Switching from Criterion movies we have a list from Entertainment Weekly of 10 very bad album covers, apparently chosen by readers.

They're pretty much on target with their choices.  Until I saw them on the list, there were several I hadn't seen before, but they do all share the same problem: They're pretty bad.

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20300004,00.html

I've tried to come up with an album cover that never appealed to me, but I'm stumped.  There are bad ones out there, of course, but none that I've found rising to the level of being truly terrible.

Of the ones listed, I particularly agree with the inclusion of Foreigner's Head Games.  Very, very strange (and ugly) cover.

The people at dvdfile.com have presented a fascinating list of their "top 10" unforgettable Criterion Collection releases.  If you're a fan of cinema and collect films on DVD or BluRay, then the Criterion name should be well known to you.  If not, Criterion is a company devoted to releasing pristine copies of foreign and American films that are considered works of high quality.

Many of their releases include films not available in any other way, some obscure art house classics while others may be controversial classics.  The dvdfile list can be found here:

http://www.dvdfile.com/views/article/the-criterion-collection-10-unforgettable-titles-83681

I can't add much to it as their choices are pretty solid.  Some of my favorite Criterion releases were purchased on Laserdisc, including Blade Runner (at the time, we were presented with the theatrical cut and the more violent European cut, but it was THE way to see the film back then) and the unrated version of Robocop (this was the first time this release was made available.  For those who don't know, the original cut, boasting only a few seconds of extra, very violent imagery, was not available until then).

I also treasure their release of M and The Most Dangerous Game (this could well be the most filmed and re-filmed plot in the entire history of TV and movie cinema).

Needless to say, I'm always on the lookout for their releases, especially now that they're getting into the Blu Ray game.

It's not often I'm intrigued with video game releases.  I tend to enjoy the car racing games (Paradise City and, more recently, Midnight Club are favorites).

But I also enjoy the first person action/adventure type games, and today arrives one that is very anticipated, Batman: Arkham Asylum.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2009-08-24-batman-arkham-game_N.htm

My understanding is that the platform version to get is the one for the PS3, for that one features one option the others (XBox, PC) don't have: The ability to play as Batman's nemesis, The Joker.

Interestingly enough, after nearly a year or so of not buying any first person games, I'm in the position of buying two in two weeks.  Last week I picked up Wolfenstein, the latest version of that old WWII action game (I played the very first version of that game way, way back in the early 1980's on an Apple II.  For its time, it was a stunning achievement).  So far, that game is pretty good, although I would further add that there's nothing terribly different about it compared to, say, the previous Wolfenstein game that appeared a couple of years back.

Then again, I'm still in the early levels!

A while back I posted a link to an article about the most dangerous searches (or some such) one could make online.  The results and links presented after the search usually yielded many links to sites that could have either virus or malware waiting to pounce on your computer.

I found a similar article this morning, this one focusing on the "celebrity" with the most dangerous search name.  ie, look her up on Google or Bing or Yahoo and, as a result, you'll find plenty of potentially dangerous websites presented.

The celebrity?  Jessica Biel.  You've been warned!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32533198/ns/technology_and_science-security/

The teaser for Inception, the upcoming Christopher Nolan directed, Leonardo CiCaprio film I'm interested (no, I won't mention Shutter Island) (aaarrrrghhh, I just did!) has made its way to the internet:

http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/15201209/standardformat/

Looks interesting...

But...

...I'm picking up a definite Matrix vibe here, especially with those two fighting within the hotel hallway toward the end of the trailer.  Hope the movie doesn't feature a terrible "twist" at the end like....

OK, now I'm just rubbing it in!

Amusing article from Salon.com from Amanda Fortini and the (apparently) growing movement of iPhone haters.  She details some of her experiences and why she (and maybe others!) feels this way:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/08/24/hate_my_iphone/

I'd be lying if I said I didn't find the amusement in this article partly due to the fact that there are those willing to berate the almighty Apple Corp.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Apple, but the company smugness (which for some reason seems to rub off on their users, particularly those that swear by their computers) has on occasion bothered me.

I've seen/used the iPhone and its a neat enough gadget, but its also expensive and, frankly, I simply don't see the need to spend the extra money.  It may be good, but it's not that good.

Apparently, Ms. Fortini agrees, although her experiences are much more first hand.

Simply mindboggling, in this day and age:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html

The judge's statement, in particular, I find incredible:

In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes' right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes' "high moral and ethical standards," he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that "no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." Despite Eleanor Katherine's tender years, he continued, "the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being."

Hmmm.  So if I read this right, the Judge feels freedom of religion means you have the freedom worship God in the manner you want.  Not freedom to follow your own path, even if it leads you to a life free of religion.

I can't help but feel that the judge is imposing his feelings regarding religion on others, something I find...terrible.  This couple apparently are quite fit to raise kids, whether they feel the need to follow a religion or not.

Time magazine offers their take on the top fifty websites of this year, starting with the one presented in this link (scroll down for the link to the other 49):

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1918031_1918016,00.html

Interesting choices, and some worthy of investigating!

I should have known someone out there would take the time to show some comparison clips of Zero Hour! versus similar scenes from Airplane!

Enjoy...

If you've following my postings, you'll know I'm intrigued by movies.  Then again, aren't we all?

But there are so many elements in films to enjoy, whether it be the different movie genres, the actors, the dialogue or the special effects/stunts, the music, the "look", etc. etc. etc.

One of the things I've found particularly fascinating are the remakes.  There are those that are obvious remakes, films that share the same title and (obviously) general storyline (Sabrina, The Thing, Halloween, etc.) and then there are those remakes that are a little less obvious.

I've pointed out previously how the James Bond film The Spy Who Loved Me cleverly took the general plot (ie, madman "kidnaps" spacecraft/submarines, intent on starting a World War) of the earlier Bond film You Only Live Twice.  More recently, I noted how Outland was essentially a reworking of High Noon.

But perhaps the most fascinating "stealth" remake around is, believe it or not, my all time favorite comedy movie, Airplane!

Yes, you heard it right.  Airplane! is actually a remake of another film.  Don't believe me?  Just pop your DVD of the movie into your player and listen to the movie's creator's commentary.  They're pretty forthright in stating that the inspiration for Airplane! was the 1957 film Zero Hour! (yes, the movie Airplane! even appropriated Zero Hour!'s exclamation point.  Btw, click on the link provided for that film and scroll down to the user comments.  "Tracer" offers some interesting differences between the two films).

Yesterday TCM was running a marathon of Sterling Hayden films, and Zero Hour! was one of the chosen ones (his character was parodied by Robert Stack in Airplane!).  I love Sterling Hayden.  His "Jack D. Ripper" in Doctor Strangelove was, to me, the greatest, funniest, and scariest of the characters in that film (Understandably, great props are given to Peter Sellers and George C. Scott.  I've always felt people have unfairly forgotten about Hayden).  If you look at his filmography, you might be stunned by the number of films he's done (including The Godfather.  Some of my favorites: The Asphalt Jungle, The Killing, Johnny Guitar, Crime Wave, and, though the movie itself was an oddity, Mr. Hayden was great in The Long Goodbye).

Anyway, watching Zero Hour! is a trip.  Airplane! remade the film so closely that seeing Zero Hour! is like watching Airplane! with all the puns and jokes removed, yet the set ups for those same puns and jokes are there, waiting...

When Sterling Hayden clenches his jaw and says "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking", you can't help but smile, recalling where Lloyd Bridges would take that particular line (it certainly was an inappropriate week to stop sniffing glue).  When little Joey is in the cockpit with the pilot, and the pilot gives him a toy airplane, you're just waiting for the pilot to start asking the boy terribly inappropriate questions about gladiator movies...and seeing grown men naked.

I could go on and on, but one truly has to see these films back to back to realize that Airplane!, as good as it is (and, in my opinion it is great), wouldn't have been anything without Zero Hour!

Absolutely spot on article regarding the recent spate of (how to phrase this nicely?...I guess it's impossible) idiots carrying weapons to town hall meetings:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/22/sirota_guns/

I'm sure the more level headed proponents of the second amendment must cringe at these attention seeking/starved...individuals whose only goal it seems to be is to try to intimidate others.

The best line from the article:

Generating maximum media attention, the weapons-brandishing displays are "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Yes, the gun has been transformed from a sport and self-defense device into a tool of mass bullying. Like the noose in the Jim Crow South, its symbolic message is clear: If you dare engage in the democratic process, you risk bodily harm.

I truly, truly hope someone on the "other side" (whether it be the NRA or GOP) comes to their senses and tells these bullies what they're doing is counterproductive and counterdemocratic.

A friend posted this, and I just had to share.  Some very clever people have taken music videos and changed the lyrics of the songs presented within so that the videos are more "literal".

Huh?  You ask.  Don't ask...just watch.  (BTW, there are several other "literal" videos on YouTube.  IMHO, this is the best of the lot).

But the movie's release was delayed to February:

http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/08/21/shutter-island-release-pushed/

Not sure what to make of this.  Usually, a film released in February is "dumped" by the studios, yet Paramount makes it a point in their press release to say that the reasoning behind doing so was due to the economy.

I wonder.

They've obviously already released previews of the film to theaters (and the internet) and there seemed to be interest building.  Releasing it in fall would have been a sign of Oscar contention.  Releasing it in February, as I said before, is often a sign that a film isn't very good.  Yet Paramount's press release makes it a point to mention the movie's "positive" preview reviews.

Huuummm.

Sorting through the comments on the above article, it appeared at least a few of the people there were in agreement with my negative assessment of the novel.  As for the movie, we'll have to wait a little longer to see.

I know, I know...the topic may seem rather dull or perhaps too played out.  However, Ms. Ghitis provides a very, very strong opinion piece here which I feel illuminates much about the current healthcare debate, by looking at it from the outside in.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/1197368.html

Gotta love the first comment afterwards, from "socialismsucks".  Talk about making her point for her!

And here is another article, a look from the inside out, an American woman muses on her experiences in a British hospital (I hope "socialismsucks" eventually reads this):

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/22/nhs/

First up, the studio behind the latest Terminator film has filed for bankruptcy:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/08/terminator-producers-file-for-bankrupcty-creditors-include-schwarzenegger-christian-bale-mcg.html

Someone posted a comment to this article that noted no one made any money on films.  I suppose its true and the following line from the article makes me wonder what may be going on behind the scenes (the emphasized part is my own):

Even though the movie has sold a healthy $370 million worth of tickets around the world and has yet to be released on DVD and in other post-theatrical markets, Anderson and Kubicek were unable to make a payment demanded by Santa Barbara hedge fund Pacificor, which financed their $30-million purchase of the "Terminator" rights and loaned $9 million for other operating expenses.

So, despite lukewarm (at best) reviews, the film nonetheless has made quite a bit of money...and this is before the DVD release!  Hrmmmm...

Moving along, I'm pleased that the SciF---er, SyFy Network has renewed the delightful Warehouse 13 for a second season:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007491.html?categoryId=1417&cs=1

I gave the show a try when it first aired based on positive reviews.  Yes, it isn't the most original thing to ever hit TV (the show is a mash up of X-Files and Raiders of the Lost Ark), but the show maintains a breezy, entertaining attitude that is tongue in cheek but never overly broad.  In some ways, its tone reminds me of the also very entertaining Burn Notice, another show that could be overly dramatic but instead chooses to be light and humorous, to very good effect.

That's the term used toward the end of this article, which focuses on Caster Semenya, a female track runner (and winner) who is now the subject of a "gender test".

Her times on the track are blazing, sometimes winning by a wide margin, but there are those that wonder if (and I don't mean to be crude here) she's really a she:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/more/08/20/semenya.ap/index.html

But as I said before, the most interesting lines, to me, were toward the very end of the article, where the author offers two example from the past of athletes with gender issues.  The second and last one was particularly interesting:

Perhaps the most famous case is that of Stella Walsh, also known as Stanislawa Walasiewicz, a Polish athlete who won gold in the 100 at the 1932 Olympics, and was later found to have had ambiguous genitalia.

Curiosity got the best of me, and I just had to find out a bit more about Stella Walsh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82awa_Walasiewicz

While the whole "is she a man or a woman?" issue is curious enough, perhaps the saddest aspect regarding Ms. Walsh was how she eventually passed away:

Walsh was a bystander in an armed robbery in Cleveland, Ohio on 4 December 1980, and was killed at the age of 69.

Interesting how one story takes you to another, then another.

Ok, so the teaser has hit and I find the reaction, at least at this site, interesting:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/20/james-camerons-avatar-teaser-trailer/

I think I mentioned some time before that when The Watchmen movie was approaching its release date, people grew waaaay too hyped for the product and, in the end, it simply couldn't meet their very, very high expectations.

I wonder if the same isn't happening with James Cameron's Avatar, a film whose expectations quotient makes that of The Watchmen look like child's play.

What I see in the teaser is quite good for computer animation, but, it doesn't strike me as a quantum leap from some of the other high end computer animated films recently released.  The human figures and machinery certainly look realistic (at times) but the aliens...not so much.

However, putting aside the visuals for a moment, what I found more worrisome was what the teaser seems to reveal about the movie's plot.  We have humans impregnating their "character" into alien avatars, the alien avatars then go out among the aliens and their planet and, I'm guessing, the humans in alien disguise grow to feel they belong there.  I'm also guessing this will put them in conflict with the humans, who obviously want something from the planet/creatures.  Their first attempt to gain whatever it is they want is through this "avatar" system, but now they're content, perhaps, to use military force.  So the alien "avatars" have a choice: To fight for their human side, or side with the aliens.

I'm guessing they side against the vast military industrial complex.

If this is the general plot of the movie (and please note the entire plot synopsis presented above is my speculation and nothing more) then it seems a lot like the plots of quite a few westerns, wherein the "civilized white man" somehow joins the "savage" Indians and, over time, feels he becomes one with them.  Eventually, when the U.S. army and their soldiers come crashing in, the "civilized white man" now fights with his Indian brothers.

But, as I said before, I could be completely wrong here!

Anyway, in case you haven't seen it, the teaser:

Yesterday I posted the trailer of Shutter Island and offered my (negative) opinion of the book's plot.  Today, I found an early review from someone who saw the movie and enjoyed it.  Note that the review is spoiler free:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/20/martin-scorseses-shutter-island-japanese-poster-and-early-reader-review/

As I said before, I read the novel the movie is based on and found it a pretty big misfire.  The book tries hard to present a "Holy shit!" type plot twist but, in the end, it was pretty damn silly.

On the other hand, and as I've said before, I haven't seen the film.  Images from the trailer look quite good, and maybe, just maybe, Martin Scorcese and the screenwriters have made something better out of what was in Lehane's novel.

Here's another review, this time of the book, and it falls close to my views:

http://januarymagazine.com/crfiction/shutterisland.html

The most pertinent line, at least to me:

The driving tempo of this novel seems to evaporate by the end, like the calm after a storm. Lehane drops plenty of clues for his readers, as he leads them toward significant shifts of direction and perspective. However, the big twist on which Lehane's tale ultimately turns is more likely to incite a shrug than a shock. What was once pertinent and compelling is turned into a type of parlor-trick emptiness.

The article below offers seven reasons to do so:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/19/microsoft.windows7.pros/index.html

As I've noted before, I must be one of the very few people who had practically no problem at all with Microsoft's Vista.  However, early word is that Windows 7 is (according to many of those naysayers) a much better system.

I'll see in October!

http://movie-critics.ew.com/2009/08/19/movie-trailers/

Interesting article from Entertainment Weekly online that (very briefly) examines movie trailer's effectiveness.  They present the trailer for the upcoming Martin Scorcese/Leonardo DiCaprio film Shutter Island and the author notes that:

I’ve already seen the trailer for Shutter Island two or three times, and I have no clue about the movie’s story or artistic style.

Well, I've read the Dennis Lehane book the movie was based on and though it pains me to say this...its simply not all that good, in my opinion.  The opening act and setting are intriguing as hell, but once you get to the book's big reveals, the story deflates quicker than a popped balloon.

Of course, I (nor most anyone else) has seen the film yet.  However, I'm assuming, for the trailer gives me no reason to believe this is not the case, that the film and book follow the same general storyline and will feature the same "twist" at the end.

I envy the success of Dennis Lehane.  Already three of his novels have been turned into movies (Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone, and now Shutter Island).  However, while I have all the respect in the world for those first two works, I'm more than a little surprised such big names have attached themselves to Shutter Island.

The book was, again in my opinion, really that weak.

Outland is one of those guilty pleasures of mine.  To begin with, its always cool to see Sean Connery in action, especially in a science fictional setting.  This movie, clearly inspired by the "look" of Alien but borrowing (some might say stealing) the plot of High Noon, features Mr. Connery as O'Niel, a sheriff at a mining station in Io, one of Jupiter's moons.  He runs into some seedy characters and situations and (this is where the High Noon elements kick in), discovers that a group of killers are on their way in the next shuttle to take him down.  The Sheriff tries in vain to enlist help in taking them on, but must do so (mostly) single handedly.

As I said, this movie is a guilty pleasure.  It isn't one of the best sci-fi films ever, but it is entertaining, so long as you don't mind the High Noon plot lifting and the fact that (as sci-fi writer Harlan Ellison so succinctly pointed out) the stupidity of carrying (and shooting!) guns on board a delicate space station...a place where any little puncture in the station's walls can lead to explosive results.

Anyway, Michael Davis, the director of the so-so (IMHO) Shoot 'Em Up, has been tied into a remake of Outland.  A part of me doesn't really care one way or the other...Outland was a decent enough film but not one of those "classics" that the idea of being remade makes me cringe.  On the other hand, we're talking about remaking a film that, effectively, was a stealth remake of another film (albeit set in a far different setting).

On the plus side, if the remake is made, perhaps we can finally expect a decent (Blu Ray) release of the original film, along with lots and lots of extras...

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/18/shoot-em-up-director-michael-davis-to-remake-outland/

One thing that disheartens me about many of the politicians on the left is that they don't seem to have the will to fight.  They meander through many policies and don't appear to have the backbone of those on the right (this is probably the biggest complement I can give them).

However, there are those on the Democratic side who are willing to give as good as they get, and Barney Frank is one of them:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/18/frank.heath.care/index.html

Whether you agree of disagree with current attempts to address the health care issue, I suspect the final product could/would be so much better if the two sides simply talked to each other and worked together to create a policy that (hopefully) serves everyone.

Unfortunately, thus far we've had precious little of that.

On a related an even more distressing level, there are those that have appeared outside the President's events carrying weapons:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1917356,00.html

I've asked this before: What is wrong with these people?  Do they truly believe that displaying firearms somewhere near the President of the United States will somehow bring others to their side?

Intriguing article from CNN examines a theory put forth by researchers at the University of Virginia and the University of Maryland-Baltimore County that global warming may have started with ancient farmers and their methods of clearing forests to plant crops:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/18/ancient.global.warming/index.html

I tend to the agree with the later quotes in the article by Ken Caldeira, however.  While ancient man probably played some role in pumping carbon into the atmosphere, I can't see how that would compare with the amounts being pumped since the late 1800's until today.

Take my comments with a grain of salt, though...I'd be the last person to claim some scientific higher knowledge in this respect!

Of all the thousand books or so I've read in my lifetime, there is only one that I've come back to and actually re-read more than once: Fredric Brown's The Far Cry (1951).

Mr. Brown (1906-1972) is today probably best known as the author whose science fiction story "Arena" was the eventual basis of the same titled Star Trek (the original series) episode.  You know, the one which featured Kirk versus the reptilian Gorn in a death match on a desert world.

In his lifetime, however, Mr. Brown was known for both his science fictional works as well as his mystery novels, and The Far Cry is an example of the later.

The story involves one George Weaver, a man who isn't in the best mental shape.  He and his wife are very heavy drinkers, and Mr. Weaver is recovering from a nervous breakdown.  He is in repose and, at the beginning of the novel, rents a house outside Taos, New Mexico.  In the course of time, he discovers that a young lady was brutally murdered at that house, and that her identity, and that of the murderer, are still unknown nearly a decade later.

Mr. Weaver is soon obsessed with solving the crime.  He is also haunted by his vision of the victim, to the point where one could say he falls for in love with what he feels she was.

Mr. Weaver's obsession leads him into very strange territory indeed, and the novel's conclusion is nothing short of jaw dropping.

I believe all of Mr. Brown's works are now out of print, which is a great shame.  However, if you sniff around Amazon.com (specifically here) you'll find some of his works.  Should you stumble upon any of his novels or collections of short stories in a second hand bookstore, give them a try.  While I haven't read them all, so far I haven't been disappointed.

But the crown jewel of his career, in my opinion, remains The Far Cry.

Hopefully one day this beautiful, haunting murder mystery will again be in print.

Time for another of these wonderful lists I run across here and there.  In this case, Moviefone's 25 worst Hollywood blockbusters.  Films that made a ton of money but many consider bad/terrible entertainment:

http://www.moviefone.com/insidemovies/2009/08/17/worst-blockbusters/

Of the movies listed, major agreement for including Spider-Man 3 (To be honest, as much of a fan of director Sam Raimi's Evil Dead films as I am, the three Spider-Man films have left me rather cold.  The first one was OK, the second was considerably better (easily the best of the lot), but the third was jaw-droppingly horrible.  I would put that film on the level of Batman and Robin, also on the list).

A year or so ago I had a free month of Showtime or HBO or somesuch and the movie Click was on.  I spotted Kate Beckinsale (looking as gorgeous as ever) and gave the film a few minutes.  After a while, I couldn't turn away.  The film was soooo horrible, its plot and "emotions" soooo telegraphed, and Adam Sandler...well, the best you could say is he tried.  And the whole "it was just a dream" ending...gag... (There, I spoiled it for you.  Now you don't have to sit through this mess).

Similar story with Ghost Rider.  Abysmal and laughable at the same time.  Van Helsing, on the other hand (Kate Beckinsale again!) was a migraine inducer.  So many quick cuts, so little logic.  Pretty to look at, though.  The same goes for Pearl Harbor (what, Kate Beckinsale yet again?  What do they have against her?!), Wild Wild West (loved the TV show, but when the cast of the feature film was announced, I immediately got concerned.  For all his considerable charisma, Will Smith was completely wrong for the role of James West), and, lastly, Matrix Revolutions (I would add Matrix: Reloaded, the second of the "trilogy" to the list.  To me, the first film was great, the other two were attempts to create something out of nothing.  The Wachowski brothers (writers and directors of all three films) had a great, original idea with The Matrix.  But they had no follow up, and I think that's abundantly clear when you see the turgid sequels).

I'm a little surprised they didn't include the Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton Cleopatra to the list.  Probably THE first big (enormous, actually) budget extravaganza that had terrible word of mouth, even as the movie was being filmed!  In fact, the studios put down so much money into it they were just about sunk.  When Cleopatra was finally released, critics and audiences weren't impressed.  However, over the years people have taken a kinder view.

As this fascinating article notes, the idea of a space elevator (ie, a platform in orbit that reaches all the way down to Earth and, using a very, very long tether, works as an elevator, taking material/personnel from Earth to orbit and thus avoiding the dangers of rockets and cutting the cost of rising above the gravity pull) has been around for a while.  Famed science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke (2001: A Space Odyssey) even offered an amusing quote regarding the subject:

The idea is at least a century old - and was most famously popularized by science-fiction guru Arthur C. Clarke, who once said the space elevator would succeed "50 years after everyone has stopped laughing."

The idea remains wild, but work is being done to solve some of the problems in the creation of such a device:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/17/2033079.aspx

A space elevator would most certainly be a boon to space travel.  Much of the energy, risk, and cost involved in space travel involves getting a spacecraft (and its cargo and passengers) out of Earth's gravity.  A space elevator, of course, would cut down on these three elements.

If such a device could be manufactured.

I know, I know, in the heading I've mixed up the order of "importance" of the two names.  The article is actually about Leonardo DiCaprio's new film.  However, to me, the most intriguing aspect is that this film also happens to be director Christopher Nolan's (Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Prestige) new film, and that intrigues me a little more.

No, I'm not one of those Leonardo DiCaprio "haters".  I think he's been in some fine films, but neither is he a favorite.

I suppose the same, to some extent, could be said of Christopher Nolan.  I absolutely loved Memento, his first big hit, and have enjoyed his followup films, including the two Batman features.  While none of the subsequent films, IMHO, have measured up to Memento, Mr. Nolan is clearly a smart, talented individual who, unlike many other directors, reaches out and tries to do something different each time out.  The films may not always succeed (The Prestige, for example, was an intriguing work that may not have built to a terrific climax, but gave you plenty to see and consider and was sharply written) but for now I'll be there to check them out:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/08/17/leonardo.dicaprio.movie/index.html

Fascinating article from The New York Times regarding the apparently very real possibility to fabricate DNA evidence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html

As an author, these sort of articles can really fire up my imagination.  The role of DNA evidence in determining the presence of a person/people at the scene of a crime is practically ingrained, certainly considered very, very strong evidence in a court of law.

However, this article suggests that DNA evidence can be fabricated, something which must be very worrisome to those in law enforcement, and perhaps those in other fields as well...

As I said before, I'm a sucker for lists.  In this case, the folks at DVDFile.com have come up with their list of movies they would love to see on Blu Ray (and, in at least one case, even regular DVD) format.

I can't agree with all their choices, but many of them are quite solid:

http://www.dvdfile.com/views/article/dvdfiles-most-wanted-83127

They're quite right regarding Steven Spielberg films on Blu Ray.  Why are so few available?  Jaws would be my number one choice, followed closely by Raiders of the Lost Ark and Saving Private Ryan.

Alfred Hitchcock films on Blu Ray would also be very welcome.  I'm anxiously awaiting the North By Northwest release (coming November 3rd), but there are plenty of others worth releasing in this superior format, from Psycho to Vertigo to Rear Window, etc. etc. etc.

I'd also agree that it would be nice if they released some 1980's classics like Escape From New York, The Blues Brothers, and Aliens on Blu Ray.  However, regarding that later film, I'm much more fond of Alien.  I'd kill to see that one in high definition!

Not on the list but a pair of films I would love to see on Blu Ray:

Metropolis (1927):  First and foremost on my most wanted list would be this legendary work by director Fritz Lang.  A stunning film that after its premiere was cut down.  Since then and until a 16mm copy was found just this past year in South America, the full cut was thought lost forever.  At about that time, Kino was to release a Blu Ray version of their restored (but incomplete) copy.  However, since the director's cut was found, they understandably canceled that release and, I'm hoping, will release the full version soon. (and, for this completist's sake, include the Giorgio Moroder version as well, please?)

Nosferatu (1922): If you've read some of my previous posts, I'm at risk of sounding like a scratched record here, but this film is THE best vampire movie ever made, IMHO.  I would love to see it in High Definition.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/16/warner-bros-to-remake-brewsters-millions/

I'm a pretty big fan of Walter Hill's movies.  His early ones, anyway.

Among my favorites (that he directed) are The Warriors (avoid the "Director's Cut".  Alas, the original theatrical cut is better, IMHO), The Driver (One of my favorites, although I read somewhere that the lead role was originally written for Steve McQueen.  I suspect had he taken the role, the film would today be considered a classic.  Ryan O'Neal, however, was quite good, as was Bruce Dern), The Long Riders, Southern Comfort (yeah, it was very derivative of Deliverance, but still, it was pretty good), 48 Hours (the original but not the sequel.  Regarding the sequel: Ugh), and Streets of Fire (perhaps THE best Michael Pare film ever, and an early appearance of Diane Lane).

The film that Walter Hill followed Streets of Fire with, alas, was Brewster's Millions, a film that, despite its cast (Richard Pryor and John Candy were the leads), I found a crushing, humorless bore.  It was from that point on that Walter Hill's directorial output became more hit and miss (sadly, more miss than hit).  Mind you, I don't blame the movie for Mr. Hill's subsequent lesser quality features, but then again...

Anyway, as the article above states, there may be plans to remake the film.  They can't go anywhere but up!

I'm finding this bit of news all over the place, a tribute to Kiss' (and Wal-Mart's) PR machine.  It's been a while, at least to me, since Kiss mattered all that much (I have at least one friend who will cry "heresy!" to that!)

However, in the interests of informing those who do appreciate (and are eager to get) new works from Kiss, here's the information on their latest release:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1916844,00.html

If I were a fan of their work, I'd admit the package they're selling certainly sounds attractive.  A CD of new material, a CD of old material re-done, and a live CD to boot?  Good stuff.

If you're a fan!

When the movie first came out, I wanted to see it.  What could be better than Clint Eastwood in a cranky, tough guy role?  Alas, never found the time to see it, so when it rolled out on DVD, picked it up and...once again didn't find the time to see it.

Until now.

Good film, and it seems to continue Mr. Eastwood's later day conversion from man of brutal action to man who favors peace (but can certainly be pushed into action) that started, perhaps, with The Unforgiven.

Mr. Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski (his character's name made me wonder if we're supposed to think of another character named Kowalski, this one driving around in a 1970 Dodge Challenger in the movie Vanishing Point).  Kowalski's wife just died, his neighborhood is becoming filled with "foreigners", he cannot connect with his family, is cranky as hell, and coughs blood now and again.

The story focuses on Kowalski's return to humanity at, paradoxically, the tail end of his life.  He is a bigot, but (in one of the only real negatives I could point at regarding this film) really a "movie" bigot: All mouth but doesn't mean anything personal.  It's just the way his generation is.

He comes into contact with his next door neighbors' kid in a stressful situation (the kid's cousin wants him to join his gang and tells him his initiation to this club involves stealing Kowalski's mint condition 1972 Grand Torino), but soon lowers his guard and realizes he relates to these people more than his own family.

To say more would be spoilery, but there is action (though not as much as hinted by the poster, which shows an angry Clint Eastwood carrying a vintage Korean War rifle) and absolutely no car chases.  In fact, for much of the movie only parts of the Grand Torino are shown, and only on two occasions do we actually see the vehicle run.  The later observations, by the way, reveal more about my frame of mind before watching the film than anything else!

Still, a solid feature from Mr. Eastwood, never dull and with a good message about getting along.  If indeed this is Mr. Eastwood's swan song from acting, he chose a good (ahem) vehicle.

I've been eager to pick up the Blu Ray, High Definition Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan for a while now, but it was only available in boxed sets either alongside Star Trek III and IV (these three movies amount to a trilogy) or the larger set featuring the first through the sixth films.

However, my interest was in STII because it, unlike the other films, was digitally restored while the others were digitally remastered (there is a difference in quality, with the former the better overall product).  I would also add that I was hesitant to buy the version of Star Trek the Motion Picture available in the later set, as this presented the theatrical cut of the film.  I much prefer the director's cut which came some time later but which requires the studios to make new special effects as those made for the DVD were in lower resolution.

Anyway, come September 22, and should you be interested, you can purchase the following Star Trek films individually.  Not all of the films will be available, but the one I'm most curious about is.  Below are the Amazon listings:

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan ($20.49)

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ($20.49)

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country ($20.99)

Star Trek VIII: First Contact ($13.49) (!!)

Don't know why First Contact is priced so low, but if you're a fan of the Next Generation films, this is easily the best of the lot.

Interesting article about the possibility that the days of "classic" cars (defined in this article as the cars that tend to show up at shows, usually sporting plenty of gas powered muscle) are gone:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32430516/ns/business-autos/

While I believe the days of the gas powered muscle engines are over, there's no reason to believe, even with the advent of electric powered systems, that a new generation of beautiful, sexy, and muscular cars won't eventually show up on the market.

The big difference, of course, will be that these cars will be much quieter!

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=0,0

Author 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%2F

When 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.html

Their 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.htm

I'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...

Found this story regarding the upcoming storyline featuring a "future" Archie proposing and marrying "future" Veronica, and how his choice irks at least one reader to the point where he's selling his copy of the very first Archie comic.

The man's a fan of Betty, obviously!

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7404&eeid=6750818&_sitecat=1479&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=2&ck=&ch=en&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+en+topnews&ck=&l=hm

Many years ago, I used to enjoy the Archie comics.  To this day, however, one of my strongest memories involves not the Archie book, but the 1954 Mad magazine parody of Archie, "Starchie".  I read that story in one of the many reprint "Special Editions" Mad Magazine released either in the late 1970's or into the 1980's, and its stuck with me ever since.  It could well be the walking definition of a "savage" parody.

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