My how time flies (and, boy, was Travolta skinny back then). If you have even a passing familiarity with Asian cinema, the name John Woo should be instantly familiar. His two best features, in my opinion, were Hard Boiled and The Killer. Both feature outrageous action sequences and more bullets fired per second than were used in both World War I and II combined. So popular were those films that Hollywood came calling, and John Woo moved over here and...well...things didn't go so well. His first feature, the Jean Claude Van Damme film Hard Target was decent enough, but word leaked that the director was forced to make several cuts to earn an R rating and that Lance Henricksen's character (the villain) was similarly whittled down. Woo's next feature was Broken Arrow and, before seeing it, I figured this would be the American movie triumph of John Woo. Big budget, bigger stars. How could it fail? Sadly, I thought it did just that. Afterwards came Face/Off, also featuring John Travolta, Mission Impossible II (this one, in particular....ugh), Windtalkers...sadly, none of those films were up to Woo's previous Hong Kong features, and to this day I feel his best work is, sadly, behind him. So the years have passed and for the first time since originally seeing the film in the theater, I spotted Broken Arrow on cable. I put it on and watched it, no longer comparing it with John Woo's "great" works, but simply looking at it as if it were another film... ...it still wasn't great, but you know what? It wasn't all that bad either. Christian Slater made for a decent hero, although I felt he was slightly miscast. John Travolta chewed the scenery quite well as the bad guy, and even football's Howie Long acquitted himself reasonably well as one of Travolta's henchmen. The biggest problems relate to the script, which felt at times half-baked (Note how much time is devoted to Frank Whaley's eager beaver political appointee character in the movie's early going, yet note also how quickly and abruptly his role is then done). However, the action sequences more than made up for the script's faults. It is clear in seeing those sequences that we have a director that, even if he isn't using a particularly great script, knows how to make each and every action sequences work, and work quite well. In the end, my estimation of Broken Arrow, dim up until now, rose a few degrees. It's still not a great film, but if you can accept it for what it is, there are far, far worse ways to spend your time.
Great, timely article regarding comic book movie success versus comic book sales: http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/08/12/batmans-comic-tragedy?page=0,0Author Lisa Schmeiser hits a topic that has perplexed and, to a greater degree, angered me. The fact of the matter is that there is no reason for comic book companies to not be doing much, much better than they currently are, especially since in recent times movies based on comic book products have done so well (and, yes, I know some of them haven't fared as well). The comic book industry, alas, has problems. At one time, comic books could be found almost everywhere, including drug and food stores. Now, decent comic book selections are mostly found in specialized comic book shops. Unfortunately, there aren't that many of them around and a very casual reader isn't likely to spend all that much time and energy hunting one down. For a while, it was good to see comic books in both Borders and Barnes and Nobles, but it appears both stores may be pulling back. Even worse, the selection of books is at times bewildering (normally I'd welcome a large selection, but lately I worry we're reaching a point of oversaturation). And, finally: Too much backstory and labyrinthian continuity.
The reviews have, for the most part, been very positive for the new film District 9. So I was curious when I spotted this article, linked below, which negatively focuses on one primary aspect of District 9 and, conversely, notes how this particular aspect has become something of a cliche in science fiction in general: http://www.slate.com/id/2225285/Of course, what Daniel Engber, the author of the article, reacts negatively to is the idea of an "evil corporate entity".
I think he may be on to something, even though I admit to using this idea he shuns in my own novel, Mechanic. In my defense, my ultimate goal was political satire, my targets both parties (in the end).
However, Mr. Engber's point is well taken and the article gave me something to think about. Always, IMHO, something good.
I mentioned that EW's list of great horror films of the past twenty years could have included Bubba Ho-Tep, the sly, humorous film that featured an elderly Elvis Presley (played by Bruce Campbell) up against a mummy at an elderly care home. The sequel, Bubba Nosferatu, is in the works. Sadly, Bruce Campbell isn't back, replaced by Ron Perlman ( Hellboy). I'm not sure what to make of this. I like Perlman. He's one of those actors that has appeared in tons of features, and is usually good. However, Bruce Campell was soooo good as Elvis in Bubba Ho-Tep. Will Mr. Perlman make us forget the mighty Bruce? I suppose its possible... so many actors have played Elvis over the years... Director Don Coscarelli returns, and news about casting is included here: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/14/coscarelli-and-perlman-eyeing-fall-shoot-for-bubba-nosferatu-angus-scrimm-joining-cast/
First it was Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. Now, I just found this online: http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/08/14/hope-you-enjoyed-that-reno-911-series-finale-in-july/?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl2|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tvsquad.com%2F2009%2F08%2F14%2Fhope-you-enjoyed-that-reno-911-series-finale-in-july%2FWhen I read the original headline, that a six year running comedy show was canceled, the thought that the show they were referring to was Reno 911 didn't enter my mind. And yet, there it is. Granted, Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant were doing well with their screenplays (they wrote Night at the Museum and its sequel) and this season started really curiously without three members of the cast (two originals and one that was added later), and I'd be the first to say that the two new members of the cast weren't particularly memorable... ...and yet the show remained very, very funny. I could scarcely believe how low the cast members (in their individual character) could go. They were the biggest group of misfits and idiots to walk the planet, yet their interactions were well defined, the people they ran into were generally on their own (very low) level. Too bad the cancellation was made between seasons...For now (and maybe forever) we don't have a good "farewell" episode. But maybe -hopefully- the cast will get back together (all of them) and do one. For the fans.
Once again, Entertainment Weekly produces an...er...entertaining list. This one focuses on 20 low budget sci-fi classics. http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20246950_20263257_20297632,00.htmlTheir choices this time around are pretty strong. The only one I can't agree with is Hardware. Granted, I've only seen it once, in the theaters, way back in 1990 when it was released, but I thought it was pretty bad. Maybe I should give it another whirl. Here are a few other low budget sci-fi films I thought were pretty good: Tremors: A very fun "monsters on the loose" film, featuring not one, but two powerhouse teamups: Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward as lowly trash collectors and Michael Gross and Reba McEntire as end of the world survivalists. And the monsters were pretty cool, too! Screamers: There are plenty of movies out there based on the works of Phillip K. Dick ( Blade Runner would probably be the best known). This low budget film featured Peter Weller ( Robocop, another great low budget sci-fi film?!) as a soldier stationed in a planet where the war has passed everyone by. Only he and his group have to deal with killing machines called Screamers that can pop up anywhere...Loses some steam toward the last 1/3rd of the film, but still pretty good. The Man Who Fell To Earth: Up to this point, David Bowie's best film. Bowie plays an alien (what else?!) who winds up on Earth, seeking to bring water to his dying homeworld, but gets corrupted by the ways of humanity. Scanners: While David Cronenberg's Videodrome is on the EW list, my choice would have been Cronenberg's first "hit" movie, Scanners. Experiments in fertility drugs have resulted in babies that grew up to be mutants with the ability to use their mind to do some very bizarre things. Worth seeing if only for the scream-inducing opening scenes, featuring a very graphic head exploding. However, the rest of it is pretty damn good, too.
The above question gets trickier with each new court ruling: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/13/warner-bros-has-lost-krypton-will-lose-superman-in-2013/I'm of two minds here: I most certainly side with the creators of Superman (and their families). The fact of the matter is that Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster and sold for what amounted to a token fee to what eventually would become DC Comics (Warner Brothers would eventually buy up that company, and thus own the various characters under the imprint). Siegel and Shuster made plenty of money off Superman after it became successful, but the reality is that the company made much, much more. And when the two left the comic book field, they made nothing from the character they had created, not until DC Comics relented and gave them pensions in the mid-1970's (although I could be wrong, I believe this was done in part to avoid any negative publicity concerning the upcoming Superman film). But issues regarding the work for hire contracts and copyrights have embroiled DC Comics and the Siegel family in issues regarding the ownership of the famous character, and thus far it appears that piece by piece the family is gaining control over parts of the character. It's a fascinating article, and I suspect that in the end what will happen is DC Comics/Warner Brothers will reach some kind of settlement with the family. Superman is simply too big a character to lose.
An interesting article from CNN that compares the electric Volt versus the hybrid Prius and, most importantly, the potential savings one would have regarding the price of gasoline: http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/14/autos/volt_vs_prius/index.htmI've mentioned before that I'm all in favor of the new electric car technology. However, like the cell phone, I suspect the first models will be clunky pieces of work that will be way overpriced and will probably perform less than what we can eventually expect. I recall when the cell phones first appeared they were very, very expensive, and looked not unlike the ones in those pesky (but often hilarious) credit report commercials. I specifically recall Arnold Schwarzenegger being interviewed about cell phones back then and he noted he paid something like $2000 (or maybe even more) for his cell phone and another thousand or two for the monthly service. Times quickly changed, of course, and in a few years everyone has cellphones, and the service is light years away from that during those first years. Hopefully, the same will happen with electric cars...
It's only been a few months since the rebooted (and critically acclaimed) Battlestar Galactica TV show aired its last episode and the new "prequel" series has yet to air. Already there's word that a new, reboot movie version of Battlestar Galactica is in the works, with director Bryan Singer ( X-Men, Superman Returns) apparently interested in having a hand in the project in some capacity: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/12/bryan-singer-to-reboot-battlestar-galactica/Frankly, I find the whole thing perplexing (oh, I already mentioned that?!  ), to say the least, and even if the project comes about, even if the movie reboot of the reboot turns out to be good, I can't help but feel like the studios risk treading the same grounds over and over a little too much. Then again, if the film is good...
You might want to wait just a little: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/12/harry-potter-movies-to-get-rereleased-in-extended-editions/Seems there might be extended editions of the films on their way. Just how "extended" these films will be remains to be seen... (Just for the record: I have not read nor seen any of the Harry Potter books/movies, so I don't know how good the movies are versus the books or how potentially good an "extended" cut of the film will be versus the theatrical cut and the book).
Fascinating article from USA Today regarding a tiny company, Toronto-based i4i (30 employees), who have won a ruling that " Microsoft violated an obscure patent
related to Extensible Markup Language or XML." Further: the judge in the case " order(ed )
Microsoft to pay $290 million in fines and stop selling Word in the
U.S. in 60 days." I suspect there are many Apple users out there cheering any misfortune that falls to Microsoft (seriously, why all the hate? I've used Windows and Apple and the difference between the operating systems used to be noticeable, but now its minimal), but consider this, the final sentences from the article (the emphasis on the very last bit is mine): No one expects Microsoft to actually pull Word off the market. It's a
big company with deep pockets that has faced many legal challenges over
the years. It could win the appeal, settle with i4i, or even buy out
the company.The article follows: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2009-08-12-microsoft-lawsuit_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
In all of modern American history, there is no one that perplexes, annoys, and just plain angers me as much as Dick Cheney, George Bush's Vice President. The man behind many of the more dark aspects of Bush's presidency (a presidency, by the way, I felt was one of the most incompetent, amateurish, and amoral of recent times) is in many ways a cipher. Some who knew him before he became Vice President were startled at what they felt was his sudden, abrupt changes in philosophy. Well, he's about to write a book (another change, see below) that presents his views of the Bush years: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32398177/ns/politics-washington_post/I've long felt that the Bush/Cheney's gang's motto should have been "Do as I say, not as I do". To Cheney, "Scooter" Libby was "an innocent man" despite having been convicted in court (and need I go over the whole messy Valarie Plame affair? I can only imagine what the conservative pundits would say if, for example, someone in the Obama administration was suspected of outing a secret agent...like the Bush administration did). To Cheney, torture was an effective means of getting information (surprising news to the experts in interrogation tactics). To Cheney, Rumsfeld was the "finest secretary of defense", despite the mess he made in Iraq and general ineptness. I could go on and on, but I suspect that those who agree with my opinions will only nod while those who don't agree won't be turned. However, these lines from the article, in particular, displays the mercurial philosophy found within Cheney, the fact that "firm" opinions he has held for many years...may not be as firm as you might think: Some old associates see Cheney's newfound openness (including the fact that he's writing a memoir ) as a breach of
principle. For decades, he expressed contempt for departing officials
who wrote insider accounts, arguing that candid internal debate was
impossible if the president and his advisers could not count on secrecy. As far back as 1979, one
of the heroes in Lynne Cheney's novel "Executive Privilege" resolved
never to write a memoir because "a president deserved at least one
person around him whose silence he could depend on." Cheney lived that
vow for the next 30 years.
Now and again I go through the TCM schedule and pick out films here and there that sound interesting and set them up on the DVR. I have quite a backlog of films to get to. Most often, the films recorded are "OK", decent enough but nothing spectacular. That's the way it goes, I suppose, in all entertainment venues. You get the stuff that is well known and popular, you get the stuff that is good but perhaps not as memorable, and then you get the dreck which is either memorable in how bad it is or unmemorable for the very same reasons. But once in a while you stumble upon something that was forgotten, a movie, a song, a book, that the masses may have missed, but some select few caught, and seeing these forgotten works might well have influenced these viewers to in turn create their own, more memorable works down the line. I suspect that might be the case with Blast of Silence, a no-budget 1961 film about a hit-man (played by the director and co-writer of the film, Allen Baron in his second and last appearance before the cameras. He would go on to become a director of many television shows). The hit-man is sent to New York to take out a mob figure and, during the course of the film, purchases a gun from a sleazy "hoodlum" and figures out his target's routine. Our hit-man also accidentally re-connects with people from his past and for a brief moment considers the possibility of re-connecting with life itself. As I said before, this is a no-budget film. The actors within appear to be mostly amateurs, many of whom never appeared before the cameras again. Yet they also appear human, and the location shooting in New York is a treasure for those interested in seeing what the place looked like back then. On the minus side, the film moves along rather slowly. Modern audiences, in fact, might find the film's pace a little too lethargic. Yet I'd be lying if I said that the movie's showpiece, the actual hit, wasn't a genuine white knuckle moment. And the movie's conclusion, filmed during an actual hurricane (!) that hit the NY area, is likewise powerful and memorable. The movie may well have influenced a host of directors after the fact, from Francis Ford Coppola (scenes from this movie could have easily been folded into -or served as inspiration to- the Godfather or Godfather Part 2) to Martin Scorcese. I don't know when TCM will air the film again, but if you find what I've described above interesting, you could do much worse than spending a little over an hour with Blast of Silence. 
This video clip compilation has been making the rounds, so pardon me if I'm being redundant by showing it here. It is very amusing to see how many times and in how many different films Harrison Ford has uttered these particular lines...
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!
|