You know, I had to read the headline twice before it made any sense to me. Yes indeed, a man who has no children has been "released" from child support debt. The guy is clearly a victim of a system gone haywire and has lived a rough life (whether because of this is an open question). At least it appeared he tried to make payments during the time he thought the child was his, but after DNA tests proved he wasn't the father to begin with, he had to deal with the debt of "unpaid" previous child support. Until now... http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/11/georgia.child.support/index.html
After all the angst/drama of exploring Woodstock and Altamont, let's get a little more frivolous....and entertaining... Here, for your enjoyment, from Entertainment Weekly, a list of 35 Unforgettable nude scenes captured to film: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20229685,00.htmlGotta agree in particular with Life of Brian. One of the most hilarious nude scenes ever. Can't say I disagree with many of the others, too! 
Two interesting articles, one (IMO) more fact based and neutral, another far more hostile regarding not only Woodstock, but the 60's generation in general. First, the more even handed fact-based one by Tony Sclafani, for MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32322892/ns/entertainment-music/What sets this article apart is that you have several first hand recollections of the event, and it explores both the "good" and "bad" rumor/speculation/actual facts involved with Woodstock. On the other hand, here's "What's not being celebrated", by Miami Herald writer Glenn Garvin... http://www.miamiherald.com/columnists/garvin/story/1180403.htmlFirst, a couple of words about Mr. Garvin: I first became aware of him with his reviews of television shows. His comments were often hilarious, and I was eager to read his articles. At some point, however, he was promoted to editorial/opinion author, and he became, like Michael Medved (who was himself hilarious as a co-author of the "Golden Turkey Award" books, which focused on truly terrible movies), another generally humorless conservative. Based on this article and Mr. Garvin's "take" on not only Woodstock but Altamont and the 1960's in general show that he is no fan of the times or the movement. Contrast the first article and its take on what happened (both good and bad) with Mr. Garvin's take on the subject: The three-day rock festival at Woodstock was, by any reasonable
measure, a disaster: Hundreds of thousands of narcotized kids wallowing
around in the mud, leaving behind so much sodden debris that more than
one festival organizer compared the place to a Civil War battlefield.
Their idea of preparation for a three-day campout was to load up on
drugs rather than food, water or medical supplies, and if military
choppers hadn't bailed them out, Woodstock might have ended in the
hippie apocalypse that a lot of people feared. The festival's real
lesson was one already well known to America's parents: Kids, left
without adult supervision, will make a mess. But the crux of Mr. Garvin's article is that while everyone is celebrating the anniversary of Woodstock, the far darker Rolling Stones concert at Altamont is a "forgotten" event and that it (an arbitrary choice on his part) is a better example of what the 1960's were truly about. Unfortunately, instead of offering a clear review of events, he instead displays plenty of biases: Altamont is the rock festival that self-congratulatory children of the
1960s don't want to remember, the one where Jagger and the rest of the
Rolling Stones watched the Hell's Angels they'd hired as security
guards beat, stab and kill audience members (emphasis mine ) right in front of the stage."Self-congratulatory children"? An event where security guards "beat, stab, and kill audience members"? I can only take that to mean that the Hell's Angels security beat, stabbed, and killed several people during the course of the concert, right? Well...not really. At the end of the article Mr. Garvin clarifies the "members" line:
Jagger just went on with his set, and as he broke into Under My Thumb , the Angels stabbed and clubbed a teenager named Meredith Hunter to death.So, one person (not audience members) was "stabbed and clubbed" to death. Granted, one person killed in the course of a concert is way, way too many, but in reading up on the event on Wikipedia, I found that Mr. Hunter was attacked after he drew a revolver (his girlfriend noted he was agitated and high before the fatality occurred), and that the Hell's Angels members who killed him were ultimately acquitted of their actions by reason of self-defense. The video footage showed Mr. Hunter carrying the weapon. Now, I'm not trying to soft-peddle this. I've always read that the Altamont experience was bad, the polar opposite of what happened at Woodstock. However, one must question how Mr. Garvin can view the events at one venue as an "aberration" while perceiving the events at another as being more representative of the truth. Ultimately, both events happened. One was "good" and one was "bad". I think it stretches thing to either beautify or condemn a generation solely on that basis.
Fascinating article regarding something that might be coming to a supermarket near you: In-vitro meats. The pros? According to the article, you could control the amount of fat, essentially creating what Jason Matheny, of the research group New Harvest, states is a hamburger that prevents heart attacks instead of causing them. There are plenty of other advantages, as expressed in the article, from the fact that we'll have meat made "humanely", ie without raising and slaughtering animals, as well as controlling potential diseases, etc. The negative: How will people react to the idea they're eating something "created" in-vitro? Are there possible side effects? As I said before, a truly fascinating article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/07/eco.invitro.meat/index.html
My family loves the guy. Short tempered, foul mouthed, a restaurant kitchen fascist (but in a nice way ) if there ever was one. I can't deny the entertainment value of watching him, although I think the shows presented here in America show a more extreme version of the actual man (in the British shows he seems more "real", although his temper can erupt just as quickly). However, economic woes are hurting the high end restaurant businesses, including his: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124967205185415131.html
While humans going to space seems stuck (if not having taken a step back since we've stopped going to the Moon), we're gaining insight into the universe around us by various other means. The Kepler telescope which according to this article hasn't even begun official operations yet, has already made at least one fascinating discovery: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/08/08/space.kepler.discovery/index.htmlI'm eager to hear what other interesting planets lie out there and if, finally, we can discover a planet that fits our criteria for habitation (it would help, obviously, if it were at least reasonably close by, too! Ah the potential discoveries to come!).
An interesting poll in an otherwise pretty blah day. Entertainment Weekly looks at what they consider some of the best horror films of the last 20 years: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20284496_20284497_20295591,00.htmlIf this list proves anything, its that there haven't been all that many memorable horror films released since 1989. At least in my opinion. Usually, I find myself in agreement with many of the choices in lists like these, if not the placement of specific films and the fact that there are always one or two movies you feel were unfairly omitted. This time around, I find myself quibbling with many of their choices. What Lies Beneath and Darkman were both 'ok' films, but the former didn't do all that much for me and the later...would you even consider it a horror film? There were certainly "horror" elements, but what Sam Raimi delivered felt more like a superhero film, a cross between Batman/The Shadow and Swamp Thing. Alien 3, definitely a horror film, was IMHO a dark, depressing misfire (the opening moments crapped on everything that the too-early for this list Aliens accomplished, was particularly egregious. Did they have to kill Newt and Hicks so offhandedly?!). What followed, alas, was just not all that good. You know, if you're going to include a David Fincher directed horror film on your list, why not go for what was probably his best one, and one that was released well within this list's parameters, Se7en? Planet Terror and Dead Alive (aka Braindead) one could almost consider horror comedies while Shaun of the Dead is a comedy film fitted into a horror framework (ie, George Romero's zombie films). All three films are quite good, IMHO, but they're really not full on horror films, are they? (By the way, if they're making a list of great horror/comedy hybrids released since 1989, I'd certainly put these three on the list, along with Bubba Ho-Tep and Army of Darkness (these two, of course, featured Bruce Campbell. If Evil Dead II hadn't been released before 1989, I'd have included that one, too). The Silence of the Lambs gets plenty of good reviews and deserves to be on this list, but I've always preferred Manhunter (alas, that movie, which featured the first appearance of Hannibal Lector (played by Brian Cox) was released in 1986, three years too early for this list). Manhunter's story was essentially the same as SotL (I suspect author Thomas Harris, who wrote both novels these movies were based on, was cribbing from his earlier book when he wrote SotL). Event Horizon was a beautiful looking movie, and I so wished it would have been a good horror film, but the plot proved such a pastiche of other, far better films, that it was very difficult for me to enjoy. So, what's missing from this list, in my opinion? Along with Bubba Ho-Tep and Army of Darkness, I'd also put Mimic on the list. The film loses itself at the very end, but up until that point I thought this was a terrific horror film. I'd also include Zack Snyder's remake of Dawn of the Dead, a pretty damn good (again, until the end) reinterpretation of George Romero's classic. Any more?
Last night aired the last of the "summer" episodes of Burn Notice, and a mighty good episode it was. Without spoiling too much, this time around we find Michael Weston (Jeffrey Donovan) reacting to things that get more than a little out of his hands (often the opposite is the case, and usually has a decent control of things around him). As a result, his reactions in this episode prove quick and, in one case, very deadly. The later opens the door for what's to come, and it sounds very intriguing. What started as a tongue in cheek The Prisoner/James Bond meets Miami Vice collage is very nicely evolving into a show about establishing and maintaining roots, both with your home as well as family, friends, and lovers...all while watching out for drug dealers, deposed dictators, Serbian madmen, assorted killers, secret service wet ops, etc. etc... Another review can be found here: http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/08/07/burn-notice-goes-out-with-a-bang-bang/
I know, I know...this is becoming like my Dollhouse posts. Trust me, it was never my intention to write so much about him! Yet this story is just too juicy not to pass along: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32313514/ns/entertainment-music/The key line of this article, to me, follows: Hours after (Michael Jackson died ), the family descended on (his rented ) house to claim all its
contents, and LaToya (Michael's sister ) grabbed the (computer hard ) drives, Rolling Stone said, quoting
the late singer's manager, Frank DiLeo.What was on those hard drives? How about up to 100 or so unreleased Michael Jackson songs!? Gotta give it to LaToya, great forward thinking. Of all the family members that were present there (and it's unclear exactly which relatives showed up), she probably got her hands on the potentially most valuable material. Still, its a distasteful image, the family "descending" on the house, looking to grab everything in sight.
...I hope I die before I get old... (My Generation, The Who) It's a sad reality: Time marches on. And on. People who were once party hard youths who then took to the stage in concerts and displayed incredible levels of energy are becoming, slowly and surely, older individuals who just aren't quite able to pull that act off anymore. Witness Aerosmith's Steven Tyler, 61, who had an accident in his most recent concert: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/08/06/steven.tyler.hospitalized/index.htmlI suppose this could have been "one of those things" that was likely to happen to old or young singers alike. Regardless, as the years go by it becomes difficult to wrap my mind around the concept of a man his age up on stage singing the types of energetic songs his group is rightly famous for.
It's been a depressing year, at least with regard to celebrity deaths. The latest to pass away is John Hughes: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/06/obit.john.hughes/index.htmlFor those who lived through the 1980's, you simply could not avoid John Hughes' numerous comedy films. He was behind Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, National Lampoon's Vacation, etc. etc. etc. but seemed to disappear in recent years. His filmography, found below, shows he was still quite active, even if the films he was involved in more recently didn't catch fire like those from the 1980's. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000455/
Bless ya, Entertainment Weekly, for providing such interesting lists. In this case, 19 "crap-tacular" action films: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20295970,00.htmlI'm so with them on so many of their choices. The common denominator are films with plenty of action scenes but not so much brains. Of the Arnold Schwarzenegger films listed, my favorite would have to be Commando. What can you say about a movie that, in its first few minutes, has our he-man hero jumping out of a plane as it is in the process of taking off...and survives! Added bonus: Many of the one-liners Schwarzenegger utters are hilarious, to boot ("I let him go"). Road House seems to always be mentioned whenever people make lists of their "best terrible" films, although if I had to pick one Patrick Swayze film to fit the "crap-tacular" title it would be Point Break (also on EW's list). Director Kathyrn Bigelow has always made interesting, if not always successful, films (the current in release Hurt Locker has received some of the best reviews of any of her films), and while I can't say Point Break is a total success, it has some crazy-memorable scenes, like the one where Keanu Reeves jumps out of a plane (without a parachute) because he has to capture the bad guy. Anyway, interesting list, if not filled with completely interesting films!
As has been reported by many, G. I. Joe: Rise of Cobra will not be pre-screened for national movie critics, a sure sign that the studios have little faith their product will receive any good early critical word...or would it? Below is an interesting article that compares the eventual critical reaction to movies that were not pre-screened in advance of their release: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/04/by-the-numbers-movies-not-screened-for-nationwide-press/I don't want to give too much away, but suffice it to say that the results, at least to me, aren't all that surprising. While the studios at times get things wrong (sometimes spectacularly so), these instances are usually the exception rather than the rule. A while back I reviewed D-Tox (aka Eye See You) a film I was curious about because it starred Sylvester Stallone and a reasonably big/interesting cast and yet the film was never released theatrically, instead going straight to video. I was even more curious after reading about the movie's plot (a variation on Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians/ And Then There Were None) and figured the film had to have some entertainment value. The film wasn't horrible, but I could see why the studios in the end didn't feel the need to waste advertising dollars on a formal theatrical release. As far as G. I. Joe is concerned, perhaps the studios feel there's little to be gained at this point by pre-screening that movie . Like The Transformers 2, there's a good chance that every critic will savage the film, but in the end, again as with Transformers 2, there's a chance they'll still make a healthy profit.
Soooo much has made its way to DVD, yet Entertainment Weekly presents this amusing list of shows that are still - still- not available on DVD and, at least according to them, should be: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20294884_16,00.htmlOf the list presented, the one that I'd most like to see is the Batman TV show. The one that surprises me that isn't yet available is L.A. Law. A very popular show you would think would have made its way to the shelves by now... But also unavailable, and not on the list (and I wouldn't mind owning): The Green Hornet (The original series by the producer of the Batman TV show was a little less tongue in cheek and featured Bruce Lee as Kato. I suspect this show will probably show up very soon, as Seth Rogan is working on a film version) Six Million Dollar Man (I know this is a nostalgia choice, but I thought there were several very good episodes in the show's first season) Our Planet Tonight (OK, I may be stretching things a bit here...this was a one shot TV show by the makers of Airplane! that parodied 20/20 and 60 Minutes-type shows. I thought the bit about the supposed "twin" brothers was especially hilarious) As for movies, there's really only one that I can think of that I'd like to get and, at least as of yet, hasn't made it to DVD: the very grindhouse-like Death Weekend (a.k.a. House by the Lake). When I first saw it (probably in/around 1979/80 or so) it scared the shit out of me. Brenda Vaccaro made for a very sexy damsel in distress while Don Stroud made for a very, very scary villain. I haven't seen that film in many, many years, and I'm really curious to see how it holds up.
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=hmI 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.htmlNormally, 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
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/
...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
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_gibbonsI'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/41901Jeremy 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.htmlSeriously, 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:
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.htmlWhen 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
|