There was a time a while back that I had absolutely no interest in sports. None whatsoever. If there was a baseball game on TV, I'd hunt another channel. Same with football. Same with (gasp) golf. And then something happened. Perhaps it was, in part, the rise of quarterback Dan Marino in my hometown team, the Miami Dolphins. Yes, quite a while back. But while my interest in sports grew to the point where I enjoyed watching Mr. Marino perform amazing feats for the Miami Dolphins, I didn't care much for any other sports. Until I did. I don't recall exactly what happened, but suddenly I was watching baseball, football, basketball, hockey, and, yes, even golf. I spent an inordinate time relishing the wins, cursing the losses. I spent a magical year watching almost every single game of the Florida Marlins during their first World Series run (I kid you not, I missed maybe 2 games at the most during that whole season). And then something happened. Again. I realized that too much time was being spent on this. Time, for lack of a better word, wasted that could be spent elsewhere. The link below lists another author's recent disenchantment with sports, although his reasons were at times different, at times the same, as mine: http://www.slate.com/id/2237640/It strikes me that the easiest time to become a sports fan is when the teams you enjoy watching (hometown teams) are doing well. The author of the above piece is from the New England area, and he's had a pretty good decade for a sports fan. Similarly, when I started getting way, WAY too involved in sports, my local teams were also doing well. This line from his article is particularly fascinating, at least to me:
My complaint with sports doesn't hinge on the inflexible hours. There's
also the issue of return on my investment. The games are relentless,
the experience of them too often ephemeral.
The fact is that in this day and age (as opposed to when I first got into sports) there is just SO MUCH out there to see. Too much, perhaps.
While I absolutely LOVE seeing a great movie, there's something about hearing people tearing apart a really bad film that...I don't know... After all, pretty much no one intends to make a bad film/story/book/song/etc. etc. Further, as hard as you might, sometimes things just don't work out the way you want/expect them to. But taking all that away, there's something undeniably humorous about reading about others' failures. So here you have it, the worst films of the past decade, according to The Huffington Post (readers and writer?): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/12/the-worst-movies-of-the-d_n_375849.htmlThe Happening was apparently so bad that it was listed twice! Also of note, there are several remakes on the list, including the horrific 2007 version of Sleuth ( the original movie was soooo good. I couldn't believe that director Kenneth Branaugh would mess such this up as badly as he did. And to get Michael Caine back, this time playing the movie's "other" big role, to boot, yet the result was nonetheless a disaster), Swept Away ( the original was a startling, original film that, for its time was also quite audacious. The Madonna remake, less so), and, finally, The Wicker Man (as with all the others, the original is a terrific, original work. The remake far inferior). Stick with the originals!
In case you've been in a cave the past year or two, James Cameron's Avatar will be released soon. Early word (it premiered in England) has been pretty positive: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/11/avatar.cameron.premiere.reaction/index.htmlI'm rather cool to the whole affair. I loved Cameron's first two "big" hits, the original Terminator and Aliens, but the movies after this, while not terrible by any stretch of the imagination (with the possible exception of True Lies, which was up and down and, overall, the only outright disappointment), haven't gripped me either. The more recent commercials for Avatar have me thinking this is a Dances With Wolves and (hardware wise, if anything) Aliens combo. The former has me really leery, and I'm not sold on an almost completely computer generated film. I like computer graphics as an enhancement (although at times it can be overwhelming and obvious...and not in a good way), but almost the entire film...I just don't know. But I'd be delighted to be proven such a hybrid can work! Quick update: This is what Owen Gleiberman at Entertainment Weekly thinks of the film. His review gives me pause, and confirms some of my fears regarding the film, yet curiously makes me also a little more eager to see it: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20326743,00.html
Almost hallucinogenic, flipping between The Devil's Rejects on IFC (never saw it before...don't think I will again) and the mighty Pittsburgh Steelers, last year's SuperBowl champions and a team many (including myself) thought would be a serious contender for the title this year, losing for the second week in a row to a very, very poor (at least record-wise) team, this time the Cleveland Browns. Now, before you assume I'm a fan of the Steelers...I'm not. In fact, them losing helps my team. However, it was astonishing to see them go down in the frigid temps of Cleveland. Ouch. As for The Devil's Rejects, one must commend director Rob Zombie for making something that looked like it came from another time, specifically the grindhouse era of the 1970's. But the film is pretty downbeat, and its tough to eventually "root" for the crazed killers that are the subject of this film. Essentially, the first half of the film these trio are the butchers. In the second (far better) half of the film, they become the victims and the audience is put in the uncomfortable position of...maybe...rooting for them to somehow survive. However, after that first half, I couldn't help but hope that the trio gets much, much more than they deserve and, alas, a deus ex machina comes into play that, at least to me, dissolves the whole thing. However, the very last sequence made up for that. At least Mr. Zombie seemed to know where and how this film should end. A disturbing experience, though, and certainly not for everyone (as if that isn't obvious by now)!
There was a time not so very long ago that actor Hugh Grant was a very, very hot commodity. That's not to say he isn't one today, only that at the time Extreme Measures (1996) was made, he was a fresh, hot young actor whom Hollywood courted, thinking him the next big thing. One memory sticks out, an interview with Mr. Grant wherein he notes that some of the scripts he's received were action films, requiring him to handle guns and shoot up things...and he wanted none of that. That memory sticks with me because it seemed that taking on an action film was a good way to elevate (and expand) his status from a leading man in the "romantic comedy" films he was mostly known for. While Mr. Grant never made (at least to this date) his version of a Bruce Willis film, he did venture into thriller territory with Extreme Measures. And while he didn't shoot a gun, he did find himself being shot at. I've always been curious to see this film, but never really had a chance to do so. When it popped up on cable a few nights ago, I caught a good part of the movie's opening. The other day I caught most of the rest. Extreme Measures is not a great film. Indeed, one could even qualify it as a "forgotten" film. I suppose it did OK at the box office, but reviews and audience reaction was muted and the film slipped away, despite featuring such big name actors as Mr. Grant, Gene Hackman, Sarah Jessica Parker, and, to boot, a delicious bad guy turn by the always reliable David Morse (also appearing in minor roles are J. K. Simmons and CSI's Paul Guifoyle). So what's the movie all about? It's basically a minor take on a previous, better medical thriller, Michael Chricton's Coma. In Coma, a doctor comes to realize that reasonably healthy patients at a hospital are suddenly, mysteriously taking a turn for the worse and winding up brain dead. After investigating, she finds that nefarious doings are going on, involving using the organs of these healthy individuals. In Extreme Measures, Hugh Grant plays Dr. Guy Luthan, an English (duh) Doctor in an American hospital who, similarly, finds some odd goings on in his wing. A patient dies and his body disappears. The Doctor investigates, and his apartment is subsequently broken into and he's framed for drug use. His career destroyed (perhaps a little too quickly), Dr. Luthan presses on, eventually discovering that there is a group out there conducting experiments on "disposable" people (ie, the homeless). Unlike Coma, the Doctor behind this hopes to cure spinal cord injuries and paralysis. However, his means are, naturally, all wrong, as they involve kidnapping and experimenting on human beings against their will. The film presents a truly riveting conclusion. The confrontation between Gene Hackman's Dr. Myrick and Mr. Grant's Dr. Luthan is high energy stuff. However, the film itself suffers from far too many contrivances, and these, in the end, undo what good the film had to offer. For example, two people escape from Dr. Myrick's clutches. One of them essentially "bump into" Dr. Luthan and set him up for his fall, while the other is required to appear later in the film so that Dr. Luthan can get even closer to the bad guys. Two and two people alone were needed to make the movie "work", and that is all the ones that somehow escaped Dr. Myrick. Further, Sarah Jessica Parker's character originally appears to be your standard "romantic interest" who will help our hero triumph. Then she (SPOILER!) betrays him. Then, because the plot demands it, she repents and helps him. Huh?! Without getting too much more into the film, let me leave by saying this: Extreme Measures is far from the worst film ever made. Clearly the director was hoping to emulate Alfred Hitchcock (some of the more suspenseful scenes scream the master's influence). But while Mr. Hitchcock was clever in the way he dealt with plot contrivances (in lesser hands, Mr. Hitchcock's North by Northwest could have been a complete disaster), director Michael Apted isn't quite as successful. Still, as a time killer one rainy afternoon, you could do far worse than this film.
Interesting article, if you're curious about the Spider-Man films... http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43313If this is accurate in any way, John Malkovich as the Vulture is fine. But...the Vulturess...?!?! What the...?
Told you there would be plenty of "best of the decade" lists coming. This one is from Entertainment Weekly. They offer their best films of the past decade: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20321301_20324027,00.htmlI think they cheated with their number one choice. It was three movies, not one! I was pleased to find that of the films listed, I've seen seven of their choices. I've also noted their choices tended to skewer to more "popular" films, though, and I wonder if any other "best of the decade" lists will include films like 40 Year Old Virgin or Dark Knight. Both are good, but are they really examples of the greatest films of the decade? One film that I very much disagree about: Gladiator. Warmed over Spartacus, if you ask me. While there's no doubt Gladiator cleaned up in the box office and many gave it good reviews, I never understood what the fuss was about, especially when comparing the film with the Stanley Kubrick/Kirk Douglas epic it clearly tried to emulate. (Then again, after Airplane! its hard to watch these films with a straight face).
They were rock GODS in the 1990's, only to be pummeled, in the end, by the Britney avalanche. Yet their music, to me, remains quite good, although I can certainly forgive those who can't get past Billy Corgan's voice. The band, which features Corgan and no one else of the original lineup, nonetheless remains out there, and are now releasing 44 songs online one month at a time. Originally, they were releasing them free to anyone who wanted to download the songs (legal and free, that's fine by me!). For now, the first of the songs can be heard here: http://www.spinner.com/2009/12/07/smashing-pumpkins-a-song-for-a-sun-song-premiere/Not bad, although I suspect that maybe the songs won't be available for free as originally planned (despite what the article states...they need to earn some money in the end, don't they?!). UPDATE: Oh ye of little faith...the song, as of 12/8, is now available for download. Click on this link: http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/This is the live version of the song:
Now and again I try to catch Attack of the Show on G4. Its a breezy, fun show, mostly focused on new technology and/or entertainment with occasional forays into other topics. The hosts, Olivia Munn (not featured in this particular clip) and Kevin Periera are a delightful duo, and often make me laugh out loud during their (deliberately) cheesy skits. This past week, Mr. Periera and Morgan Webb (co-host of X-Play on the same channel, a show devoted to reviewing video games), did a very funny trashing of Tony Hawk Ride, which, given this review, appears to be a pretty lame video game available for the holiday season. Sometimes, the sadist in me loves a good skewering:
Still don't know what to buy for the family, for your friends, for your co-workers... ...for yourself?!  Here's a list of some fascinating music box sets available for the holiday season: http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/Box-sets/G1349I find the Beatles USB stick particularly fascinating, although I already have the albums (not the mono ones, alas).
I've been curious about this show since its beginning. I am, after all, a fan of comic books and the whole superhero thing, so watching Heroes was a no-brainer, right? Not quite. I bought the first season on DVD pretty much the day it was released. I hadn't seen a single episode but the buzz for the show's first season ("Save the cheerleader, save the world") was loud and good, so I figured I couldn't lose. Alas, I found that first season, the best reviewed season, only mildly interesting. I've mentioned it before, but I thought the ending in particular was a huge let down. It appeared the season was going to go for a big blow out at the end, and that many of the "heroes" we knew and loved (and one in particular we most certainly didn't!) would die saving the world. Only the people behind the scenes seemed to lose their courage, and the season 1 finale featured an ending that was far from final. In fact, everyone lived to fight another day, and I truly lost interest in following the series. When the second season started and progressed, there were many complaints from fans and critics, and season three didn't seem to do all that much to revive the show. Now in its fourth season, it appears that many in the show's staff know the end is near: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/watch_with_kristin/b156121_this_just_in_heroes_expected_end_ugly.html
Before this article, I had never heard of Mr. Henry Molaison. Now I'm most certainly intrigued by what his brain may reveal, considering his post-operative memory problems: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/12/03/brain.observatory.h.m.amnesia/index.htmlOne is inevitably left, however, with sadness regarding Mr. Molaison and certainly his family. He lived a very long time with his amnesia, and obviously could not function in society given the condition. Amnesia has been a potent source for works of fiction, both in literature and in the movies. One of the more recent examples is The Bourne Identity, the first of the three movies based on the novel(s) by Robert Ludlum. The reality, of course, is far less intriguing.
Let me start by repeating what I've said a few times before: Of all the TV series out there, my all time favorite is probably the Patrick McGoohan The Prisoner (1967). While the show is certainly "of its time", it presents an absolutely fascinating, and original, premise: A secret agent (or someone in a very high, very sensitive office) angrily resigns from his job. His future plans appear to be to fly off to an island, perhaps as a vacation, perhaps as a way to leave civilization. However, as he's packing, knockout gas is shot through the keyhole of his front door. He awakens on a bizarre island where the inhabitants live in the blandly titled "Village" and each inhabitant has a number rather than a name. In the course of the show's 17 episodes, McGoohan, rechristened number "6", fights the powers of the island, in the form of the ever changing number "2" (the face of control in the island), determined to alternately escape and discover who is number "1". As much as I love the show, however, I'd be lying if I said all 17 episodes were great. There are a couple here and there that simply aren't, and the big finale, "Fallout", the episode that should have wrapped up everything and, we imagined, provided us with the answers to all the questions we've asked (like who exactly is #1, where is the island, etc. etc.), wound up being an almost incomprehensible disappointment. But even with these problems, all the remaining episodes, at least 90% of them, were stunning, thought provoking, and incredibly entertaining. And I would recommend anyone interested pick up the series, particularly now that its available in HD on Blu Ray (the images are beautiful!). Which brings us, inevitably, to the new, 2009 Prisoner mini-series. Given my love of the original series, it was obvious I'd eventually watch the new mini-series. But I entered this new show with considerable trepidation. The critics, almost all of them, were most unkind about this new series, stating that it was alternately boring or undecipherable. They praised Ian McKellen as number 2, but lambasted James Caviezel as the protagonist, our number 6. The only other praise was devoted to the show's setting, a beautiful and eerie town in the middle of an equally beautiful and eerie desert. So, thanks to DVR, I finally watched the show all the way through, and while I can't fault the critics, I can't entirely side with them either. The new Prisoner show, to me, was an attempt to create something big, something intellectual, something interesting...but it simply fell apart by the resolution. Unlike the original Prisoner, the finale here mattered, and it was what the show was building up to. Paradoxically, the original Prisoner can be enjoyed for its individual episodes while ignoring its finale. This new series presents situations and scenes that never really pay off in the end. Perhaps the best example of this is that the show begins with a clear reference to the original series and the original number 6: Our protagonist, James Caviezel, awakens in the desert outside the village. He sees an elderly man on the run from a group of thugs with dogs. He rescues this old man, who is dressed in our old number 6's garb. The old man dies, and James Caviezel buries him. Subsequently, he reaches the Village and finds that the powers that be are eager to find the old man, and that may be why they're interested in Caviezel's number 6. However, the time elapses and suddenly the old man is no longer of interest to anyone, and his grave is shown toward the end of the series but without giving us any idea why he was important (or caring why he was important) in the first place. Further, while the original show presented us with recognizable elements from the start (a possible high level spy trying to outwit his captors) this show presents a far murkier set of circumstances for our protagonist. He works for a sinister company that is willing to assassinate people and kidnap people's daughters because it is engaged in some kind of mind experiments devoted to...helping people?! I just don't know, and the idea is so complicated, versus the elegance of the original show, that I don't care. Indeed, given so many disparate ideas from the original, I can't help but wonder if, perhaps, the new Prisoner story was something else that the writer did, and in the end he shoehorned his ideas into this remake of the old series. And I wonder, if that is the case, if this show might have been better off as something original, rather than a "re-imaging" of the old series.
Love to read stories like this one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-carr/the-secret-bowling-alley_b_376623.htmlThe upshot is: A fellow bought a property and discovered that, in the basement, there was a secret manual bowling alley. He guesses that it might have been part of an illegal speakeasy that operated there during the days of prohibition. If you're interested, there are plenty of neat photographs of the place to be found at that link!
Based on this article, I wonder if there may come a time in the near future when scientists are able to use various remains from corpses (new and old) to determine even more than the "stress levels" of individuals. Perhaps its not a terribly far leap to imagine a time when we can effectively re-live people's lives...at least to some degree. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34241697/ns/technology_and_science-science/
I dunno...sounds to me like people just upset that a star they like was in a very, very bad film (in their opinions, of course): http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20323486,00.htmlOn the other hand, how does one explain Steve Martin in the Pink Panther films?! Seriously, the role belongs to one and only one actor and that's Peter Sellers. Moreso than James Bond, perhaps on the par with Indiana Jones, Inspector Clouseau simply can't be anyone else, despite attempts to either replace him or follow up on the series. Alan Arkin played the character in the dreary 1968 film Inspector Clouseau, then Ted Wass playing a bumbling counterpart to Clouseau in Curse of the Pink Panther, while Roberto Benigni tried, and failed, to play Clouseau's son in the (at least appropriately titled) Son of the Pink Panther. But then comes Steve Martin, an actor and comedian I've found delightful for many years. I simply couldn't stomach his interpretation of...whatever it was he was trying to do. And John Cleese was somehow involved in the sequel, too?! Oy.
I still recall sitting in the theater, alternately bored and confused and...now and again, though not often enough...entertained by The Black Hole. This was Disney's first "PG" rated film, no doubt because of one character's rather grisly death. But the film was something of a mongrel. At times there were the "cutesy" Disney touches (particularly the smaller robots with waaaay too much personality) along with a Captain Nemo-esq villain and his fearsome robot. There were the wholesome heroes and an ending that appeared designed to rip off 2001: A Space Odyssey as shamelessly (yet far more incoherently) as possible. So now we have the possibility that the makers of the new Tron film (the original Tron film was Disney's second foray into more "adult" sci-fi and came three years after The Black Hole) are interested in revisiting The Black Hole: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/30/tron-legacy-team-to-remake-disneys-the-black-hole/Wonder if they'll include the original movie's single best effect (IMHO), the crashing asteroid/meteor (can be found at about the 4:30 second mark of this clip): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb1r0mobgsM
Fascinating article by Bob Sullivan: http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/12/laptop-computers-examined-by-border-guards-looking-for-pirated-software-ipods-seized-at-airport-security-lines-on-mere-suspi.htmlOn the one hand, I can understand the need to do something about copyright piracy. The fact is that right now, to many there is no reason at all to bother legally buying any music, and movie piracy is certainly on the rise. The amount of money both music and movie companies lose as a result of this is astronomical and, worse, may lead to less investment in future products and, thus, less for consumers to enjoy. I think I've said this before: Imagine if a new band with the potential to be, as the cliche goes, the "next" Beatles comes around, but because their initial album sells poorly, perhaps in part because of illegal downloading, the company supporting them decides to release them. Similarly, why would a movie company invest millions of dollars into a film when profits diminish because people can illegally download the film often on the very day it is released into theaters? Worse, some films ( Wolverine or the Ang Lee Hulk film) found their way online even before their official release! HOWEVER, having said all that, some of the proposals being floated in the article linked above are, frankly, scary. I worry when agencies that are not in law enforcement are granted law enforcement privileges. While I doubt that there will be a "laptop and iPod" check at the borders (there are simply too many people with said items traveling each day), some of the other possibilities are no less chilling. Then again, one is reminded of the myth of Pandora's Box. Once opened, its so very hard to close it again...
Given the amount of speculation and time devoted to this story over the weekend, its interesting to read attorney Jeffrey Toobin (usually seen on CNN, where this link goes to) provide answers, from a legal standpoint, to some of the questions regarding the whole Tiger-Woods-hits-a-tree affair: http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/30/tiger.woods.legal/index.htmlI enjoy watching golf now and again and of course know about Tiger Woods and the command he has on the sport. The car crash he had, if for nothing more than the potentially salacious details, is somewhat worthy of media curiosity. However, the only thing the media can do without getting elaboration or comments from the two principals (Mr. and Mrs. Woods), is engage in idle speculation. Which more than a few are content to do!
One of my favorite sci-fi subgenres: Bleak futures. Entertainment Weekly offers a list of 22 bleak sci-fi futures. Many of the usual suspects can be found there, and a couple of strange choices ( Back to the Future II?!): http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20322864,00.htmlRather than comment on the films that are there, allow me to note some omissions: Beneath the Planet of the Apes but no Planet of the Apes?! Of course, I'm referring to the original film, not the Tim Burton remake. Perhaps the people in EW thought including 2 Charlton Heston films was enough. However, many would argue that of the three 1960's/1970's era sci-fi dystopias Mr. Heston was involved in, this was the best! Also missing: Rollerball, the original 1975 version. And how about 1960's The Time Machine, based on H. G. Wells' novel, which is arguably one of the first modern novels to deal with the idea of a very bleak (far) future. Then there's Robocop, the original Terminator (granted, most of the film was set in the then present time, but the threat to the present comes from a very bleak future), and, of course, 1984 (the similarly themed Gattaca and Brazil get included, but this film, featuring the last movie role for the great Richard Burton, should be listed as well, IMHO). One final bleak futuristic film: Dr. Strangelove. How much bleaker (and, paradoxically, funnier) can you get?!
This list focuses on the dollars and cents, the movies that cost a bundle to make and, for all that investment, made very little in return: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091127/film_nm/us_decade_flopsMost of these films are considered quite bad (At least six, perhaps even seven, received near unanimous bad reviews). Of the remaining, I suspect Grindhouse received perhaps the best overall reviews, although I can certainly understand why this film "flopped". In my opinion, Planet Terror, the first feature, was an entertaining -if pretty disposable/forgettable- blood n' gore fest. Death Proof, for about twenty glorious minutes at the tail end of the film, was phenomenal. Unfortunately, you had to sit through roughly an hour and a half of very, very dull setup before reaching the good stuff. Another listed film, Land of the Lost, was THE notorious flop of the past summer movie season. I found the film's box office fall curious, as the commercials for the film appeared (to me) very amusing. When I finally got to see the film, I was surprised to find it an enjoyable lark, a movie with tongue planted firmly in cheek. It was an amiable comedy that, for some reason, reminded me a bit of Tropic Thunder, at least in its general comedic tone. Ah well, they can't all be winners.
Often while watching the History Channel and/or assorted history specials, I wonder how much the producers of the show (and, indeed, the scientists and historians) have right versus how much is guesswork and speculation. History, without clear written/recorded accounts (preferably from multiple sources), can be dodgy. Which is why this clip is so amusing. It imagines what a documentary about the Beatles might be like 1000 years in the future, provided many of the historical notes were lost in the mists of time...
I have never seen a full episode of Smallville. This is not a knock on the show...I've a) never had the time to sit down and watch a full episode and b) when I have caught a few minutes of it here and there, what I saw was OK but not good enough to get me watching much more than I have. That being said, I'm curious about the Justice Society-centric upcoming movie/episode. These photos, provided by Entertainment Weekly, give us a good glimpse of Hawkman, Dr. Fate, and Stargirl ( Green Arrow has appeared previously). For a TV show, it doesn't look bad at all! http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/11/27/smallville-doctor-fate-stargirl-hawkman/
I previously posted about Time Magazine's belief that this decade has been one of the, if not THE, worst decade ever. Here are ten examples of why, according to them: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1942749,00.htmlHard to argue with their examples, although several of the items presented share one very interesting direct and indirect common denominator... As I don't like to get too political, I'll keep that opinion to myself!
This amusing link offers a list of 10 movies whom msnbc.com readers consider "real turkeys": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34133368/ns/entertainment-movies/Some may disagree with some of the choices, particularly Pulp Fiction. For the most part, I'm in the camp that enjoyed the film, though I know there are those who think its crap. In fact, the only sequence I felt wasn't all that good in the film was the one involving Bruce Willis...it started out well (I especially liked the way he "meets" John Travolta's character...this clearly shows us the film's non-linear storytelling and adds a certain gravity to Travolta's character's subsequent appearances). However, that particular sequence, which started very strong with a mapcap Christopher Walken bit of dialogue (arguably the movie's high point!), rapidly descended into waaaay too much coincidence and silly humor for my taste. However, I certainly wouldn't put this film into the hall of shame. One on the list that certainly fits for me is Eyes Wide Shut, master director Stanley Kubrick's final film. While it may not be one of the all time worst films I've ever seen, it certainly is one of the biggest disappointments I've ever had. I'm a HUGE Stanley Kubrick fan, but for the life of me I can't understand why he chose to make this film. The fact that it wound up being his swan song further disappoints. I wish he had ended his fantastic career with something...anything...more worthwhile. When I think about all the movies I've seen (and there have been a bunch), the one that I most recall as a terrible experience has to be the little remembered 1991 Gene Hackman- Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio film Class Action. I've seen plenty of bad, bad films, but this one falls in the rare category of being so thoroughly boring to the point that I had to walk out. Trust me, that's a rare event. Hell, I sat through the atrocious Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (also featuring Gene Hackman...coincidence...or not?!), and as truly terrible as that film was, it at least had me laughing at times at the sheer silliness presented (my favorite: the hitherto unknown "rebuild the Great Wall of China with a glare" superpower). Class Action, on the other hand, was humorless, uninteresting, and (I repeat) BORING. The plot was silly and incredibly unlikely to happen in the real world: Father and daughter lawyers take opposite sides in a case. Worse, WE DON'T CARE. Stay clear.
A provocative thought from Time magazine, that the decade that's about to end has been one of the worst in recent times. Frankly, I couldn't agree more, at least with regard to recent years, say, post 1970's. See for yourself:
Curious article from CNN concerning the couple who crashed the state dinner: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/25/state.dinner.crashers/index.htmlI don't know who one should be angrier at: The Secret Service whose job it is to avoid such breaches (thankfully, their bodies were fully screened before entering the dinner, therefore at the very least they weren't armed) or the couple themselves. According to the article, they are socialites and their publicist claims they had "full clearance to attend the state dinner." Given what the secret service says, however, that appears doubtful. Assuming their actions were what they appeared to be, crashing the state dinner, what would motivate people to do such a reckless thing? At the very least they risked liberty (they could have been arrested on the spot) and possibly injury (I doubt the secret service would have treated them kindly had they been discovered while hovering close to high level diplomats) just for the thrill of being in this place at this time. All in all, a silly thing to do! QUICK UPDATE: According to msnbc.com, the couple are "aspiring reality TV stars": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34157390/ns/politics-washington_post/Suddenly, it all makes sense!
I think I made the journey to stores on Black Friday only two times (ie, waking up very, very early and departing to a store seeking something that likely would be sold out quickly). After the second such excursion, it felt like too much effort for a relatively little reward (and savings). However, others obviously disagree and the whole Black Friday phenomenon lives on. This article offers some advice on what to get and, even more so, what you should avoid: http://www.slate.com/id/2235996/
I've mentioned it before ( here) that the 3rd season Blu Ray release of the original Star Trek series (in stores mid-December) will feature an alternative version of the second Star Trek pilot (the one that featured the first appearance of William Shatner's Captain Kirk). The alternative version's most intriguing element appears to be the alternate opening, which does not feature the now familiar "Space...the final frontier" monologue from Mr. Shatner. Entertainment Weekly offers some information and a clip of this opening, if you're curious: http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/11/24/star-trek-alternate-opening/The full opening was presented in my previous posting along with some of the other differences between the never officially released early version of the pilot (however, the quality of the video isn't nearly as good as what EW gives). I'll embed it below:
A little while back I noted that Michael Connelly's novel The Lincoln Lawyer was being made into a film (posted here). At the time, Tommy Lee Jones was listed as the director while Matthew McConaughey was to play the lead role. Tommy Lee Jones, however, was to play a smaller, undisclosed role in the film, and I was very curious who he would play. My guess was that he would play Vietnam veteran and LAPD detective Harry Bosch, Mr. Connelly's primary hero throughout most of his novels (his appearance in The Lincoln Lawyer amounted to a cameo, which made sense when Mr. Jones' role was listed as a small one). However, you can now scratch all that: Tommy Lee Jones is off the project... http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118011757.html?categoryId=13&cs=1Creative differences. I can't help but wonder if the tone of the book was lightened for Mr. McConaughey, whose most successful films tended to be romantic comedies (I know he has delved into more serious works. I'm only noting that his biggest money makers were in that genre, and I can see the script adaptation of The Lincoln Lawyer possibly being worked to that end. However, this is all speculation on my part). Btw, Mr. McConaughey recently starred as Dirk Pitt in Sahara, a movie based on the novel by Clive Cussler. I only mention this because its an example of a movie adapted to the personality of its lead actor (Compare him to Richard Jordan in the 1980 movie Raise the Titanic. They played the same character).
I've been curious about this film since first hearing about it, but began worrying after repeated delays in its release that perhaps the producers and or studio backing it were having second thoughts about its viability in the market. This article, from msnbc.com, offers a look behind the scenes of marketing the film, noting that because of its dark subject matter it presents a challenge to try to get people to see it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34096601/ns/entertainment-movies/I'm still interested in seeing the movie, however, because of the delays I'm rather leery of the ultimate quality of the film. I can accept that the film is depressing and/or downbeat, but I worry that the film may not be all that good, either. However, note that in the article they state that the film has received an acceptable 78% (now, as I write these comments, its at a still respectable 74%) from Rotten Tomatoes.
It's always intriguing to read about plans for future space missions...at least to me! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34116126/ns/technology_and_science-space/Between this, finding water on the moon, and the new rockets set to replace the space shuttle, it would appear there is an effort (slow but steady) toward both figuring out and formalizing the next phase in NASA's space exploration. I'll be very curious to see where we go next.
|