Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz, the latest hosts of the very long running At The Movies, have apparently been sacked.

What originally began with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, became Ebert and a rotating co-host after Mr. Siskel died, and changed once again after Roger Ebert could no longer host the show due to his illness, are now gone, according to this article:

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7404&eeid=6733840&_sitecat=1479&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=2&ck=&ch=en&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+en+topnews&ck=&l=hm

I didn't mind Mr. Lyons and Mankiewicz, although I'd be the first to say their reviews were rather lightweight.  Since (and during) the original Siskel and Ebert years there have been other attempts to emulate their program, but nothing has come close, at least in my opinion.  Siskel and Ebert, together, were witty, sharp, and at times offered surprisingly deep opinions.  When Mr. Siskel passed away, it was still fun watching Roger Ebert, but the magic never quite returned.

I can't help but wonder if At The Movies may be on its last legs.

A fascinating article by Juliet Lapidos in Slate magazine explores the fact that only one person was listed as missing in action from the first Gulf War (U.S. Navy Capt. Michael Scott Speicher's remains were just found).

Considering the larger number of "missing in action" soldiers from previous conflicts from WWII to Vietnam, why the big decline?  Some explanations follow:

http://www.slate.com/id/2224255/

Yeah, I'm a little bit late seeing this (it aired something like two weeks ago, but only now I've had a chance to see it), but here goes:

Fun, enjoyable, but decidedly light episode.  David Tennant (the Doctor) remains a delight, but that's what the "best" of the Doctors have always been.  Quirky, humorous, seemingly absent minded yet conversely ingenious and sharp.

The real revelation was Michelle Ryan (previous seen on the aborted remake of The Bionic Woman) as the jewel thief Lady Christina de Souza.  While I didn't think The Bionic Woman relaunch was horrible, I thought Michelle Ryan's character was incredibly bland.  When Katee Sackhoff (Battlestar Galactica) showed up as the semi-crazed "first" bionic woman, however, the show suddenly had life, and I wondered why the show wasn't about her character instead of the bland Michelle Ryan's Jamie Summers.

Genius that I am, I thought the fault lay in the acting of Michelle Ryan instead of the producers/directors/writers who obviously wanted Jamie Summers presented that way.

I'm confident in saying that because Michelle Ryan is nothing short of great in The Planet of the Dead.  Given that David Tennant has years perfecting his version of the good Doctor, its amazing that Ms. Ryan slips so easily into her role, which is a perfect match to Mr. Tennant.  Her character is bold, sexy, intelligent, and an obvious thrill seeker.  She's also very much her own woman, and its a real shame that her appearance in this Easter special will likely be her only one (unless things change when the show returns with its new Doctor).

Looking back now (and hindsight is always 20/20), how much better would The Bionic Woman be if Michelle Ryan had been allowed to play the role of Jamie Summers more in this mold?

Anyway, getting back to the episode itself: Great fun.  The Doctor and a group of bus passengers go through a rift and find themselves on the "Planet of the Dead".  In the course of the episode they discover why it has become what it is, and how Earth might share a similar fate.

Don't go in to The Planet of the Dead expecting Gone With The Wind or Citizen Kane.  It is neither that deep or that classic.

It is, however, a fun ride.

Fascinating article by James Poniewozik regarding the gray area between linking to other articles (as I feel I do), and stealing original material.

The articles I point out are stories/opinion pieces/news that interest me to one degree or another and I link to them for those who may be similarly interested in reading them.  I sometimes take quotes from the articles but make sure they are presented as such.

I hope what I'm doing falls far from what any article writer may consider theft!

http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/08/03/the-post-vs-gawker-when-does-linking-become-larceny/

Seems the article regarding Ryan O'Neal has cracked open the floodgates.  Griffin O'Neal was on Larry King, and the interview clearly shows a man and his very negative take on his immediate family, particularly his father:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/04/lkl.griffin.oneal/index.html

Normally, I don't care that much about this type of gossip, but this one is so filled with excess that, as I stated before, it's difficult to look away.

Talk about striking while the iron is hot!

Stories like these make me wonder what's happened to the concept of personal responsibility.  Have a problem?  It's someone else's fault.  Solution?  Lawsuit!

The beauty of this article lies in the following line (and the part I emphasized):

In her complaint, Thompson (the woman who initiated the lawsuit) says she seeks $70,000 in reimbursement for her tuition and $2,000 to compensate for the stress of her three-month job search.

Three months?  She's frustrated because she hasn't found a job after three months?  In this economy?

I can see someone having an issue with going through a college curriculum and finding that, once they graduate, many, if not most, of the courses they took had little or no bearing on the field they were interested in.  Hell, it happened to me.

However, Ms. Thompson's problem with the college is summed up in this line:

As Thompson sees it, any reasonable employer would pounce on an applicant with her academic credentials, which include a 2.7 grade-point average and a solid attendance record. But Monroe's career-services department has put forth insufficient effort to help her secure employment, she claims.

I feel for her...not finding employment is incredibly frustrating (not to mention a heavy burden on your personal finances!).  However, I think her subsequent actions are misplaced.  Ironically, I think they'll make her even less desirable to future employers.  As a potential employer, I certainly would think twice before hiring someone who appears willing to jump at the chance of suing whenever they encounter a difficult situation.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/03/new.york.jobless.graduate/index.html

You probably have nothing on Ryan O'Neal and his extended family.  This article is like a train wreck: grisly and horrifying, but just try to look away:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/ryan-oneal-i-hit-on-my-da_n_249668.html

Hitting on your daughter immediately after Farrah Fawcett's funeral?

Ouch!

This article nails something I've thought about regarding President Obama's first six months in office.

That is, that Obama seems intent on learning from his predecessor's mistakes and doing all they can to avoid them.

The article, though, goes one step further and made me realize this was nothing new.  For example, George W. Bush was not only running away from Clinton, but, if you think about it, he also seemed to be trying (way too hard) to avoid the errors of his father.  Clinton, for that matter, presented himself as the "anti" George H. W. Bush, whose focus was on domestic issues (which the elder Bush didn't seem to care about) than foreign issues.

Of course, Reagan presented himself as a ray of American-do optimism to Carter's "malaise".

Anyway, the article follows:

http://www.slate.com/id/2224026/

This headline would qualify:

Penis pump judge gets 4 year prison term.

Read all about it here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-18-judge-sentenced_x.htm?poe=HFMostPopular&loc=interstitialskip

...and they present a far darker picture regarding Funny People's initial box office results.

As I noted before, I was curious to see how the film did because despite early enthusiastic critical reaction, the commercials were IMHO terrible.  I was guessing that the box office results, based on the later rather than the former, would influence how well the movie initially did.

And, as I mentioned also, now that the film has been released, the critical/audience reaction is decidedly more mixed.

Anyway, for those keeping track of these things:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1914219,00.html

It's always intriguing to hear about the discovery of "lost" works by famous names, in this case Mozart.  Based on the article, it appears these compositions were transcribed by Mozart's father as he was playing the works (he was too young at the time to know how to transcribe himself).

One of the more fascinating lines in the article is this one:

"When parents go to a piano recital of an early student, a young student, who's playing for the first time, they get a video tape, they get a DVD, that's a way of recording it," Kimpton said. "I think what's exciting is that Mozart's father wanted to preserve this incredible genius. The young boy at this time didn't know how to write music, but he sure could play it. It's like a family photo or video album."

Despite the technological changes over time, people remain remarkably similar over time.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/08/02/new.mozart/index.html

I'm not usually one to check out box office figures.  There are a bunch of films that have earned tons of cash that haven't been worth a damn and, conversely, there have been films that have made very little upon their initial release (or even been considered "flops") that over time have been re-assessed and re-classified as genuine "classics".

But for whatever reason, I became intrigued with how well Funny People, the latest film from Judd Apatow and starring Adam Sandler and Seth Rogan, would do.

Why?

Quite simply, despite some very, VERY positive early critical reaction/word of mouth, the commercials for the film were atrocious.

Talk about a disconnect.

Granted, now that the film has formally been released, I'm finding more variety in critical opinion (I believe Entertainment Weekly gave the film a C-), but early on there were many who felt this was Apatow's "masterpiece" and that it was the best Adam Sandler film ever (not to be too snarky, but given some of the films he's done...).

And there I was, reading all this positive word of mouth and, on the other side, finding some of the most annoying commercials for a product I've ever seen.  Adam Sandler and Seth Rogan sit in with a Doctor who has a foreign accent.  Sandler (or was it Rogan?) says something to the effect that "Weren't you upset you died at the end of Die Hard?"

Groan.

Then we see a small get together of characters in another scene from the film, and Jonah Hill (another Apatow regular) wonders about the movie Harry Potter and how old he's looking of late.  The punchline went something like this: Is Harry Potter working on getting a "PhD" in wizardry?

Yikes.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the film did decently for the weekend, but perhaps not as well as hoped...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/02/boxoffice.ew/index.html

Almost eerie story from Fort Myers, Florida.  Another sign of the insanity that transpired (and its subsequent ramifications) in the real estate market.

As the headline states, you have a 32 story high rise that houses one tenant.  Sounds almost like something from The Omega Man...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32255580/ns/business-mortgage_mess/

Around the time Myst first appeared, it occurred to me that the technology was finally arriving wherein we could recreate different historical places and immerse viewers in an interactive view of past landmarks.  I could see people walking the streets of a digitized ancient Rome or Athens, walking the decks of the Titanic or stepping into the Hindenberg.  Perhaps one day I can finally "walk" through the 1939-40 New York World's Fair and even enjoy some of the rides.  Afterwards, I might just take a stroll through the streets of 1939 New York...

I mention this because a company is laser mapping Mount Rushmore (they have laser mapped other historical areas, and interesting video of their previous work is included in this link)

I find the whole thing absolutely fascinating.  Granted, the folks involved in this are mapping current conditions, but maybe one day...

http://news.aol.com/article/cyark-laser-mapping-of-mount-rushmore/598753?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fcyark-laser-mapping-of-mount-rushmore%2F598753

I've said before I'm a sucker for lists (I just posted the Dave Gibbons five favorite films below!), and this list is certainly...interesting:

Ladies and gentlemen, from msnbc.com, five top films that deal with eating!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32091261/ns/entertainment-5top/

Of the ones listed, Tampopo is probably the one I'd rank as most dealing with food/eating, although the others on the list aren't too shabby, either!

A curious list of five favorite films by Dave Gibbons, comic book artist extraordinaire (He was the artist for The Watchmen, the 12 part comic book series that was the basis for the movie):

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/news/1834415/five_favorite_films_with_dave_gibbons

I'm always intrigued by what other folks consider their favorite films, and his list is pretty decent, even if it seems he didn't have a great deal of time to think up his list (he appeared to be groping for the last item on the list).

Of the ones he did list, however, I can't fault him for the first three (Grosse Point Blank may not be one of my all time favorites, but it is a quirky, fun film, given the main character's field of work!).  Terminator 2, however, is the only one I'm not as up on.  The original Terminator was a terrific film, but despite the considerable budget, I wasn't as blown away by the sequel as I had hoped to be.  Still, not a "terrible" film by any means.

Just picked this up from Aint It Cool News:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41901

Jeremy Renner, from the critically acclaimed Hurt Locker, mentions in an interview that he is "fighting" to do the new Mad Max film.

However, he doesn't come out and say, as the article above points out, that he's in the hunt for the actual role of Mad Max (Mel Gibson, at least so far, has apparently declined returning for a fourth stab at the part).

I'm a little ambivalent about someone else playing the role of Max.  The Road Warrior (or Mad Max 2) remains one of my all time favorite action films.  The original Mad Max was a great little indie with a terrific climax.  Unfortunately, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, the third film featuring the character, was a big disappointment.

Still, I was hoping to see Mel Gibson take on the role one more (last?) time.  If he doesn't, I'll most certainly survive.  I just hope the next Mad Max film lives up to the first two.

First, its good to be back to a much better, much more reliable internet signal.  If I don't post anything (or very little) in the next while, it'll be because there simply wasn't much out there that interested me!

But getting back to the topic above: I first encountered this while I was away and, even as I type this, its on one of the news networks in the background.  The fight to reform the health care system is leading to some...curious...arguments.

The latest involves the provisions for end of life counseling, which those against the health care reforms are labeling as, I suppose, some kind of stealth euthanasia procedures.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32247482/ns/politics/

The sad reality of being an individual who creates (be it music, books, stories, films, etc.) is that if you're not careful, there are literally millions of ways you can lose the rights, and more importantly, the royalties for whatever it is you've done.  Recall the sad fate of Bill Finger, the co-creator and writer of Batman (and the man who came up with much of this famous character's lore), who died poor while Bob Kane, the artist of the strip (and most certainly the character's co-creator), received all the credit and fame for Batman's creation.

Robert Heinlein, certainly a famous enough author in his own rights, created many wonderful science fictional concepts, many of which were "borrowed" and showed up in other works and movies, without Henlein being recognized for his contributions (ever read Heinlein's The Puppet Masters?  Curious about its similarities to Invasion of the Body Snatchers?  Heinlein's book was first published in 1951.  Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the book by Jack Finney) was first serialized in 1954 and the first film version was released in 1956.  By the time The Puppet Masters was made into a feature film in 1994, I recall at least one critic mistakingly feeling this film was a pale "imitation" of Invasion of the Body Snatchers!)

Similar things happen in music, but in this case, organist Matthew Fisher is getting his due (credit and cash):

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/30/procol.harum.royalties/index.html

I'm of two minds here...I truly loved Ridley Scott's work in the original Alien (1979).  They took a simple, even somewhat cliched idea (the haunted mansion) and moved it into space and, instead of a ghostly entity haunting/killing the cast, you had a fearsome creature that was the very definition of "alien" attacking the crew.

I enjoyed James Cameron's sequel, Aliens, but the "look" of that film feels dated now compared to that of Alien.  The sequels that followed, including those featuring the creature from Predator, were a case of rapidly diminishing results.

So, its interesting to read that Ridley Scott is returning to the franchise he started.  It certainly raises my hopes.  However, so much time has ellapsed since the original Alien (and his involvement in the work) that I can't help but wonder if he's truly interested or even capable of delivering on something that will inevitably be compared to the original.  After all, it wasn't all that long ago that hopes were really high for Spielberg's return to Indiana Jones, or George Lucas' return to the Star Wars universe.

Regardless, for now I'll be (cautiously) optimistic...

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/07/30/ridley-scott-to-direct-alien-prequel/

One of my all time favorite television shows is The Prisoner.  There has been talk for a while of remaking the show, either for film or television.  At one time, I seem to recall there was talk that Mel Gibson was considered for the title role.

Didn't happen.  AMC is releasing their remake of The Prisoner, and while it looks intriguing, it seems to be going its own way, too, specifically in stating that people within the village seem to think that there is no world outside it.  A strange conceit, as is the fact that Number 6 (the lead) appears more confused about things than the original, who appeared to be the type that always landed on his feet:

You're in the police department and decide, what the hell, let's run a computer background check on Obama and see what we get.

How about a suspension?

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/20218458/detail.html

Seriously, I can't see what they hoped to gain by doing this.  If there was something "bad" in Obama's background they hoped to find, don't you think the Republicans (or rival Democratic candidates, for that matter) wouldn't have made an issue of it in the election?  If they did it "for the hell of it", didn't they consider the very real possibility that this would raise some flags?

Guess not.

A side topic: For those out there (and I mean out there) who subscribe to the "birther" movement and openly wonder if Obama is a "legitimate" U.S. born citizen, the same goes for you guys.  If this were a genuine issue, don't you think others would have exploited it BEFORE Obama was elected?

Btw, you "birthers" do know that Republican presidential candidate John McCain was born in Panama, right?  From Wikipedia:

John McCain was born on August 29, 1936 at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama, to naval officer John S. McCain, Jr.Roberta (Wright) McCain (b. 1912).^[2] At that time, the Panama Canal was under U.S. control.^[3]

I don't think there's been a show that has made me vacillate as much on its merits as Joss Whedon's Dollhouse.  The first season was, for the most part, a train wreck.  The show crawled out of the gate sporting silly storylines and what appeared to be a great lack of focus.  Word was that Fox studio suits were interferring with the final product, but a part of me was willing to give the show far more rope than I would have any other, if only because I wanted to see more (successful) Joss Whedon stuff.

There were some good episodes in the first season, but overall I felt that the late, lamented Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles deserved to be renewed over Dollhouse, yet it still stands (and will return next season) while TTSCC is history.

Having said all that, I'm intrigued by the unaired episode featured in the DVD set of Dollhouse's first season.  First presented at the San Diego Comic Con, the episode flash forwards to a post-apocalyptic Earth and the culmination/aftermath of the events presented in the series.  Also included in the DVD and almost as intriguing is the original pilot, which some have commented is better than what eventually aired.

However, one really, REALLY big caveat: The first season boxed set is priced at a ludicrous $44.99 for the Blu Ray edition at Amazon ($28.49 for the standard DVD edition) and I certainly didn't like the skimpy 13 episode season enough to spend that much on it...

So, until I rent it or find it on sale (cheap) somewhere, this review of the first season's box set will have to do:

http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/07/28/dollhouse-dvd-released-today-is-it-worth-your-time-and-money/

A while back (see it here) I mentioned the fact that someone had made a zombie movie for $70 (yes, that's seventy dollars.  Not seven hundred, not seven thousand.  Seventy).

My note was brief because the article offered little information other than the fact that the film was named Colin and was made by a budding British director named Marc Price and it was "wowing" folks at Cannes.

Anyway, here's a more in depth article regarding the film and the fact that, at least in England, it has made it to the movie theaters and will, eventually, make it to DVD:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/28/70.dollar.movie.distribution/index.html

William Shatner does Sarah Palin's "farewell" speech.  Hilarity ensues:

Fascinating (if very brief) story from Entertainment Weekly.  Well respected Chinese director Yimou Zhang will remake (presumably with a Chinese cast) the Coen Brothers first film, Blood Simple.  I enjoyed the film, though I can't say it was my favorite of theirs (I would have to go with Fargo).

I'm very curious what this will look like:

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/07/sony-pictures-to-distribute-chinese-directors-remake-of-coen-brothers-classic.html

There was a time I didn't care at all for sports.  You couldn't have forced me to sit through a game (didn't matter which) even with a gun to my head.  Then, suddenly, I became a sports fanatic, and started watching all the major sporting events on TV (baseball, football, basketball, and hockey).

That lasted for maybe two or three years, and now I've leveled out.  I catch games here and there, but hockey is hard to watch on TV, and both baseball and basketball present such loooong seasons that the only compelling games come at the end, in the playoffs.

But Football seems to have been created for TV.  We get one burst of activity followed by several "dead" seconds, even minutes that the networks can fill with glorious, mythologically enhanced slow motion multiple angle views of the very same play we just saw.  Rinse, shampoo, and repeat.

Still, Football intrigues me the most of all the sports and, for what it's worth, here you have a pre-season analysis of team strengths.  Of course, once the first game begins, all bets may well be off...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/07/28/pre-camp-rankings/index.html

According to this article, 2009 was bad for states and municipalities, but 2010 is shaping up to being even worse.  So, what do cash strapped cities and counties do to fill the rather large deficits?

Some creative ideas are included in this article, from legalizing and taxing marijuana to taxing strip clubs to...

Well, see for yourself:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/states.budget.crunch/index.html

When I was younger, I lived in a conservative Republican's idea of a wet dream: A country where there were basically no taxes and government services were pretty much non-existent.  Corruption, alas, was high (and why not?  There were no governmental watchdog groups), and you haven't wouldn't believe the shape of the public roads.  There were also all those pesky panhandlers, sometimes kids not much older than I was at the time, to deal with, as well as military checkpoints (without any great police force, you had some scary looking fellows with machine guns manning posts here and there).  Also to be feared were the packs of wild dogs (and, no, I'm not kidding about this).

The fact is that no one (me included) likes to pay taxes, and we all bitch about them.  However, I'd rather live here paying taxes for the various services we enjoy than not pay any taxes and face the situation I saw when I was younger.

Nowadays it's political suicide to propose raising everyone's taxes, so we're left with the (ahem) creative attempts to make up for the tax shortfalls.

I picked up the paper today and, like other days, noted its getting awfully thin.  It started, of course, when the local papers which were beefed up with Real Estate advertisements (among many others) suddenly had almost no advertisements for property sales.  Both local and national papers, I'm noting, are getting awfully smaller.

And here's another sign of the changing economy: Harvey Schwartz, owner of 20th Century Props, has run out of money and is forced to auction off his collection of movie props.  Seems Hollywood is losing out on film work (other states are offering tax incentives to bring productions there, and you must have read by now the economic problems within California) and Mr. Schwartz is another example of the weakened economy:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/07/28/hollywood.prop.sale/index.html

Absolutely fascinating article regarding Amelia Earhart.  Appears that there may be a way to recover DNA from objects that these searchers hope to find on Nikumaroro Island (they previously found objects which suggested there may have been someone stranded on the island, but these objects were "contaminated").

Anyway, if they find what they hope to find, the very, very old mystery could finally be solved:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8160365&page=1

The above heading appeared on another BBS board (you can find it here) and I thought it was a fascinating subject matter, although I must admit to having a hard time recalling any films that fit into this subject matter.

Usually, if I hate a film (or find it mediocre), there is usually nothing that appeals to me about it.

However...

I have to agree that the "Bad" Superman versus "Good" Superman/Clark Kent from Superman III was a pretty good scene in an otherwise horrible film.

The movie Cannonball Run was excruciatingly bad, IMHO, but I have to admit the Roger Moore "fight" scene was hilarious.  In fact, I remember when Siskel and Ebert were reviewing the movie, that was the scene they showed.  Both Siskel and Ebert laughed after the clip was shown, then went on to talk about how abysmal the film was.

If I recall any others, I'll post 'em.  Meanwhile, feel free to post your own!

An interesting article regarding Apple's attempts to boost their ITunes music sales.  Something about a new computer focusing on this, perhaps like the Amazon Kindle?

For those curious:

http://247wallst.com/2009/07/27/apples-aapl-plan-to-pump-up-itune-sales/

Yesterday was the first day in quite some time I posted absolutely nothing...and not for lack of trying.

The fact is that, for the next while, I'll be in a very limited internet connectivity area and, because of this, I may not be able to connect to the internet at all.

Meanwhile, I'll try to post as often as possible (like today), but I appreciate your patience.

Interesting quote from the San Diego Comic Con about the possibility that the sequel to the new Star Trek movie might be a two parter or, equally possible, they may want to film them back to back...It's an odd quote:

http://io9.com/5322654/star-treks-third-movie-being-plotted-out-already

Hopefully the new film(s) will present a more original story versus a retread of many of Star Trek's most memorable bits.

If my postings in the next few days is a little patchy, blame it on the internet connection I currently have.  Wasn't able to get online for most of the day (the horror!).

Meanwhile, another fascinating article concerning a very, very old gentleman who just passed away.  He happened to be the last British Army Veteran of WWI and he died just a few days after another WWI vet (and, up to that point the oldest man in the world) also passed away.

I wonder if any German, American, French, or other veterans of WWI still live.  I suspect if they do, there are not very many...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/25/uk.last.veteran.obit/index.html

The fifth and final episode of Torchwood: Children of Earth just aired tonight on BBC America and I figured, since I had spoken about this mini-series and my interest in the show's previous two seasons, I might as well offer some opinions.

Briefly: This miniseries was well worth watching.  Even if you don't know a thing about Torchwood or its cast of characters, you'll be fine.  The story is fully self contained and the five episodes of this series air again, I believe, on Sunday.

A little bit longer (beware SPOILERS): The show has a definate Quatermass-vibe going on.  The plot: One day, the children of earth begin speaking in unison...all in english...and it sounds like they're telling the people of Earth that something is coming.  What is this being that communicates through Earth's children?  What is this being's purpose?  And why has its impending arrival triggered such alarming reactions from those high up in the British government, actions that include sanctioning murder?

High on the government's list for extermination is Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman), the immortal who happens to be the leader of Torchwood, a (somewhat) secret agency whose job it is to deal with alien threats.

During the course of the next five episodes (each representing, a la 24 a passing day), we'll see a cadre of villains and heroes, people whose loyalties and motivation change with the situations confronting them.  We'll see heroism and cowardice, and we'll see the worst humanity has to offer as we'll see the best (even if sometimes it might not seem that way).

But be warned: This is not a cheery Independence Day sci-fi action extravaganza.  Indeed, its generally downbeat tone might turn away some viewers.  For others, though, you may cherish the Greek style tragedy that permiates the main story.  The sins of the past come back to haunt the present and threaten the future.  To set things right, more than one character will atone for his sins by making an unbearable sacrifice.

It can be a rough trip, but it's one well worth taking.

The only quibble against the show: Hour four of the five is probably the weakest of the lot.  While still pretty good, this was the hour (before the incredible wrap up of Day 5) that felt the most stretched out.  Within that episode Captain Jack and his partner/lover Ianto (Gareth David-Lloyd) do something awfully...foolish.  They rush into a very dangerous situation without any plan other than to crack wise to their enemy.  The results, given the downbeat tone of the show, are predictable.

However, this is a minor problem when looking at the show as a whole.

While the ending of this mini-series suggest a rather heavy final finale, I'm hoping we'll get more Torchwood in the future.

For characters as good as these, I can't help but hope for happier endings.

I must be one of the only people in the world that hasn't had any big (or even little) problems with Microsoft Vista.  Nonetheless, the early word on Windows 7 (note how Microsoft is forever banishing the world "Vista" with this title...this operating system, after all, could have been called Vista 2.0, had Vista been popular! ) is a good system that improves on Vista and offers a quicker running platform.

I already pre-ordered my copy when it was first available for the cheap price of $50, but if you want it now, you're going to have to pay the full price.

Regardless, for those curious about Windows 7, the article follows:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/23/cnet.microsoft.windows/index.html

Hard to believe that a defective traffic light system, installed nearly 30 years before and that every time the light changed, it was green in all directions for seven seconds, wasn't noticed until an accident finally occurred...but only very recently:

http://www.switched.com/2009/07/22/traffic-light-turned-green-in-all-directions-for-30-years/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl7|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.switched.com%2F2009%2F07%2F22%2Ftraffic-light-turned-green-in-all-directions-for-30-years%2F

I've generally enjoyed Greg Rucka's comic book work (his novels aren't too bad either).  Perhaps his best work is Queen and Country, but Whiteout was pretty good, too.  I suspect that the film, based on that comic book and whose trailer is presented below, has its story broadened or expanded from the comic book.  Don't get me wrong: The comic book story was good, but rather slight, IMHO, for a full length film.

On the plus side, it appears they've kept the rather gruesome "finger" sequence:

For those who are there at the convention, they surely must know this: James Cameron plans to unveil 20 minutes of his new movie Avatar.

For the rest of us, we'll have to wait and hear what they had to say about this eagerly (perhaps too eagerly!) anticipated film, Cameron's first since 1997's Titanic.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-07-22-james-cameron-comic-con-avatar_N.htm

Now that's a headline you don't read everyday.  Seems a magnitude 7.8 earthquake moved southern New Zealand a full 12 inches closer to Australia.

Pretty interesting...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32088458/ns/technology_and_science-science/

As great as the internet is, it most certainly has its dark side: Internet piracy.  We're talking, of course, about music and, lately becoming more prominent (Wolverine being a fine example), movies.  However, books and (yes) even comic books are popping up in illegal downloadable form.

There are those who are very open about their support of internet "piracy".  They hold to some strange (in my opinion) idea that information should be free, not realizing that their view of what is "free" is another person's hard work given away to anyone who wants it without the artist(s) receiving a penny for said hard work.

No one wants to work for "free".  Everyone wants to -hopes to- make something off whatever they do, be it selling shoes or songs or movies.  If all their hard work and monetary investment made to produce a product subsequently results in that product being distributed for free on the internet, then what is the incentive to continue pursuing their work?

At some point in the future, I fear we will stifle an emerging act that could rival the Beatles or a director who might become the next Steven Spielberg because those individuals found their hard work illegally spread across the internet and, because they couldn't make a decent profit from their works, they were forced to pursue a more stable job to pay the bills.

So, what's the solution?  Illegal downloading is a fact at this point, and I suspect creative individuals will have to find a way to work around it, although I freely admit not being smart enough to offer any worthwhile solution.

Anyway, the article about pro-internet piracy parties gaining a foothold across Europe follows:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/22/pirate.party.christian.engstrom/index.html

I first saw one of these gizmos (I suppose that's the best way to describe them) a few months ago and thought: what the hell?

Seriously, an electronic cigarette?

The person using it stated that it didn't smell as bad as a real cigarette and was a healthy alternative to those terrible "cancer" sticks.  He was, of course, a seller of the product, though didn't press me on purchasing it.  We were, at best, casual acquaintances and, if he knew anything about me at all, it was that I didn't smoke nor had any interest in doing so.

However, now it looks like maybe the e-cigarette isn't quite as innocent a product as he made it out to be:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/22/ecigarettes.fda/index.html

Back in 1985 director Guy Hamilton (best known for directing such as Goldfinger, Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, The Man With The Golden Gun, Funeral In Berlin, Battle of Britain, etc.) was involved with another action adventure movie, one the producers viewed as a potential series of films that might, just might, become the U.S. version of the James Bond franchise.

The movie, starring Fred Ward as the title character, was optimistically named Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins.  As a movie, it wasn't bad, although I feel Leonard Maltin's assessment is dead on: (Remo Williams) comes close to scoring bull's-eye but misfires too many times.

The movie, based on The Destroyer series of novels, proved less successful than the producers hoped, and the adventure, at least in the theaters, began and ended right there.

But the adventure, as it turned out, continued one more time, on television.  Released in 1988, Remo Williams, the television series pilot, boasted the acting juggernaut team of Jeffrey Meek as Remo Williams and Roddy McDowall as Chiun, his mentor.

Up until a couple of nights ago, I didn't know such a creature existed, and after having seen it, I'm not entirely surprised.  Not surprised, that is, I never heard of it.

Just for the record, the TV pilot features the same music from the film and, in the opening credits, it also featured clips of what was probably the most famous scene from the movie (Remo Williams fighting and swinging around the Statue of Liberty).  What the TV show lacks, however, is an engaging protagonist and a coherent, engaging plot.

When the show opens, "the adventure begins" is over, but Chiun is still a smart ass who continuously insults and berates our all-American hero Remo.  But his contract to teach Remo is done and he's packed up and ready to return to Korea.  But, just as he's about to board the plane, he's convinced to stay behind a little while longer (streeeetch the show's time).  He returns to train Remo some more, but is distressed by Remo's pride and decides to hire a killer to "injure" Remo.  To teach Remo some much needed humility.

The killer, however, seeks to become Chiun's pupil, so he takes his task a couple of steps too far and kills Remo, but Remo is revived which fulfills Chiun's prophecy of...

Oh what's the use?

The show was a complete mess.

To be honest, the only thing that stuck in my mind about this brief 45-50 minute show was the fact that Jeffrey Meek not once, not twice, not three times...but FOUR times looked directly at the camera, thus breaking the fourth wall, and offered the one or two viewers still watching this show a "can you believe this shit?" look.

I only wish he could see the look I was giving him right back.

Ok, so why should you care about a direct to video film released way, way back in 2002?

Two words: The cast.

When I first heard about D-Tox/Eye See You being released to video, I was surprised.  Back then, the idea of a fairly big name actor starring in a film that subsequently is passed by the theaters was almost unheard of (since then, its a whole other thing).

Sylvester Stallone stars as a rough and tumble cop who's on the trail of a serial cop killer, a man who appears to have seen Se7en one too many times.  He takes out a cop friend of Stallone's and then, adding insult to injury, rather gruesomely takes out Stallone's girlfriend/fiance.  But, immediately after, the police surround the killer in a warehouse district, and Stallone apparently takes the hated serial killer out.

All this happens in the movie's first ten or so minutes.  Unfortunately, its a lot to take, and its hard to develop much sympathy for Stallone (who's not bad in playing a man who is far from the indestructable "Rambo" type).

Anyway, after all this, Stallone's character becomes a heavy drinker and, ultimately, suicidal.  No longer able to take any more of it, he slits his wrists, but does not die.  He's taken by another cop friend to a very isolated cop-centric detox and therapy center way, way up north (the place looks like it could have been used in John Carpenter's The Thing).  When a very heavy snow fall occurs and people within this place start dropping like flies, we're suddenly into Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians/And Then There Were None territory.

Ok, so we're not dealing with the most original of plots but, again, look at that cast: There's Stallone, of course, and Tom (Platoon) Berenger, Kris (Blade, Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia) Kristofferson, Robert (Terminator 2) Patrick, Sean Patrick (Young Indiana Jones, The Boondock Saints) Flanery, and Polly (Patriot Games) Walker.

Sadly, most of those wonderful actors, with the possible exception of Robert Patrick and (in only one scene) Sean Patrick Flanery, get all that much to do.  Everyone else seems to hang around, acting in turns nutty or suspicious or defeated (remember: the bulk of the cast are playing fellow drunk/burnt out cops).

In a shocking revelation that should be no shock to anyone at all, the killer turns out to be the serial cop killer from the beginning of the film.  He wasn't dead, after all, and the way Stallone figures out who he is falls squarely in the realm of Nancy Drew-like detective work (SPOILER!  I'll give it this one away because I just can't help myself: The killer kept a match book -yes, a freaking match book- from way back at the start of the film in his room, and Stallone happens to find it).

Silly, silly silly.

And yet I couldn't entirely hate the film.  Don't get me wrong: There's good reason it didn't make it to theaters, but I've paid for and seen far worse.  What we have here is something that got away from the creators.

The plot, while not the most original, might have worked better if most of the opening act (the most predictable part of the film) had been cut and, instead, the film focused on getting to the "meat" of the matter: The detox center.

Further, several of the actors in this movie are given next to nothing to do.  The biggest waste of screen time is shared between Tom Berenger, who is very capable of being interesting on screen, and actress Angela Alvarado.  Berenger plays the detox center's maintenance man and does very, very little.  But at least he's got a few lines here and there.  Poor actress Angela Alvarado, who plays a burnt out female cop, does so little she makes Tom Berenger's role in this film look like Hamlet.  She does absolutely nothing.  Why bother having her there at all?!

Anyway, a missed opportunity, for sure, all the more frustrating because it could have -should have- been better.

Interesting article about Facebook, which is now in its fifth year of operation and, in turn, all the other social network type websites.

Facebook has an incredible amount of traffic and users.  However, the bottom line with this business, as with every business out there, is how much revenue it produces.  How much profit has Facebook made to date?

Apparently none at all.

What are the odds that Facebook still exists five years from now?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/207843

In the wake of Michael Jackson's death, a fascinating article focusing on music released posthumously, and whether these releases honor, or desecrate, the original musician's intentions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31968870/ns/entertainment-music/

I'm of two minds here.  The example of John Lennon songs getting beefed up and "officially" released as Beatles music (in the Anthology collections) seems (to me anyway) coldly calculated to increase interest in the release of those Anthology works.  Nothing can get fans of the Beatles more revved up than to hear that a "new" Beatles song is included.  However, was it really that?  Yes, Lennon had songs in the studio he never completed.  But maybe Lennon viewed the songs as weak and ultimately didn't release them because the didn't think they were worth the bother.

But having said that, and granted that the two songs (Free as a Bird and Real Love) weren't all that great IMHO (even in the beefed up Anthology versions), I'm glad that an effort was made to release them.  Even with a group of powerhouse musicians like the Beatles, not all of their songs, even when they were together, were winners, and I appreciate the effort to allow the public to hear more songs.

It's always been a source of curiosity to me, perhaps since Jaws premiered but certainly by the time the original Star Wars appeared in theaters, what makes people "herd" around something.

I recall the long lines of cars waiting to enter a drive-in theater (in Venezuela no less), and people actually standing on roofs of their cars, to catch a glimpse of the earlier showing of Jaws on theater screens.  Fast forward to the arrival of Star Wars, and the incredible hoopla that suddenly turned almost everyone into a fan.

I admit to being fascinated by this sudden need to be part of some thing...be it music (the Beatles, when they first appeared, sent fans screaming), books (Harry Potter and, now, Twilight), TV (most recently American Idol), and, of course, movies.

As customers, we lurch from one product to another, without any visible rhyme nor reason.  Sometimes, we herd around one particular product, to the point where its a...frenzy.  I still recall hearing vague whispers, after Harry Potter's final book appeared in the stores, that the "next" hot series might be this one written by a Mormon mother, a series that involved a young girl and vampires and first love.  I didn't think much about it, but it seemed like the very next day everyone heard of Twilight.

Anyway, the Twilight frenzy is taking up the San Diego Comic Con...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/22/twilight.fans/index.html

I've written about this twice before (here and here):  You want marijuana legalized?  Forget all that crap about it not being nearly as bad as alcohol or how it can help people suffering from debilitating diseases, etc. etc.

In these tough economic times, stress the fact that if you tax it, you can make plenty of revenue, something California especially could use much more of:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/california.pot.tax/index.html