadly 'cleaner'" plot than the rather lame accident causing plot. Further, the main draw of the episode, the renewed pairing of Tyne Daly and Sharon Gless, was rather dull. They shared only a few scenes together and never really interacted to any memorable degree. Now, having said all that, I would hasten to add that we are dealing with a TV show here, one with many, many episodes in its run. While this episode wasn't my cup of tea, I'll be there next (this!) week for the subsequent episode. Burn Notice remains, despite my overall disappointment with this episode, worthy of following.
At least according to Entertainment Weekly: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20339290,00.htmlBaywatch Nights, Joanni Loves Chachi, The Brady Brides...sheesh...a who's who (or what's what) of some truly dreadful spinoffs. And just when you think you've gotten to the worst of the lot appears... AFTER-M.A.S.H.!!!!! I'd like to be a contrarian and think of good TV show spin offs... Hmmm... Torchwood, the spin-off of the long running Dr. Who is quite good. Uh... ...hmmm... Give me a moment...or three...
Found this video at /Film. Someone took it upon themselves to re-edit the crash of Oceanic's flight in Lost. Given the show's use of time, there was never a linear narrative of these events, and the presentation here is pretty cool (and, by the way, if you don't recognize/remember at least two sequences in this presentation, don't worry. They weren't part of the show itself but rather deleted scenes found on either the DVD or web-isodes):
...at least according to Switched.com: http://www.switched.com/2010/01/19/music-is-the-future-22-of-the-greatest-high-tech-vids/?icid=main|main|dl7|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.switched.com%2F2010%2F01%2F19%2Fmusic-is-the-future-22-of-the-greatest-high-tech-vids%2FEvery time I see some kind of music "best of" list I recognize the fact that I'm drifting further and further away from modern music. Of the 22 presented, I recognized perhaps five or so songs/videos. The Police's Synchronicity II is an odd choice, IMHO, for a "futuristic" video. Love the song (and the album it came from, the Police truly went out on a very high note), but to state this is some kind of great original futuristic video...I just don't know. The look of the video, to me, is taken from The Road Warrior (aka Mad Max 2), which was released some two years before the video and arguably set up the look most post-apocalyptic fare (including the Police's video) emulated well into the 1990's and beyond. Missing from the list may be the eerie David Bowie video Ashes to Ashes (come on, you just knew I'd reach for a Bowie video, right?) and Queen's Radio Ga Ga, which may be a bit of a cheat as it featured images from 1927's Metropolis. However, if you're going to use futuristic images from a film in your video, why not go for one of the best?! Ashes to Ashes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyMm4rJemtIRadio Ga Ga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBUr1pSWTVI
Though there is no reason for anyone to believe me (I've mentioned before that my crystal ball can be quite foggy), I guessed that this year's SuperBowl would feature these two teams. Then again, my prediction came before yesterday's games, when the alternatives were either the Jets or Vikings. Now, had I guessed these two teams would be in this year's SuperBowl before the season started, well, that would have been something!
Hollywood and its movie making machinery does at times seem to jump onto whatever is currently "hot". The latest such hot trend appears to be rebooting sometimes successful franchises: http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/01/21/reboots-sequels-spider-man-jurassic-park/Of note, the one "reboot" that wasn't, at least at that point, a franchise was the Hulk films. Granted, there were cartoons in the 1960's and a successful Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno TV show in the late 70's/early 80's (followed by some made for TV movies), but there were only two theatrical Hulk films, the one directed by Ang Lee and starring Eric Bana (which, to my mind, was a miss...too cerebral when it should have been focused on mayhem!) and the Edward Norton feature that sorta/kinda rebooted the thing. Both films pulled in roughly the same amount of money, therefore both were considered, at best, only lukewarm successes. I wonder if anyone at Marvel is daring enough to risk the chance that third time's the charm? As for James Bond, while there have been many Bonds, it felt like both the Pierce Brosnan and the Daniel Craig versions of the character were indeed reboots rather than simply having a new actor play the role. Granted, there was a big difference between the Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and George Lazenby versions of the character, but they were all part of the same Cold War milieu. While I was disappointed overall with the Pierce Brosnan Bond films (a case where the actor was perfect for the role but the movies themselves simply failed to deliver, IMHO), I had to give the makers of the franchise credit for realizing the world had changed and Bond was a "dinosaur" from another era. With Daniel Craig, they took this one step forward and did effectively create a whole new origin for the old character, one removed completely from the Cold War. As for Spider-Man's potential reboot (the real focus of this article), I'm curious to see what can be done but I wonder if maybe its a little too soon. The fact is that the three films Sam Raimi directed were huge hits, and the general public might have such an ingrained idea of what the character is all about that suddenly bringing him back to his origin and high school might feel like a retread. Then again, my crystal ball has been known to be foggy now and again. 
The world of archeology has always interested me. We're offered a window into the past along with insight into the people of that time and their customs. In this article, from AOL, we have news that the remains of Princess Eadgth (pronounced Edith), a 10th century princess, may have been found. If that's the case, her remains will be the oldest ever for an English royal: http://www.gnn.com/article/experts-may-have-found-bones-belonging/865757
One of the more intriguing passages of this intriguing article regards the possibility that the bones found may not be hers, and why:
"It was possible that (Princess Eadgth's) bones were lost and swapped with someone else's during any one of the moves (Royalty and saints, the article notes, frequently had their bodies moved around at that time!), he said.
"Quite often they scooped up any old bones and put them in," he noted.
I am very curious to see the British version of Life on Mars, and not just because I'm a fan of David Bowie's music. No, I've heard good things about the show but only managed to record its second season (I didn't watch it as I wanted to start from the beginning...maybe one day I'll get to). I also gave the American version of the show a try, but found it very boring. So too, apparently, does Slate Magazine's Seth Stevenson, who presents a review of both the British and American version of the shows and how the American version failed in so many ways compared to the original British version. And the American version's conclusion, Mr. Stevenson argues, may well have "the dumbest finale in TV history": http://www.slate.com/id/2240845/pagenum/all/#p2Having just posted a note about the fact that Fox may be developing an American version of Torchwood, a British show I have seen and really enjoy, I'm suddenly wondering even more if an American version of Torchwood need be made. Oh well, we'll always have the originals.
Although from the article linked below, it seems more like a "continuation" of the original British show (a point the article itself makes) due to the fact that they have much of the behind the scenes talent involved and may have John Barrowman reprise his role of Captain Jack Harkness (the only other major character that would then be missing would be Eve Myles' Gwen Cooper). The story follows: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/01/20/fox-developing-a-us-adaptation-of-torchwood/I'm a pretty big fan of Torchwood, although not every episode has been a complete winner. The characterizations and stories have been fun and at times startling, particularly regarding the fates of various cast members and the frank sexuality presented within. It is this later aspect that makes me leery about a U.S. production of the show. Fox was obviously nervous enough about the religious themes in a Fringe episode to shelf it for a year. How will they deal with a central character who is omnisexual? A character who jumps on almost anyone or anything, and who had an extended relationship with a man for the last couple of seasons of the show? I just don't see it happening on American TV. Not yet anyway. But if the writers and producers nonetheless can work around this and give us more Torchwood, I'm certainly in. The following is a trailer for the first season of the show:
Absolutely fascinating article by Reilly Brennan for AOL regarding the Detroit Auto Show, and the color choice by GM in showing their vehicles... http://autos.aol.com/article/gm-gray-car-strategySometimes, as the saying goes, a "cigar is a cigar". However, in this case it is clear the color choice for the presented vehicles was carefully calculated to make certain cars stand out...while others were left in the background.
I can't say I was a huge fan of author Robert B. Parker, although I most certainly loved his deceptively "simple" writing style (and further admit great envy at how well he pulled it off!), but it's always sad to hear of the passing of someone who gave pleasure to others through their work. In the end, I've read perhaps a handful of his novels, including Poodle Springs, his conclusion to Raymond Chandler's unfinished final Phillip Marlowe novel. As I've said before, I'm a HUGE fan of Mr. Chandler, and I'd be lying if I said I originally approached Poodle Springs, knowing full well Raymond Chandler only wrote the first four or so chapters, with more than a little trepidation. In the end, the novel wasn't too bad, although it certainly wasn't as memorable as the best of Chandler. Then again, what is? I suppose its a tribute to Mr. Parker's skills that he made the endeavor entertaining enough, and one has to give him props for the courage to step into the shoes of a giant such as Chandler, in the first place. Mr. Parker will perhaps be best known for his Spenser novels, which became the basis for the Spenser for Hire TV show as well as the Jesse Stone novels which, similarly, made their way to TV and featured Tom Selleck. He died "sitting at his desk", perhaps contemplating (or in the act of creating) his latest work. I may have to stock up on a few more of his novels. Soon.
...of Teargarden by Kaleidyscope is available for free, and legal, download: http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/The first song was "A Song for a Son", still available also for download, and the new one is "Widow Wake My Mind". Not bad, and the price is certainly right, even though the cynic in me knows that if the band was still doing as well as it was in the 1990's, this album would have been released in a more conventional (paying) way. Still, how can one not appreciate Billy Corgan's generosity in giving us, effectively, a new Smashing Pumpkins album free, albeit on a month to month (or thereabouts) and song by song basis. I know I'll be around to pick it up.
While it isn't quite the old "Crisis" (those Justice League comics usually featured the Earth 1 heroes (ie, the regular continuity heroes) teaming up with the Earth 2 heroes (ie, the heroes from the "Golden Age" of comics) against some big bad), this upcoming movie nonetheless has me...curious. This is the first review I've found. Alas, its from Harry Knowles, the founder of Aintitcoolnews, and there are times when his reviews border on...well, let's just be kind and say they aren't always for everyone. In this case, he obviously enjoys the animated film quite a bit, ranking it just behind three other DC animation films (I've got to find time to see New Frontier one of these days...the DVD has been sitting on my shelf for waaay too long and I absolutely loved the original comic book)... Anyway, his review: http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/43675And, if you're too lazy (or not that interested) in reading the review, I've embedded the trailer for the DVD, which can also be found at the review site:
Originally released in 2005 and a box office failure, I was nonetheless intrigued by The Jacket, even if what little (and it was very little) I heard about it reminded me an awful lot of Jacob's Ladder, a film that I didn't like all that much. Go figure. Jacob's Ladder, despite good acting and some truly creepy visuals, had a "surprise" ending that didn't really surprise me all that much and, if anything, made me think less of what I had just seen. The Jacket, on the other hand (and there's simply no way of sugar coating it) starts out pretty badly. We get artsy music video type grit, flashbacks to the first Iraq war and 1991. Our protagonist (played by Adrien Brody) is a soldier and, in very short order, is shot in the head. He's pronounced dead, and then his eyes blink... Aha! I think. This is going to turn out exactly like Jacob's Ladder. Whatever happens from here on out is...well, I won't spoil the one big "surprise" within Jacob's Ladder but, suffice it to say, I'm getting serious flashbacks. And then we move forward to 1992, and Adrien Brody's character has recovered from his wound and is wandering around a snowy road. He helps out a hung over mother and daughter get their car started and is later picked up by a man who will commit a heinous crime, a crime that our protagonist will be blamed for. Found not guilty by reason of insanity, he's transferred to a mental institution, wherein he becomes part of a seriously screwy experimental procedure that leads to our protagonist traveling in time, to the year 2007. HUH!?!OK, bear with me folks: This film, as I said before, starts out pretty badly. In fact, it starts out incredibly badly. The experimental psychiatric procedures Adrien Brody's character goes through make no sense at all, and the resulting time travel was a surprise so jaw dropping that it practically made me want to shut the DVR down and erase the whole thing. But then, like a Phoenix, the movie rises from these ashes and becomes something...touching. For the film turns into, of all things, a romance and a mystery, and presents a story about redemption and second chances. Add to that the fact that our protagonist, who at first is a stuttering, distant (and disturbed) figure, ultimately becomes noble and self-sacrificing. And the movie's conclusion was particularly strong, both emotional and satisfying. (Apparently the ending we have in the theatrical version of the film was not the original ending as it was drawn up. The DVD release features an alternative, perhaps original, ending that pretty much seals the deal on the whole Jacob's Ladder similarity issue. I'm glad the makers of the film went with what they have.) Bottom Line: Is this film worth a look? I'd have to say yes. Despite the many
bad and strange choices (and oddball events, particularly in the
movie's opening act), the film comes to life after it's first half hour and ends on a strong note. (Oh, and by the way, that is Daniel Craig, the current James Bond, playing one of the patients in the mental hospital!)
|