Based on the Amazon.com reviews (check them out here), I seem to be in the majority regarding my delight with the new Batman: Arkham Asylum video game.  It's been a while since I bought any computer games, and in the past two weeks I've purchased two: Wolfenstein (two weeks ago) and Batman: Arkham Asylum (last week).

Wolfenstein comes from the company that once electrified the gaming world with their DOOM games.  Alas, Wolfenstein, while fun, is more of the same, without much new (at least that I've stumbled upon).

B:AA, on the other hand, is everything the hype lead you to believe it would be.  This is a MASSIVE game, with games within games within games, and a storyline that would make any comic book fan happy.

If there is one quibble, it is this: The game seems to want desperately to be an "R" rated version of Batman.  However, its obvious that editorial decisions were made to not go quite that far, but at times the boundary is skirted, and it is jarring.  Now, I could be wrong, but didn't one of the characters at one point referred to Harley Quinn as a "bitch"?  Not the worst word in the vocabulary, but still...

Also, there's a segment where Dr. Zsasz holds a female doctor hostage.  He has a knife to her neck and, if as Batman you don't take him out the right way, the game abruptly shifts to the Joker laughing and noting Dr. Zsasz killed his hostage.  But the graphic shift is so abrupt that I can't help but wonder if the programmers made that grisly death sequence, then wisely chose to...uh...cut it out.  Granted, this sequence (if indeed it ever existed) may have been removed, but you're still left to imagine the gory details of what just occurred.  Only seconds later, when you successfully get past this point, the same hostage character meets an explosive end, and this one is presented visually.

Further, there are many dead people on the grounds (police) as well and a fitting sense of horror given that we're trapped in an asylum.

So, I recommend the game, but would caution parents regarding allowing their younger ones to play.  This is most certainly not the Batman animated show come to life.

I'm not a huge fan of "reality" shows, especially those involving a race or contest for something and set in the real world.  The real world, alas, is not a studio, where almost all elements can be controlled.  In the real world, you can fall and break a bone.  You can get a cut and it becomes infected.  You can cross the street a little too quickly, caught in the adrenaline of the show's chase, and not see the car bearing down on you...

In Pakistan, a reality TV show contestant died during one of the show's challenges:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/30/saad-khan-pakistan-realit_n_272335.html

Reading about the challenge horrifies me.  Asking someone to swim across a lake carrying a weighted backpack?  As the article notes:

Reality television shows often subject contenders to harsh physical challenges.

I'd say.

For those interested, Seth Rogan Green Hornet film's release has been pushed back:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/30/the-green-hornet-release-pushed-back-five-months/

The release points out all the positives regarding the move (which leads me to think the studio released the text), including more time for post-production and the ability to show up at next year's San Diego Con with more than the "car".

You know, I never was a HUGE Green Hornet fan.  I enjoyed the TV show (especially to see the late Bruce Lee as Kato), and I'm curious, to a degree, about this project.  But Seth Rogan in the lead role gives me considerable pause.  He's a good comedic actor, but I don't know if he can fill this particular role (count me among those who were hesitant about the announcement, many years ago, of Michael Keaton being Bruce Wayne in the Tim Burton's Batman film...in the end he proved to be decent in the role, although I felt the Burton Batman films were great eye candy but not such good films).

Further, is The Green Hornet meant to be a serious action film?  An Action/comedy?  A Comedy/action?  A comedic goof?

I wonder...

Interesting article from CNN regarding an apparent new look by police of the death forty years ago of Brian Jones, founder of the Rolling Stones (at the time of his death, he had left the band).

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/08/31/brian.jones.death/index.html

While I know way too little about the case to offer any sort of comments (other than lazy guesses), its intriguing to hear about this.  For years Mr. Jones cause of death (drowning in his pool) was questioned, and now perhaps a fresh look at the facts of the case might provide some clarity.

On the other hand, it has been 40 years, and while the evidence that was accumulated back then can be looked at with fresh eyes, personal memories of people in and around Mr. Jones' circles may be hazy.

I'll be curious to read the results.

I had a list similar to this one (link is here) but that list featured movies that made money and were considered pretty crappy.  This list offers films that were probably projected to be blockbusters, given a big budget, and flopped.  Big time.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1919073_1919196,00.html

I believe the only film that both lists share is Wild Wild West.  This might be because it did earn over $100 million (which you would think would make it a "blockbuster" in terms of earnings) but it cost a lot more than that to make.  I wonder if, when all is said and done, Will Smith doesn't become known more for that particular movie than any of his other, more successful ones (sometimes, the bad simply outweighs the good).

Still a fun juxtaposition of lists, both featuring a gaggle of films one could justifiably call crap, although one list featured films that made money and were crap, the other that didn't make money and were crap.

I don't know what to say about this, other than the fact that...India had a moon orbiter?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/30/india.moon.mission/index.html

All jokes aside, its interesting that other countries are getting in to the space race while the U.S. appears to be at somewhat of a standstill, grappling with what they should do next.

Crude, nasty, vulgar...yet...amusing:

And most of them are quite amusing:

http://open.salon.com/blog/bob_eckstein/2009/08/21/cartoons_nobody_will_see_back_to_the_drawing_board_2

Interesting article from /Film.  Seems producer Joel Silver is interested in making a new Swamp Thing film...in 3D?

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/28/joel-silver-may-revive-swamp-thing-in-3d/

I found it curious the author of the article thought this new movie might use the Alan Moore penned issues as the basis of its plot (might be more wishful thinking than anything else, as Mr. Silver doesn't state where he's going...Frankly, I think a good version of the original work by Len Wein and Berni Wrightson would be terrific, although the first Swamp Thing movie went there...)

Spotted this on the Miami Herald today.

Normally, don't care all that much about Jamie Foxx one way or the other (His movies are only so-so for me.  Perhaps his best feature was Collateral, but director Michael Mann has done better, IMHO), but this interview, the link presented below, features a curious response to the final question:

http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/people/story/1207539.html

The question asked was regarding upcoming projects, to which Mr. Foxx replied (the emphasized lines are by me):

I'm working on the movie Valentine's Day. It's got Jessica Alba, Shirley Maclaine, Queen Latifah, Julia Roberts, Hector Elizondo -- just about everybody. It's about all these stories that happen on Valentine's Day. Some people like it, some people don't. I don't like it. My character is this sports guy, an ESPN guy, and he's had a couple break-ups, so he doesn't like it so much. But there's a little bit of a twist. You gotta watch it.

I point the line above because in its context, at least to me, the meaning was incredibly unclear...Is Mr. Foxx saying some people like his new movie and some people don't, and Mr. Foxx is in the later camp?  Is it conceivable that an actor would have the balls to put down a film he's working on?

I had to read that line a few more times before it made sense: The characters in the Valentine's Day film either like the holiday or they don't.  His (Jamie Foxx's character) doesn't like the holiday, and there's a bit of a twist and...

Whew.

Now I can get back to the urgent business of life!

For those interested in The Beatles, you must know that soon their every one of their albums will be re-released, cleaned up and remastered, both in stereo and mono mixes.  I'm curious as to the quality of the cleaned up material, and based on this report, it might prove to be quite special:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2009-08-27-beatles-remastered_N.htm

Now that his WWII film is a hit, Tarantino is all over the place.  Here, he presents his list of five favorite WWII films.  They're pretty good choices:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32589447/ns/entertainment-movies/

If I were to broaden the list a little, I'd add:

Patton - George C. Scott is absolutely electrifying in the title role.  The film is big, REALLY big, and boasts a terrific script co-written by Francis Ford Coppola.

The Longest Day - Speaking of big, this movie boasts a cast you simply have to see to believe.  Granted, the subject matter is presented in a far more tame way compared to Saving Private Ryan (that tackled D-Day as well and would also make this sub-list), but it's still worth watching.

The following movies are meant to be pure entertainment, and while set in WWII, present very fictional plots:

The Guns of Navarone and Where Eagles Dare - Both films are based on novels by Alistair MacLean, an author who, during his lifetime was pretty hot but whose interest diminished after his death in 1987 (as of this writing, I don't think any of his novels are in print in the United States).  Regardless, both movies are pretty damn good, the former featuring an all star cast headed by Gregory Peck, the later featuring the oddball (but effective) pairing of Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood.

And finally, still speaking of Clint Eastwood, I have to again mention Kelly's Heroes.  A pretty big cast surrounds Mr. Eastwood, making this his only ensemble film (although he's still the star).  The plot involves U.S. soldiers trying to loot a bank on the enemy side.  It's a WWII comedy, believe it or not, and a pretty damn funny one to boot (of all of Mr. Eastwood's comedies, I think this is the best).

A quick add-on: How could I forget about John Frankenheimer's excellent The Train?  An absolutely stunning film featuring Burt Lancaster cast as a French underground fighter (this is the movie's only real debit...I had a difficult time imagining Mr. Lancaster as being a French) versus Nazis intent on taking their art loot back to Berlin.  A nailbiter with some serious, and heavy messages about the value of human life versus the value of high art.

It's been making the news since yesterday, a girl kidnapped when she was 11 years old was found eighteen years later.  Other than the very good news that she's alive, the fact of the matter is that what happened to her during the past eighteen years can only be described as horrifying:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32583149/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

My heart goes out to her and her children and family.

For those who are interested in picking up Terminator: Salvation when it arrives on DVD and are curious as to what's in the "Director's Cut", here is a link to an article at /Films that explores what might be there:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/26/mpaa-rates-terminator-salvation-directors-cut-r-for-some-violence-and-brief-nudity/

The bottom line appears to be some nudity and violence, which pumps the PG-13 film up to an R rating.  I have yet to see the film, but when it does arrive on Blu Ray, I'll check out the price and make a decision from there.

While the film earned generally mediocre reviews, it still did pretty decent box office numbers and there are plenty of people defending the film's merits.

At the very least, I'm curious as to what's there.  We'll see.

Interesting article from USA Today.  Steven Spielberg is developing a film version of the soon to be released, posthumously of course, Michael Crichton novel Pirate Latitudes.

I've noted my admiration for Steven Spielberg before.  Duel, his first big hit, was the first film I recall sitting through and watching from start to end and understanding what I was seeing.  It wasn't until years later I realized this was because the film was originally conceived as a silent film.  While there is dialogue within the finished project, it is mostly redundant.  Still, the film remains one of my all time favorites and is an obvious early thematic take of Jaws.

As for Michael Crichton, I'm somewhat a fan.  I think the man was capable of coming up with some truly brilliant ideas, but his novels were at times good and at times pretty mediocre, at least to me.  I loved The Andromeda Strain and The Terminal Man (two rather early novels subsequently made into feature films).  I liked the ideas behind Jurassic Park, Rising Sun, and Prey, but the novels themselves were, at least to me, only so-so.  At times Mr. Crichton seemed intent on preaching certain philosophies or worldviews rather than offering satisfying entertainment (His novel State of Fear, for example, pushed a little too strongly an anti-global warming message and failed, at least to me, as entertainment).  Of his movies, Westworld and The Great Train Robbery are my favorites.

Regardless, I'm always curious to see new films from Mr. Spielberg.  The idea of making a more "grounded in reality" pirate film intrigues me:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-08-26-spielberg-crichton_N.htm

This list comes from Time Magazine, and more than a few of the entries are doozies.

Particularly liked the first one, on the link below, as well as the camera that featured some rather...interesting...images still on its memory card:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1918340_1918344_1918380,00.html

Stumbled across this website that includes some spoilery material regarding the upcoming Christopher Nolan directed (and starring Leonardo DiCaprio) Inception:

http://incontention.com/?p=12388

Before you click, however, be forewarned: There are some SPOILERS here, although how real this information is is, for now, unclear.  It may be right, then again...

If it is for real...(click on the comments below)...

Ok, so the first article I presented (just below) was something of a lemon.

Hope this one makes up for it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32541960/ns/entertainment-movies//

This article from msnbc by Troy Brownfield offers a look at the influences stiff felt seventy years after the release of The Wizard of Oz.  I find this article fascinating, and I think it hits many targets quite correctly.

Particularly fascinating is his analysis of the movie's influence on the original Star Wars.  Although clearly Star Wars was inspired by Kurasawa's The Hidden Fortress and Flash Gordon and the character of C3P0 looked an awful lot like the Maria robot from Metropolis (don't take my word for it, look below), I can't deny that there are echos of The Wizard of Oz in Star War's general plot, and Mr. Brownfield certainly nails those similarities.

A fascinating article, if you're interested.

A moderately amusing article from CNN about actors and some of the worst audition experiences they've had:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/24/stars.audition.nightmares/index.html#cnnSTCText

In all honesty, I was somewhat underwhelmed by what the particular actors stated.  I suspect in part they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, but the stories presented here seemed rather...tame.

Still, worth a look.

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!