I mentioned before that a film that isn't available on DVD (that I'm aware of) that I'd like to get is The House By The Lake (aka Death Weekend).

However, another film, this one from 1975, is also very high on the list of films I'd love to get my hands on: The Reincarnation of Peter Proud.  Adapted from the novel by Max Ehrlich (who also wrote the movie's screenplay) and featuring Michael Sarrazin, Jennifer O'Neil, and Margot Kidder, the movie focuses on Peter Proud (Sarrazin) a man who has nightmares of being murdered while on a row boat in a lake.  This leads to his finding the place where he "died", and the possibility that he may well be the reincarnation of another man, the man in his dreams.

Will history repeat itself?

I've only seen this movie twice, the last time over a decade ago, and both times it got to me.  Now, it appears that director David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club) has his eyes set on making a new version of the film:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/08/david-fincher-directing-adaptation-of-the-reincarnation-of-peter-proud/

I'm ambivalent about a remake of this film, but if it means we'll see the DVD (or Blu Ray) release of the original, I'm all in favor!

Rooting around YouTube, I found this, the opening couple of minutes of the original film...

Very scary stuff, this article, from msnbc.com:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33778733/ns/technology_and_science-security/

As if we don't have enough to worry about with regard to viruses or other malicious code on the net.  Now one must be very careful that their computers don't pick up viruses whose function is to make it appear you're visiting and downloading child porn from the internet.

The end result can be, as it was for Michael and Robin Fiola (they're mentioned in the article) quite devastating.

Interesting article regarding a phenomena I hadn't heard of before, that of the so-called "third man" (and in no way related to the Orson Welles' movie):

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/11/08/third.man/index.html

After reading the article, my feeling is that an explanation to this phenomena is pretty close to this line, offered by the author of the book "The Third Man Factor: Surviving the Impossible," John Geiger:

Maybe the Third Man is a coping mechanism, Geiger suggests. The brain creates a companion to help a person survive a terrible situation. Or perhaps there is an "angel switch" in the brain that's activated in life-or-death struggles.

As of today (November 11th), the answer is obvious.  Of course, the season officially ends November 30th, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised...

For those in the potential path, stay safe.  To date I've survived five or six of these beasts, the worst being Andrew (although the worst of it hit a little south of where I was).  The others were category 1's, but even that can be harrowing.

Another one of those stories that could only happen in real life: Woman passes her drivers test...after the 950th try.

Yes, 950:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/cha-sasoon-skorean-woman-_n_349290.html

I think I would have given up after the failing the fifth try.  Sixth at the most.

Some things just aren't meant to be!

A list from Entertainment Weekly:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20302680,00.html

I've seen most of the film, and it occurs to me that while I enjoy animation (and animated films), I may not be the medium's biggest fan.  Don't get me wrong, I like them, but its hard, at least for me, to build up all that much excitement over their list.

Still, I did enjoy Wall-E quite a bit.  The Iron Giant was good, but I think it's a little overrated.  Same goes with Akira, a film I enjoyed but only really took the first part of the graphic novels (thus ending rather abruptly).

One film not on the list (and, no, I don't think it belongs there, either) is Heavy Metal.  When I was younger, it was a stunning thing to see in the theaters.  It was the first time I ever saw an animated film that was "R" rated, and for very good reason.  It also featured what I felt was a pretty kick ass musical score.

But, of course, the film had its moments and then there were other moments which weren't all that good.  The animation also varied, although I loved the opening sequence as well as the Harry Canyon and Gunner's Dream stories.

Absolutely fascinating article from USAToday regarding Enceladus, Saturn's geyser-spewing moon:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2009-11-06-saturn-moon-plume_N.htm

The mystery surrounding the geyser (and the source of such activity) are well explained in this at times quite technical article.  Most intriguing, of course, is the possibility that there may be life below.

As I said before, absolutely fascinating.

In the category of "you can't make this stuff up":

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/06/california.stolen.vw/index.html

Fascinating story, and goes to show that sometimes crimes of the past, regardless of their category, are sometimes brought to light and resolved many, many years later.

I'm always fascinated by movies that create divergent opinions.  Precious, a new film out very soon, has been getting pretty good reviews (including some praising the work of singer Mariah Carey, in a supporting role.  One of her previous film ventures was Glitter, which drew much derision).

I ran across this review praising the hell out of the film:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42990

Then, I ran across this review:

http://www.slate.com/id/2234728/

The contrarian in me appreciated the later article's title alone.

Whether the film is good or bad, of course, depends on your own personal viewpoint.  Just thought it interesting to see the contrast.

An interesting article regarding South California's Youth Mobile 2030 challenge.  The idea was to come up with designs for cars of the future.  Some are quite radical:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/youth-mobile-2030-6-amazi_n_347522.html

Interesting mini-article from Entertainment Weekly which posits the question: When is a very bad movie so bad its actually good?

http://movie-critics.ew.com/2009/11/05/craptastic-or-crap-how-do-you-tell-the-difference/

There are a few I could list that fit that definition, at least to me.  One that sits high on the list is Lifeforce (1985) (I would also put the hallucinogenic action/philosophy fest On Deadly Ground, mentioned a couple of postings ago in the list as well).

Lifeforce involves alien vampires, the end of the world, zombies (or zombie vampires, I guess), space shuttles, a beautiful naked woman who walks around a lot, and Steve Railsback (Patrick Stewart, pre-Star Trek: The Next Generation, also makes an appearance).  Not necessarily in that order.

It's a movie so out there that you can't help but laugh.

Or cry.

A pretty humorous list of top 10 non-emergency 911 calls.  Needless to say, they border on the very absurd (and, in some cases -you're locked in your car?!- downright bizarre):

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1903486_1903487,00.html

Then again, there's this one, which is actually kinda cute:

Here's a handy dandy rundown of the various "versions" of the film available or, rather, the various "collectible" sets which will be offered (and where):

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/05/star-trek-dvdblu-ray-retail-exclusives/

You know, as time goes by I find myself less and less impressed with the Star Trek re-boot movie.  It was a competent enough production, it was well acted, it featured decent special effects...but it wasn't anything at all we hadn't seen before.

Still, I have faith in J. J. Abrams and company.  After getting this one out of the way, perhaps the next ones will be more original and exciting.

A fascinating article regarding transient global amnesia, or TGA, a condition that has patients lose their ability to retain immediate memory.  The cause of this, according to the article linked below, can be from strenuous exercise...such as sex.  In the case of this article, just one such example of post-sexual onset of just such a condition is related:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/04/transient.global.amnesia/index.html

One of the more fascinating lines from the article:

Levitra, which is a pill for erectile dysfunction, lists TGA as a possible adverse reaction.

Now you know.

One of those stories that pops up now and again...a $65,000 home had, stored within, a million dollars worth of comic books:

Johann Hari at Slate.com offers a review and blistering comments regarding the philosophy of Ayn Rand, perhaps the far right's philosophical darling:

http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/

I've always been intrigued by Ms. Rand, and Mr. Hari's comments offer a scathing look at what may lie behind her philosophies, as well as the paradoxes, self-loathing, etc..  While reading the article, I couldn't help but find comparisons between Ms. Rand and another pretty well known author turned philosopher, who himself has brought about what many consider a cult.

In the last paragraph of this article, Mr. Hari himself makes that very same comparison, so at the very least his essay was successful in bringing about his ultimate point.

Still, the only thing I've ever really been exposed to, at least concerning Ayn Rand, are reviews of her philosophy (and articles both pro and con) and seeing the Gary Cooper starring The Fountainhead movie (which was, of course, based on Ayn Rand's novel).  The movie was decent enough, although the philosophy was spread rather thick, which is evident even in this trailer for that movie.

Just found this website the other day, and its a hoot:

http://www.avclub.com/features/my-year-of-flops/

Basically, our intrepid reviewer is spending a year going over very, very bad films, and offering his hilarious insights into them.

Was particularly amused by the Roman Polanski (yeah, that guy) forgotten film What?  Until that review, I had never heard of the film.  Sounds...uh...strange.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/polanskitastic-sickfuck-case-file-149-what,34678/

The other one I would point you out to (but, please, feel free to read through them all!) is the Steven Seagal turkey On Deadly Ground.  I actually paid money back in 1994 to see that one in the theaters when it was released (it must have been a fairly boring day and the cinemas must not have been showing much, as I was never a particularly big fan of Mr. Seagal and, other than the much more critically accepted/audience-approved Under Siege, these are the only two films of his I ever saw of in the theaters).

On Deadly Ground has to be one of the worst "action" films ever.  I put the word "action" in quotes because truly it seemed Mr. Seagal (who directed as well as starred in this film) seemed intent on making some kind of larger spiritual message while kicking all kinds of ass.  Michael Caine, who I usually absolutely love, is horrible in this film as the villain, an oil man who wants to pollute a pristine Alaskan bay (or somesuch) with his oil drills.  So, to prevent that, our hero blows the whole thing sky high, no doubt ensuring the bay is polluted for years to come.

And, even more hilarious/sad...check out the fact that despite numerous fist and gun fights, no one lays even one fist on Steven Seagal.  Not once!  It's amazing the man didn't walk on water at some point in the film, as well...

http://www.avclub.com/articles/earthfriendly-case-file-130-on-deadly-ground,23400/

For the masochists out there, here's the trailer to On Deadly Ground:

Absolutely love this story.

In the age of fears regarding swine flu, it goes to show the lengths a corporation -with a straight face- would go to try to boost sales of their product.  In this case, as Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity is quoted within the article states: "this (advertisement) belongs in the hall of fame...By (Kellogg's) logic, you can spray vitamins on a pile of leaves, and it will boost immunity."

See for yourself:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2009-11-02-cereal-immunity-claim_N.htm?se=yahoorefer&poe=HFMostPopular

I can't help it, I had to post the image of the actual cereal box with its ludicrous claim:

This is one of those videos that is hard to believe, even as you see it.  The amount of booze destroyed in a matter of seconds...amazing...

Ah Blu-Ray.  Gotta love the good transfers (as opposed to the lesser quality ones out there...read up and check!).  But there remain many films unavailable, at least until now, on Blu-Ray.  dvdfile.com presents their list of top 10 animated films they would like to see on Blu:

http://www.dvdfile.com/views/article/blu-ray-wishlist-the-ten-most-wanted-animated-films-89337

Frankly, I was expecting many, many Disney films listed, but the folks at dvdfile offered a fairly diverse list of films/tv shows/what-have-you.  Some, though, I wonder if they would truly be worth the Blu-Ray treatment.  I mean, nothing against South Park, but the animation is purposely crude...would it really be worth seeing it in a crystal clear format?  Same goes, at least for me, with The Simpsons (of course, there's a whole other issue for me regarding that show.  I used to love the hell out of it, but somewhere down the line...perhaps season 6 or 7, I grew tired of it.  I bought the DVDs as they came out, up to roughly that time, but have yet to watch any of them.)

On the other hand, Futurama would be interesting to see in HD, if only for the wild backgrounds (the characters are on the level of The Simpsons).

But missing from their list, inexplicably and bafflingly, are any of the wonderful Warner Brothers short collections.  Come on!  Wouldn't you love to see Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny, Wile E. Coyote & the Roadrunner, et al in HD?  Wouldn't it be incredible to see the works of animation giants such as Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, Tex Avery, etc. etc. etc. in full high definition?!

How could they forget them?!

Fascinating story concerning the murder of 13 year old Mary Phagan in 1913 which lead to the imprisonment of Leo Frank and his subsequent lynching in 1915.  This true crime story covers so many cultural aspects and is incredibly fascinating.

Was Leo Frank guilty of the crime?  I suspect that now, after so many years, we'll never know.

The link below includes a fascinating video that offers photographs of all the participants in this case, as well as some rather grizzly pictures of Mr. Frank's lynching and the crime scene.  If you don't want to see them, you may want to skip the video...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/02/leo.frank/index.html

Post 700!!!

Always love stories like these, this one concerning a lost Mayan city of staggering size, in Guatemala, that the jungle essentially ate up over time.  The video below makes me very curious about what fascinating discoveries remain to be made at Mirador...

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.