With the imminent arrival of the remastered Beatles catalogue (I've seen the mono-set, which is pretty much a rarity to find now, being sold for upwards of $700!!) and the Rock Band game, Entertainment Weekly devotes their next issue to the lads from Liverpool and offers their choices for best Beatles song ever...but the link is more an advertisement for this upcoming list:

http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/09/03/beatles-remasters-top-50/

It got me to thinking...Do I have a favorite all time Beatles song?

The short answer is no.  To me, they had so many great songs that to pick out just one is an impossibility.  Among my top ten favorites, and in no particular order:

Hey Jude
Revolution (single version)
Helter Skelter
She Said She Said
Tomorrow Never Knows
Michelle
Here Comes the Sun
Yesterday
Let It Be
A Day In the Life

Not a particularly surprising list, I'm sure.  I doubt there's anyone out there who wouldn't find at least a couple of those songs above on their "best of the Beatles" list.

But there are two songs that I absolutely love but I've never heard of them refered to as among the Beatles' best: Abbey Road's Golden Slumbers (I love love love that song...the emotion of Paul's voice, the almost fairy tale lyrics) and John Lennon's single Rain (another terrific piece of work, which featured some stunning drums by Ringo).

I'm sure every Beatles fan, however, has their idea of what's best!

At first I figured that, given the grim subject matter, the decision was made to hold its release until sometime after the more festive Christmas season.  When the movie didn't show up in the following months, I had other suspicions, mainly that it probably wasn't all that good.  Perhaps this is another film like City of Industry (which I reviewed just yesterday): A well cast, well acted film that, unfortunately, doesn't build up to anything particularly memorable.

This early review I found seems to confirm that suspicion:

http://incontention.com/?p=12972#more-12972

...as per Newsweek:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/popvox/archive/2009/08/31/the-biggest-box-office-summer-ever-a-recap.aspx

Not much to add, though I'm intrigued that Sacha Baron Cohen is listed as the first summer box office "loser".  Granted, Borat earned far more than this summer's Bruno, yet the later film, which like Borat probably cost very, very little to make, nonetheless pulled in $137 million.

I suppose its the fact that Mr. Cohen's first movie made so much more that makes him a "loser".

(Oh, and just to point out: I have seen neither Borat (which sits on my "to be seen" DVD shelf) nor Bruno, so can offer no opinion on the quality of either film)

One of those human interest stories you can't help but read, about a 91 year old woman from Orlando, Florida and her car, which she's had for 45 years (its a 1964 Mercury Comet Caliente) and has racked up an impressive 559,000 miles.

The link features a video segment, so you can see the whole thing as well as read about it:

http://autos.aol.com/article/rachel-veitch-old-car

I like film noir films.  I like Harvey Keitel in film noir films.  City of Industry presents both and, as a bonus, features a cast that includes notable names such as Timothy Hutton, Stephen Dorff, Famkee Jannson, Elliot Gould (his role is really a one scene cameo, but you wish there was more) and, in a pretty early movie role for her, Lucy Liu (her screen credit is Lucy Alexis Liu), and you figure this is a can't miss, right?

Sadly, this is not the case, although the film is reasonably entertaining for the first half.

The setup is film noir 101: A four man heist team assembles, plots their target, executes the theft, then one of them (look at the cast above and take a wild guess which one) betrays the others, kills them all except one (again, look at the cast above and guess which one), and the survivor swears bloody vengeance.

Again, sounds pretty good.

But the film runs out of gas somewhere half-way through, resorting to a silly damsel(s) in distress scenario before the final confrontation between bad guy and badder guy.

Keitel is rock solid as Roy Egan, the movie's protagonist, but his character is unfortunately far from three dimensional.  He moves from scene to scene, closing in on his prey, while his prey fights back with the tools at his disposal.

The movie's main sin, as mentioned above, is that somewhere between here and there the film runs out of steam and we know where we're going and we're just waiting for the film to get there.  Further, the villain's betrayal, the movie's central plot point, is presented as an almost spur of the moment decision.  Perhaps this is meant to explain how he inexplicably is unable to wipe out every one of his teammates while in the tight confines of a cheap trailer and with him being the only one carrying a gun.

So, in the end, City of Industry is a well made, well acted film that nonetheless fizzles rather than burns.

As I said before, I love lists, and the folks at dvdfile.com have provided a great list of rock n' roll music available on the formats.

Seems someone other than me really loves the music of David Bowie...

http://www.dvdfile.com/views/article/rock-n-roll-on-dvdbd-84315

By the way, if you're curious about David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust "last show we'll ever do" moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-G1Uy0OkCw

If you've seen all those "Fall Film" guides (I know I have!) here is another guide, that of books coming out in fall.  Some big names are included:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2009-09-02-fall-books-main_N.htm

At least some reason for optimism regarding Jaycee Dugard comes from this report by NBC about Jaycee Dugard and her daughters.  Jaycee Dugard, of course, was kidnapped at the age of 11 in 1991 by Phillip Garrido.  Until only a few days ago, she was held captive.

A couple of days ago I offered a link to an article regarding the new Beatles remastered albums.  Looks like they've already sold out on Amazon:

http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/09/01/beatles-sold-out-amazon/

The one I'm most curious about is the mono versions, as those were originally the versions the Beatles worked on the hardest (stereo was not as widely used until shortly before the band broke up).

On the other hand, I've listened to these albums and songs an awful lot of times, and I don't know if I want to spend the money on them again.  Make no mistake, their work is great (although I tend to like the Beatles material from Rubber Soul to their breakup), but, as I said, I don't know if these new mixes will somehow reinvent the songs completely for me.

We'll see.

The first one, for very obvious reasons, has been making the rounds in national (and I'm certain international) news.  It concerns Phillip Garrido, the very, very sick individual who in 1991 abducted 11 year old Jaycee Lee Dugard and, over the course of the following years until just a few days ago, held her in his backyard and raped her repeatedly (she bore 2 kids by him).

What's adds even more disturbing elements to this already incredibly disturbing case is the fact that Mr. Garrido was a registered sex offender and was being monitored, both by ankle bracelets and by parole officers, during the years he held Jaycee...and apparently not one of the agencies involved in checking him out realized he held the poor girl captive.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/01/california.garrido.monitoring/index.html

A second, perhaps just as heartbreaking case involves Diane Schuler, who while carrying five children in her car, drove the wrong way on New York's Taconic Parkway and hit another car head on.  It resulted in the deaths of Mrs. Schuler, four of the children in her car, and three adults in the vehicle she ran into.

The curious element of this story is that toxicology results show that Mrs. Schuler had both high levels of alcohol and evidence of marijuana use in her system, yet friends and family, including the husband, say there was never any evidence of her abusing either.  Further, she was seen shortly before the accident at a fast food restaurant and appeared to be fine, according to witnesses.

But the reality, at least to me, lies in the autopsy results.  I feel for both the husband and for the family in the other car, but in the end, and unless something was seriously botched in the examination, the evidence proves that Mrs. Schuler did abuse alcohol and that she likely was impaired when she had that horrific accident.

Perhaps Mrs. Schuler hid her problems only too well.  Regardless, I sympathize with the husband, who, if the evidence does indeed prove irrefutable, didn't know his wife as well as he thought.  I also sympathize with all the victims involved.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/09/01/new.york.wrong.way.driver/index.html

As I said before, a pair of heartbreaking cases.

Very humorous posting.  Very little for me to add...just click the link!

http://scifiwire.com/2009/08/how-twilight-should-have.php

An interesting list of ten famous people who disappeared (at least two on the list were found...one, unfortunately, dead, the other came out of hiding):

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1846670_1846800,00.html

I didn't know about a few of these, and found the whole thing fascinating in a morbid way.  Of course, you have the obvious ones (Jimmy Hoffa and Amelia Earhart), but the lesser known people are equally, if not more, fascinating.

In this age of the internet, paper grows expensive.  Sending out email bills doesn't cost companies nearly as much as printing them on paper then mailing them.

So, what to do?  T-Mobile has a solution: Bill the consumers for their (paper) bills!

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/09/rob-connor-of-charleston-sc-watches-his-bills-carefully-so-hes-pretty-steamed-that-soon-hes-going-to-have-to-pay-for-th.html#posts

I think that T-Mobile is going about this the wrong way.  They should give a $1.50 credit to anyone that uses the email billing services, not charge people who receive their bills via regular mail.

Much nicer PR that way.

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.