Rafe Needleman at CNET offers some great comments regarding all the upgrades that hit computer users every few years.  He's prompted to write this article, of course, because of the brand new Windows 7.

Thus far I've upgraded several computers, mine and other family members (legally!!!) with the new Windows 7 and have had only one major/minor problem thus far.  I'm happy with Windows 7, although I've noted before that Vista, at least to me, was never quite the clunky OS that others seemed to so intensely dislike.  On the other hand, Windows 7 operates quicker and has a few interesting new features (my favorite is their much improved search function).

But, having said that, I'd be lying if I said that this version of Windows is some radically improved operating system.  It is an improved, perhaps even much improved, version of Vista, but an improvement (not a complete reworking) nonetheless.

So why force us to pay for an upgrade?

And this is the crux of Mr. Needleman's article, which also goes after OS X Snow Leopard.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/30/upgrade.pricing/index.html

Interesting article from UK's The Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

I'm always fascinated by critics and their reactions to whatever it is they are reviewing.  Opinions vary, of course, and sometimes people's opinions change over time (I recall two interesting instances in Siskel & Ebert's At the Movies review show.  In the first, they reviewed both Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and Benji: The Hunted on the same episode.  If memory serves, Mr. Siskel was incredulous when Mr. Ebert gave Benji a "thumbs up" but panned Full Metal Jacket.  Mr. Siskel couldn't understand Mr. Ebert's reasoning, that Benji was a satisfactory movie "for its intended audience" but that Kubrick's Vietnam War film was a miss.  Later on, the duo had an episode that, again if memory serves, focused on films they were wrong about the first time around.  Mr. Siskel admitted that he was wrong when he originally panned another great Vietnam War epic, Apocalypse Now).

Which brings us to this article from Owen Gleibman, for Entertainment Weekly.  He originally panned the vampire film Let The Right One In, a film that has apparently developed a very healthy cult status, and decided after receiving plenty of irate comments regarding that original review, to give the film a second chance.  Did he like it this time around?  See for yourself:

http://movie-critics.ew.com/2009/10/31/let-the-right-one-in-yes-i-saw-it-again/

Of the many, many films I've seen, there are probably only two of them I can say I truly changed my mind 180 degrees from my original impressions.  When I first saw Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, I was unimpressed.  For years I thought this film was the single most over-rated Hitchcock film ever.  And even back then I was a pretty big fan of Hitchcock's films!

One day, I saw the film once again and, suddenly, I "got it".  This film was Alfred Hitchcock's version of all those 50's "giant animals attack" movies that came before.  Only instead of using a giant, scary creature (like a tarantula, an octopus, ants, etc.) he used a common creature that most view as completely not scary. Further, he didn't bother having the animals irradiated or enlarged: They retained their size and only presented a threat because of their overwhelming numbers.  Lastly, Mr. Hitchcock ended the film the opposite way that the other creatures on the loose films ended: With a decidedly downbeat end of the world scenario.  Chilling!

The other film I originally didn't like, but has over time become (yes) perhaps my all time favorite horror film is Stanley Kubrick's The Shining.  When it was originally released in 1980, I went with my father to see it.  Frankly, I was bored.  The scares were there, but there were so few, and Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall were so weird and annoying.

But then, the show kept popping up on TV, and I would catch bits and pieces of it here and there.  Years after, I finally sat down and watched it from start to end and, like The Birds, I finally got it.  Watching The Shining is like dipping into an eerie, creepy nightmare.  A great, great movie.

Fascinating article about the work of Axel Mellinger of Central Michigan University, who took 3000 photographs and traveled far and wide to create a terrific composite picture of the night sky...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33552821/ns/technology_and_science-space/

If the morning/early afternoon are any indication, it's going to be a weird one.

Keep safe!

Halloween is upon us, and articles concerning horror movies and the odd are popping up.  This one is particularly intriguing, an article concerning abandoned places (there are even websites devoted to showing images from such places.  They're described in the article and I'll have to look them over.

There's something so sad, and intriguing (at least to me) about abandoned places:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33421753/ns/travel-destinations/

The article reminds me of the movie Carnival of Souls.  It featured the abandoned (and very stunning) Saltair Pavillion, and is a worthy cult movie (although, like many older films, the "punch" and "surprise" of its plot/ending may be a little softened by the passage of time and other, similar films that followed.

Still, very much worth a look.

It's a sure sign that a show is starting to lose it with me when I take longer and longer to get to it on the DVR.

But, to be fair, episodes 5 & 6 of FlashForward ("Gimme Some Truth" and the obviously David Bowie title inspired "Scary Monsters and Super Creeps") weren't all that bad.

They weren't all that exceptional, either.

"Gimme Some Truth" had our leads go to Washington to face a committee and, essentially, justify their salaries and/or budget.  They faced a harsh Senator who saw herself as President in her FlashForward and who has some "history", none of it nice, with Agent Wedeck, the boss of the FBI division in L.A.  By the end of that episode, she's one step closer to her future, and while the agency has its funds to continue their research into the cause of the FlashForward, they've also made some powerful enemies, not least of which is the actual, current President of the United States.  The episode ends on a cliffhanger, as simultaneous attacks are made on the FBI group, both in Washington D.C. (where the bulk of the FBI agents are) and in L.A., where Agent Hawk is ambushed and shot.

"Scary Monsters and Super Creeps" takes up where the previous episode left off, with Agent Hawk clinging to life and coming out of her operation possibly unable to fulfill her FlashForward.  This proved, at least to me, the most irritating aspect of this episode.  The rest of the episode had the Benford's visited by the man who may cause their marriage to disintegrate (and who, secretly, is apparently part of the group that caused the FlashForward event), and the prolonged appearance of Dominic Monaghan's Simon, the other member of the group that set off the event.

Now, the two episodes flowed well enough and they certainly were better than episode 4.  I'm still sticking around with it, but I hope they start ramping up the story and direction a little better.  It would also help if they don't present very famous songs re-worked by lesser talents (Not only did we have a...uh...new version of "Scary Monsters", but also "Across the Universe".  Neither was all that good).

I also tried to see last week's Dollhouse, but...I don't know.  I just can't take the show anymore.  After five minutes I shut it down.  At this point in time, I don't think I'm coming back.

Yeah, like I never said that before...

I don't know...kind of a hit and miss list, if you ask me:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20310838_20316311,00.html

One film that I've always had a fondness for (and not too many people, at least today know about) is The Abonimable Dr. Phibes (the movie was successful enough in its time to merit a sequel, Dr. Phibes Rises Again.  It was decent enough, but the original was the better one).  If you're lucky, you may still be able to find the DVD with both movies on it.

A macabre time to be had by all!

If you've seen my list of 14 films to see (click here) you'll know that my first three (and top three) films of all time are 2001: A Space Odyssey, Orphee, and....Metropolis (ha!  Bet that last little bit of information took you completely by surprise!).

For those who don't know, Metropolis (1927) is a legendary silent German science fictional film directed by the equally legendary Fritz Lang.  When the film was originally made, it was very expensive and maybe a bit too long (at least to the studios, who were eager, naturally to recoup their cash).  Following the premiere, which featured the director's cut of the film, other hands went to work cutting the film down, time-wise.

As the decades passed, various versions of the film were available, but the "director's" original cut was nowhere to be found and feared lost forever.  Until the mid eighties, you could only find very scratchy bootlegs of the film.  Then, Giorgio Moroder released his version of the film, which included some lost scenes and a (to me anyway) pretty damn good 80's soundtrack (your feelings about this soundtrack may vary, but I enjoyed it).

However, this only increased my interest in seeing the version of the film Fritz Lang himself created.  A couple of years ago Kino films released the, up until that time, more complete version of the film, but even that version featured some "information cards" describing scenes thought lost forever.

Until last year, when to the surprise of everyone a complete 16 mm copy of Metropolis was finally found in Buenos Aires.  Since that time, I've been eagerly waiting to hear word of the fully restored version of this favorite film of mine.  Well, it appears we're getting close to that day:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/10/29/the-lost-cut-of-metropolis-to-play-at-the-berlinale/

Kino was, if memory serves, planning to release a Blu-Ray edition of the film when the uncut version was found...I'm hoping this Blu-Ray edition will follow shortly afterwards (and how about they include the Giorgio Moroder version, as well?!)...

A little while back (you can read it here) I mentioned I was a big fan of author Michael Connelly.  His latest novel, 9 Dragons, is out (I have it, but haven't read it yet) and the author, while researching Hong Kong for the novel, afterwards discovered he was in the area when an apparent crime was committed that has some similarities to what he was writing.

The article follows:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/29/michael.connelly.fact.fiction/index.html

My heart goes out to the family of Ani Ashekiar.

As for Mr. Connelly's novel, as a fan of his writing I'm eager to read it, but the reviews have been pretty divergent.  The critic at Entertainment Weekly wasn't too impressed at all with the novel (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20310556,00.html).  However, other reviewers (like the one here: http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/story/1301193.html) felt it was one of his best books.

I'll offer my opinion after I read it!

The show's had its ups and downs (I feel that the first half of season 1 remains its best hours) and ridiculous moments (LA being nuked, yet no one seemingly reacting; terrorists somehow swimming under and into the White House), but damn if the sight of Kiefer Sutherland locking horns with terrorists doesn't get my blood pumping.

If there is one thing I hope, though, is that they offer some kind of resolution to the whole Tony Almeida situation.  It was fun seeing him again last season, but they left his status too "up in the air".  Hope he makes a return and redemption...

Admit it, you're curious (and, no, it wasn't either Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson):

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-10-28-forbes-richest_N.htm

I've read a few reviews (including those you can find on the Amazon.com listing of the movie), and I've been curious if the differences between the regular DVD release and this new Blu-Ray made upgrading worth your while.  Some have said, enthusiastically, yes.

This review, however, is a little more tempered:

http://www.dvdfile.com/reviews/review/the-prisoner-the-complete-series-bd-88961

I'll likely get the upgrade, as it appears this is the best you're going to get for now (and The Prisoner remains my all time favorite TV show).  But some of the negatives presented in this review are troubling.

Ah well...

...too funny!

...So I'm walking through Target, seeing if maybe, just maybe they have the brand spanking new and highly desired (at least by me) blu-ray edition of The Prisoner (they didn't), and what do I see?

Why, the DVD of Zack and Miri.

Wait a minute...wasn't the Kevin Smith comedy film actually called Zack and Miri Make a Porno?  That's what IMDB calls it.  So I checked on Amazon.com.  Was the film formally retitled so as to not make the common man (and woman) mistakenly think they're buying something...icky?

This is what Amazon has:

And this is what you can find at Target (and, apparently, at Walmart too):


Now, I know the film received pretty good reviews (didn't see it myself...I like Kevin Smith's Clerks, the rest of his films vary, IMHO).  If memory serves, the movie's box office proved rather mediocre, and I recall that some newspapers nixed the "Make a Porno" part of the title and called the movie the rather bland "Zack and Miri".  Looks like that skittishness worked its way into the DVD releases.

What do you think?

http://www.dvdfile.com/views/article/top-ten-horror-flicks-of-all-time-88761

Two of my favorite two horror films are, as I've mentioned before, the original 1922 Nosferatu and The Shining, with very honorable mention to the original Alien, a film so scary that the (mostly) symbolic TV commercial (featuring an egg not seen in the film itself!) was enough to scare the hell out of you.  If we distinguish between horror and "suspense", then there's the Spielberg duo of Duel and Jaws (although perhaps I'm making too fine a distinction with the later film in particular).

A while ago I presented a list of favorite films by comic book artist Dave (Watchmen) Gibbons.  The list was only OK (and forgive me for being too lazy to sort through my previous posts and present a link to that particular posting).

Anyway, here we have director Wes Craven's (Scream, Nightmare on Elm Street) list of films that, in his opinion, "Shook him up".  Some intriguing ones are presented, for sure:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20310838_20314742,00.html

His first choice, in particular, Blow Up, is a fascinating film.  I wouldn't qualify it as one of my all time favorites, but it certainly is a great mind trip.  And how can anyone not love The Yardbirds (with an almost impossibly young Jimmy Page on guitars) musical interlude within the film?

Is nothing sacred?!

http://chud.com/articles/articles/21274/1/IS-LEONARDO-DICAPRIO-THE-THIRD-MAN/Page1.html

Seriously, though, The Third Man is among the greats: Great cinematography, great acting, and a gripping plot.  Orson Welles stated he loved the role of Harry Lime in spite of the relatively small screen time his character has.  Why?  Because for most of the film the other characters are talking about him, alternately building him up and tearing him down.  By the time he does show up, we're completely captivated!

Now, the idea of Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire in a remake...I don't know.  They could probably pull the roles off (If indeed the article linked to is accurate and DiCaprio plays Lime).

However, the film is of its time, and I don't know how it would play now.  The regular questions prop up: Would the makers "modernize" the film (set it, say, in Afghanistan or Iraq or, if they want the recent past, Bosnia?), or would they keep the time frame and have the story occur in post-WWII Europe?

Who knows.  At least you still have the original to see, and enjoy...

From Entertainment Weekly comes this list...I can honestly say I didn't see even a single one of the episodes of any of these shows from start (though a caught a minute or two here and there...how can you miss The Jerry Springer Show?  Even when they show clips of it on other shows).  I also completely forgot about several of these shows.

Probably on purpose:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20314781,00.html

Of the pulp era heroes, my favorite is, far and away, Doc Savage (second favorite is The Shadow.  Between these two pulp heroes you have the essential light/dark archetypes for pretty much all the comic book heroes that subsequently followed).  In 1975 Ron Ely (best known for the Tarzan TV show) played the title role in the first (and until now only) movie version of the pulp novels.  The movie did follow the very first Doc Savage pulp novel reasonably well and Mr. Ely certainly had the right look.  But the movie was way too campy and, ultimately, forgettable.

Now, Shane Black (Lethal Weapon, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) is involved in writing a screenplay for a new feature film version of the character:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/10/24/shane-black-scribing-a-doc-savage-movie-for-star-trek-producers/

Shane Black has written some good stuff (absolutely loved the already mentioned Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) but...I just don't know if he's right for this property.  We'll have to wait and see.  Then again, could he do any worse than the first Doc Savage movie?!

(A brief aside: The Shadow movie also featured some good visuals...Alec Baldwin was perfect as Lamont Cranston/The Shadow...but that movie also featured a little too much camp and not enough genuine excitement.  The visuals were very strong, moreso than the Doc Savage film, but great visuals do not make a great film).

For the curious, the trailers to both the Doc Savage and The Shadow films.  The Doc Savage trailer pretty much tells you everything that's wrong with that film...

Rather short article that talks (briefly) about Windows 7, the latest version of the Windows operating system:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/24/windows7.tips/index.html

I upgrades my computers with the new system, and it was pretty easy.  Only real problem was that my wireless HP printer driver had to be re-loaded.  Because the software I had was outdated (it was for Vista but not Windows 7), I had to go to the HP website and download the latest driver software and then install it.

However, once that was done, all worked well.

I truly didn't want to deal with any of the so-called "Balloon Boy" crap...its just so damn depressing on so many levels (from the family's need for attention to the media's general insanity), but here Time Magazine presents an amusing list of top 10 shocking hoaxes:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1931133_1931132,00.html

I forgot about some of these (I recall, in particular, "Hitler's Diaries" and the subsequent furor...ah memories).

Interesting article regarding U2 and their latest self-introspection, particularly after the somewhat "disappointing" sales of their latest album, No Line on the Horizon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33447167/ns/entertainment-music/

I think that like many musical acts, U2 may be stuck in something of a rut.  They still create great music (there were some exceptional songs in NLOTH), but their direction, at least in my opinion, remains roughly the same.  They built on and on with each album from their beginning, taking mild steps back here and there (your opinion may be different, but I felt both October, Rattle and Hum, and Pop were only OK albums...but what came before and after each was incredible).

To me U2 reached their apex with albums such as Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, and the one-two punch of Achtung Baby and Zooropa (a delightful experimental album).

The problem is, they perfected their particular technique, and suddenly you realize you've pretty much seen/heard their act.  NLOTH is a good album, as I said before, but musically it doesn't, at least to my ears, give us anything we haven't heard before (and better) with U2.  And that's the essence of the problem: U2 may be stuck in a rut (I'll grant you that with Pop they tried to go in another direction, but the results weren't all that good, alas).

In considering U2, I think back to the reason David Bowie is my favorite artist.  He tended to constantly reinventing himself.  Early on, the heavy metal sounding The Man Who Sold the World was followed by an folksy, introspective Hunky Dory which was followed by the more straight ahead rock n' roll/concept album Ziggy Stardust.  David Bowie would eventually do soul, alternative rock, pop, electronica, etc. etc.  U2 has created some absolutely terrific music, and I'll be around for their subsequent albums.

Maybe they'll surprise me still.

The early reviews for this 6 part special made it sound like a can't miss, so going into it I was expecting wonderful things.  That's usually a problem.

I think the best way to come into something, whether a book or TV show or work of any kind is neutrally, ie with no expectations at all.  That way, the good stuff sometimes comes as a pleasant surprise and the bad stuff sometimes doesn't irritate you quite as much.

So, the show was a good retrospective on Monty Python, and featured the remaining lads recollecting their heydays (and, in the last episode, what they're now doing).

The six part show is well researched and linear in presentation.  Episode 1 features their education/first brushes with show business and lead to the beginning of the original Monty Python TV show.  Episodes 2 and 3 focused on the TV show (and explained why John Cleese was not involved with the show's final episodes).  The remaining episodes focused on the three films (episode 4 had Holy Grail, episode 5 Life of Brian, episode 6 Meaning of Life and original member Graham Chapman's passing plus what the remaining members are up to now).

When the Python members were on, it was delightful and more than a little sad.  These folks have become awfully old.  Each and every one of them were pleasant and talkative, dishing inside information about the way they butted heads, but no terribly dark secrets were revealed nor any long time simmering hatreds were exposed, which is just as well.  When they weren't featured, the special veered wildly.  Seeing contemporaneous friends/acquaintances give their memories of certain incidents could be illuminating.  Seeing modern artists talk about how much Monty Python influenced them...not so much.

The show's theme song (different each episode) was pretty funny, the guy acting as a lawyer during those opening credits was beyond annoying.

In the end, if you're a fan of Monty Python, you'll enjoy the show (it is available on DVD).  If you're not, you may find the material presented rather dry.

Doesn't really matter, you can always go back to the movies or the TV shows.  That's where the gold really is.

Ah, the Eddie Murphy hit...I never could stand it much.  The article itself isn't necessarily a slam against all celebrity albums, although some certainly deserve their critical (negative) reactions:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1931795_1931794,00.html

I've forgotten a few of those on the list (an album by Cassius Clay?!), and find the first choice, Bob Dylan's recently released album of Christmas songs, an oddball curiosity.  As the article states: "Also, isn't he Jewish?"

The one not included on the list, curiously, is William Shatner's infamous 1968 album The Transformed Man, which included his...uh...interpretations of "Mr. Tamborine Man", "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds", and "It Was A Very Good Year".  When you're talking celebrity albums, how can you forget that one?!

In general, I love her articles.  Here, she takes on almost all the new TV shows this season:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/modern_family/index.html?story=/ent/tv/iltw/2009/10/21/best_new_tv_mid_fall_checkup

Her review of FlashForward, sadly, is dead on, especially her comments regarding the "characters".  I enjoyed the show's pilot and the first few episodes but felt the last one was weak, like one of the writers had a rejected House script hanging around and reworked it to fit in this show.  I hope the show makes an improvement, but given the fact that it seems to be moving downhill rather than up, the signs are not necessarily good.

And it appears others have similar opinions:

http://www.slate.com/id/2232557/

I suppose this qualifies as not all that surprising news, Dollhouse will be "benched" during the November sweeps, to return in December:

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/10/21/exclusive-fox-to-bench-dollhouse-for-sweeps/

I've written entirely too much regarding this show, and haven't found the time to watch the last episode they aired (I caught a few minutes, but shut the DVR down to watch something else).

To give Mr. Whedon credit, the show is indeed original.  Sadly, it also remains muddled and confusing, out of focus and, at times, just too frustrating.  I like everyone involved in it, from the actors to the creative staff behind the scenes.  But the show just isn't working for me, and its no wonder it may be on its last legs.

Still, I really love this promo graphic.  Really wish the show was something else...

Interesting article from /Film:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/10/22/charlize-theron-and-tom-hardy-up-for-mad-max-4/

I happen to LOVE The Road Warrior, aka Mad Max 2.  The first Mad Max was quite good, too (although it wasn't quite the same constant adrenaline ride.  Nonetheless, that movie's climax was very satisfying).

The third Mad Max film, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, was, to me, a real disappointment, despite pretty cool acting by Tina Turner as the movie's "bad guy".  Still, the film hardly featured any of the famed car stunts and was simply too bland for a "Mad Max" film.

I heard that a fourth Mad Max film was in the works years ago.  This was before the movie's star, Mel Gibson, experienced his...umm...troubles.  I was hoping he'd come back for one more go around in the role, despite his age, but it appears that if there is a fourth Mad Max film in the works, it will feature a new actor taking on the role.  I don't know about this, quite honestly.  Mad Max IS Mel Gibson.  But then again, James Bond IS Sean Connery, yet there have been some damn good post-Connery Bond films.

If this film is every made, I hope they go back to something along the lines of the first two films, and forget about the third.

Another one of those heartbreaking stories:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/21/arizona.iraqi.daughter.struck/index.html

I'm alternatively amused/horrified by people and their views.  It is horrifying when it appears they allow their views of morality affect their judgment to the point they act on others, especially when the result is so tragic.

If the article is correct, I have no doubt Mr. Hassan Almaleki, an Iraqi, felt his daughter was straying from whatever righteous path he felt was proper.  I have no doubt he wanted what was best for her, and perhaps she rebuffed his concerns.  But the man's ultimate actions against her are unforgivable.

At least according to the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/the-9-stupidest-surprise_n_328300.html

Their choices are almost all pretty good, with particular kudos mentioning:

Identity.  The ending of that film found my jaw on the floor.  A passably interesting plot completely torpedoed by a stupid "it's all in his mind" ending.

The Forgotten.  Another interesting concept, and I wasn't even aware that this was originally conceived as a remake of Bunny Lake is Missing.  The movie reminded me of Dean Koontz's book Phantoms.  Great original concept, and you keep waiting for the author to come up with a logical explanation for the strange goings on.  But it seems the author gives up and, instead of explaining anything in any logical way, he decides to say: "Hey, a supernatural force was responsible for everthing".  In this movie, they just say: "Hey, it was aliens".

Click.  Terrible film almost from frame one.  Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, we reach the ending, and it was all a freaking dream.  Ugh.

Signs.  I don't know if the ending was the worst thing so much as the idea that an alien invasion force decides to invade a planet covered with what to them is the equivalent of kryptonite.  Strange.

A film that wasn't on the list but that really disappointed me with its ending:

The Coen Brother's Big Lebowski.  I know, I know...today, the film is considered a cult classic and there are many, many out there who love the hell out of it.  Further, the ending wasn't a "surprise", but still...

The fact is that I loved the movie, too.  At least until the oddball Busby Berkeley-esque musical dream number.  To me, the film seemed to lose itself at that point and never quite recovered.  Gone was the hilarious Dashiell Hammett-on-acid plot, and it appeared the Coen Brothers began killing time until reaching the end.  Worse still, we never get to see any of the movie's characters kick Jesus' ass at bowling.

Oh well.

Only found the one article (at least so far), but Joseph Wiseman, best known as James Bond's first movie villain, Dr. No (in the 1962 movie of the same name), has died:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/joseph-wiseman-dies-dr-no_n_328281.html

That role was probably the one he will be best known for, although his IMDB page lists plenty of other screen (and TV credits).

I personally loved him in the movie.  He was sinister, quiet, and deadly.  In many ways, his character in that film proved the template for the many villains who followed.

R.I.P., Mr. Wiseman

Ah, the lengths people will go to make money...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091021/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_britain_crash

The two most chilling lines are at the front end of the article:

Mohammed Patel, 24, charged 500 pounds a time to stage accidents which enabled fraudsters to claim an average of 17,000 pounds from their insurers.

Police said he staged at least 92 crashes between 2005 and 2008, each time persuading the other driver to believe they were at fault.

Of course, Mr. Patel not only managed to rake money for himself and allowed the "fraudsters" to claim plenty of insurance money, but he also put people's lives in danger while aiding in his own special way to make insurance rates all that much higher.

Well done.

4 1/2 years of prison seems a little to lenient...

Sometimes I wish there were fifty hours in each day...

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/btm/feature/2009/10/20/dvds/

Seriously, I've got at least two shelves worth of films I've bought either on DVD or BluRay that I'd love to see, but between my work, my writing, and life in general, haven't been able to get to.

And then Mr. O’Hehir offers this list of fascinating films, the description of a few of which have really gotten my attention.  Two DVDs stood out: Audition (which I've heard of before and was always curious about) and, in particular, Private Century, which I hadn't heard about until now, but whose subject matter sounds incredibly fascinating.  That and the fact that I'd love to see actual film of the Czech Republic from 1920 on...But then again, this mini-series consists of eight 52 minute episodes.

When will I find the time!?

Just stumbled upon this review posted a couple of years ago regarding my graphic novel The Dark Fringe and thought I'd share...

http://www.comicsbulletin.com/real/106577993166743.htm

If you're reading any of the other nonsense I post here daily, a belated thanks for the kind review, Glenn!

A while back Entertainment Weekly had a list of their top 25 cult TV shows (I made a posting about it here while the actual EW list can be found here).  I agreed with many of their choices, but felt that they omitted some very big, and to me obvious choices while tending to skew toward more recent shows.

The biggest omission, I felt, was Star Trek.  It would appear others agreed:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20302134_20311716,00.html

They also list Dark Shadows (a show I was never a big fan of but felt should have been on the list, especially now that vampires seem so hip).  But missing from their shows is The Wild Wild West.  Curiously, on this new list is Adventures of Brisco County Jr., a show I like (and I really love Bruce Campbell).  However, as enjoyable as it was, Brisco County was also a pretty obvious tongue in cheek echo of The Wild Wild West.

Oh well.

Absolutely fascinating article regarding the unattributed play The Reign of Edward III.

For years (centuries!), the author of this play was suspected as being William Shakespeare.  Now, and with the aid of computer software intended to detect plagiarism in college students' papers, Sir Brian Vickers, a literature professor at the University of London, has concluded the play was likely a collaboration between Mr. Shakespeare and Thomas Kyd, another popular playwright of the era:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1930971,00.html

It's always fascinating to me to read things like this, where modern technology may provide insight into old mysteries.  Even ones involving authorship of plays.

Fascinating stuff!

Until this article, I never heard of Howard Unruh and the murder spree he was responsible for way back in 1949.  As the article states:

Unruh was considered the first single-episode mass murderer in U.S. history.

A World War II veteran, Mr. Unruh was an introvert, according to the article, before the war and returned from the war an even stranger individual.  But what is most fascinating, and horrifying, lies in the sentence I quoted above.  In the end, he was responsible for the deaths of more than a dozen people.

Captured alive, the courts declared him insane and he was committed for the remainder of his life.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/19/first.mass.murderer/index.html

...and at least one of the discoveries is most...interesting?

You'll know what I'm talking about when you see the clip:

I've read about this before, this is the first article I could find that featured a little more of a description of what the alternate/extended version of "Where No Man Has Gone Before", the second pilot of the original Star Trek (and the first to feature William Shatner's Captain Kirk), as well as some compiled clips (via YouTube) of what we're in for:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42760

Cool stuff, an interesting alternative opening.  I can't help myself...here it is:

It seems most reviews have been kind regarding the upcoming (October 22nd!) release of the latest version of Windows, Windows 7.

MSNBC offers a list of 10 things they feel still need improvement:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33335161/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

As I've said before, I might be one of the only people out there who hasn't had many problems at all with Vista.  Nonetheless, I purchased Windows 7 a few months ago when it was being offered for the ridiculously low price of $49.99.

Now that its coming my way, I admit I'm a little nervous about upgrading my whole system.  Gotta make sure to backup everything!

We'll see how it goes...

Fascinating article concerning underground comic book artist Robert Crumb's take on the Bible, and what, if anything, he learned during the experience:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2009-10-18-r-crumb-old-testament_N.htm

One of the more pleasant aspects regarding our increasingly sophisticated technology is that it may alleviate...and even perhaps in time eliminate, certain unpleasant experiences.

Such as car theft:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-18-vehicle-thefts_N.htm

This is just too weird, but fascinating nonetheless:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17992-new-camera-promises-to-capture-your-whole-life.html

When will you have time to look at it?  And will the camera photograph you while you're looking at its pictures?!

An interesting article from Newsweek concerning recent (and older) films that have attempted to "shock" people, and how we may be reaching a point where its harder and harder to do so:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/218069

Mentioned in the article is Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí's 1929 film Un Chien Andalou, perhaps the first film that really "shocked" me (Another early shocker was Death Weekend aka The House By the Lake, which I've mentioned before, about a brutal gang that surround their victims in a...house by the lake).  The common thread for these films is at times very graphic horror mixed with sex.

The clip below is probably the most famous (or infamous) sequence from Un Chien Andalou.  The description of the scene says it all, so viewer beware.  The special effects used to create this sequence, if I recall correctly, involves the use of a cow's eye, and (obviously) not the actual actress' eye.

This video is unbelievably grisly...until it is revealed that the baby not only survived, but apparently just suffered a minor cut to the forehead.

But what could have happened...I don't even want to think about it.

I suppose you could file this under "what took him so long":

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7404&eeid=6881333&_sitecat=1479&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=0&ck=&ch=en&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+en+topnews&ck=&l=hm

The iconic image (sorta/kinda Andy Warhol-ish) Shepard Fairey created of then candidate Barack Obama and the word "Hope" underneath has been the subject of lawsuits by the artist against the Associated Press and vice versa.  I think its clear, if you hit the link to the article and take a look, where the original image came from (its presented side by side with Mr. Fairey's artwork).

I like what Mr. Fairey did, the work is good.  However, credit should have been given from the start to the photographer who took the picture, something Mr. Fairey seems to have tried skirting.

Ultimately, I suspect, this revolves around the money Mr. Fairey subsequently made from his image, and the fact that the original photograph/photographer or whoever has the copyright to the original image should also receive their due/compensation.

It's only fair.

Finally got around to seeing the latest episode of Fringe.  It was a decent episode, although it made me realize just how far the show has moved from its initial season.

You remember back then?

The pilot episode introduced us to Anna Torv's Agent Dunham, a lady with some issues, both with her FBI lover (a co-worker and a big "no no" in the agency).  He subsequently died and Dunham acquired fragments of his memories in her head and realized he had quite an investigation going into finding a mysterious super-scientist group who conduct at times grotesque experiments in plain view and with subsequent high body counts (one of the most memorable sequences in the pilot episode was the fate of the passengers in an airliner).  Agent Broyles, a mysterious government man offered to hire Dunham, as he too was looking into these super-scientests, but wondered about a sexual discrimination suit she filed against a friend of his.  The subject of the sexual discrimination suit would subsequently appear and make Dunham's job/life hell, and Dunham's sister and her young daughter showed up one day to come live at her place and hide from the sister's abusive ex-husband who was preparing some kind of lawsuit to gain control of the kid...

Remember all that?

No?

That's because many of these story elements seem to have been either jettisoned or forgotten as time moved on.  Super-scientists?  Nah, we'll go with an alternate Earth and the people from there trying to move over here (and destroy our Earth in the process).  The sister and her daughter are AWOL.  The discrimination suit and the man it was brought against was revealed to have his own murky dealings which may or may not be related to either the super-scientists or the alternate dimension beings.  Then again, maybe not.   Makes little difference: He's dead now.

Anyway, I only point all the above out because given how much change this show has gone through since its inception, its amazing it remains a decent watch.  But much of that may be due to the show's X-Files elements rather than anything new or original it brought to the table.

And that, in essence is what keeps me from being totally into the show.  While I enjoy it and watch it, like FlashForward and its thematic devotion to emulating Lost, I find the similarities between Fringe and X-Files at times rather uncomfortable.

Then again, at least the show has something to grasp.  Dollhouse, a far more original TV show concept, remains a perplexing mess, and the questions the show raises outweighs the enjoyment one takes.  Why does the Dollhouse exist?  How can they make money when no one is supposed to know about them?  Yet if no one knows about them, how do clients find them?  Do they market themselves through some kind of secret means?  And for what purpose?  What do they hope to gain?  What do the people who submit themselves to being dolls hope to gain?  Why go through with it?

While Fringe appears to have simplified itself and accepted the X-Files theme, Dollhouse remains a frustrating curio.

It was bound to happen, I suppose: the first really not-very-good episode of the series.

It begins outright bizarre, with odd music and odder scenery involving a bus accident during the blackout.  It continues very oddly with Agent Benford and his daughter making eggs and overacting.  But then things slow down and the familiar takes over (for the better) until the plot makes a blatant deviation into House territory.

It's bad enough that the producers have basically photocopied Lost's structure while building their show (something I've noted before but was willing to overlook while, hopefully, they move their own way), but to feature a story involving a medical mystery?  For shame.

What's next?  A crime scene analysis/murder mystery?  A medium?  Hijinks at a New York TV studio and/or paper product office?

But I will give them plenty of credit for coming back to the whole "Benford goes to Germany on the company dime" element I joked about in my last review.  When he tries to convince his boss to let him go to Somalia, the boss slaps the request down.  I suppose he'll think twice before asking for those seats to the Superbowl (because, you know, the word "Superbowl" were written on his Mosaic wall ).

I've linked many Entertainment Weekly lists.  When I first saw the original link to this one, I was eager to check it out, but for (quite literally) weeks, the link didn't work.

Now it does, and just in time for Halloween.

So here you have it, EW's list of their 20 scariest movies of all time:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20187007,00.html

Notice that this list, like many on EW, tends to skew toward more recent releases (The oldest movie of the lot is 1960's Psycho, but there are only two other films from the 1960's and the remainder are from the 1970's up).

Regardless, I have to agree with many of their choices.  Evil Dead is pretty damn good, as are An American Werewolf in London (one of the only films that made me scared to death one moment, laughing out loud the next), The Omen, The Thing (the John Carpenter remake.  However, the original film version is quite good, too), and Night of the Living Dead are worthy candidates.

One I'd include is Nosferatu (1922), which I've noted many times before is the first, and best, adaptation of Dracula.  And, yes, even though its a very, very old film (and a silent to boot), it still gives me goosebumps.

Jaws is also a great horror film, but one shouldn't forget Steven Spielberg's first attempt at that theme in Duel.

But my all time favorite horror film is the first one they list: The Shining.  When I first saw it in theaters when it was originally released, I didn't like the film.  At all.  This seems to happen sometimes with the great ones.  Over time I caught clips here and there on TV, and I sucked in the whole creepy vibe...and loved it.  This is one terrific, terrific horror movie, even if some fault it for not adhering to the Stephen King novel.  Now, I haven't read the book so I can offer no comment on the merits of that argument.  I did, however, see the very lame (IMHO) TV mini-series version of The Shining that Mr. King himself provided the screenplay and was more intimately involved.  I understand that version did stick more closely to the novel, but as I said before, I thought it wasn't all that good.

Here's one of the film's more chilly sequences, followed by an (ahem) "alternate" version of the trailer, one that changes the music and the theme in a rather hilarious way...

My wife (and bookshelf) can attest to the fact that I'm a fan of the books of Michael Connelly.  He's released a bunch of them, and Harry Bosch, LAPD detective and general pain in the ass to those in positions above him, makes for an intriguing principal character in most of those novels.

I say "most" because Mr. Connelly has written quite a few novels set in Harry Bosch's "universe" but have not featured him.  One of these novels, Blood Work, boasts one of Mr. Connelly's most intriguing plots and might well be my favorite of his books.  However, the 2002 movie version of Blood Work, starring and directed by Clint Eastwood was a major disappointment, given the talent in front of and behind the camera (Brian Helgeland (L.A. Confidential) wrote the script).  The intricacies of Mr. Connelly's plot weren't successfully transferred, IMHO, to the screen, and the changes to the novel's ending were also ill advised, something Mr. Connelly himself had some fun with in a subsequent novel.

Which leads us to The Lincoln Lawyer.  Like Blood Work, this novel does not feature Harry Bosch as the principal character, although he makes a minor appearance.  It's to be made into a film, directed by Tommy Lee Jones (who will take a secondary role...perhaps that of Bosch himself?!) and starring Matthew McConaughey.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/10/14/tommy-lee-jones-to-direct-and-co-star-in-the-lincoln-lawyer/

Now for the bad news: As much as I love the Mr. Connelly's books, I have to be honest and say that The Lincoln Lawyer simply isn't among his best.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that its one of his lesser works, featuring a rather forgettable mystery that isn't all that intriguing or surprising.  Hopefully the movie will improve upon the book (the inverse of what happened with Blood Work) and we'll have something worth seeing.

Anyway, for what its worth, the trailer to Clint Eastwood's Blood Work: