Haphazard Stuff

World's Greatest Dad (2009) - A Quick Review....

2012-02-10T21:32:00.002-05:00

Normally Robin Williams seems to have gone the route of making family friendly films that are really pretty lousy and just squanders his talents that we all know he has (much like Eddie Murphy). His recent films – Old Dogs, License To Wed, RV, makes me wonder if he really lost his way.

However, every now and then Williams takes a chance with a smaller, more offbeat choice and it reminds me that he doesn’t have to rely on doing his ‘Robin Williams schtick’ to be funny, he actually acts and plays a character.

Directed by Bobcat Goldthwait World’s Greatest Dad is as far from the light, Disney-fied films he’s done lately. Williams plays a Lance a high school poetry teacher who has consistently failed at his long-hoped for writing career. Relegated to having everything he writes rejected and stuck teaching to a handful of uninspired students, Lance tries to get some kind of bonding to happen between him and his son Kyle. Despite Kyle being about the most unlovable a character he could possibly be Lance tries his best.

I won’t say anymore since when I watched the film I went in completely cold, didn’t know anything about the story and don’t want to be the one to spoil it for others. Suffice to say the story heads into some pretty dark territory and at times I was surprised at how far it went. The hypocrisy and selfishness of some of the characters is pretty appalling. The film isn’t necessarily a laugh-outloud riot, but it consists of a more uncomfortable, awkward-type laughs. And you know what, that’s just fine with me!

It’s not a film for everyone. If you just want to see Robin play a funny priest you’re better off skipping this one. But for me the film was a refreshing break from the silly, tired and mainstream comedies Williams has starred in and the uninspiring ones Hollywood seems to be experts at churning out.

Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991) - A Quick Review....

2012-02-09T15:13:00.000-05:00

One of the best behind the scenes/making of documentaries ever. The film recounts the consistent obstacles director Francis Ford Coppola faced when he trekked out to the Philippines to shoot his 1979 film Apocalypse Now. When he arrived everything that could go wrong did.

Coppola's wife Eleanor accompanied him and along the way shot footage recounting the production. Bad weather, heart attacks, confused actors, miscommunication with the Philipino government, an escalating budget, an endless schedule and an unfinished script helped create a swirl of bad fortune for the eventual revered film and the stressed director. However, at the time all of Hollywood was snickering at what Coppola got himself into.

The behind the scenes footage is fascinating to see. While we've become accustomed to seeing endless hours of 'making of' clips, interviews with actors on-set and botched takes today for every film, it's not very often audiences are offered much of that insight into an older film, especially one that has become considered a modern classic.

The revisited interviews with Coppola, the actors and other filmmakers offer honest, revealing stories about their time spent on the film and they don't necessarily paint everyone in the best of light. Marlon Brando might be considered one of the greatest actors ever, but he sure does come off as a big pain in the ass. The film does a great job throwing you into the time and place of the filming when everyone wasn't sure if the film would ever get finished and what exactly it would turn out to be if it ever did.

For anyone who's seen Apocalypse Now, this documentary should be required viewing. In fact any fan of cinema should see it.�

The King's Speech - A Quick Review...

2012-02-08T15:33:00.000-05:00

Normally winning the Oscar for Best Picture doesn’t impress me. I view it merely as a popularity contest and whether the winner actually merits the distinction of being anointed "the best film of the year" is an afterthought.

Period film, about an English royal, overcoming an affliction – The King’s Speech seemed like it was specifically made to win awards. This time the film actually deserved them.

The story of King George the VI struggling with a stammer while trying to be the voice to calm the people of his country at an uneasy period in their history is a compelling setup to both a personal struggle and an epic story.

However, it’s the clashing of two drastically different personalities and the classes between the King and his speech teacher Lionel Logue is what really makes the film so compelling. The mutual respect and friendship that develops between them is as interesting as the great stakes the nation is facing. The cast are all great. Colin Firth deserved his Oscar and Geoffrey Rush is just as good. Any dramatic license the film takes with the actual events are there to help tell a better dramatic story, which the film beautifully does.

Machete (2010) - A Quick Review....

2012-02-05T18:22:00.000-05:00

Director Robert Rodriguez has always had a thing for old-fashioned, B Grindhouse flicks. Inspired by his own homage of a simple tongue and cheek trailer that wasn't meant to be any more than just a fun joke - it morphed into its own feature film and became one of the most entertaining action flicks of 2010.

Starring Danny Trejo as Machete, a Mexican that you really don't want to mess with. After being betrayed by some heavy bad guys Machete goes out for revenge and you can bet he'll be using some sharp, shiny objects to take them down.

Machete doesn't pretend to be any more than what it sets out to be - a fun, silly action movie. It squeezes in some topical issues of immigration and the treatment of them by the US, but its main focus is having Trejo kill a lot of bad guys and he does it very well. He will look familiar to audiences from small roles in countless films through the years and he has a much more believable presence in this type of film than some pretty boy actor who's trying to act tough.

The film has an eclectic supporting cast - Robert DeNiro, Steven Seagal, Jeff Fahey, Michelle Rodriquez, Don Johnson, Cheech Marin, Lindsay Lohan and Jessica Alba, but Trejo is the star of the show. He proves he can headline an action flick and not just be a background actor and introduces us to a character that could seemingly continue with more bloody adventures. This is what The Expendables should have been.

A New 'Official' Pic From Skyfall!

2012-02-04T00:33:00.000-05:00

Not too long ago Bond fans were treated to a poolside photo of Daniel Craig, which was supposedly from Bond 23 Skyfall. It was something of a head scratcher. It wasn't exactly the typical 007 image fans are accustomed to seeing. Where was the tux, the gun, the martini? All we got was a glimpse of Craig's rump.

Well, now 007.com released this new image of Craig in a bit more of classic Bond pose from Skyfall. He's got his Walther and looks to have a very serious 'I mean business and are ready to take out some bad guys' look on his face. This is the stuff isn't surprising to see.

The one thing that is however is Craig's apparent beard he's sporting. It's very unlike Bond. So it makes you wonder - what the heck is that about?

As one fellow Bond fan pointed out already, the last time we saw 007 with a beard was in 2002's Die Another Day on Pierce Brosnan. It was meant to represent a long passage of time while Bond was being tortured. The beard quickly disappeared with the help from one of the films sponsors and along with the loss of the beard Bond's physical and mental torture vanished too. Pretty convenient.

I'm getting off topic, so what's with Craig's facial hair? I know they want to limit the gadgets he's given nowadays, but surely they'd allow him access to an electric shaver!

I'm pretty sure Craig's stubble won't be hanging around for too long and he'll be back to his clean shaven 007 that we've seen in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. In fact some on set pictures have surfaced that show Craig walking around stubble-less.

I'm clearly over analyzing things here, but that's what Bond fans do or any kind of fan in fact that you give a tease for something they're highly anticipating. We start studying as if it were the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In all honesty, I would be content to not know anything about Skyfall and just go see it opening weekend without any idea what to expect. No sneak peaks at press photos or trailers, no inkling of what the story might be, what action set pieces I can expect, who are the characters that will be popping up.

But that's kind of difficult nowadays with movie gossip that can travel much faster and easier than ever before. Plus the fact, that despite my noble declaration....I always seem to fold and just feel a compulsion to look or read anything about Bond. It's a vicious cycle....

But back to the photo, I really can't think of much to say about it or even have much of a reaction to it. I suspect it might be a scene from the opening of the film perhaps, the pre-credits sequence. The image does kind of make me think of a Mission Impossible film in a way, I think it was the second one where Cruise was breaking into some high tech skyscraper. Maybe it's the electronic lights in the background that's causing me to make that connection.

One thing about this photo and the on set one, is that Craig is looking a bit tired in both pictures. It looks like I can see the four years worth of age on his face since his last Bond outing. Craig has always had a very distinctive, rough looking face, but it seems like those lines that gave him that look have gotten longer and deeper. In the official photo it even took me a second to recognize that it was Daniel Craig. He looks somewhat different there. Hmmmm maybe it's just me or it could just be the tense face he's got in the photos.

So there's a bit of a Skyfall update. This past week I was thinking about the Super Bowl and started to hope that maybe we could get some kind of short teaser commercial for Skyfall. I really would like to have some kind of commercial I'd be really psyched to see to make it worth my time to tune into the game. But I think it's still way too early for it and we'll just have to be happy with the images they'll release sporadically. Maybe before summer we'll get the first teaser trailer for it. So I think we still have a decent wait for that.

Super Bowl Ad Pre-Mature Exposure.....

2012-02-02T17:02:00.000-05:00

Well, it only lasted a short time. Some nameless company who recruited Matthew Broderick to step back into the shoes of 80's cinematic teen icon Ferris Bueller had everyone talking. A short ten second teaser of a new Super Bowl commercial really created some buzz and excitement, including for yours truly. Finally getting to see the full commercial got me motivated to be sure to tune into the game just to see it. At least I knew they would have at least one commercial this year that would have my interest.

Well, they blew all that anticipation by releasing the commercial online already! I have no idea why. Maybe the company - Honda, just couldn't keep it in their pants and wait just a few days more, show it during the game and have it be topic of the so-called 'water cooler talk' Monday morning. Perhaps they thought by posting it online only a section of their target audience would see it and there would still be plenty of people who it will be a surprise to.

I just think they blew it.

The commercial itself.....well, the build up and tease was much better than the actual ad itself. I wasn't expecting a great comedy goldmine, but for me it was still a letdown. Seeing Ferris...well Broderick, reenact classic scenes from the film in his adult years was just sort of 'cute' and there really wasn't enough of a spin on any of them that I found them to be really entertaining.

Fans of Ferris will enjoy some of the quick references from the film (they're really background details), but overall I thought the ad was somewhat overwhelming. The idea was great, the final execution.....eh.

But it's just a commercial afterall. It is kind of funny the response the Ferris teaser generated. Some fans were seriously thinking it was an actual sequel to the film and are still hoping for one. Now that the commercial has been seen, some of the response range from "it's great to see Ferris back" to "Ferris traded in that awesome red corvette convertible for a Honda CR-V???? Wow he really grew up uncool! Somebody please save Ferris!!!!"

LOL!

As for the hopes of seeing a NEW decent commercial during the game....I did hear they might have some kind of Avengers teaser....so that could be something....

Ferris Bueller Returns! Kind Of, Sort Of, Possibly At The Super Bowl...

2012-01-29T14:05:00.000-05:00

For us non-football fans there just might be a reason to tune into the big Super Bowl game afterall. Typically most people tune in, even if they could care less about the outcome of the game. It's an excuse to get together with friends, socialize, have the game in the background, make some friendly wagers and of course watch the commercials.

The Classic Coke Ad That Will Be
Talked About Once Again....

It's kind of ironic in this day and age where we're all zipping over commercials with our Tivo'd shows, they still can be a draw for viewers and give them something to talk about.

At least the good ones.

These companies will spend millions of dollars to get airtime and sometimes I wonder why would they bother if they don't have a good idea to start with. They know that everyone are waiting for some cool commercials, so it's time to get their A Game on, pull an all-nighter and come up with something that will get people talking. It might not be the easiest thing in the world, but that's why they're getting paid the big bucks.

So despite my local team being one of the teams vying for the trophy, I still don't really care about the game. Like most people I'll watch a bit of it, my focus is on the commercials, maybe a possible movie teaser or two. I could really care less about who wins the game.

The last couple of years the commercials have been pretty lame though. I can't think of one memorable one that really stands out to me. Every year they do these specials of the best Super Bowl commercials and they usually have to go back twenty, thirty, even forty years to show off highlights. The couple of games I felt like these advertisers were wasting my time. Talking babies....- is that the best they can come up with? The best thing about the last few Super Bowls was Janet Jackson's half time show. I was really hoping they would bring her back. Now that had people had talking!

Anyway, this crop of Super Bowl commercials got dose of exposure with a teaser (they're now actually teasing commercials!) with Matthew Broderick seemingly stepping back into the shoes of his famous onscreen character Ferris Bueller.

This tease doesn't give away much, it does exactly what it's meant to - get you curious and excited to see what is coming. A generation of moviegoers grew up watching John Hughes' 1986 comedy Ferris Bueller's Day Off and have been quoting Ferris' mantra's ever since. I'm sure those are the ones who will be the most excited and get the biggest kick to see him return after twenty-six years. The younger kids might not have a clue to who this guy is, what does he mean or why should we care, but not everything has to be aimed at the young demographic.

It's up in the air as to what product Broderick is endorsing. My guess would be some kind of travel company - maybe we'll get a fun montage of Ferris flying around to exotic places or something. Or it could be a car ad and Ferris is sporting around the city, the country with his 80's song blasting away. In either case at least there's one commercial that I can look forward to seeing.

Oh yeah, there's going to be football game surrounding the commercial......ummm.....who's playing again?

Big, Big Trucks Creating Blind Spots.....

2012-01-28T21:19:00.000-05:00

Driving around the other day I was trying to make a nearly impossible left hand turn. What made it impossible? It wasn't the road. It was just your average street, not really heavily traveled and not an endless stream of cars whizzing by I had to avoid.

It was the truck parked on the corner that made this seemingly simple left turn a nightmare.

Unless I was using some kind of periscope I wasn't going to be able to see around this big guy to make sure the road was clear ahead for me. So I had to do the old inching out into traffic little by little enough that I could finally see the road around this guy.

No need to double park this bad boy!

I've noticed this going on for awhile. Cars seem to get bigger and bigger every year. Sure there's the rare occasion that I'll see those little two seat numbers sporting around, but generally the roads are practically totally obscured by huge, gigantic tanks hauling down the road.

Those little cars could be decorations hanging from the rear view mirrors on these Goliath's

There must be some kind of study that looked into the psychology of why certain drivers feel the need to own such monster size vehicles. And I'm not at all convinced it's because they just feel safer in them....

Trouble Sleeping?

2012-01-22T19:28:00.001-05:00

"Well, I can still get a full two hours at least...."

One of the worst things is having one of those sleepless nights. It’s one of those nights that you can’t afford to be staying up late and killing time watching some tube and just sleeping in the next morning. You know full well that you should be catching some decent Z’s. You have to be up in the morning, you should be well rested and try to avoid at all costs having those heavy eyelids during your long day.

Naturally when your having trouble sleeping this dilemma adds even more pressure in your head while your laying there staring at the ceiling. You try to avoid looking at the time, since each time you roll over and take a peak at the clock the minutes seem to whiz by.

So your stuck laying there hoping that sleep will finally attack you. A lot of people go for their favorite over the counter sleeping pills to help themselves fall asleep. I’m not a big fan of taking any pills, I try to fall asleep the old fashioned way without any medicinal assistance.

The other night I was in the situation. Instead of counting sheep, my mind always seems to wander when I’m in this predicament. It’s actually somewhat of a valuable opportunity to be able to have no distractions, your completely alone and you can just let your self think. Typically we’re all so preoccupied during our daily lives that we get few chances to actually sit, be quiet and think. So at least without wearing earphones, a TV going on in the background or music playing it’s just you and your thoughts.

This might not be such an encouraging perspective when your laying there panicked hoping to sleep, but at least it’s something.

I was in this situation the other night and just let my mind go about its business. Whatever topic that came into my head I pondered, analyzed, scrutinized and let myself get swept away into the next topic. I went from thinking about the most important subjects to the most mundane. I let this go on for awhile. I’m not sure how long I was doing this (I didn’t want to look at my clock). Then I realized my mind took me to thinking about something so ridiculous and unexpected, I started to wonder “how on earth did I get to thinking about lawn furniture???”.

Now the real fun begins. Here’s where I start backtracking my minds thought process and try to connect the dots. My mind seems to drift to such a wide range of diverse topics it’s fascinating to try to see the roadmap I was led down and discover what topic led into the next and how I finally landed at, in this case thinking about lawn furniture at three o’clock in the morning. It's usually a pretty unusual ride.

Next time your having trouble sleeping you should try this little diversion. With any luck you’ll find this exercise so exhausting you’ll fall asleep in no time.

Unofficial Skyfall Picture Revealed!

2012-01-19T19:44:00.000-05:00

Well, there he is Bond fans. Agent James Bond 007 in all his bathing suit glory taking a relaxing moment at the London Four Seasons after a huge, spectacular action scene in his 23rd adventure Skyfall.

Well, that's just me trying to add a bit more excitement to this photo of Daniel Craig that's hit the web this week. This is being described as being our first "unofficial" look at Skyfall. I'm not exactly sure what that means. Are they saying we weren't supposed to see this? Should we thank an insider who smuggled this photo out and ruined the first "official" Skyfall photo of Craig posing in a tux and holding a gun? Or was this just a rejected photo from Men's Fitness magazine. Is it just me or is Daniel showing off a bit of ass cheek? Can we expect the sales of 007's swim trunks to skyrocket again? So many questions.

I'm not sure what to make of this. But any peak at Skyfall will perk up any fans ears. If this photo is indeed some kind of scene from Skyfall we can be sure of at least one thing - 007's most frequent co-star will be returning! Yes, Bond's good old friend Water, often just credited as 'H2O' should definitely be making an appearance.

Sometimes People Are So Dense....

2012-01-11T14:21:00.000-05:00

It's funny how some folks walk around with such thick heads. They're completely oblivious to the obvious and continue doing the same antics that they've always done. Everyone else see what the eventual repercussions will be, but the Block Head just strolls around in their normal way they've always done.

I work with a fellow who seems to have been born dense. Everyone else knows that he's been skirting by somehow. Honestly, I'm surprised that he's lasted this long at this place. He hasn't exactly made himself indispensable to have around. In a lot of ways he's become more of a hinderance.

Well finally the heat is on! The Block Head's antics are finally catching up to him and he's been placed under a microscope by the powers that be. And they don't like what they see. Rumors are running rampant and the Sword of Damocles is hanging over this guys head. And he doesn't seem to care or at least he's not doing anything to change his situation.

It's not like the guy doesn't NEED this gig. I've gotten earfuls of how he needs the money and really doesn't have any other options to fall back on. So from what he's saying it sounds like he doesn't want to leave. I hate to see anyone lose their job, but I can't figure out why he doesn't try to buckle down, get serious and start trying to impress the Big Cheese.

Even after getting screamed at - and I mean really screamed at, this was like that scene from Home Alone, just crazy screaming - by the boss it doesn't sink in that his performance isn't liked and it's time for a radical change and time to step things up. That was an interesting day. The whole place was shaking with sound vibrations from the boss

Somehow the Block Head rationalizes his behavior and chalks all this up to the big man "just not liking him". Well, yeah! And that's not going to change unless you do something about it man! I sometimes admire these people who are completely unaware of their actions and how they look in the eyes of others. It must be kind of liberating not knowing that you really look like a Class A jerk and no one is a fan of yours.

The past few months have had its share of entertainment for me though. I'm ashamed to say I kind of enjoy seeing someone get screamed at and the Big Cheese is a really good yeller. He should enter competitive yelling games. As long as it's not me being the focus of the aggravation all this can be kind of funny. Plus, all the insults and threats seem to just bounce off the Block Head anyway. It's all very strange.

I have a feeling this floor show is going to come to an end very soon and Block Head will be leaving the stage shortly. I can see folks starting to distance themselves from this guy and they're preparing for the inevitable vacancy at this place.

I bet if the boss had it his way he would love to use a big cane to drag this guy out the door.

Revisting Adam West's Batman With Some Young Eyes.....

2012-01-08T13:08:00.000-05:00

Over the holidays my nephews and I had a treat. To ring in the new year it was decided we were going to have a Batman party. That sure beats watching Ryan Seacrest!

Little kids love Batman. My love for the character started when reading my comic books, watching cartoons and of course seeing Adam West and Burt Ward Pow, Biff and Bam the villains of Gotham City on the old classic show. My favorite toy when I was a kid? My Batman Mego figure of course!

So now my four nephews who range from three to six are learning all about Batman. They have their toys and watch the cartoons. The cartoon Batman: The Brave and The Bold seems to be the majority of their exposure to him. They're fully aware that the Joker is a bad guy and that Batman stops him from robbing banks. Of course they know the other famous members of Batman's rogue's gallery - The Riddler, Catwoman, The Penguin and Mr. Freeze.

Deciding on a Batman-themed party was kind of fun. It started as my suggestion and naturally I got stuck decorating, but actually it as kind of fun. Hanging up Bat symbols all over, blue and black balloons, laying out a Batman table cover and of course with the addition of Batman plates and cups.

I even managed to display some of my Batman toys from my personal collection around that were meant "only to look at, not to touch!". It's kind of difficult to explain to kids that these things are not "toys", but collectibles.

Yes, this Batman party wasn't any of the little kids ideas, but their grown adult uncle.

Anyway the party commenced and it was the usual kid kind of gathering. Everyone was dressed up as Batman, with cowls, capes, t-shirts. Some of these Batman kid costumes they have nowadays are pretty good! Much better than the plastic masks with the rubber band I had when I was little.

If you get a group of kids together it usually ends up as a lot of chaos and that's what happened. The feeble attempts at party games to keep them entertained were somewhat pointless and rules fell by the wayside. I really wish I could have found a pin the Bat Symbol in the sky, but no luck so we had to resign ourselves to sticking the tail on the jack ass game. I never considered what a strange game that really is.

The cake came and of course it was a Batman-themed Carvel cake. These things have to be the best tasting cakes ever! The vanilla/chocolate combination, along with the little crunchies! Who can resist that??? I'll admit I never had one of their Fudgy the Whale numbers, but I can't imagine it topping these ice cream cakes.

To round out the night I announced that we would be watching a Batman movie, one that I was sure none of them saw before. Batman: The Movie from 1966 starring Adam West and Burt Ward.

I was somewhat skeptical on how long these kids would sit for this. The cartoons and shows they watch now are much different than the stuff I used to watch when I was little. But I certainly couldn't show the The Dark Knight. I think it would be a bit much for them to see Heath Ledger's Joker ram a pencil into a guys head.

The movie began and the kids were riveted! I was really surprised at how fast they got into watching Adam and Burt slide down the batpoles and fire up the Batmobile. The three year old....well he just continued running around the house. That kid can't keep still, but the others sat there with wide eyes and open mouths seeing Batman beat up the bad guys.

The movie does hold up really well for kids. It's colorful, action-packed, a lot of cool bat gadgets and is very funny. I think they're favorite part was when Joker's jack-in-the-box shot a bad guy out the window.

Overall the screening of Batman 1966 was a success. The kids started to lose interest towards the end and got back to their coloring books, so they missed the part where Batman and Robin rehydrated teh United Nation leaders. But for 90% of the film they sat quiet and entertained. Something their mothers were happy about it.

Afterwards they asked me if there were more Batman movies like this. When I explained it was a TV show, they immediately wanted to see it. Unfortunately, I told them I don't have those. How on earth that show is still not on DVD is beyond me. I wish they could just work out the rights and finally release all those shows.

By the way I enjoyed the evening as well. Of course I wasn't partaking in fruit juice in a Batman cup while watching Adam West, but I was indulging in my own Bat beverage - a Batman rum and coke.

The Dark Knight Rises Official Trailer Now Out!

2011-12-21T21:25:00.000-05:00

Christopher Nolan's epic conclusion to his Batman trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises is headed our way this summer. After a lot of gossip, rumors and paparazzi pictures of behind the scenes fans are finally getting a real look at the film with the just released trailer.

Based on the trailer it it looks to continue the weighty story that Nolan began with chronicling Bruce Wayne's attempts to save Gotham - and himself. The trailer looks to promise some major action, intimidating villians, epic set pieces, a hero trying to maintain some order in a collapsing city, some returning characters along with some new faces.

Trailers are always an iffy proposition. Of course the filmmakers want to make the film look as promising as possible and I have to say this one certainly whets my appetite to see where the story is going to be taken.

Starring Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard.

I'll be sure I'll be on line opening weekend. We can't be sure what will happen to the Bat films after Nolan retires from them, so this potentially could be the last great Bat-film for quite some time. Of course the studio will want to continue making them, but the question will be can they maintain the same level of quality that Nolan has brought back to them or will they suffer the same kind of decline that happened previously? Could we possibly get another Schumacher Batman and Robin somewhere down the road.....?

So I'm going to just try and enjoy The Dark Knight Rises for now and worry about what happens to the films later.

A Christmas Story (1983)

2011-12-18T12:11:00.000-05:00

“A Red Ryder BB gun, with a compass and a stock and this thing that tells time.”
"FRA-GEE-LAY!"
"I can’t put my arms down!”
"I triple dog dare you!"
"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine."
"He looks like a deranged Easter Bunny."
"Oooooh fuuuuudge!"
“You’ll shoot your eye out kid.”

Even if you’re a casual movie fan you probably recognize at least one, if not all of those lines from the 1983 film A Christmas Story.

There has been tons of Christmas films, songs, and television specials through the years. Some have become holiday classics, while others have fallen by the wayside and are just included in Christmas television marathons to fill up time.

Bob Clark’s A Christmas Story adapted by the works of Jean Shepherd is as simple and funny a holiday film as you can get.

In 1943 Christmas season has arrived. Young Ralphie Parker has set his sights on one thing he dreams of getting on Christmas morning – A Red Ryder BB Gun. Unfortunately Mom is against the idea with the ever ominous warning that he’ll ‘shoot his eye out”.

With the clock ticking Ralphie tries any scheme to guarantee he’ll be opening that Red Ryder BB gun Christmas morning. Along the way we experience the universal kid foibles that every kid has to deal with – bullies, an annoying sibling and getting a C+ on your homework.

A Christmas Story has become one of my personal favorites. It was a film I saw when I was little and I immediately latched onto it. I was around when it first hit theaters and thought it was great. It was charming, innocent and really funny! Regardless of it being a ‘Christmas’ movie, I often considered it one of the funniest films from the 1980’s and also a film that’s just as quotable as any of the great comedies in filmdom.

The cast is all great – Melinda Dillion, Peter Billingsly, all the kids and at this point I can’t imagine any other actors filling any of the parts. My personal favorite - Darren McGavin as the Old Man. He is so hysterical with his mumbling cursing and his excitement at finally winning his ‘major award’.

I always liked the setting the film takes place in. We’re dropped in somewhere around 1939-41 in Indiana. Generally people’s best, most memorable holiday experiences occurred in the past, which is what shapes our love for the season. So that nostalgic, purer atmosphere makes the film feel much more special than if it had been set in modern day.

The film doesn't drip with holiday sentimentality like so many other Christmas stories do. Everyone isn't gathering around the dinner table holding hands singing songs - the Bumbus dogs took care of the Christmas turkey. So the Parker family find themselves in the oddest place to have their Christmas dinner - a Chinese restaurant next to a bowling alley with the staff warbling out Christmas songs.

However, with all the humor there is heart to the story and love in the family we see. As the credits roll we learn that we've witnessed Ralphie receive his greatest Christmas gift he will ever receive in his lifetime. That statement gets us to wonder what each of us would say is our own personal greatest Christmas gift. Most likely it's something from years ago when we were also around Ralphie's age.

Gradually the film gained popularity on cable and video rentals and has since become a holiday tradition for millions of movie fans. The one downside to this for me is that I’ve seen the film so many times I can barely watch it anymore. TNT airs a 24-hour marathon of it, so inevitably I’ll catch some of a Christmas Story, but it’s not likely I’ll sit through the whole thing again.

It’s not like my love for the film has disappeared. Just last year someone gave me a mini-Christmas Story leg lamp and I was almost as happy as Ralphie on Christmas morning! And I get jazzed to hear so many people of all ages know the film and love it. It’s kind of cool seeing how a movie that barely anyone was aware of when it first came out has become so beloved. It just took them awhile to discover it.

Miracle On 34th Street - Original vs Remake

2011-12-17T17:22:00.000-05:00

Being deep into the holiday season inevitably I'll stumble onto some holiday films and specials. Of course one of the biggest Christmas films of all-time is 1947's Miracle On 34th Street.

The classic film starring Maureen O'Hara, Natalie Wood and Edmund Gween as Kris Kringle always gets reliable airplay around this time of year. Of course being such a beloved, popular film it's ripe for remake status by Hollywood. So I decided to take another look at the original and see how the 1994 remake by producer/writer John Hughes compares.

One thing I always found ironic about the original is even back then consumerism usurping the spirit of Christmas was a concern. Sixty years later the film still holds up.

The Three Stooges Are Back! (Sort of....)

2011-12-10T22:59:00.000-05:00

The Farrelly Brothers new film The Three Stooges based on the famous comedy trio is headed our way in April 2012. Fans have finally gotten a first look at the teaser trailer and now finally have an idea what they can expect.

And a lot of them don’t like it.

Apparently a very loud reaction is being heard from a lot of Stooge fans over what is being done to Moe, Larry and Curly. It’s probably not what Peter and Bobby Farrelly were hoping for after the long struggle to get this passion project finally done, but based on the overwhelming negative response by Stooge fans it doesn’t seem their new Three Stooges film is going to be welcomed with open arms.

I can’t say I blame the fans, in a lot of ways I completely agree with them. The teaser trailer did not excite me at all with the idea of venturing out to the theater to see this updating of our favorite knuckleheads.

As expected we get the classic slapstick that the Stooges were known for and we see Chris Diamantopoulos (Moe), Sean Hayes (Larry) and Will Sasso (Curly) recreate all the eye pokes, slaps and falls that are Stooge trademarks. The supporting cast consists of a few familiar faces – Sofia Vergara, Jane Lynch, Larry David, Jennifer Hudson and…..Snooki. (Yep, feels like they’re grasping at comedy straws with that piece of casting)

I’ve read the Farrely’s, obviously, huge Stooge fans and have wanted to make a movie about them for a long time. And while I can appreciate fans desire to see the boys back on screen I’ve accepted the fact that it will never happen. And if it was attempted it would most likely look like the trailer that we’re seeing now.

At one point a new Three Stooges movie sounded like it was going to be interesting based on the original casting idea – Jim Carrey, Sean Penn and Benecio DelToro. Can you even picture that??? I would be curious to see any movie that starred those three together! Then having them play Curly, Larry and Moe….oh I gotta see this!

But that didn’t happen and that casting idea, which would have given the film an aura of prestige and interest by the general audience is gone. So the film is now left with B-level actors, some you might be familiar with, dressed up as the Stooges and doing their best impersonations of them. There’s a grab bag of supporting parts and there looks to be some topical pop culture humor. I always wondered what the Stooges would have thought of the Jersey Shore.

The funniest thing to me is the swift reaction by fans when the trailer hit. There have been very loud, angry voices, some already proclaiming it as the worst film of 2012. Yeah, they could be right and I’d be the first to say based on the trailer the film doesn’t look very good, but really what did everyone expect?

I’ve accepted the fact that this was probably a bad idea from the start. As much as I would love to see a new Three Stooges film it’s just not going to happen. Sadly the Stooges have long ago died and they left us with the only Stooge films we’ll ever see. Anything new that comes along will just be imitators in costumes or tribute acts. Whether they want to call themselves the Three Stooges or not, they’re not the Three Stooges.

When I heard Carrey, Penn and DelToro dropped out of the project the curiosity to see the film was lost for me. My reaction to the trailer was just indifference. I’m not going to rant about how bad it looks or that it should never be made. Let’s face it there really hasn’t been much Stooge activity for a long time, so with this film I’m just hoping the interest will prompt a new documentary or book about the real Stooges.

I might be overly optimistic about that and the tradeoff of having the name of the Three Stooges headline a lousy movie might be somewhat painful, but that’s the price to pay to get the guys some major attention again unfortunately.

To be fair this was only a teaser trailer. Who knows, maybe the film will be really funny. It’s possible, not very likely, but possible. I’m betting it will be an attempted forgettable cash grab of a popular title, like the Little Rascals or that All New Adventures of Laurel & Hardy. (anyone remember that one?)

I doubt the Farrelly’s Three Stooges will draft many new fans. The nostalgic affection a lot of fans have for the Stooges that have generated interest in this project will be lost on younger audiences who really aren’t aware of the guys. In an era where the Jackass gang are doing much crazier stuff, will some eye pokes dazzle younger filmgoers? I doubt it.

So what possibly could be left are die-hard Stooge fans rallying against the idea of this film and anger at the Farrelly’s for putting Snooki in it.

But at least we might get a new documentary or book about the real Stooges out of it……maybe…..I hope…..Turner Classic Movies please come through!

One upside to this project is it has given Stooge fans a reason to come together and share their thoughts about this new film and their reactions to it. Stooge fans haven’t had a Stooge-related project to talk about for a very long time. It’s kind of nice to see, even if most of it is complaining. I sometimes forget how beloved the guys still are by so many people.

The 2012 Calendar Selection Has Been Made!

2011-12-03T15:23:00.000-05:00

Well, it’s that time of year again when everyone has to make that hefty decision – what kind of calendar should I buy?

It’s an important choice that will affect what you’ll be looking at and referring to for the next year. Sure you can just make due with one of those free ones your local bank gives away, but what’s the fun in that???

The selection of calendars is staggering when I start to look at them. It seems every base is covered and whatever you like or are into there’s a calendar just for you.

Scenic vistas, art, celebrities, flowers, animals, religious, sports, travel, sexy models, humorous, games, trivia, it’s just a countless variety for you to choose from. Hey you like the Kardashians, not to worry there’s a calendar for them too.

Being a movie fan I used to go with the straightforward selection of a film theme for my yearly calendar. It wasn’t too difficult to commit to flipping through twelve big pictures of Star Wars, Indiana Jones or of course James Bond. Then some of my other favorites would start to slip in, Charlie Chaplin and the Three Stooges were always reliable choices.

I always kind of gloss over a calendar real function and started to look at them more as a decoration than a tool to keep track of time. I have my spot on my office wall that inevitably will be replaced by the next year’s calendar. I go for those big wall calendars with a nice big picture on top and on the bottom all the days, dates and the rest of that jazz

Once I contemplated one of those small desk calendars – The Far Side comic seemed to be the most popular one for a long time. Everyday you tear off a page and were treated to a new comic panel. (I always found it strange that the comic ended years ago and it still hung around for years afterward in calendar form).

But those desk calendars really seemed like too much of a hassle. Everyday you have a commitment to keep track of the days and if you fell behind then you at some point you have to tear off a weeks worth of days in a few minutes. That’s not really fun.

I almost folded on one desk calendar that was a page a day origami. Everyday you learned how to make a new one (I figured I would get all Blade Runner for the year), but again that seemed too much of a hassle and I envisioned a scattering of papers surrounding me of failed origami attempts.

What year is it again....?

Naturally the sexy model calendars. I’m certainly not going to dismiss them and have in the past enjoyed a year of Farmer’s Daughters, Beach Babes and Hot Buns. They mostly consist of anonymous models in sexy poses. I doubt you will even be able to figure out their names if you were so inclined. The major selling point is seeing sexy women in erotic poses. Keeping track of the months or looking for the next holiday is completely moot. I don’t think you’ll even find any dates or months anywhere in some of them…..

These certainly aren’t general office-friendly kind of calendars. I can imagine you hanging one of them up in your cubicle; it might not go over too well with fellow office workers. But maybe some will really like them! They’re much more eye-catching than those big, boring, plain white, block of weeks that most people have sitting on their desks.

One of the funniest sexy ones that reappear every year is the Women In Waders calendar. I just find it so unusual. I suppose combining fishing and hot women serves a niche audience who want to stare at both of them for a year. I always wonder how these things sell though. I suppose they must be pretty profitable if they keep churning them out every year. I guess it’s like the Chicks With Guns and Hot Rides and they’re just covering two different categories at once. I wish someone would come up with Hot Chicks Recreate Star Wars or something…..

So what was my choice for Calendar 2012, well I’ve stuck with one that I think combines both the sexy and the artistic – Pin Up by Gil Elvgren.

I’ve gotten these calendars in the past and really enjoy them. I really dig the retro art by the guy and his paintings of the old classic pinups from years gone by are sexy, fun and amusing. The best of Elvgren’s paintings tell a little story and have an enjoyable twist to the sexy lady in them. How can one not be amused by the lady's skirt hiking up on her as she attempts to put the water bottle on the cooler!

They’re not offensive (or at least they aren’t to my mind) and I look forward to seeing what the next month’s image will be. Plus, they have the days of the month on them. That’s always a plus.

Oh and then I folded and also choose 2012’s Erotic Hands. I figured I could hang it on the back of my door so no one else will see it.

The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.....Again....

2011-11-26T13:13:00.000-05:00

I was never much of a parade lover. I just can’t get too excited for the line of people marching down the street and doing that endless waving to the crowds. It starts to get pretty monotonous after awhile. I think watching one parade equates more hand waving than you’ll ever see in fifty lifetimes.

It’s not like I do much hand waving in my day-to-day life. I’m not sure what other situations you would feel compelled to do so much waving. Maybe in a crowd trying to attract a friend’s attention or perhaps waving at a kid on a ride at an amusement park.

But as with yearly tradition the Macy’s Day Parade is something I usually stumble onto and after watching a few minutes of the folks in the parade I usually think to myself – these people’s arm must get really tired.

Someday someone will revolutionize parades and come up with something for people to do other than wave for three straight hours.

It’s the giant balloons that’s the real draw though. I’ll admit I get a kick out of seeing a huge Spider-Man being guided down the streets of New York. If they took the balloons out of the parade, I don’t think the crowds would be nearly as big.

The cynical nature of me though looks at some of the balloons with pretty narrow eyes. What is the Aflac Duck doing here? Or the Pillsbury Doughboy?

I get wary of seeing characters that endorse products blown up and hauled around for the kids. It just starts to feel a bit commercialized and a way for them to advertise their products in an innocent seemingly way.

M&M’s, Ronald McDonald, The Energizer Bunny, Snuggle Bear, Nestle Quik Bunny. These guys don’t give me the same kick as seeing Underdog flying down the street, who I keep praying they would bring back one year! He was my favorite balloon when I was a kid.

The coverage of the parade I have to say….is pretty lousy. Instead of just locking down a camera in one spot and showing the audience the procession of floats and balloons, NBC stops everything for “live” performances. Every few minutes we’re treated to Neil Diamond singing on a float, a marching band playing a song or a cast from a Broadway show perform a musical number.

It gets really irritating. I’m not tuning in to watch a variety show! I want to see a parade! A parade keeps moving and your waiting for the next thing to come around the corner. I wish they would just add some sort of alternate angles to the broadcast – like they do on porno DVDs! Then I can switch back to the real live marching parade excitement and I can skip the carefully choreographed dance numbers and lip-synced performances.

Fortunately, the ‘mute’ button is always handy when the hosts decide to do some well-rehearsed witty repartee about the floats and the balloons. They always have to throw in some terrible jokes about them too.

“Gee, Shrek here looks huge Katie. I’m not sure one Thanksgiving dinner will be enough to fill him up!”

Yuk, yuk, yuk….

I would be much more keen on the parade if they just dropped everything else except the big balloons. Keep one camera, maybe have a second, and just keep them focused on the balloons. Drop the awkward commentary, the dance numbers, all the waving and load the procession with wall to wall balloons and just keep them moving.

I suppose they could keep Santa Claus bringing up the rear....

Flight of the Phoenix Review - Original vs Remake

2011-11-25T14:07:00.000-05:00

The Flight of the Phoenix is 1964 novel by Elleston Trevor. It tells the story of a plane crash in the middle of the desert. With no chance of being rescued the survivors of the crash cling to any kind of hope and begin rebuilding the downed aircraft to fly them out of there.

The novel was adapted in 1965 as a feature film directed by Robert Aldrich, starring an ensemble of actors, with James Stewart, Richard Attenborough and Hardy Kruger, along with an ensemble of distinguished character actor – Peter Finch, Ernest Borgnine, Dan Duryea, George Kennedy).

I’ve always loved The Flight of the Phoenix. I’ve always loved Jimmy Stewart and look at Phoenix as one of his last great movies he did in his career and he did a lot of great movies.

General movie audiences probably think of Jimmy as just playing a lot of just nice guys onscreen, but he played his fair share of complicated characters. Like in Phoenix, he’s a pretty unpleasant, stubborn guy and he’s really good in it.

When Heinrich Dorfmann reveals his idea of rebuilding the wreckage he is immediately dismissed by Stewart's Captain Towns without a second thought. He has enough problems with the rest of the survivors and this bad situation they're in that he doesn’t need this goofy little guy to further shake things up.

The one thing about these kinds of films where you toss a grab bag of different characters into a dire situation together and they’re forced to work together, even if they don’t like each other too much, is exploiting that aspect to it. That’s where the drama comes in, and Phoenix does that beautifully.

The supporting characters are not just background like the hills of sand, but they’re all given enough shadings to make them interesting. The film just doesn’t hover on the leads and give them everything to do, but all these survivors have their own little things going on.

The disgust Sgt. Watson has for his superior Captain Harris, the disturbed resentment Cobb has aimed at Dr. Renaud and the sarcastic humor Ratbags throws at the meek Standish. (Ian Bannen is so funny in this film)

All these little side stories and conflicts make watching all these characters a lot more interesting. It’s kind of like an episode of Love Boat – all the guest stars are given some kind of story to play.

Meanwhile Captain Frank Towns is guilt-ridden, but is still obstinate enough that he won’t even consider Dorfmann’s crazy plan. When the group finally gathers around to hear how Dorfmann plans on doing this, they’re all a bit confused by it, but at this point they’re willing to listen to any suggestions since really no one has any other ideas. It will take Town’s expertise and as the leader of the group to either support Dorfmann or not.

Naturally he doesn’t.

Town’s co-pilot and friend Lew is trying to talk sense to him and they have their own personal clashes. Frank and Lew are not just boringly going along with each other – they’re getting into arguments that cut pretty deep. It’s not until Lew breaks Towns down that he begrudgingly agrees to Dorfmann’s plan and the group begins to get to work. All the while Towns and Dorfmann battle each other, each one trying to maintain some form of leadership and each stubborn enough that they’re both unwilling to bend, even if it will mean death to everyone.

Meanwhile the sun is baking down, the water is running out and hope is fading. There is a real sense of urgency to the story. The graveyard keeps getting more occupants and the guys start walking around like zombies. These guys really start looking like hell. Sometimes I’m amazed that 20^th century fox didn’t force Aldrich to have the plane be carrying some cases of aloe and lip balm, just so the actors would look a bit more movie star-ish.

I won’t get into the finale (although even if you haven’t seen the film you can probably figure it out). But the ending is almost secondary in the film – the real fun is getting there and seeing this group interact in these harsh conditions. With the actors and the performances they give you could probably have gotten a great story with these characters being…anywhere. They could be standing in line at the DMV and it would probably make a fascinating story.

So overall fantastic movie. Man against man, man against nature, man against himself….and men against Ernest Borgnine……

2004

I don’t know why they bothered……

Thirty nine years later 20^th century Fox remade Phoenix. This time Dennis Quaid, Tyrese Gibson, Giovanni Ribisi, Miranda Otto and Hugh Laurie are the stars.

Now some might think it’s not fair to compare an original film to a remake – tough. I figure if they’re going to tell the same story, use the same source material and call it by the same title, then I get to decide which version is the one I prefer and is more worth my time to sit and be told that story. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a remake and give the film a chance to be entertaining, but if it’s a remake to a really good film then they better be bringing their A-Game.

I always thought if your going to remake something, you should try to improve on it or try something different. 2004’s Phoenix does neither.

I will say the shots of the plane flying over the desert look really nice though.

Director John Moore offers nothing new, fresh or different in the remake. He tells the same story in a much less exciting way than the original offered. Flight of the Phoenix became one of the most inconsequential, pointless remakes I've seen.

After a bit of setup with Towns (Quaid) and his co-pilot AJ (Gibson) picking up a bunch of oil workers at a closed drilling station, we get the crash scene, a sequence that Hollywood loves to make nowadays and from here the film like the plane takes a nose dive.

We get stranded in the sand with a bunch of uninteresting, stupid characters who we care nothing about.

Unlike the original, the remake substitutes all the drama, tension and character clashes with a bunch of action set-pieces that are not done nearly as well as they probably thought they were.

One of the most blatant, undemanding ways films take to “update” or “remake” an older film is to shake up the casting and make it a bit more 21^st century. “In the original they were just a bunch of white guys – well here we’re going to have some black guys, an Arab guy, a Spanish guy and even a woman!”

Ok so they’re taking the politically correct route. Fine. I don’t have a problem with that…..if they made those characters more fleshed out than them just being – “the black guys, the Arab guy, the Spanish guy and the woman”.

Throughout the film I never learn much about these people and therefore never cared if they would survive. At times I was hoping they wouldn’t. I completely forget about them when they leave the screen.

Dennis Quaid is likeable enough actor, plus he’s got better abs than Jimmy Stewart but this is not one of his better performances.

Quaid is an actor who I’ve always liked, despite him not being in many really great movies. Throughout his career he just never reached that A-List status that I always thought he should have. Sure, I’ve liked a few films he’s done (Dreamscape, The Big Easy, The Rookie), but his film misfires far outnumber the better films on his resume. I still think his best film he’s done is one of his first 1979’s Breaking Away.

His Captain Towns is a much less dense character than Stewarts. So Quaid mainly plays the typical arrogant, hotshot pilot throughout the film. It’s Quaid playing a watered down Han Solo.

The construction of the plane, which is the main driving force in the story, isn’t an exhausting exercise the group has to endure. Unlike the original where they had to jeryrig tools and the physical toll it takes on everyone, the remake conveniently provides them all the equipment they need for the job. BORING.

This might be a blessing for the characters in the story, but this convenient stroke of luck robs us of witnessing an additional obstacle they must overcome.Watching how they manage to get the construction done and getting all MacGyver and creative with what they happen to have is much more thrilling than the characters being handed all the required tools.

There is no feeling of menace to this retelling of the story. The conditions of being in the middle of the desert with not a lot of water and little chance of being rescued doesn’t seem to be that much of a concern to anyone. At times it looks like they’re just having a big beach BBQ out there with a crashed plane lying in the middle of it.

Whereas the original had some excitement between every character we would see, here we get none of that. It’s not really that compelling to see acouple of guys yuk it up compared to a guy who wouldn’t mind seeing this other guy walk out in the desert and never comes back. The majority of the struggles that were played out between the original group is substituted for action set pieces and glossy special effects here, and those are nowhere near as memorable. The snazzy scenes pass quickly and then we have to go back to the group of characters who are boring and we don’t care anything about it. It just becomes a very tedious, predictable film.

The film seems to know how dreary the scenes are with all these characters. The only solution it can come up with to shake things up and get any drama to happen is throwing a sandstorm at them or having Arabs attack them or rolling the plane around with them inside. When it's just the characters by themselves.....it's torture to sit through.

Even the whole decision whether to trust this shady little guy and should they try to rebuild the plane isn’t capitalized on. It’s just rushed through. There’s no sense that this is a life or death decision that may or may not work. It’s just “yeah, why not”.

I will say Ribisi does a fun performance as Elliot – the updated Dorfmann, but even the way his character is written here, he isn’t as engaging as Hardy Kruger’s. For one the skepticism he gets from the other group as a German. At the time WWII was still pretty fresh on people’s minds and this distrust of him they based it on gave them a personal prejudice to overcome.

And while Ribisi is clearly made up to look like Kruger - he's got the blond hair, the glasses - there’s really no reason for it, he’s just this strange, weird little guy. In fact. It might have been better if they made Elliot an Arab character. After these oil workers are pillaging oil from the middle east, not respecting any of their culture and just dismissing them, the one person out of this group that can potentially save them is an Arab. That would have given the characters a tough pill to swallow.

Also the original played on Stewart’s age and his unwillingness to accept change. He’s holding onto the older ways things were done and is cynical towards the new and young. This is a recurring argument between Towns, Dorfmann and Lew. This is all dropped in the remake. Although the plane does get hit by lightning…..

SPOILERS AHEAD!

One of the fun things about the original is the revelation that Dorfmann is not in fact an airplane designer, but he works on model planes. Towns and Lew accidentally stumble onto this discovery, which leads to Attenborough having a great cinematic breakdown.

The two men want to keep this fact a secret from the rest of the group and confront Dorfmann about them not wanting him to reveal this to them and upsetting them. Dorfmann is completely taken aback that this piece of information has cast doubt that the plane will be able to fly. He views his model making background as being no different to designing “the real thing”. Through the course of the film he makes no conscious attempts at trying to hide this from anyone. In fact when Towns and Lew finally learn about his job by flipping through a catalog of his company and are completely stunned, Dorfmann proudly shows them the models he worked on. As Lew states “he didn’t even keep anything from us”.

In the remake this is once again handled differently (and not for the better. The same secret about Elliot comes out, however this time the character consciously tries to hide his job of designing model airplanes from everyone. When Towns finds the catalog and discovers this, Elliot seems fully aware how everyone will react to this and would have rather kept it to himself. There's this confrontation as the entire group learns this all at once. This scene makes Elliot come off as a much more self-aware sinister character than Dorfmann ever did.

I can go on, but it’s clear which of these versions of the story I prefer. The remake is a pretty paltry retelling of the film. While watching it I kept thinking to myself - "Why?"

Why did they want to remake this story. What was their goal? They couldn't have been drawn to the story since they never capitalize on it. The remake itself doesn't have any of the drama or suspense that the original film contained. The film doesn't seem interested in the characters or emotional and physical struggles the story thrusts onto them. Did they just want to remake it so they could film a plane crash in the desert? I just don't understand what their motivation was for wanting to remake the film. It all just seems so pointless.

The original is a great film, that never seemed to attain 'classic' status that Aldrich's following film The Dirty Dozen would reach. They're both real macho kind of guy movies about a group being forced to work together under extreme circumstances. Both really good films, but I think I might lean more towards Phoenix to the one I personally enjoy more.

Phoenix is a thrilling story about survival, so if your going to watch one Flight of the Phoenix go with the original. And if you've only seen the remake, don't let that prevent you from watching the original and see how the story was told much better the first time around.

Popcorn (1991) - A Quick Movie Review.....

2011-11-18T17:43:00.000-05:00

After enjoying huge success during the 1980’s, the horror genre was running on fumes by the early 90’s (until getting revived by Scream in 1996). 1991’s Popcorn was one of the films that filled the gap before horror films enjoyed a new renaissance again.

Popcorn is basically another teen slasher film – maniac running around killing young unsuspecting teens, however this time it almost borders on parody in the world of horror films. The gimmick here is that the killings take place in an old movie theater that is hosting an all night horror-a-thon. The setting is what makes the film particularly fun, especially for hardcore movie fans.

A group of film students needing money for the school’s film program decide to screen old horror movies and employ all the stunts they used to lure audiences in the seats back in the day. The Stench in Arom-A- Rama, Attack of the Amazing Electrified Man in Shock-O-Rama and Mosquito in 3D. (Kind of ironic that these cinematic attention grabbers are being employed in recent years. Maybe Adam Sandler’s Jack and Jill would have benefitted being in Arom-A-Rama….).

The featured 50’s horror films that play through the night are pretty amusing, at times I wished that I could watch them all the way through. They’re prefect recreations of the old atomic monster movies and B-horror flicks from the 50’s and 60’s.

Popcorn is almost a precursor to Scream in a lot of ways. It’s a horror film that references the genre that we’re watching and that which the characters are in the middle of. Unlike Scream however, Popcorn never goes as far as it could with the idea and because of its low budget and overall quality was easy to become another forgettable horror film.

The leading lady is Jill Schoelen as the adorable cinema lover Maggie, one of her many Scream Queen kind of roles in the 80’s and early 90’s. She’s kind of got a Winona Ryder vibe going on. Film geeks are bound to be infatuated with her. I know I was when I first watched this movie on HBO late one night in the early 90’s. “Damn a really cute looking brunette who quotes Indiana Jones! I AM SO THERE!”

The cast consists of a few recognizable actors – Dee Wallace Stone, Tony Roberts and Ray Walston who passes through the film pretty quickly. I don’t think he even stops walking. The rest of the cast is made up of anonymous, young actors. There is one or two that I remember from other films at the time. (Hey that chick was in Summer School!)

The film does have a lot of drawn out dead space. The majority of it is taken up by the students waltzing around the theater either looking for a fellow student or cueing up the next stunt for the attending movie audience before - EEK EEK EEK – they’re killed. That’s like a necessity for horror films, but here those sequences are not as interesting or suspenseful as they could have been.

There really isn’t a lot of blood, gore, sex in Popcorn. It seems so innocent in fact when rewatching it I started to think of it as a made-for-TV-movie. Some of the dialogue is pretty lousy, some of the actors are dreadful and the characters, other than the Possesor, are as thin as the movie screen. Even Maggie, our leading lady just coasts through the film in a monotonous kind of bland way.

Popcorn (I just love that title, that’s probably another reason why I remember this flick so well) is definitely not a great movie, but it does have some charm that I just can’t help but enjoy. The film never gets too pompous and takes itself too serious. It’s a pretty average horror film. It’s not gory, not really that scary, no gratuitous nudity and the story of the strange Possessor who seeks revenge on the unsuspecting students and audience on movie night is not that interesting. He kind of resembles Jim Carrey in the Mask.

So why on Earth am I even talking about this flick – well, because the movie theater setting makes it unique. It’s just a fun place to hang out for awhile until another student gets eradicarted. The whole atmosphere of a movie audience dressed in scary costumes, excited to be putting on their cheap 3D glasses and spend the evening watching some old, bad drive-in movies is really cool. We get a few pop culture references, plus the idea of using old innocent movie stunts as a means to kill has a fun irony to it.

Hardcore horror fans and film geeks will probably find the film more entertaining than the average moviegoer. Popcorn is available on Netflix for streaming (that’s how I rewatched it). It isn’t available on DVD, except for an expensive out of print disc whose price is really high. (I wouldn’t recommend paying the hundred bucks or whatever outlandish price it sells for). There is talk that it will be re-released with a directors commentary for fans, it has afterall attracted a cult following through the years. It always seemed like a film that was made specifically to become a cult film.

Since Hollywood is remaking every horror film in existence nowadays, I think Popcorn might just be ripe for one. Especially with the old and new gimmicks that are being employed to lure audiences back to the theaters today, maybe they can be played for some ominous horror. Even though Midnight Movie used a similar setup. If they could find some filmmakers who would actually embrace the love of old movies that the premise plays on and are ready to do some creative ways of dispatching victims during one night at a fun horror-a-thon. a new version of Popcorn could certainly improve on the original. Until then, this film works……eh….ok.

Adam Sandler’s Jack And Jill Gets a Loud Reaction….

2011-11-13T12:50:00.000-05:00

What is it about a bad movie that brings out such a reaction? I’m not talking about just a stupid, time waster of a movie, but a really, really epically bad film. A film that is devoid of any creativity or imagination or entertainment value. A film that makes one wonder who in their right mind at the studio thought any of it was good idea. One of those films that come around once every few years and is greeted with universal distain and fuels the fires of movie fans everywhere.

I take great glee in seeing the overwhelming negative reaction it generates in critics and audiences alike.

Adam Sandler filled that category of a movie so bad it’s a shock to see it managed to stick to the film with his latest comedy Jack and Jill. And the response has been very vocal.

It’s pretty unanimous - it’s a cinematic turd.

I’ve never been a fan of Adam Sandler. I never got his humor and the films I’ve seen of his I always considered low-grade comedies, with feeble attempts at humor and a leading man who I never found charismatic in the first place.

I remember first seeing him on the MTV game show Remote Control and disliking him. He would do a bit of trying to be funny, talking with his supposedly comical voices and he would just get on my nerves. I was desperate for them to get the camera back on Kari Wuhrer. Then he joined Saturday Night Live and I still couldn’t figure him out, but apparently everyone else loved him and saw the talent that clearly was escaping me.

Finally his film career began and once again – I just didn’t get it. Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy, Little Nicky. How on earth was this guy attracting an audience??? I suppose his best films were The Wedding Singer, Anger Management, 50 First Dates. But even those I thought were mediocre comedies and I certainly wouldn’t be revisiting them again. I guess the simple way of saying it is I never liked Sandler and therefore didn’t find him appealing in any movie. His boyish comedic screen persona didn’t work on me. I can’t say how he did in his dramatic turn in Punch Drunk Love. I haven’t seen it.

So Sandler coasted along with his films – Mr. Deeds, The Longest Yard, Click, Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan – and his audience followed. They all looked like pretty bad films to me and I had no plans of ever watching them.

Now Sandler’s latest film Jack and Jill I assumed would be yet another middling addition to his resume. I thought it would make some money, get some bad reviews and disappear. However this time Sandler’s film evoked a bit more of a reaction than usual.

As soon as the trailer was released everyone targeted it as a crap movie. Which I find kind of odd, since from my perspective the majority of his films are crap, but on this one everyone seemed to agree.

Maybe it had something to do with the cutesy title, the fact Sandler is in drag or a completely mind-boggling supporting part for Al Pacino. Jack and Jill had all the earmarks of a colossal bomb. The trailer for it, the thing that was supposed to get people excited to go and see the film, became the butt of jokes. A Hollywood comedy at it’s worst. Now that’s pretty impressive.

So Jack and Jill got released and the reviews starting to come in and they were some pretty amusing things to read.

“How can something like this happen?” – Moviefone

“It’s pretty sad if you’re a comic and Al Pacino is the funniest thing in your movie.” - The New York Post

“More than 24 hours has passed since I watched the new Adam Sandler movie “Jack and Jill” and I am still dead inside.” - TIME

Howard the Duck, Gigli, Showgirls, From Justin To Kelly. What do they all have in common? They’re all widely considered to be among the worst big studio movies ever made. You know what else they have in common? They’re all better than Jack and Jill.” - Aisle Seat

Now that’s funny stuff! Finally something Adam Sandler has done is making me laugh.

A Double Feature of Bronson's Death Wish...

2011-11-12T23:52:00.000-05:00

To me Charles Bronson was always one of those actors who appeared in some great films when he was younger. The Magnificent Seven, The Dirty Dozen, Once Upon A Time In The West, all really great films. He had that classic, stoic, dangerous tough guy quality that helped makw him famous.

Then he started to coast on that persona in his later years in some below average action films (what I typically refer to as his mustache years). In 1974 came his defining role as Paul Kersey in Death Wish. I had never seen the film in its entirety, but was familiar with the story (as I’m sure most film fans are).

I finally got to watch it all the way through and treated myself to a Death Wish double-feature – 1974’s Death Wish and its first sequel, 1982’s Death Wish II.

The original was an entertaining urban revenge thriller that gave Bronson an interesting enough character to play, but still allowed him to do the action that he specialized in.

The set up was simple enough – Bronson’s daughter is attacked and his wife murdered. Tired of getting the runaround by the police, seeing the innocent get harassed by street punks and New York City going down the toilet, Bronson takes it upon himself to start fighting back against the criminal element with a lot of gunfire.

Watching Bronson gunning down muggers in the New York subway I can’t help but be reminded of the Bernard Goetz incident. Audiences were really ready to cheer Bronson and Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry unleash some long-delayed justice to criminals in the 70’s

Bronson plays his usual tough guy, but here he’s got a bit more vulnerability and sadness to his character than what his Kersey character would become in the sequels He’s in a panicked state after encountering lowlifes on the street. He’s shaken up after getting home from filling some punks with lead. They are little, small moments, but they help make Bronson’s Kersey much more human than the unstoppable force down the road. He’s a guy that a really bad thing happened to and just doesn’t want to be the victim anymore.

The film does stretch things a bit. I mean, every time Bronson walks out of his apartment some hoods are bothering him. Every single time. It’s a good thing the guy doesn’t own a dog. But the vigilante story doesn’t get so overblown. A sock filled with a roll of quarters and a handgun – that’s pretty much all the weapons he has.

Then I got to the sequel which started a pretty redundant, exploitative badly done 80’s action film series that seemed to use the Death Wish name and Bronson to milk some easy cash.

This time out Kersey is living in Los Angeles with his daughter and a new love interest played by Jill Ireland (Bronson’s real life wife, who I had always thought was very attractive). As is typical in Death Wish films, criminals attack and kill Kersey’s daughter and as a result Bronson arms himself looking for the guilty and unleash their deserved punishment.

It’s all pretty tedious and cheaper this time around. It's a standard revenge film, but the production values and staging of the attacks are really lacking. Bronson roams the streets until he find the hoods and quickly dispatches them with gunfire. That’s about it. While the initial attacks in the first film seemed to hang over the Kersey character like a dark shadow, here it's used simply as a catalyst for Bronson to shoot 80's gang members.

There are some secondary things going on – Bronson and Ireland’s relationship, the return of Vincent Gardenia from the original film, but they’re not given nearly as much time or any kind of development. The film simply consists of badly staged attacks by Bronson.

From what I've heard the Death Wish series dropped any believability or humanity as the series went on. Action soon became the only selling point. While it can be fun to see Bronson kicking some punk’s ass, it would be nice if the films contained more than that. A simple sock filled with quarters wasn’t enough anymore, now Bronson was armed to the teeth.

Other than the first film, the rest of the Death Wish series sounds like a string of subpar action films and if they're anything like the second, they're probably pretty disposable. I never had much interest in watching them, but who knows. My movie selections can get somewhat strange on some evenings.

The Oscars Will Be Murphy-Less!

2011-11-10T15:00:00.000-05:00

Hey I love movies, but am really not interested in the Oscars. Is that a mammoth contradiction?

However, my ears certainly perked up with all the news about this years Academy Awards.

It was originally planned that director Brett Ratner would be producing this year’s show and he managed to corral Eddie Murphy as the Oscar host. I suppose the struck up some kind of friendship while working together on their recent film Tower Heist.

However, that’s all over with now. Ratner made some gay comments at a Q and A while promoting his film. He really upset a lot of people, embarrassed the Academy and Ratner quickly resigned from his duties as producer of the show. A day later Eddie Murphy followed suit and bailed out as Oscar host. Now this whole sordid affair will go down as another piece of Oscar trivia, like the streaker and Sacheen Littlefeather. The show must go on, now with a new host. (By the sounds of it Billy Crystal is looking like he'll be returning. Or at least he's willing to.)

Honestly, I could care less about Ratner not being part of the show. I was never a big fan of his in the first place and couldn’t see what his talents would bring to an already over-produced, overlong award show. I wasn’t even sure how he got the gig in the first place really. Maybe he's just a real likable guy.

However, seeing Eddie Murphy host the Oscars – a show that I have pretty much ignored for the last few years – would have gotten me to tune in. Having him there seemed like a real way the show could possibly have some edge to it and maybe it would be the stage to finally witness a funny Eddie Murphy once again. So I was kind of disappointed to read that he quit the show.

Like so many people, I remember Eddie Murphy’s golden years. He was one of the best things on Saturday Night Live during the early eighties. He was so young and talented, when I see clips of him on that show I find it hard to believe he was only eighteen, nineteen years old! To this day my friends and me quote from some of his most famous and hilarious skits and characters from those shows.

Then his film career started and he was the biggest thing ever. 48 Hrs Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop – audiences couldn’t wait for the next Eddie Murphy movie. I don’t think younger movie fans can appreciate how popular Murphy was during the 1980’s and how beloved he was. His stand up films were some of the funniest routines ever. We all might have had some raised eyebrows when he tried to start a singing career, but as long as he was still funny who cared. There was no reason not to think that Murphy wouldn’t continue to captivate us for years.

Then something happened.

As the 80’s were coming to a close so did the spark Murphy had on everyone. His films got less funny. He seemed to begin to take himself too serious. Blander, less funny films – The Distinguished Gentleman, Vampire in Brooklyn, Harlem Nights (which he directed) replaced his great comedy hits. Some of his endeavors were not only bad, but just downright painful to watch.

And he just kept making them.

At a certain point I would have expected him to do a radical turnaround and stop the derailment that his career was taking…..but he didn’t.

The hard funny edged Murphy became the star of insipid family friendly films, Dr. Dolittle, Daddy Day Care, Imagine That. It was kind of tough to watch.

It just seemed like his talent was being squandered for no apparent reason. I don’t know why Murphy made the choices he did. Everyone thought he could do so much better, but it didn’t seem like he wanted to. Every actor has a few bombs now and then, but now it looked to be Murphy’s career, even starring in one of the worst cinematic disasters in history – The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Wow, the great Eddie Murphy really nosedived.

I always thought that Murphy, given the right role and right film could have bounced back. I thought once he does the right film audiences will remember why they fell in love with him in the first place. But that film didn’t come. The closest we got was him voicing Donkey in the Shrek films.

Even with his Oscar nominated performance in Dreamgirls in 2006, a role that seemed like the first step to get him back on track with his film choices, he followed it up with the abysmal Norbit.

Like I said when I heard about Murphy as Oscar host I thought there could be some positives to this. Eddie Murphy performing live onstage, maybe we would get some of the same sparks that he gave us back in the day. We’ll get to see some glimpses of the greatness that he once was. Perhaps this was me be overly optimistic, but even if he wasn’t funny at least he’d be trying something different rather than being part of yet another piece of cinematic crap. Maybe hosting the Oscars could be the first step in career resurgence for him.

Now we’ll never know.

Maybe the hysterical, talented Eddie Murphy is gone for good. Maybe he disappeared around the time he agreed to do Another 48 Hrs. I don’t know. It's just that I can’t help but think that Murphy has a comeback within him – if he really wants it.

His next film (that has been sitting on a shelf for two years) is entitled A Thousand Words, which Murphy reteamed with his director from Norbit and Meet Dave…..

...perhaps that Murphy comeback might not be for awhile….

Bond 23 Will Be....SKYFALL!

2011-11-05T01:56:00.000-04:00

It's been a bumpy road for Daniel Craig, but he's finally going to make it to his third Bond film, now officially announced being titled 'Skyfall'.

Remember when he was first cast and all the anger and confused looks by fans at that decision? It didn't help that he was immediately following one of the most beloved 007's - Pierce Brosnan.

One look at Craig and fans began complaining and taunting 'James Blonde' cries to anyone who would listen (mainly to other Bond fans).
"He doesn't look like James Bond is supposed to look!"
A website even started up proclaiming that "Daniel Craig is not Bond". (it's still up by the way).

Movie audiences scratched their heads with the decision. Like it or not Daniel Craig was James Bond and he was starring in the next 007 film, 2006's Casino Royale. After fans saw it the complaints about Craig shifted to praise.

Casino was a huge hit and Craig's performance wowed audiences and critics. Some even suggested an Oscar nomination was in order. Craig starred in one of the biggest successes of the Bond series and fans couldn't wait for another.

2008's Quantum of Solace was once again an enormous success, but generally it got a much cooler reception as Craig's debut. Everyone was fully expecting a third film, but weren't expecting to have to wait four years for it.

As it happened in the early 90's, the Bond films were put on hold. This time MGM filed for bankruptcy and Bond 23 was postponed indefinitely until the studio was back on its feet. How long will that take?

Four years.

Finally, Bond fans got the news they've been hoping for - Bond 23 has started filming.

At a crowded press conference Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson announced the title of the film will be Skyfall and is set to be released November 7, 2012.

They were pretty careful with information regarding the film and didn't go into any details regarding the story. The official synopsis says, "In Skyfall, Bond's loyalty to M is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost".

Craig and Judi Dench will be returning. Javier Bardem is set to play the villain. Berenice Marlohe and Naomie Harris will be the new Bond girls. Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney and Ben Whishaw have all be confirmed to be part of the cast. And the film will be shooting on location in London, China, Turkey and Scotland.

It will be a stand alone story and not in anyway connected to Quantum of Solace.

That's about all we know right now. As filming gets underway I'm sure we'll start getting nuggets of info about the story and what we can expect. For now all we mainly know is that Bond is returning.

More of my reaction to all this Bond news.....

The People vs. George Lucas - A Review

2011-10-24T20:35:00.000-04:00

Star Wars fans appear to have a love/hate relationship with George Lucas.

At first he was a viewed as a cinematic messiah, creating one of the most popular film series of all times and in effect inspiring millions of its viewers. In the eyes of original fans he created the most important film in their young lives.

Then gradually that admiration turned into disgust. In the eyes of many fans, George Lucas became less a storyteller and more of a businessman selling, repackaging and profiting from his Star Wars creation any way he could. His decisions fiddling with Star Wars and the Emperor-like grasp he continued to have on fans started to feel to many that he was taking advantage of that initial love and in turn giving them nothing back.

George Lucas has become one of the most polarizing filmmakers ever. Why? What’s the big deal? He only made a bunch of ‘space movies’. But those ‘space movies’ became some of the most influential films in cinema history, along with being a touchstone for a generation of kids who recreated scenes in their backyards imagining their Dad’s flashlights were lightsabers – an elegant weapon for a more civilized age.

The People vs. George Lucas directed by Alexandre O. Philippe, attempts to untangle this swing of emotions in the hearts of fans who a long time ago were worshipping at the Alter of Lucas and now are making declarations that he has raped their childhoods.

I’ve been hearing about this film for a long time and finally managed to see it. It presents a vast collection of Star Wars fans from all walks of life who offer up their own opinions on their feelings about George and where he has taken their beloved sci-fi series. The passion with both their affection and anger towards Lucas and Star Wars is at times humorous and seemingly well-placed.

Hearing the arguments regarding the 1997 Special Editions of the films is a portion I found the most interesting and is where I would place the point where Lucas finally turned to the Dark Side with his original trilogy.

Fans were treated to revamped and updated versions of the original trilogy (1977’s Star Wars, 1980’s The Empire Strikes Back and 1983’s The Return of the Jedi). However, along with the enhancements this move also erased the original versions of the films – at least in Lucas’ mind. Since then he seems content to let them disappear from film history. The work that earned Oscars for the other artists who worked on 1977’s Star Wars - best art direction, costume design, visual effects, editing - their original work has been altered by Lucas' technology. Computer generated special effects now overshadow the laborious work of 1977's model makers and technicians. The 1997 Special Editions are simply not the same films.

That one point the documentary explores I found the most disappointing with Lucas. Especially since he was once such a vocal proponent of the preserving of film history. There’s a level of hypocrisy going on that you just have to shake your head at.

The film does offer up some laughs, particularly with the featured fan videos that recreate and parody the films and criticize Lucas. If you’re a Star Wars fan it just opens the door for you to search some of these videos out. Some are very creative and are more entertaining than the prequels.

Ah yes, the prequels. They're also covered. The long wait and eventual disappointment is highlighted by the strong negative reactions by original fans.

The questions the film raises are some interesting ones – does an artist first have a responsibility to his audience or to himself? Does he have a right to continue to change his work after its already been presented to the public? And what was Lucas thinking when he gave us Jar-Jar Binks???

There really isn’t a definitive answer to these but hearing the discussion and various opinions from the interviewee’s offers up a nice variety of perspectives.

Being one of the millions of fans who grew up with the original trilogy and witnessing what Star Wars has become I have my opinions on Lucas. Do I like the prequels? No. Do I like the changes that were made to those original films? No. Do I think the best that Star Wars can give me is behind me? Yes. And that also goes for Lucas too.

I would like to see one day George Lucas venture out of his Star Wars universe and create something new. Imagine being a filmmaker and having the money, and resources to tell any story you could dream up. It’s something any artist would yearn for. Instead Lucas continues to go back to his Star Wars well so he can tweak, repackage and convert them to 3D. Does he have anything left to offer film audiences other than Star Wars? I don’t think so….

In a way I think of Lucas as the biggest one hit wonder filmmaker of all time.

I’ve made my peace with George and Star Wars. I love the original trilogy – the films that I grew up on. Everything Star Wars since then has either disappointed me or I just have no interest in. Now I’ve just accepted the disillusionment that George seems to only offer me now, but am still grateful to him for creating those three original films.

So although I’m a huge Star Wars fan and can sympathize with the frustration other fans have towards him I’m not one who’s standing in the middle of the street screaming “George Lucas has raped my childhood!”. I've cooled down with all of that.

But…..then I saw Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull…..

ABC's Charlie's Angels Remake Cancelled! (And Just As I Was Beginning To Hate It....)

2011-10-21T01:17:00.000-04:00

Sorry Charlie.....

I don’t know why they bothered in the first place, but ABC attempted to get their hit 70’s show Charlie's Angels back on the air every week. With all the recent remake activity it seemed inevitable. There were already two Charlie’s Angels films starring Drew Barrymore, Cameron Diaz and Lucy Liu that were hits. The actual quality of them….well that’s questionable.

So I guess ABC saw that as a sign to bring the Angels back to the tube.

Well, don’t get too attached. After only airing four episodes, ABC cancelled the show and threw it onto the growing heap of failed remake attempts by the networks, which NBC graciously added The Bionic Woman and Knight Rider to it not too long ago. Apparently the new Angels got an unmerciful drubbing by television critics and no one was tuning in to watch.

Well, not exactly no one….

I had zero interest in a remake of Charlie's Angels and I wasn’t the first in line to see those Drew Barrymore movies either. As soon as I heard about this new show my eyes immediately rolled. I had no plans to ever watch it. It just seemed like another tired retread of a once popular show that would inevitably be yet another example of a televised bad idea. However, when I heard Minka Kelly was one of the new Angels my ears perked up – admittedly just because I think she’s really hot.

Anyway, that still didn’t seem enough to tune into what I fully expected to be a terrible show. So I figured I’ll just look at the pretty advertisements of her in her stylish dresses and get my Minka fix that way. At least then I didn’t have to waste an hour of tv time sifting through a lot of badly scripted scenes to oogle her.

That was until I saw they were going to remake the classic Angels In Chains episode!

For those unfamiliar, Angels In Chains was the popular episode from the original series that sent Kate, Farrah and Jaclyn to a women’s prison. The show capitalized on the fact that beautiful women behind bars, getting into catfights, working on a chain gang and planning escape attempts in the showers is just plain sexy!

It was probably the most memorable episode from the original show and now it would be getting a 2011 update. So I decided to fold and tune in to see this new version of the Angels.

(I find it funny how they’re not only remaking a television series but now remaking the actual episodes)

Things started out promising when I saw that Erica Durance was guest starring. Smoking Lois from Smallville! The eye candy factor just went up a few more points!

So, I sat, I watched and was in shock at how bad the show was. I wouldn't expect the show to offer up anything revolutionary, just be a fun, entertaining television romp. And it didn't deliver on even the lowest levels of it. I kept thinking to myself – “how could they screw this up so badly? Beautiful women catching bad guys….what’s so complicated?”

The new Charlie’s Angels is pretty embarrassing. Not only is the acting wooden, the characters flat and the writing awful, it didn’t even make use of the most obvious shallow selling point of the show and made it sexy.

The original series gave birth to the whole idea of ‘jiggle TV’. The makers, the actors and the audience knew why it was so popular. If there was a scene of expository dialogue, they would just film it by a pool so the Angels could be in bathing suits. Of course now that’s a very politically incorrect way of thinking and they can’t do that anymore.

I know what the 1970’s Charlie’s Angels were about. Back then seeing pretty women solve crimes and catch bad guys was something new and fresh. Since then we've seen that countless times. So....what exactly makes Charile's Angel's 2011 so special???

This new crop of Angels were so one-dimensional is was staggering. We have the brunette girl, the blonde girl and the black girl. That’s about it. At least the old Angels tried to individualize the characters a bit more – the smart one, the sexy one, the charming one. The new version doesn’t even get that complicated.

None of them appear to possess any special qualities that would make Charlie feel they would be asset to send out on these cases. I think each of the Angels are supposed to be specialists in some area - a street racer, a thief, a former cop. It doesn't matter who is supposed to be what, they're all interchangeable. Plus, none of these actresses have that star power or charisma that would make me want to tune back in to see them again and there is no chemistry between these women. The casting of this show is as bland as can be.

Then we got Bosley. Previously, Boz played by David Doyle was mainly the funny desk man who was off to the side for most of the episodes. He was a supporting player and let the Angels have the spotlight. Here they wanted to revamp the character of Bosley and made him into some kind of buffed up military man with the required five o'clock shadow. Great, another boring pretty face in the show.

For some reason he took up the majority of screen time in this Chains episode. We learn about his cliched past relationship to this CIA chick played by Durance and watch as he manages to save the Angels. Yeah, they don’t seem too capable on their own.

What the heck am I watching….

If they wanted to change things up with the character of Bosley, why not change HIM into a HER! That seems like the new easy way to radicalize male characters of the past - a little snip-snip here and bingo we're suddenly updated! At least that would have been a bit more of an interesting change than what they did with Bosley here. He doesn't even provide any comedy relief! Why try to play things so ultra serious and try to lighten things up a bit.

One hip update the series does do is the nifty shaky cam shots. Along with off center framing of the actors cutting off half their faces. I suppose this is supposed to make the show look visually interesting. The only thing I thought it did was make it even more annoying. If an actor is speaking I kind of would like to see their full faces.

While in this Cuban prison the Angels learn the American women are being mistreated and used as prostitues. Or this shows idea of prostitution. When the Angels find themselves victims in this nefarious scheme they are forced to put on pretty dresses and laugh at anonymous guys jokes. That’s it. It sounds like something hot chicks do anyway.

The funniest part of this party scene is how obvious there is no real acting to any of it. The scenes just come in with the Angels laughing or drinking with these guys and it’s painfully clear there really wasn’t anything spoken before the camera starts to roll and they just have to get to the part when the Angels whisper to each other “we have to get out of here”. There’s really no method acting here.

In the end the Angels save the girl who they were meant to save. She’s no character either, just a quivering basket case who we’re supposed to feel sorry for. Things don’t look good for Minka who’s left behind with the bad guy and looks like he’s about to start some major interrogating bad guy stuff. When the Boz and the other Angels get to speak to her while she’s still being held hostage, Minka proves she’s a tough cookie. With some strategically placed blood on her face she's able to muster enough strength to dramatically ask them - “what are you still doing here?”.

Wowzers! Was this bad! And we’re supposed to take this serious. They might as well have had her say "Go on without me!". Maybe Minka is supposed to be the strong girl.

Now I’ve only seen this one episode and maybe the ones I’ve missed are really top notch entertainment. But this Angels in Chains episode….is dreadful.

Since announcing the cancellation, ABC is supposedly going to just go ahead and air the remainder of the episodes they filmed because…..eh why not I guess. I’m tempted to tune back in just to see what else they were ready to dish out to the television audience.

If you love bad television this show would have definitely been for you and you probably could have appreciated how appalling the execution to all this was. With the shows cancellation and disappearance from televisions everywhere, it will most likely become another example of how not to remake a popular show. So we'll all have to live the rest of our life's never getting to know the 2011 Charlie’s Angels.

Okay, you've done enough damage....

Airport - The Highest Flying Cinematic Disaster Series Ever!

2011-10-14T19:45:00.000-04:00

Ahhh the cataclysmic 70’s, when disasters were everywhere you turned and audiences relished seeing big name stars burn, crash and get incinerated – at least on movie screens.

Recently I went back and had a crash course reminder in the 70’s disaster genre with a double feature of 1970’s Airport and its second sequel Airport 77. This was way back when air travel was still somewhat a fun experience and the term ‘stewardess’ was still acceptable to use.

Based on Arthur Hailey’s best selling novel Airport gathered an all-star cast at an airport, threw them into a plane and subsequently had it start falling from the sky like a weighted bag of airline peanuts and see them try to land the blasted thing.

It’s all pretty good fun. Burt Lancaster as the airport manager and George Kennedy as its chief mechanic scramble to clear snow covered runways as Captain Dean Martin’s aircraft comes hurdling down from the sky. The Rome-bound 707 is the victim of a crazed guy with a bomb that blows a hole in the plane, blows a lot of papers around and has the passengers screaming.

However, it’s not all tension and suspense filled music at the Airport. There’s some soap opera drama with wives and mistress and dinners sitting getting cold for our dedicated airport workers.

The film isn’t a great one and certainly feels clichéd after the countless imitators and the classic parody film Airplane!, but there is sort of an old school charm to it seeing these actors clench their teeth look up in the sky or at a back projected runway and then dramatically yell really loud.

Airport was a monstrous box office hit and eventually spawned three sequels, each film consisted of….well a planeload of passengers in peril. Airpot 1975 followed with Charlton Heston as its main star and then Airport ‘77 with Jack Lemmon, which was my second film in my double feature.

I always thought it was kind of funny how this film series didn’t even bother coming up with new names for the films, they just tacked on the year after it. I have to give credit to The Concorde: Airport ’79 for at least changing things up a little bit.

Unlike facing the enemy of gravity, Airport ’77 did some renovating with the old ‘crash and burn’ idea and this time had the passengers face drowning.

A luxurious, modern airliner – this thing is real top of the line, passengers can play pong - is transporting some priceless artwork for philanthropist James Stewart. Some hijackers who are planning to make off with some of its treasures inadvertently bring the plane down in the Bermuda Triangle. The plane sinks into the ocean, rests at the bottom of the ocean, water slowly starts leaking in and disaster panic begins.

Seeing Lemmon be something of an action hero is kind of weird. I always liked him, but seeing him get to be a bit more macho and authoritative than his usual roles is something audiences don’t often see. Naturally the rest of the cast consists of name celebrities, Brenda Vaccaro, Darren McGavin, Lee Grant, Joseph Cotton, Olivia DeHavilland, Christopher Lee, but we also get some new young faces strewn about including Gil Gerard and Kathleen Quinlan.

Along with George Kennedy.

Once again it’s not a terrific movie and now plays more like a television movie of the week. However the airport disaster motif still is fun and the fact that this time they’re not desperately looking for runway lights, but trying to get out of a plane at the bottom of the ocean makes things different enough to hold my interest. It’s like a cheaper version of the Poseidon Adventure.

I did question the fact the plane seems awfully shallow for supposedly being at the bottom of the ocean though, It seemed like it should have been much deeper and inaccessible than how it’s played in the film. But whatever.

The Airport series drew its final breath with The Concorde: Airport 1979. I haven’t seen it yet, but maybe I’ll check it out. By looking at the cast list you can clearly see the shine was coming off Airport. What started as a series with Lancaster, Martin, Heston was now featuring Robert Wagner, Jimmie Walker and Charo.

At least they still had George Kennedy.

Qwikster Put To Rest Already????

2011-10-12T19:02:00.000-04:00

Just a few weeks ago Netflix CEO Reed Hastings announced a plan that the company would bee separating their DVD mailing service and streaming service into two separate entities. Streaming customers would get to keep visiting their favorite website Netflix, while those who would want to get their DVD’s mailed to them…well they would get introduced to a website called Qwikster. If you wanted both services, you would have to visit both websites.

It really sounded lousy and customers complained very loudly about it (including yours truly). Well, after some pretty stupid decisions in the last few months Netflix finally got one right – they would not go forward with their Qwikster idea.

Yes. Sadly we’ll never get a chance to grow and love the website….Qwikster. GOOD!

I’m not sure what is going on in Netflix heads nowadays. It seems they’re just in panic mode and scrambling to come with solutions to their problems. Problems that didn’t seem to exist a few months ago, at least from my perspective, but what do I know. Only that I was a contented customer, really enjoyed their service and encouraged friends to join.

Now I’m still debating whether to jump off the Netflix ship or not.

I was very happy to hear the elimination of the Qwikster idea. (I don’t even like saying that name. “Qwikster”…..it really doesn’t roll off the tongue.

There’s some feeling of justice about all this that they saw what a bad idea it was and now their faces are as red as their envelopes they mail out.

I’m just fully anticipating their next bad idea to rear it’s ugly, inconvenient head…..

Catching Hell......

2011-10-09T01:07:00.000-04:00

I love me a good sports documentary.

I’m not a huge sports fan by any stretch. However a well-made, interesting sports documentary about an individual, a game or an event can get me hooked quite easily. Home Box Office is great at these. In the last few months HBO Sports aired a doc about the tennis rivalry of McEnroe and Borg – which I thought was great. And I’ve never watched a tennis match in my life.

Then they aired a doc entitled Bobby Fischer Against the World, which told the story of the famous chess genius. I thought it was the most fascinating film I had seen in quite awhile and was riveted the whole time.

Now ESPN is currently airing Catching Hell, a doc about the famous scapegoats in the world of baseball. And once again, I thought it was really well done.

Baseball is the one sport I have always followed. I’m by no means a hardcore fan, but can easily enjoy keeping up with season and how my team and everyone is progressing. I’ll even get out to my nearby minor league games, just because I love the atmosphere of the ballpark and just watching a good game.

Catching Hell recounts the iconic stories not of a teams successes or triumphant wins, but their failures and the individuals who would have the blame for them laid solely at their feet.

The film essentially highlights two of baseballs most crushing moments for two teams. In 1986, for the first time since 1918 the Boston Red Sox seemed due to finally win a World Series title. It looked like the famous Curse of the Bambino would be broken. That was until first baseman Bill Buckner let a slow roller pass through his legs and allowed the New York Mets to win the game and tie the series. The Mets would win game seven and take home the trophy.

Buckner ended up taking the blame for the entire loss by just his one error, even though there were many components that allowed the Mets to defeat Boston. Buckner’s play would become the key moment to many fans for the defeat of the Sox that year and he would become another link in the ongoing chain of the Curse.

The majority of Catching Hell highlights Chicago Cubs fan Steve Bartman and the notorious foul ball play in Game Six of the 2003 National League Championship Series.

Chicago, whose last World Series win had been in 1908, were up three games to two against the Florida Marlins. The Cubs had a 3-0 lead, when in the eighth inning Bartman – as did other fans – tried to catch a foul ball, which disrupted the outfielder to catch it and would have brought the Cubs to needing four more outs of finally making it to the World Series.

After the Bartman incident the Marlins got momentum and subsequently scored eight runs in the inning and won the game and the following day won the Championship Series.

To many fans the Bartman Incident became the key moment that changed the game and made their beloved Cubs lose. The famous Curse of the Billy Goat that had haunted the Cubs for ninety-five years raised its head in the form of Steve Bartman grabbing for a foul ball.

They’re fascinating stories and even a casual sports fan should enjoy the film. It’s not so much about the game of baseball as it is about incidents that have perpetrated the superstitious nature of the game. I find it captivating how an entire series of games can be boiled down to one moment in the eyes of fans.

Buckner and Bartman were easy targets to cast an evil eye on as to the moments why these teams lost. The film shows how these two individuals became the enemy for fans, the media, and entire cities! It’s really well made and shows that the way these single plays became so focused on has been completely unfair to Buckner and Bartman and they really showed a very cynical attitude for the game that is America’s past time.

1966's The Silencers - A Candidate For Sexiest Credit Sequence Ever!

2011-09-30T19:09:00.000-04:00

The 1960's was the decade of the spy film thanks to our pal Bond, James Bond. There were countless imitation spy movies that came out in the wake of the popularity of the 007 series. One of them was the Matt Helm films.

Starring Dean Martin, Matt Helm was an American spy spoof of the Bond series. Armed with plenty of gadgets, gorgeous girls and Dino songs popping up throughout his adventures, Matt Helm ended up starring in four films from 1966 to 1969.

Being a Bond fan I had always heard of the Helm films, but never got around to watching them. I always thought Dino was one of thecoolest cats ever (who didn't), a silly spy spoof is something I'm always up to seeing and the 60's with the gorgeous girls and theVegas era music for me will never go out of style.

I finally got to watch the first Helm film - The Silencers. I thought it was ok. Dino is certainly the best part in it, but there are some funny gags, really silly gadgets and Dino gets a nice joke in aimed at Frank Sinatra (you'll just have to see it). It's certainly not a serious movie, but I don't think they ever planned it to be. Stella Stevens got on my nerves after awhile though, but I'm certainly planning on
continuing watching the rest of the films.

For essentially what I thought was a pretty disposable film I probably wouldn't bother bringing it up or recommending it to anyone, unless your a spy film fanatic. And in that case you 've probably already seen it.

No the reason I bring up this film is because the opening title sequence had my mouth drop and my eyes open.

Dancer Cyd Charisse who is credited as a "guest star" opens the film lip synching the title song performed by Vikki Carr while performing an incredibly sexy strip-tease style dance. I'm so ashamed of myself that I've just stumbled onto this sequence now!

I really wish her number went on longer.....

Since the film was released in 1966 there is no nudity, but that doesn't stop the the number from being one of the sexiest I've seen in a long time. It certainly shows how talented Charisse was and how incredibly sexy she could be. She just oozed sex appeal. This was no young innocent girl dancing, but a real woman! And I don't say that because she was forty-four years old when she filmed this scene, but because she clearly could just work her thing! I can easily imagine if I had been twelve and seen this I would never have forgotten it!I don't doubt when the young kids decided to to see this spy film and saw this opening it left quite an impression on them.

As for the film itself.....eh it's ok. The best thing about it is Dino and Charisse's opening number. Maybe I'll like the second Helm film Murderer's Row a bit more.

As for now The Silencer's made me wonder - Why don't movies have opening credits like this anymore!

What's Going On With Netflix Now.....?

2011-09-19T14:56:00.000-04:00

Like a lot of movie fans I’m a Netflix subscriber. I’ve been a fan of it since it first came out. After years of being relegated to using Blockbuster for my video rentals, Netflix seemed like an oasis of film paradise. The selection, the ease, the downright convenience of it was truly an ideal way to do my home video watching.

As with most companies change always happens. And typically it’s not for the benefit of the customer, but for the business.

The first signs of disgruntlement I had with Netflix happened when they began having written film reviews be left anonymously and no credit would be given to the user who actually wrote them. I had written some short reviews after renting some films and thought it would be nice for me to pipe in if I had something to say about it. Maybe my opinion would convince other Netflix users to check out that particular film or avoid it.

It was pretty cool to have my user name attached to that written review, so if anyone was curious they could see other reviews or films I would recommend to my fellow movie lovers. It was a nice little feature and actually gave Netflix subscribers an opportunity to feel a part of a community atmosphere. I don’t think the majority of Netflix subscribers really used it, but it was nice that it was there.

That was until Netflix decided to stop crediting users for their reviews of films and have since just left them as random reviews that someone, somewhere had written. Of course after that decision was made the reviews I had supplied Netflix dropped to zero. I didn’t feel there was much of a point in sharing my opinion on the films I had rented from them.

Then Netflix subscribers were treated to a price increase naturally. So now we were expected to pay more for the service that we were already getting. The combination of streaming and DVD mailings was one flat fee, which now apparently would be going up.

No customer likes to pay more. Netflix didn’t exactly offer a huge amount of films to stream. It was really a handful that grew somewhat over time. But nowhere near the amount that seemed to warrant a price increase. I really don’t want to pay a few extra bucks a month to be able to have the opportunity to have them stream The Swarm to me.

But I stuck with Netflix because I still thought they had the best selection of DVD’s around.

This week we got wind of the latest change – Qwickster.

Doesn't it sound like some kind of energy drink you would pick up at Quik Chek?

Netflix subscribers were treated to an apology email from co-founder and CEO of Netflix, the honorable Reed Hastings. It’s a pretty entertaining read. The company attempted to form this email as an apology in order for us to be a bit more forgiving to the news it contained inside. "Yeah, they're screwing us even more, but at least they feel bad about it!".

Basically Reed apologized for the recent price increase that was hurled at subscribers AND to announce that the method of Netflix streaming and DVD mailings will now be separated under two different websites.

Which means subscribers will now have to visit two websites for the same service that had previously fallen under one.

The mailing Netflix service will now be called Qwikster and the streaming service will retain the name Netflix. So subscribers who were enjoying DVD's through the mail and streaming on their one stop website will now have to visit two!

The Netflix and Qwickster websites will not be connected in anyway. Now it will be two separate rating systems. Two separate queues. Two separate bills that you'll get for both individual services.

Does this sound customer friendly to anyone? Really, who wants integration nowadays?

I’m not exactly sure what they’re thinking over there. It doesn’t seem worth my time to now juggle going to two different websites to order my DVD’s through the mail and then another one to get some streaming. And like I said I barely ever used Netflix’s streaming. They’re catalog and selection is nothing to brag about. I kept it just because of the convenience that they were under the same roof and if it happened that I saw a film in my DVD queue was also available for streaming I would just watch it that way and not bother getting it mailed to me. But I certainly don't feel motivated to visit a separate website to get Lost Boys 2 streamed to me....

If I were to have to sign into a second website for streaming movies to me, I would choose one with a much bigger and wider selection than Netflix certainly has. Plus, I heard their selection for streaming will get even worse when Starz and Sony don't resign their contract with them in February 2012.

Anyway, this latest decision might be the final straw for devoted subscribers. I was a big proponent of Netflix and would constantly be telling people to sign up for it. With all this latest nonsense that have been coming from the company I’ve certainly cooled with them.

And apparently I’m not alone. Since the price hike over a million subscribers left and stocks are hitting an all time low and seem to continue to be dropping despite the apology email.

Here’s the link to Reed’s blog and his letter that was sent out to subscribers, along with the seemingly endless vocal reactions by subscribers to it. I don't see much positive feedback to it....

REED HASTINGS BLOG AND SUBSCRIBERS LOUD FEEDBACK

Three Things Everyone Needs To Survive Mother Nature.....

2011-08-27T16:06:00.000-04:00

Hurricane Irene is baring down on the East Coast and looks to leave a nasty mark. All the warnings the news is dishing out and weathermen pointing to their maps with ominous graphics are pretty much scaring the crap out of everyone.

So being safe rather than sorry folks are gearing up for the worst. Everyone was forced to evacuate the New Jersey shore (Yours truly included. Cutting my vacation a day short. Thanks Irene....). People are getting their candles and flashlights ready. Trying to stock up on generators. Waiting on long lines at the pumps to gas the cars up. Everyone is battening down the hatches....well at least the people who own hatches.

Lastly everyone is naturally is stocking up on some food. Which brings me to the one aspect to what nasty weather seems to always bring.

A sudden need for milk, bread and eggs.

I've always had an odd fascination with this phenomenon. This seems to accompany any kind of nasty weather. Whether it's a blizzard, hurricane, some expected hale...whatever, everyone seems to make a dash to the grocery store to stock up on these three essentials.

I had to venture to the food store - I only picked up some frozen pizza's. But I immediately made a dash to the bread aisle to see what was going on. Not to my surprise it was completely empty. Everyone seemed to grab whatever they could. They even bought all the mini bagels!

Next up was the milk area. Again - empty. To my surprise there was still some eggs left. I guess the store managed to stock up on them beforehand. Unless they bring some chickens in the back room just laying them around the clock for hurricane warnings.

Not to make light of things and I hope everyone stays safe, but if you ever want some free entertainment during one of these upcoming "weather events" (the term weathermen use to describe this stuff. Which is also pretty funny to me. Weather events....it makes it sound like an outdoor concert) goto the local supermarket and just hang out in the bread or milk aisle and watch the panicked faces on people when the realization hits they're too late and they will be bread-less and milk-less for the next few days. They'll just have to tough it out and skip making french toast.

Sometimes it seems people are more worried about getting these essentials than anything else. Along with the weather maps, the news should just add updates to the bread and milk sightings in the area. It might help people out.

The News Bond Fans Have Been Waiting For!

2011-08-06T02:22:00.000-04:00

Bond 23 now has a release date!

In the U.S. on November 9, 2012 we will finally see Bond return.

Bond fans can now see Daniel Craig shootin’ up aliens alongside Indiana Jones himself Harrison Ford in Cowboys And Aliens. Inevitably, during the films promotion Craig was asked about the status of the next Bond film and he had some encouraging news to tell fans.

Craig has gotten the script for Bond 23 and says he’s more excited about it than he was for Casino Royale and believes it will result in a “classic” 007 movie.

The film will be a reunion of sorts for Craig and director Sam Mendes who is set to helm the film. They previously worked together on 2002 film Road To Perdition.

Craig seems to be very enthusiastic for Mendes to be at the helm of a Bond film. He said: “I think it’s a great choice because Sam has a fervor and energy to really direct a Bond movie with a capital B.“He’ll feet-first himself into it, [he’s] read every book and just soaked up everything about it. I read the script the other day and I’m more excited about this than I was about Casino because we’ve kind of got a classic Bond movie, plus lots of other things.”

Fans expecting to see the return of Q might be disappointed it sounds. Craig said the new film would continue with the trend of his previous two and be light on gadgets. “Trying to find something that’s new and interesting is really difficult….mostly technology is in the public arena now or some type of it,” he said.

There is still no casting announcements. We can all expect to see Judi Dench return, but other than that every name you might read connected to the film is still just rumored and nothing has been confirmed by EON films. Production on Bond 23 is scheduled to beginsometime later this year. Still after last seeing Craig in Quantum of Solace three years ago and the delays in the production of Bond 23
film since then, this is all promising news and is the first real positive signs that the next Bond film is underway.

Until then I might check out Cowboy & Aliens. It kind of look like it could be a fun, goofy summer film. Plus, seeing James Bond AND Indiana Jones in a movie together that has to count for something. Last time that happened was way back in 1989 when Sean Connery played Indy’s father and that pairing worked out pretty nicely.

New Wonder Woman Show Is Scrapped......

2011-08-04T16:41:00.000-04:00

Hey, remember that Wonder Woman show by David E. Kelly? You know the one - it was going to star Adrienne Palicki, Elizabeth Hurley was going to be the villain in the pilot and we could expect to see it debut this fall?

Well, that's not going to happen.

After what seemingly looked like Wonder Woman's return to television NBC declined to pick up Kelly's show and no series has been ordered. Speculation of negative reaction by fans, along with a less than steller pilot episode has been attributed to the show getting nixed by the network.

Being one of DC Comics 'Big Three' and the most famous superheroine ever, hasn't ensured Wonder Woman's live-action exposure. The new proposed show seemed like it would ultimately get the character back into the limelight and could have possibly set the stage for a theatrical film if the series proved the character popular and successful enough to warrant it.

However, this wasn't meant to be.

After releasing photos of Palicki in costume fans reactions were lukewarm at best. Pictures taken during filming of Palicki in an altered costume didn't help either. Complaints about changes made to the appearance of the iconic character just didn't seem to get anyone excited. Sure I can understand making some changes to a characters costumes, but it really is a dicey thing to tinker with for such a
universally recognized costume by fans.

The scripts were also a source of concern, reading more like "Abby McBeal-like" stories than the adventures of Princess Diana of Themyscira.

Palicki was said to have been the only actress called to read for the role. She's best known for her role as Tyra on Friday Night Lights. She's also appeared on Supernatural, South Beach and Lone Star. Looking for any past superhero connections? Oddly enough, she appeared in Smallville and the failed Aquaman pilot from 2007. There's some interesting DC connections.

A new version of Wonder Woman has been kicking around for years. First, as a big-budget film by producer Joel Silver for the last decade that never picked up steam for whatever reasons. The most recent news about the Wonder Film was Joss Whedon, who was set to write and direct the film, eventually leaving the project after Warner Brothers apparently didn't agree with his take on the
character. Since then Whedon signed up to direct Marvel's The Avengers film and Wonder Woman has been left in never-ending 'development' limbo.

Then we got wind of a new television series. When I first heard the news it immediately seemed like a compromise. Since the film wasn't going anywhere, an alternative plan was hatched. The character is too valuable a commodity to not do anything with, so let's give her a TV show.

Besides some animated adventures, Wonder Woman has been absent in television and film. The last we saw a real Wonder Woman productionwas in the 1975-79 series famously starring Lynda Carter. Her getting a new series is somewhat a surprise since fans had been following the rumors of a big budget film for years.

A television show did seem to work with the recent news of Wonder Woman being given an updated costume in the comics. It looks more digestible to see an actress wearing it and much easier to adapt to a live action actress to kick ass in. Of course the comic character will go back to her original costume at some point. It's just a publicity device to get people talking about the character. Don't believe for a second DC would completely throw away the iconic character's costume no matter what anyone says. And if so, just sign over the rights to me if you guys really don't plan on using it anymore. Yeah, let's see who fliches first....

So, Palicki was to have been the newest incarnation of Diana Prince. This "reinvention" of the character was supposed to be a successful corporate executive in Los Angeles trying to balance being a modern woman with her superheroics.

Actor Cary Elwes signed on to play the CEO of Thermyscira Industries, the company Diana Prince owns. He was going to run things while she's off doing some superheroing stuff. He was also rumored to be a love interest for Diana. The show would have focused on three identities for the character with each one having a lover interest. I suppose they would be Diana Prince, Princess Diana and Wonder Woman.

British actress/model Elizabeth Hurley had been cast as a villainess in the pilot episode. Hurley would have played Veronica Cale,a "beautiful, highly educated head of one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the country who is afflicted with serious deep-seated Wonder Woman envy."

Although Hurley's role was said to be a one-time guest starring stint, it would be a good guess that if the show got picked up she could become a recurring character.

From the way things started to sound the show didn't seem too promising. The whole - 'Diana is a CEO of her own company in Los Angeles', might have made filming easier, but it just didn't feel like the character. Or even a creative way to update her. Giving her three identities that we got to follow every episode also seemed like too much. Two identities are more than enough and could create plenty of drama and stories if handled the right way. It might have been fun for Palicki to play three characters, but I'm not sure it would have been as fun to watch.

I cynically forsaw a cheesy action television show that strayed so far away from the comic character, the show essentially would become another interchangable version of a 'La Femme Nikita/Alias/Bionic Woman' action series and would lose the uniqueness of the character and her mythology. Apparently a lot of fans felt the same way.

So Wonder Woman continues to be absent from the live action arena once again, until someone, somewhere figures out the perfect way to bring her to life before the cameras.....

[Blog archived from May 2011]

James Bond In A Dress!

2011-07-29T17:42:00.000-04:00

Things are starting to look up for Bond 23. With the absence of 007 from movie screens fans got a surprise when actor Daniel Craig appeared in drag for an advertisement to support International Women’s Day. Bond dons a wig and a dress as he considers what it may be like to be a woman.

As Judi Dench narrates the two-minute ad reciting statistics documenting the unfairness that women are still greeted with, among which – “Women are responsible for two-thirds of the work done worldwide, yet earn only ten percent of the total income and own only one percent of the total property.”

It’s an ingenious ad using one of the most prolific, sexist, fictional characters as a demonstration of the double-standard women still are dealt with and is a nice twist to the Bond image. Obviously, Craig’s and Dench’s participation in the ad has helped give the message worldwide attention.

One thing that occurred to me after seeing it, Craig would have made a pretty rough looking Bond Girl. He’s not exactly easy on the eyes in the dress.

Who Might Be In Bond 23....?

2011-07-29T17:35:00.000-04:00

Things are starting to look up for Bond 23. An ominous halt to work on the Daniel Craig’s third Bond film last year made the prospectsof when we would see Bond return kind of up in the air. The producers couldn’t even provide a good answer as to when it might happen. Things really didn’t sound too good. Fortunately, some positive news has come out recently that has signaled the clouds might have lifted for fans.

A couple of proposed casting rumors have come out. Javier Bardem has been approached to the play the villain. He is apparently very excited to join the iconic villains of Bond past and is only waiting to read a completed script before committing to the film.

Another name actor being courted is Ralph Fiennes, who has been offered another role. No real details about the role, but it has been said it’s a “darkly complex” part and is “one of extreme complexity and only an actor of great ability and dexterity can take it”.

Director Sam Mendes is said to be intending to push the series in a new direction. “It’s the first generation of Bond films, and the ideas Mendes has push the film into darker territory where the characters are modern, mature and challenging”.

Fiennes is apparently excited by the “revolutionary” approach of the upcoming film.

It all sounds exciting, but then again what would we expect to hear now that Bond 23 looks to be moving again. Of course word from the filmmakers and studio is going to make it sound like the film is going to be the greatest thing ever. I’m keeping any expectations in
check for now and wait to hear more news as it happens. So far only Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are confirmed to be in the film.

Fiennes being cast in a Bond film would be somewhat ironic. He was once one of the contenders for Bond way back in 1994, when the role eventually went to Pierce Brosnan.

[Blog archived from February 2011]

An Ominious Bond Article.....

2011-07-29T17:20:00.000-04:00

Hey Bond fans just thought I would give you a heads up on the magazine article in the recent edition of Entertainment weekly if you haven’t seen it already. A cover story on James Bond! Unfortunately with the headline ‘Goodbye Mr. Bond’ it’s not something to get excited about. It would have been so much nicer if it were some news on the next film involving casting, locations, plot and when we can expect to see it, rather than…..well probably the worst news fans could get.

I’m not going to recount the whole article, but simply say it details what is going on with the Bond series currently, why plans for the next film have been stopped and what the current state of MGM (Bond’s studio) is in and its potential future might be.

None of it is good news and the likelihood of us lining up for the next Bond film is beginning to look further and further away. Typically the Bond films have maintained a pretty consistent release schedule between on average two to three years. Now it’s looking like it will go much longer. Possibly this could eclipse the longest duration between films the series has had - six years (License to Kill ,1989 – Goldeneye, 1995).

It’s not really a record I was hoping to see broken.

As you might guess, this could throw Daniel Craig’s participation as the current Bond in a tailspin. Since there’s no telling when production can be expected, by the time it does the producers and Craig might very well feel it’s better to part ways. It’s not inconceivable. Since starring as Bond Craig’s career has taken off, he’s become a popular leading man and has been working consistently in a variety projects ever since. When bond finally returns it might be time for him to be yet again recast in another
reboot of the franchise.

Check out the EW article - it’s worth reading.

I still think the predictions by some that Bond might ‘never’ return to movie screens are a bit overboard though. One of the most popular ficitional characters in history….he’s not just going to disappear like that. But there’s still no telling when we’ll see him again.

[Blog archived from August 2010]

Bond 23 Delayed!

2011-07-29T17:13:00.000-04:00

Fans of 007 have been passing the ominous news around – development on the 23rd Bond film has been postponed indefinitely. The film originally was scheduled for release 2011 or 2012.

It seems the studio behind the 007 films, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer isn’t in the best of shape and are now awaiting a buyer. While the studio is trying to navigate through this uncertain situation and are looking for a new owner, Bond producers Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have decided to postpone work on Bond 23 until MGM’s issues are all settled.

The producers said: “Due to the continuing uncertainty surrounding the future of MGM and the failure to close a sale of the studio, we have suspended development on Bond 23 indefinitely We do not know when development will resume and do not have a date for the release of Bond 23.”

Of course there’s more to how Bond ended up in this situation, but the bottom line is no one knows when filming will get under way and when fans will see 007 again.

Daniel Craig commented about the situation, “I have every confidence in Barbara and Michael’s decision and look forward to production resuming as quickly as possible.”

This isn’t the first time 007 took a hiatus. Following the release of 1989’s License to Kill legal issues were raised over the control of the series and the character and created a six-year delay between films, the longest gap between films in the series. By the time work on the next film was set, Dalton decided not to return, opening up the role to Pierce Brosnan. Hopefully this delay won’t last as long.

This situation does raise a lot of questions. Some are speculating this is a strategic move by the producers to distance themselves from the hurting MGM and might be considering the possibility of setting up their Bond Shop elsewhere.

Director Sam Mendes was set to helm the film. Reports had said he was extremely excited about it and that it was to have been the most ambitious 007 film to date and he was going to re-invent the genre. Mendes had left the film 'Preacher' for the opportunity to work on Bond 23. Now what will happen? Whenever this delay ends, will Mendes still be available or will a new director be brought in?

Craig and Judi Dench were expected to return for Bond 23. Any other casting rumors of Bond Girls or Bond Villains that have been passed around in the last year were just that – rumors. The only two actors that were confirmed to be in the film has always been Craig and Dench.

Dench should easily return. She's played M for the past fifteen years in six films and there isn't any reason why she shouldn't continue.

Craig doesn’t look like he’ll be going anywhere any time soon either. His Bond contract calls for four films (at least that’s the popular word on it), so he should be expected to be back.

Worst-case scenario would be if this delay should last much longer than anyone expects (for example a License to Kill to GoldenEye delay). By the time the dust settled and such a long gap of time has passed and Craig would be better suited to play Q than 007 and he felt it’s been too long a hiatus (as Dalton did) and made an amicable split with producers, well then maybe we might see a new Bond in the next film.

However, that is the absolute worst-case scenario and I don’t see it happening. It would have been much better to get news about casting, locations, and the plot to Bond 23 to talk about, instead of this one. If I find out anything new I’ll be sure to pass along to you Bond fans.

It’s really a shame when you consider the bold move filmmakers took of rebooting the series in 2006’s ‘Casino Royale’. There they took such an established, iconic character and attempted to make changes that fans were immediately resistant to, notably the casting. - “Whoa! Daniel Craig has blonde hair!!! James Bond doesn’t have blonde hair! They can’t be serious!” – and ‘Casino’ ended up being embraced by most fans and critics. With his one outing Craig drew arguments of being the best Bond since Connery. The series looked to be heading into new, exciting directions and now it’s been brought to a dead stop.

So as we stand we hit a speed bump on the 007 Road. It has slowed things down and will try the patience of Bond fans that were looking forward to the next entry in the series and we might have to wait awhile longer for it. However, I’m pretty confident like the closing credits to the films say ‘James Bond will return’.

Eventually.

[Blog archived from April 2010]

The World's Most Famous Car Gets A New Owner.....

2011-07-29T17:00:00.000-04:00

The greatest cinematic vehicle now has a proud new owner. At a London auction on October 28, 2010, Ohio based collector Harry Yeaggy bought the car for a 4.6 million dolllars - around the price of a night out with Goldfinger.

The iconic 1964 Aston Martin DB5 is simply the most recognized and famous car James Bond has ever driven – and has since become known as “the most famous car in the world”. Since making its debut in 1963’s Goldfinger and returning in 1965’s Thunderball, the car has become synonymous with Bond, most notably associated with the Connery-era Bond, although Pierce Brosnan drove it in 1995’s Goldeneye and Daniel Craig got behind its wheel in 2006's Casino Royale.

There were four Aston Martin’s made for the films – two for promotional purposes and two for use in the film. This particular one that Yeaggy picked up is said to have been used in the driving scenes that Sean Connery drove around as 007.

The second was reported stolen from a Boca Raton airport hanger in 1997 and has not been seen since. I’m not sure how that could happen. So my guess is that it’s sitting covered up in a garage somewhere. You can’t really go out driving the thing without arousing
suspicion.

This particular Aston Martin has all the goodies fans love – fake machine guns, bullet-proof shield, revolving number plates, that control panel in the armrest, , all that fun stuff Q told us about. For 4.6 million I would hope all those features actually work!

I felt compelled to quell suspicions that HaphazardStuff is in fact NOT the new proud owner of the Aston Martin and it won’t be displayed at the Haphazard Amusement Park anytime soon.

Although I think it would have been a perfect place to keep it!

[blog archived from October 2010]

Why Weird Al Will Always Be Cool.....

2011-07-27T19:50:00.000-04:00

I’ve been a Weird Al fan for pretty much my entire life and I still have yet to get tired of him.

Just recently I attended one of his concerts, I’ve been to several of his shows and am always reminded why I’ve always loved the guy. I was never a big music geek, but love comedy, witty parody and wacky humor and Al has been doing it consistently for over thirty years.

When he hit the height of his popularity with his parody of Michael Jackson’s ‘Beat It’ turning it into ‘Eat It’, with a shot by shot spoof of the music video I bet most people didn’t think he would last more than his apparent fifteen minutes, but he has.

To this day I still listen to Al and keep up with his latest projects. Always listen to his latest album. Ironically, with most of his current song parodies I’m not even very familiar with the original song he’s spoofing, but they’re still entertaining. The guy has been around a long time, longer than some of original artists that he spoofed during his career. It just goes to show how fads and music might come
and go, but comedy is lasts forever.

When Al would host segments on MTV (back when it was an actual music video channel) I always tuned in. He had his own television show. I remember going to see his 1988 film UHF opening day with friends and I still think it’s bizarrely entertaining.

I’ve really been happy to see some of his more recent songs and videos getting a lot of attention from the wonderful online world and seeing younger fans discover him. The audience for his concert was an eclectic mix of older, younger, middle-aged fans. Professional, grungy, average and totally oddball types made up the crowd. There really isn’t one particular fan base Al has. Everyone loves to laugh.

It’s really pretty cool.

One of my early personal favorites of Al's. It's still as funny now as when I first heard it.

The 27 Club....

2011-07-24T20:07:00.000-04:00

As people have learned over the weekend, singer Amy Winehouse died at her home in North London Saturday at the age of 27.

The singer shot to popularity thanks to her album Back To Black in 2007. Since then, her singing career got eclipsed by her personal problems, court appearances and tabloid antics.

I’m sorry to hear she died. I knew who she was, but really didn’t know anything more than that she was a singer who always seemed to be making news for her behavior. I don’t keep up on celebrity tabloid news and wasn’t aware exactly what the personal issues she was dealing with were.

The one thing that I found interesting reading all the reports about her death is this 27 Club that she has now joined.

Several popular musicians have coincidently died at the age of 27 and I guess now it’s become some kind of morbid pattern that people like to point out. People like to try to make sense out of the randomness of death and this age 27 thing seems like a way to see some kind of plan or logic involved. At least for some people.

Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison all died at age 27. Not surprisingly most musicians in the 27 Club were involved in drugs and/or alchol which most likely assisted with their early deaths.

I had read one person who would have liked to add Kurt Cobain to this 27 Club. Despite dying at the age of 27 his death was ruled suicide and this negated his admission to the club in this guys eyes.

Pretty strange way of thinking.

Jaws In 3-D.....WHAT?!?!

2011-07-22T19:15:00.000-04:00

News from this weeks Comic-Con in San Diego geeky movie news is running rampant. Does anyone remember when comic conventions were just a handful of hardcore comic fans to gather, discuss and buy and sell comics. No more, it is now Hollywood's popular spot to hock their latest wares and drum up attention for upcoming projects.

One of the tidbits I've read was in regards to Steven Spielberg. With 3-D once again being the latest fad in films - you know, like when it was the rage back in the 1950's and then the early 1980's - the iconic director was asked about whether he thought some of his classic films were in the running to be retro-fitted for 3-D. I'm not really sure why they would be....

Apparently Spielberg thinks there are two candidates for this conversion - 1993's Jurassic Park and his 1977 masterpiece Jaws.

I ask again.....why?

I haven't gotten into this 3-D craze that has been sweeping across film screens and making every action oriented film a necessity to have. I don't think it makes the films any better and just seems like a quick solution for studios to jack up the price of movie tickets. I especially don't like the idea of how 3-D has been done to a film as afterthought to jump on the 3-D bandwagon. If a film was conceived and shot in 2-D trying to retro-fit it into 3-D is pointless exercise and to me is just an attempt at a quick cash grab.

Now Spielberg is talking about converting Jaws. It's a shame. Jaws has held up since its release not only because of the shark special effects - which are very minimal in the whole context of the film - but of the three memorable lead characters played by Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw and Richard Dreyfuss. Trying to make shark effects leap out of the screen at you is not going to make the film any better, but will most likely make them more of a distraction to the story. A story that was beautifully told in the first place.

I can't help but compare this idea to the Star Wars Special Editions, when George Lucas decided to add new digital special effects to his original trilogy to make them.....I don't know more updated I guess. Oh and as an excuse to re-release them to audiences.

Jaws 3-D is just a bad idea. I wish Spielberg would just leave his film alone and how about focusing on his Abraham Lincoln bio pic with Liam Neeson I've been hearing about for years. I would be very interested in seeing that instead of trying to make the shark more frightening. A problem he had while filming which resulted in him trying to hide the shortcomings of the shark. Those problems eventually led the film to become more of a suspense film than he originally intended.

Sometimes creative solutions to problems can result in some beautiful results.

If you want to see a shark in 3-D, just watch 1983's Jaws 3-D and enjoy. Or at least try to....

Taking A Voyage On Cinematic Titanic

2011-07-16T21:57:00.000-04:00

Making fun of bad movies is nothing new. It’s probably been around since the silent era – kind of an easy thing to do actually to make your own comedic soundtrack over a movie with no sound.

The television show Mystery Science Theater 3000 made a weekly ritual out of the idea. Creator and host Joel Hodgeson got fans to watch movies that they probably would never had seen in any other venue. Now over ten years after the show went off the air Joel and the gang are doing a live show continuing to mock the worst cinema there is to offer.

Fortunately the show came around my area and I got a chance to attend and I'm here to tell you the movie was junk, but the MST3K gang are still great!

A little background for you Non—Misties (as hardcore fans have come to be known) - Mystery Science Theater 3000 made an art of goofing, mocking and making fun of ‘bad movies’. Creator and host Hodgson, accompanied by his robot pals Tom Servo and Crow, subjected themselves to viewing ‘bad movies’. The only possible way of sitting through the featured garbage and making it bearable
was to provide their own personalized entertainment via wisecracks and quips, along with musical segments and guest characters aimed squarely at the tortuous film. Thus MST3K (which it came to be known) gained a devoted fan base of bad movie geeks who reveled in their mockery of this cinematic crap and giving the audience some delight with watching them.

MST3K ran for eleven years and released its own feature film in 1996. Hodgeson eventually left and Michael J. Nelson replaced him as our human host. We've all thumbed our noses at bad movies before, but the intelligence and wit of the jokes by the shows team and the goofy format the show was presented in, had made the idea of watching Santa Claus Conquers The Martians actually seem like fun. That was an angle that truly had never been associated with a film like that before.

As long as you had Joel and the gang to help keep your sanity, watching an unredeeming movie was a fun way to spend an evening. Some of the films featured on the show I still rank as some of the absolute worst films I have ever seen. The notorious 1966 Manos: The Hands of Fate while being one of the most dreadful cinematic endeavors I have ever seen, ironically resulted in one of the best and most loved episodes of MST3K. Even with Joel and his pals trying their best they realize they might have gone too far featuring Manos. The pain they experience during the screening is hysterical!

The creators have moved onto other projects that continue to poke fun at the world of bad cinema. Hodgeson and four of the shows cast members have embarked on a touring stage show called Cinematic Titanic, where…..well, you can kind of guess – a really bad movie with a lot of jokes thrown at the screen. I recently attended a show and it was really entertaining. The film targeted was 1976’s Rattlers. Mutated rattlesnakes go on an attacking rampage in Mojave Desert and only a brilliant herpetologist and a hot photographer can stop them.

Oh yeah, it was really, really bad! And it was a blast!

I had never even heard of this film before and would never have dreamed of sitting through it, but with Joel and his crew lobbing comedy hand grenades at it they made it one of the best times I’ve had watching a movie in awhile. There’s something about being in the middle of a laughing audience that just helps watching the ridiculousness of a really cheesy movie even more enjoyable.

For old time fans of MST3K Cinematic Titanic will be a real treat to revisit with the Satellite of Love crew and have a fun, silly evening out. For younger film fans that get a kick out of ‘bad movies’ and have never even heard of it I recommend you checking out the older shows. Once you decide it’s up your alley, hope the gang stops in around your area, get yourself tickets and get ready to experience the worst the world of cinema has to serve up and laugh right back in its face!

http://www.cinematictitanic.com/

What's Going On With Blockbuster?

2011-07-16T00:47:00.000-04:00

There was a point in time when Blockbuster Video was the place to go. The hippest, cheapest, most convenient destination to rent a film. Sure in the Pre-Blockbuster days there were anonymous local video stores you could go to in order to rent your VHS or DVD, but once the Blockbuster chain started picking up steam they steamrolled right over them. You didn’t have to go too far to see their blue logo and stop in for your movie fix on the weekend. It became the way most people did their movie renting.

Now it seems those simple innocent times like a thing of the past. No longer are folks strolling over to the big blue store and looking at the employee recommendation shelf to see if they have the same movie taste as Todd at the register. Folks have found other ways to get their movie fix on a lazy weekend evening and it no longer involves Blockbuster.

Not that it should come to any surprise to anyone. For years now the way we rent and watch movies has completely been revamped from the time Blockbuster ruled the home video market. Heck, even in the last few years the way audiences watch movies has drastically changed. Streaming video, dvd mailings, vending machines - strolling over to your local Blockbuster seems like an antiquated idea nowadays.

Blockbuster seems like it just wasn’t able to adapt quickly enough for consumers and its stores started looking like one of those old Mom and Pop stores that Blockbuster ran out of our towns. I used to frequent Blockbuster. I had one in my town and it was my ‘go to’
place for movies. That changed for me when Netflix came along. No late fees, having movies mailed right to me and I could make my selection right from home. It was hard to beat. However, the one thing that really made me gladly jump ship was a problem I had with Blockbuster ever since it came along – their selection.

Walking into a Blockbuster their shelves were lined with the most popular, mainstream, current films that were out on video or DVD. Granted the stores name is ‘Blockbuster’, so it goes to reason they would cater to the most wide demographic possible and have plenty of big movies available for them to choose from. You would be able to find lower grade B action films with exciting titles to them and
silly, dopey comedies that you had never heard of it on occasion too.

In case you haven't figured it out already I'm a bit of film geek and am more likely drawn to a smaller obscure film than say Men In Black or Transformers 2. So Blockbustes business practices kind of left the smaller niche of film-lovers who were looking for things a bit more off the beaten path out of luck. Foreign films, classic films, docuementaries. It was a rare instance when I would find anything like that in Blockbuster amongst the twelve-foot wall of The Mummy Returns.

So when Netflix came around and I saw their ridiculously more vast selection of choices I could make I immediately signed up andhaven’t looked back to Blockbuster. I hadn’t even thought much of Blockbuster until I saw the one in my town was ready to close a month ago.

A second Blockbuster a few towns over, that apparently seemed like it would be the alternative location for the Blockbuster regulars in my town also announced it was closing. So with signs saying “Everything Must Go!” and “DVD’s for $4.99” finally prompted me after years to finally wander into a Blockbuster. As usual it didn’t seem like much changed. Popular titles lined the shelves, now all marked down and ready to be bought.

I did end up buying a few though. There are some newer films I do enjoy. Never in my life did I think I would ever own Piranha, but when the price dropped to $3.99 I thought “yeah I’ll pick it up”. Classic films were pretty much non-existent. I think Blockbuster defines an “old film” as anything before 1995. A black and white movie is something you were never likely to find on a shelf. I was able to find a copy of The Conversation! It really shocked me. It didn’t look like it was watched in years, but I gladly purchased it. I couldn't help but think they had it by mistake.

It seems Blockbuster the company is getting a complete overhaul. Maybe they’ll try to focus more on home mailings like they finally started, but were left in the dust with. Or maybe we’ll see a bunch of Blockbuster kiosks, although Red Box seems to be doing pretty well with that. Whatever they
plan on doing I personally won’t be missing Blockbuster too much.

It’s kind of ironic, for a store that valued keeping such an up to date, overwhelming amount of mainstream movies in stock for their customers, the thing that seems to have finally done them in was not adapting to how those customers were watching them.

Michael Bay's Transformers Returns! Third Times The Charm Maybe....?

2011-07-04T20:33:00.000-04:00

Nope, this isn't my review and reaction to Transformers 3: Dark Of The Moon. In fact I don't plan on ever seeing it. I have no interest in it. I refuse to get ripped off by another Michael Bay spectacle ever again. Pearl Harbor was the last straw for me with the guy, but apparently movie audiences keep on turning up for his films.

Everyone will be and is going to see the latest Transformers film. The big July 4th weekend, a big budget special-effects film that's targeted for kids, a popular toy line that comes to life. How can it not rake in tons of cash. And sadly the quality of the film has nothing to do with the guaranteed success it will have.

I will admit I did manage to see the first Transformers movie. It took me three nights to get through it and it was painful. Naturally, I skipped the second one. I couldn't believe when people described it as worse than the first. I thought - "How is that possible??? Could that actually be done?"

Now it's the third one coming around. Is it going to be any different than the last two. Probably not and why would anyone thing so? This franchise is unfairly extremely popular and has been since the beginning. Despite fans wanting - and rightfully - asking for better films they haven't been given them. Michael Bay continues to dish out what he's supposedly good at and audiences keep showing up. So why change now?

Even with Bay and Shia LeBeouf coming out and saying the second one sucked, but this third one will be better - how can anyone believe that? They already fooled fans twice and now they're going for the hat trick.

Like I said I could care less about the Transformers franchise, Michael Bay, Shia LeBeouf, whether Megan Fox is in this one and if she's replaced by Victoria Secrets underwear model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. It doesn't matter what the ingredients are, if Michael Bay is in the kitchen the results will always be the same.

The one thing I do enjoy, more than the latest installment of this mind-numbing franchise is the reaction from fans who deservedly want to voice their dissatisfaction with the filmmakers for serving up another epically long, humorless, heartless special effects reel.

These rants have more passion and enthusiasm for these films than Michael Bay ever had for wanting to tell these stories.
Plus, they're hysterical!

The God's Must Be Crazy (1980) - A Quick Review

2011-06-28T13:16:00.000-04:00

A completely silly and goofy little film that ever since I first saw had me laughing and I’ll occasionally revisit it. It’s a simple story of the Bushman of the Kalahari Desert. They are a people who are untouched by man and have their own beliefs about their world and God. Their way of life is suddenly shaken when an empty Coke bottle falls from the sky and throws a wrench in their peaceful way of life. Xixo takes it upon himself to rid this ‘evil thing’ and sets off to throw it off the end of the earth – and so his adventure begins.

This is a pretty outlandish, crazy movie. It was an unsuspected hit when first released and has held onto a cult status ever since. The quality of the production is dirt-cheap and many of the editing techniques employed by director Jamie Uys make it even wackier, but that doesn't mean it's still pretty funny.

There is a lot of slapstick humor with the actors and vehicles and fun observations on civilized man as Xixo runs into a second story involving a scientist, a schoolteacher and a revolutionary. Some of the narrator’s lines not only help with the laughs, but it also makes you feel like your watching some surreal Discovery Channel documentary. It’s all pretty fun and adds up to a very funny unusual movie that if you’re in the right frame of mind should provide you some laughs.

There were follow-ups to this film. The second one isn’t bad. The others (that I think are near impossible to find) I’ve never seen, but judging by the lack of information on them are probably not very good and we aren’t missing much.

The Spreading Word On Green Lantern.....

2011-06-17T21:26:00.000-04:00

Green Lantern hasn't even been playing in theaters for twenty-four hours, but already reactions are spreading pretty darn fast. And what is the general reaction?

Not too good.

At this point the big-budget Green Lantern film starring Ryan Reynolds as iconic superhero Hal Jordan hasn't be receiving much positive reviews from critics. On rottentomatoes.com Lantern is currently sitting at a 23%, which is pretty bad.

I don't generally pay attention to critics, but when the response is so overwhelmingly negative it does make me raise an eyebrow. I was especially disturbed to read one blurb comparing Lantern to 1997's Batman and Robin. Could it really be that bad???

I'm still hoping to see it, but my enthusiasm that I had for it is slowly seeping away the more I read. Ultimately I'll make my own decision on it, but right now I'm getting a bad feeling about this.....

Marvel's Thor Hammer's Its Way To Movie Screens....

2011-06-16T20:08:00.000-04:00

Wandering around my local Target recently I stumbled into the toy section and was admiring the Thor toy section. Action figures, helmets and hammers sprinkled the aisle.

And so it signaled to thee the first superhero movie of the summer was upon us.

Thor is the most recent big-budget superhero adaptation from Marvel Studios and Paramount Pictures. With a budget of 150 million, the film is the first live-action adaptation of Marvel's Hammer wielding God and is another piece of the puzzle to the long awaited Avengers film scheduled for 2012.

The film stars Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Stellen Skarsgard and Chris Hemsworth as Thor. When things get a bit too intense in the mystical Asgard, the arrogant warrior Thor is cast down to Earth, where he finds some satisfaction helping these mortals out.

Kenneth Branagh directs, which at first seems like an odd choice for a seemingly silly superhero movie, but the story about a royal family with betrayal getting thrown around seems like an ideal one for a Shakespearan spin and could be the perfect makings for a nice action drama.

As of now I've heard some pretty positive things coming from this movie. I take internet gossip with a grain of thought though. I'm always suspicious it justmight be studio plants trying to pump up excitement for a stinker of a movie. So I'll reserve my judgement until I finally see the film myself. �

The Loss Of A Boss....(And No I'm Not Talking About Steve Carrel, But A More Personal Story)

2011-06-11T14:48:00.000-04:00

Unless you lucked out and hit the lottery, most likely you’ll be spending the most of your adult life working…..at a job….earning money….and trying to make the most of it.

There are the lucky ones who genuinely enjoy their job. Waking up early in the morning is less a chore than the unlucky ones, who groggily get out of bed and already can’t wait for quitting time to come.

One of the few things that can make a dreary job bearable is the people you work with. Sometimes you draw the short straw and end up having to put up with people you wouldn’t otherwise ever spend time with or would want to. Then on the other side are the people you click with, enjoy seeing and establishing a connection that supersedes the normal co-worker one. A more friendly bond that on your first day working with them you would never had predicted to happen.

Bosses get a tough wrap. Even though they’re employing you and paying you your salary they can easily be pegged as the villains of your daily grind. They’re the faces dealing out work to you, they’re the ones that will be looking over your shoulder and you can’t even tell them off! It’s logical for them to be portrayed as the bad guys and sometimes it's completely warranted.

However, on the rarest occasions they can actually be pretty nice folks. A boss that you begin to actually like and who treats you fair. A boss that you actually see doesn’t mind getting his hands dirty and working alongside you. One that actually….(gasp!) inspires you to go that extra mile for him, when you easily could have just coasted through the day. A boss that notices your hard work and is genuinely appreciative of it, which makes you feel good. It’s one of those exceptional situations.

When you see your boss break their back at their job all day, every day it would be kind of satisfying to see them get some recognition from their boss. They’ve really earned it. You see how hard they work, hopefully the higher ups will notice and appreciate it too. Give your boss the credit he deserves. You actually end up rooting for your own boss! When does that ever happen???

Unfortunately, as the popular phrase goes – ‘Life is not fair”. Which is true, but some people just fall back on using that motto as an excuse when they’re the ones who are dealing out the unfairness.

Your boss doesn’t get any praise or thanks what he sincerely deserves, but an impersonal kick in the rear. Before you know it one of the few things that made your tedious job tolerable is gone without any hesitation or second thoughts by the higher ups.

So once again you’re left in the position of a job with an anonymous boss hanging over your head. One who can easily dish out the daily workload from their comfy office, just expecting it to get done and never helping out because well, they’re the boss that kind of work is beneath them. So just do it!

It doesn’t take very long to feel your old boss’ absence and before you know it your alarm goes off in the morning and your in the mindset of looking forward to the end of the day. The one positive thought you can muster is that you hope your boss wherever he might go is better off and finds a job where his hardwork is deservedly recognized by his higher ups, the same way he acknowledged all of yours.

Now you’re just left adjusting to a new boss, one that has big shoes to fill in your mind and the higher ups. You know how fortunate you were to have worked with such a great boss, even though it never dawned on the higher ups what they had right under their noses all this time. They seem to be confident with their decision, but it’s one that you hope will eventually make them see what a terrible mistake they’ve made.

Gettysburg (1993) - A Quick Review

2011-06-05T17:21:00.000-04:00

Several years ago I visited the battlefield at Gettysburg, PA. You know actually being there and seeing the layout of the landscape made the history of the battle come alive in a way you don't get from reading about it in history books. You did feel like you were standing on sacred ground and could almost envision the countless soldiers who fought there.

The second best way to experience it is by watching the four hour mammoth film based on that three day battle.

We don't see very many 'Television Event's' anymore (or at least ones that actually live up to the name) Ted Turner backed the production with intentions of it being a film shown on his cable channel TNT, but after seeing some of the footage decided to release it theatrically.

With a cast consisting of Martin Sheen, Jeff Daniels, Sam Elliott, C. Thomas Howell, Donal Logue, Stephen Lang, George Lazenby, Richard Jordan and Tom Berenger (who it's said it is his favorite film he's done), along with thousands of Civil War re-enactors, the film recounts the bloodiest battle fought on US soil. It not only restages the battles, but allows you to understand how seemingly a series of random events led up to the meeting between the Confederate and the Union armies in the small farm town.

The film is not perfect. At times the characters feel like they're speaking in soliloquies and speeches, rather than just talking. It's like award show sound bytes, but they're minor quibbles and don't really hurt the commendable intentions the film set out to achieve - documenting this historic event. The recreations with all the extras accompanied by Randy Edelman's rousing score succeeds as one of the best films about the Civil War. I especially love Jeff Daniels performance. As he tries to maintain a calm and optimistic command of his troops, even though he knows things are getting worse and worse and alternatives are disappearing - that scene is one of the best performances I've ever seen him give.�

When You're Strange (2009) - A Quick Review

2011-06-04T01:56:00.000-04:00

I’m not huge music lover, but one band that I’ve always loved has been the Doors. Since discovering their music in my early teens, I’ve gone back and re-listened to them time and time again. They just never get old for me.

Naturally, being a fan of their music I, like so many others, have a fascination with the band, their history and the mystical allure of the late lead singer Jim Morrison. A lot has been written about Morrison. The stories surrounding their climb in popularity during the height of the 1960’s, the psychedelic lyrics, the concerts, Morrison’s love of poetry, his arrest and early death in Paris at the age of twenty seven.

Fans will be familiar with all these and in the documentary When You’re Strange it recounts all of them again. And while they’re all just as riveting to hear as always, there’s not really anything new the film has to add about the band or Morrison. What makes the film a must see for fans however, is the inclusion of never before seen footage of Morrison. The footage is so pristine and new looking, it took me a second to realize it wasn’t a reenactment, but it was in fact Morrison.

The film does do a nice job of not only focusing on the “wild” side of Morrison (which was my main problem with Oliver Stone’s 1991 film), but also on the artist and individual. His shyness, his love of words and his self-consciousness of his singing voice. Like any other human being, there were many shades to Jim and the quieter aspects to his personality usually gets overshadowed by the theatrical parts of his life.

The overall structure, the editing, Johnny Depp’s narration and the use of the Doors music is good and should make an entertaining crash course for newer Doors fans. As for hardcore fans, the new footage of Morrison is the real selling point and it’s very worthwhile to see. Unfortunately, there’s really no new information here to learn about the Doors, but maybe at this point everything that could be told about them already has.

Where Is Jackie Kennedy's Pillbox Hat?

2011-05-30T19:12:00.000-04:00

Now I’m not a fashion maven at all. I could care less about designers or dresses or fabrics or any of that stuff. These entertainment magazines that have pages and pages documenting Hollywood
fashion I zone out flipping through them. At all these award shows the stupidest question to me is when these celebrities are asked “Who are you wearing?”. I could care less. It’s kind of an odd sounding question when you think about it. Almost something like you would ask a deranged serial killer who skins people. Too bad Jodie Foster never got around to asking Buffalo Bill who he was wearing in Silence of the Lambs.

However, one recent fashion-related article caught my attention. Well, it’s kind of fashion-related, but more history-related. A question regarding the location on one of the most famous fashion accessories ever - where is Jackie Kennedy’s pillbox hat?

On November 22nd 1963 President John F. Kennedy was visiting Dallas, Texas. Riding along the streets in an open-topped limousine with his wife Jackie alongside him he was shot and killed by an assassin. His sudden and violent death became one of the most remembered events in the 20th century. The world mourned and everyone gathered around television sets to watch the historic news
unfold. For the first time television provided live coverage of a shocking, major news event and the country stopped to watch. From the first breaking news reports of the President being shot, to his funeral in DC three days later.

Even today, generations later, everyone knows about the Kennedy assassination and the images that were left by it in that November of 1963. One of the most famous ones was of the glamorous first lady Jackie. Photos of her wearing that pink dress and pillbox hat in Dallas became a representation of the event and the change that had hit the country. When you watch the color footage recounting that

day, Jackie in her pink suit stands out in every frame. It’s hard not to have your eyes drawn to her, even without that bright outfit. The contrast between the elegant, beautiful, smiling Jackie from early in the day sitting beside her husband to the shocked, expressionless woman with her husband’s blood covering her accompanying his coffin back to Washington DC a few hours later, became a photographic time capsule that would tell the story simply and directly.

So I was surprised to read that the whereabouts of Jackie’s pillbox hat are unknown.

The suit itself is being stored in a climate-controlled vault in the National Archives and is banned from public view for 100 years. It's still stained with the President’s blood and will never be cleaned. It was suggested to the First Lady to change clothes after Kennedy’s death, but she refused saying “let them see what they’ve done”. From there Jackie wore the blood-stained suit accompanying her husband’s coffin back to Washington and standing alongside Lyndon Johnson as he took the oath of office.

Jackie Kennedy had a class and style that naturally affected fashion trends at the time. The pillbox hat became popular during that period mainly due to her. However, leaving aside the famous fashion aspect to it and looking at that piece of clothing as a significant piece of American history, which it is, I was pretty surprised that it has become lost.

I won’t recount the entire article. It recounts all the details and traces the known whereabouts of the hat better than I could. Look it up though. It’s a pretty interesting story of how such a famous and enduring item from that historical event may be gone forever.

The Hangover Part II - A Really Unwanted Sequel For Me......

2011-05-29T15:51:00.000-04:00

Since the sequel has just been released, it reminded me of my feelings about one of the most overrated films in recent years – The Hangover.

Everyone knows the movie and apparently A LOT of people loved it. I’m one of the few who didn’t. After hearing about how funny it was by so many people, seeing how popular it was and it eventually ending up to be the proud title holder of “Most Successful Rated R Comedy In History” (does that really carry that much weight with anyone?) when I finally watched it I thought “Well, where’s the funny?”

Everyone knows the premise. After arriving in Vegas for a bachelor party three guys wake up the next morning with no recollection of the wild night that happened before. They’ve lost the groom, there’s an lying amongst an outlandish aftermath and they have to piece together what took place.

It’s a great setup for a comedy, unfortunately the humor that seemed to capture the hearts of moviegoers escaped me. I kept waiting for the funny bits to start, but they never did. The guys find a baby. They find a tiger. They meet a stripper. Meet some gangsters. Meet Mike Tyson. And constantly yell "what happened last night???".

And it all amounted to a pretty boring movie for me.

Now there’s a sequel. It seemed like a given. A movie generates the amount of money the first did everyone wants to repeat its success, even though it’s a real stretch and the premise for the first film seemed like a one shot idea, that’s didn’t stop them with going ahead with a Part 2.

Admittedly I haven’t seen (or plan to see) the sequel. Maybe it's funnier than the original, but it sounds like it’s just a retread of a film where the humor that made it so popular I completely missed. But maybe that’s enough for everyone else to make the Hangover Part II another success.

Buried (2010) - A Quick Review

2011-05-27T17:23:00.000-04:00

Otherwise known as 'Ryan In A Box'. I wanted to check this film out mainly for curiousity. Films set in one locations seem to be a type of cinematic experiment by filmmakers. Hitchcock had always wanted to set an entire film in a phone booth, which Joel Schumacher would do in his 2002 film. So director Rodrigo Cortes takes things further setting his entire film in a buried coffin.

Ryan Reynolds is Paul Conroy a truck driver working in Iraq who wakes up to discover he's been put in a coffin. That sums it all up. It's a pretty terrifying scenario (one that we saw used in Kill Bill), but I wasn't really expecting that much and it seemed like a gimmick that wouldn't hold my attention, but I enjoyed more than I thought it would.

It's a one man show and Reynolds is pretty good as he frantically tries to make calls to get himself out of there. It milks the claustrophic setting pretty well with hows it shot and lit. I still felt the film felt padded at times, but overall it's an intriguing idea that although not perfect is still an effective suspense story.

Judgment Day Delayed!

2011-05-23T16:24:00.000-04:00

If your reading this you probably learned that Armageddon hadn't begun on May 21, 2011. That was the popular prediction at least.

According to this 89-year-old minister Harold Camping, this "Rapture" was to have started over the weekend which would be beginning of the complete destruction of the planet. At 6:00PM the scheduled start time to Doomsday - nothing happened.

This isn't the first time Camping miscalculated our destruction. He previously predicted the Rapture would hit us back in 1994. When nothing happened he explained there was an error with his math. I guess the same thing must of happened this time. The guy must be really lousy with his decimal points.

I completely forgot about The Apocalypse this past weekend. It's kind of embarrassing to admit that while our planet could have been on the verge of destruction I was catching up on episodes of The Office.

So I guess Camping will go back to his calculations and give us a new time table for the Rapture. I'll definitely try to remember it next time it comes around.

The Death Of Director Sidney Lumet & My Thoughts....

2011-05-05T16:49:00.000-04:00

As most film fans know director Sidney Lumet died April 9th 2011 at the age of 86. Most film fans are probably familiar with his work and even casual ones are likely have seen or at least heard of some of the films he directed that would eventually become “classics”.

12 Angry Men Serpico Dog Day Afternoon Network The Verdict,,,,

Not too long ago I was rewatching a handful of Lumet’s films. Every few years when I revisit 1976’s Network I enjoy it more and more. The film seems to get more and more eerily prophectic with the passage of time with its portrayal of the cutthroat race for television ratings and faceless corporations.

As Peter Finch’s unstable news anchor Howard Beale is screaming and ranting his classic line, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” and becoming a ratings jaugernaut – a fact that his network will easily exploit – over thirty years later the antics of Charlie Sheen and the exposure he’s getting seems like a surreal update.

Lumet always seemd to be true lover of filmmaking and his philosophies he learned from his early televsion work served him well when he ventured into films. He detailed what he learned in his 1996 book Making Movies. A very interesting read for any film lover and demonstrates the continued enthusiasm he had for telling a good story.

A few months back I loaned a copy of Dog Day Afternoon to a casual movie watching cooleague. He had never ever heard of it. Mainly he knew Al Pacino from the Godfather, Scarface and Scent of Woman “Oooh Ahh!”

I strongly recommended him to watch Lumet’s 1975 film. The idea of watching an “old film” didn’t sound too appealing. The Brooklyn-ite finally relented when I said it was set in Brooklyn, New York. Later in the week I saw him again, told me he watched it and loved it.

Looking up Lumet films I had never seen before I finally watched 1965’s The Hill starring Sean Connery. Set in a British military detention camp in the Libyan Desert, with a battle of wills being fought by the guards and prisoners it didn’t seem like a typical Lumet film, but I really enjoyed it and Connery was great in it.

Connery made five films with Lumet. 1971’s Anderson Tapes has always been a film that I thought, although dated with its ancient surveillance technology and some pretty flamboyant performances, is still an entertaining heist film. I’m still anticipating a modernized remake of it at some point. 1989’s Family Business was a misfire with a great cast. 1972’s Offense and 1974’s Murder on the Orient
Express are the remaining Lumet/Connery films I have yet to see.

Lumet was widely known as that ‘New York’-director. The setting of the city would not only become a random setting, but a character in his films. His last film 2007’s Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead was once again set in New York and which I personally thought was another great addition to add to Lumet’s directing resume that started way back with his first film 1957’s 12 Angry Men, which still remains one of my favorite films.

The Royal Wedding - Aren't You Royally Excited?

2011-04-26T19:36:00.000-04:00

Everyone loves a wedding! Especially if it’s a royal one.

I guess.

So all those folks have really been gearing up for the nuptials of Prince William and Miss Catherine Middleton. Around my area no one has any problem that they’ll have to wake up really early in the morning to watch the ceremony live.

Locally I’ve read places having early morning wedding parties and get-togethers where I imagine they’ll be sipping tea, munching on crumpets, trying to act British and watching these two exchange vows. People are really trying to mark this occasion and get to be a part of it or at least feel like they are in someway.

I can’t really fault them. It’s always nice to have something to get excited about. And it’s kind of nice to hear about a big event that doesn’t involve football that people are making a big deal to watch, but I still don’t get the fascination with all this.

Tea towels, plates, postcards, ashtrays, dolls, fridge magnets, candles, beer, all with the couples faces on them are being sold. Who buys this stuff? This is the kind of junk you buy when your on vacation and just feel the need to buy something and ends up sitting around your home for years unused. And of course if your feeling in a sillier mood you can buy the really tacky stuff like Prince William and Miss Kate condoms, barf bags and toilet seats.

They’re apparently selling this one postage stamp that people have taken as a bad omen for the happy couple. The perforation to separate the two stamps will visually break up the newlyweds. Folks really have too much time on their hands to be thinking up this stuff. Besides if you buy these stamps aren’t you supposed to just save them and not actually use them? I know I would be embarrassed if I sent a letter using a Prince William stamp. I just picture my mailman shaking his head if he had to deliver a letter with that thing on it.

I read one stat that one-third of the people on the planet will be tuning into this. I this harkens back to the Prince Charles/Princess Diana wedding for a lot of people. Everyone witnessed her wedding; the birth of her kids, the breakup of her marriage and then her death, now seeing her son tying the knot feels like we’re a part of this family’s history. Maybe that’s how us commoners have always
felt about the royals since it all started centuries ago and have kept the whole allure surrounding them and the connection we feel for their lives intact after all this time.

Other than the bride looking pretty hot all this coverage hasn’t really fazed me and I haven’t given it much thought. I have enjoyed reading a little bit of the history about Westminster Abby and how Charles Dickens and Laurence Oliver are buried there. And admittedly I did inadvertently get into a little royal mood this week when I watched the Kings Speech - good film.

Cynical me though just has to shake my head at some of this stuff. Reading in the newspaper about their menu, their party favors, the dress, the guest list. Well, ok that was the one thing that caught my interest. The fact that Mr. Bean will be attending takes some of the majestic sheen off the proceedings and seems like a great setup for some comedy! I asked a couple of acquaintances if they were at all
interested in this wedding and none of them were. One even told me, “I never watched my wedding video, you think I’ll watch theirs!”

Apparently, plenty will be. I even read that they’re trying to promote the wedding as a good reason to take a trip to London for.
Really?

If I hop on a plane and get to London what are my chances of sitting between David and Victoria Beckham at this wedding? Not likely If I’m lucky I’ll be fifty people deep on some street blocks away from Westminster Abby and maybe get to hear some church bells.

Anyway, I probably won’t be tuning into this thing live. I’ll inevitably see some highlights of it on the news though. The news channels and entertainment shows will probably milk this thing to death knowing them.

I just hope Mr. Bean does something funny.

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008) - A Quick Review

2011-04-25T20:12:00.000-04:00

With Roman Polanski's criminal case making headlines again not too long ago I went back and rewatched this comprehensive documentary detailing the events that resulted in the director fleeing to Paris in 1978.

With interviews, file footage, along with the accompaniment of clips of Polanski's films, this documentary conveys the era of the 60's when Polanski was making a name for himself in the film industry, with a beautiful wife on his arm and a future that looked full of promise. By 1977 it was all undone.

The newsfootage of the media covering the case is fascinating, especially with the perspective of today seeing every entertainment program devote countless hours to every Hollywood scandal they can get their hands on. It certainly shows their antics are nothing new. The supposed judicial misconduct is head shaking and the testimony is at times chilling.

Since Polanski's arrest in Zurich in 2009, the DA recanted the interview he had given in the film. I don't view the film as a condemnation of Polanski or a defense for him, others might feel differently. I simply view it as a well told presentation as to what happened and leaves you to draw your own conclusions.

500 Days Of Summer (2009) - A Quick Review

2011-04-23T21:39:00.000-04:00

Holy crap! Can it actually really be? A recent romantic comedy that is enjoyable, fun, smart, heartbreaking and worth watching??? Who would have thought?

The romantic comedy genre felt like it was near extinction with generic assembly line garbage that has been churned out in recent years, so that makes this film an even more enjoyable experience! Not in a long time have I sat down and smiled along with a budding relationship, sharing the characters highs and lows, laughing and crying along with them while all the time hoping things will work out for them.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are engaging and likable in their roles and the characters aren’t one-dimensional, caricatures thrown into contrived, exaggerated situations. The back and forward style the story is told in might sound cliché at first, but it works. Director Marc Webb has been tapped for the Spider-Man reboot and after watching this film, it has certainly lifted my interest to see what he will do for that franchise.

Karl Pilkington Is An Idiot Abroad

2011-04-16T17:11:00.000-04:00

I wanted to pass along a recommendation of an oddball television program I have been watching in case you haven’t heard of it yet. It’s an entertaining and funny look at the seven wonders of the
world through the eyes of Karl Pilkington.

To those who don’t know, Karl is the beleaguered friend of Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant. His unique, cynical and suspicious way of looking at the most mundane things helped propel their internet podcasts to heightened popularity, so much so that Home Box Office took the audio from it and animated it making the Ricky Gervais Show.

Karl is the real star though. His deadpan, complicated philosophies make him hysterical to listen to. No matter what the topic of conversation is he has a viewpoint and is more than willing to share it. He’s not easily impressed by much and doesn’t have a problem saying so.

Before setting out on his trip around the world and being told he’s going to be sent to see the Seven Wonders of the World Karl explains how he’s already annoyed by the term. “I’ll decide whether it’s a wonder or not. They always build this stuff up. ‘The Great Wall Of China’ – whoa, whoa, whoa, let’s just call it the Wall Of China, I’ll decide if it’s great or not ”.

The idea of sending Karl around the world to see seven of man’s greatest achievements is part travelogue program, but more of a practical joke. It would be a real stretch to categorize it as an ‘Educational Program’. Karl suffers through his travels, not really enjoying much of anything. He’s shocked by public bathrooms in China. The traffic conditions in India scare the hell out of him.
He’s completely confused by the Wailing Wall in Israel. The usual stops a typical exploration documentary might skip is when Karl is at his best. A tourist bus ride to the Great Wall becomes a disgusting, awkward silent disaster. The ultimate destination is almost an afterthought.

Oh yeah, and the wonders….Karl does manage to get to them and his reaction isn’t complete awe like most programs of this nature. He’s got his own personal observations to share about them once he finally sees them and he’s not necessarily trying to sell you the idea that the experience of viewing the wonder is all it’s cracked up to be. If he doesn’t’ think they’re up to snuff he’ll say so.

An Idiot Abroad is now broadcasting Saturday nights on the Science Channel. Already it’s become the most watched program in their history. It’s the first time I ever tuned into it and honestly I didn’t even know I had the channel before hearing that’s where I had to tune in to watch An Idiot Abroad and I’m really glad I did. �

There are rumors there will be a follow-up program, where Karl experiences popular things from Bucket Lists. I really hope he returns and the sooner the better!

An Epically Mad, Mad, Mad Mad Film....

2011-04-14T19:04:00.000-04:00

With fan interest of Stallone’s Action Ensemble The Expendables making it one of the more anticipated films last summer and now the new rumors of Bruce Campbell’s proposed ultimate Horror film starring every horror star you can think of, I started thinking about – The Ultimate Comedy.

I haphazardly (there really isn’t another word to describe it) stumbled onto the epic comedy – It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. You’ve got to love Turner Classic Movies.

Stanley Kramer’s 1963 ambitious comedy is in a class all of its own. It’s certainly not the funniest movie ever, but just for the sheer size, scope and number of stars in it, it automatically became a classic. There are plenty of gags that fall flat, but there’s always another one right behind it that delivers. It certainly throws everything it can at the audience. From huge slapstick scenes to slipping on a banana peel, the film has it all. Plus, the fact that this wasn’t any kind of a revisiting love letter project, that dug up all these comedy stars of yesteryear for a reunion project. This was made while most of the cast were still incredibly popular and at the top of their games. Sure there are a few shout outs to some elder statesman of comedy in cameo appearances, but the majority of the cast were still as funny and relevant as they ever were at the time.

The story is simple – a random group of motorists encounter a dying man off the side of the road in the desert (Jimmy Durante), who in his final breaths reveals there is $350,000 buried under a giant “W’ in Santa Rosita State Park under a “big W”. He then literally kicks the bucket and it sets our cast on a mad dash to be the first to the park and find the money.

What ends up happening is comedy mayhem at every turn. As our stars depart on their own, we witness an ever-escalating series of misadventures resulting in huge set pieces of destruction, comedic bickering and countless cameos by other notable comedy stars.

As I’ve said some work, some don’t. My personal favorite parts are Sid Caesar and Edie Adams trapped in a hardware store. Caesar's getting increasingly frustrated by his failed attempts of getting out are pretty funny and I’ve always thought Edie was incredibly cute too. Buddy Hackett and Mickey Rooney trying to manage flying a plane. Some of the plane stunts are pretty impressive. Phil Silvers, who can play the most unlikable, greedy guy better than anyone and is more than willing to lie and show his frustration to anyone he comes across. Jonathan Winters, whose anger ends up leaving a gas station in spectacular ruins and who continually vows to get even with Silvers. Dick Shawn's groovy, over the top performance gets me everytime. Along with a parade of cameos that are fun to see, there's plenty in the film to keep me entertained. And that's not even half of what's in it! So it's likely that at least a few segments in this mammoth film will strike you.

It’s certainly lives up to the description of an “epic comedy”. Everything about it is on a grand scale. The length of the film alone might have some viewers find staggering. Kramer’s original cut ran close to five hours long! Since then I’ve seen versions that have been cut everywhere from 2½ to 3½ hours, including the inclusions or exclusions of the overture and intermission. I’ve heard there is still twenty minutes of footage that has been “lost” and still are missing . I’m not sure if there is a definitive final cut of the film.

Obviously, just looking at the length there is plenty of filmed material. Plus, due to the nature of the films crosscutting structure - showing one set of money hungry motorists madcap mishaps then cutting right to the next - inserting or removing a few doesn’t disrupt the film that much. All the characters are all basically wrapped up in their own misfortunes and are on their own, until they meet up at the climax.

The cast list is incredibly long, so I’m not even going to try to list them (just google it), but it is a very impressive lineup of stars and there is sure that at least a few will catch your attention and make you perk up your ears. Younger audiences might not be familiar with these old time great stars. They’re idea of a huge cast in a comedy is probably Grown Ups.

I can’t say it’s my favorite comedy - it’s not. And I can’t recommend it with unwavering enthusiasm. The film is certainly not for everyone. If you prefer your comedy a bit more on the highbrow end, well this might not be for you. But if you’re a hardcore film fan or comedy lover, you might want to check out one of the “biggest” comedies ever. This is a film that will never be repeated.

It might not be the funniest comedy ever, but you have to appreciate it for really trying.

The Wrestler (2008) - A Quick Review

2011-04-11T19:00:00.000-04:00

I'm still surprised how few people I've talked with still haven't seen this film. Maybe it's the title and the idea that you have to be a wrestling fan to enjoy it. Maybe it's the grittiness of how it looks and that it appears to be too depressing or that people aren't that interested in meeting this character.

Whatever it is, they're missing out. I had the same thoughts prior to watching it and by the end agreed with all the praise Mickey Rourke's performance had garnered, the direction of Darren Aronofsky and the supporting performances by Marisa Tomei and Rachel Evan Wood. The character of Randy 'The Ram' Robinson stayed with me for days after watching it and it was the best film I had seen for the year.

Occasionally since seeing the film I'll encounter advertisements of wrestler events around my area. Once popular wrestling stars now performing at a small local venue, the same way Rourke's character makes a living in the film. Immediately I think back to The Wrestler and want to watch it again.

Anvil!: The Story Of Anvil (2008) - A Quick Review

2011-03-31T16:43:00.000-04:00

We’ve all seen This Is Spinal Tap and while watching this documentary you can’t help but make comparisons. But where Spinal Tap played the declining interest of a once popular heavy metal band for laughs, this shows a similar situation in a much more serious vain.

The members of Anvil, most notably lead singer Steve “Lips” Kudlow, continue doing what they love to do and hope to recapture some of their past success, even though increasingly frustrating events make it seem more reasonable that it's time to hang it all up. I’m not a heavy metal fan by any stretch, but the tenacity and passion the band has to continue doing what they love and not willing to give up caught me up in their struggle and had me rooting for them in the end.

Roger Ebert Presents At The Movies....

2011-03-24T21:59:00.000-04:00

If you’ve been a follower of mine you probably know I have always been a fan of Siskel and Ebert and their review show. If this is the first time you ever visited my page….well now you know it.

Siskel died in 1999 and Ebert has been battling cancer, but is still as active a film reviewer as ever. Even though their last film review together was over ten years ago, I still think of their program in the present tense.

Often times I’ll rewatch a clip of a review or an entire episode when I’m surfing around and sit back and enjoy hearing their thoughts and watching them interact. I didn’t always agree with them, but their enthusiasm and passion for film continues to come through those old clips. Plus, they’re unique partnership and the jibes they would throw at each other was extremely entertaining.

The At the Movies Program went through some changes since Siskel’s death. A series of rotating co-hosts alongside Ebert, until Richard Roeper stayed on. Ebert and Roeper departed the show in 2008 and it lasted two more seasons without them before finally being cancelled permanently in August 2010.

Despite my personal taste of the critics I have always thought it was a great thing that the program endured. With dozens of gossip programs that revolve around Hollywood and celebrities, it became such a rare thing for a program to actually look at the art of film the industry is producing, rather than the gossip and disposable news it generates on a daily basis. I was very disappointed to see the program leave the airwaves.

Needless to say, I am very excited to see that Ebert is returning with a new film review program.

Film criticism is not a difficult thing to find these days. Just go onto the internet and you can easily hear amateur critics and regular filmgoers share their opinions about a recent film they saw (Yours truly included). Their focus is on what is on the film and not the behind the scenes nonsense that seems to be the majority of what’s referred to as entertainment news today. I always thought there was room for a program like that on commercial television and there must be other film fans that would welcome it. I certainly will.

I wasn't sure what to expect from the program. Ebert will be involved, but obviously he won’t have as big a role in the program as he once did because of his currently health condition. He will contribute a weekly segment with the use of a computerized voice. The two critics on the center stage will be 24-year-old Ignatiy Vishnevetsky and 38-year-old Christy Lemire, film critic for the Associated Press.

I wasn't really familiar with either of them and since its debut I really haven't warmed up to either of the hosts. They're obviously big film fans and offer up some interesting opinions and recommendations. However, they lack any real kind of chemistry that I've seen and aren't really as engaging television personalities like Ebert and Siskel had. Which I really kind of expected.

Still, I'm continuing to tune in for the simple fact that there is a program focused on the world of film that once again will be worthwhile to watch, as opposed to the usual Hollywood entertainment shows with the vapid hosts whose lead story is Kim Kardashian’s latest photoshoot. That stuff just makes my brain turn to mush.

'The Train' (1964) - A Quick Movie Review

2011-03-23T20:04:00.000-04:00

It's 1944, after having occupied Paris for the last four years the Nazis are pulling out of the city before the Allies arrive to liberate it. Colonel von Waldheim's (Paul Scofield) only priority is to get looted irreplacable masterpieces of art back to Germany. Railway inspector and French Reistance fighter Paul Labiche (Burt Lancaster) is given the risky assignment to delay the train unitl the Allies arrive to save the priceless art and a large chunk of French culture and history. Questioning whether such a task is even worth risking a human life ("I won't waste lives on paintings") he reluctantly agrees.

Directed by John Frankenheimer this taut, intelligent, suspenseful story keeps moving with large set pieces and terrific acting with Lancaster and Scofield engaging in a battle of wills. The intricate ways the Resistance plan to stop the train with their little tricks along the way are inventive and very intelligent. Unfortunately, they have their work cut out for them with their suspicious and focused adversaries.The black and white photography is beautiful to look at and the action scenes (having all been done for real) are just as impressive as ever.

'Dead Snow' (2009) - A Quick Movie Review.....

2011-03-16T18:15:00.000-04:00

A group of medical students embark on a snowy weekend in the Øksfjord mountains and before they know it they're faced with having to deal with an army of WW II Nazi zombies who've made the scenic setting their home.

This sounds pretty strange huh? Well, it is but it's fun! Zombies seem to be the popular movie monster at the moment. So how could you possibly make them any meaner, scarier and evil? You make them Nazi's of course!

The setup to this Norwegian film is the usual to genre - group of young carefree kids, a remote cabin, tension begins to build, you shake your head at the stupidity of the characters and then they're running for their lives. There is plenty of gore, blood and creepy makeup that should satisfy any gore fan. Plus, the snow covered mountain setting gives the film a unique look (aren't we getting tired of seeing kids run around in the woods?).

Along the way there are some homages and references to some of the past classics in the genre. The characters are pretty thin, but that's really not what you would be watching it for anyway. This isn't for everyone, but if you want to experience some suspense followed by bloody, gory, gruesome dismemberment this is the ticket. Some fans might be put off by the fact it's a film that requres you to read subtitles (oooooh I have to read??? I'm afraid I'll have to take a pass on that!), but really it's no big thing. Just stick it out for awhile and before you know it there will be extended silent stalking sequences where the majority of the dialogue is screaming. And that's a universal language.

'Top Secret!' (1984)

2011-03-14T14:00:00.000-04:00

Once upon a time parody movies weren't the bottom of the cinema barrel. In fact, they were actually a great bet for some laughs! Yeah, it's hard to believe after witnessing what the genre has dissolved into.

The Zucker/Abrams/Zucker team who created 1980's 'Airplane!' followed it up with this parody of WWII spy movies. Along the way Elvis musicals, The Blue Lagoon, The Great Escape, Pintos and endless cliched movie conventions are targeted.

Val Kilmer (in his film debut) plays Nick Rivers - American Rock N' Roll star, who travels to Germany and meets Hillary Flammond (Lucy Gutteridege) and gets embroiled in the Resistance who are trying to rescue......ah the story isn't important. It's simply used as a framework to hang gags on. The important thing with these kind of films are to keep the jokes flying and if they're funny or not. In this case they are! Some jokes fall flat, but for every joke that doesn't work there's another one right behind it that does.

You know how everyone quotes that famous 'Shirley' line from Airplane? Well, there are plenty of goofy lines here to add to your repertoire.

"In women's tennis, I always root against the heterosexual."
"If they find out you've seen this, your life will be worth less than a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory."
"Latrine!"
"Souvenirs, novelties, party tricks."
"How do we know he's NOT Mel Torme?"

Right from the opening sequence of teenagers partying at the beach enjoying Nick's latest hit 'Skeet Surfin'!', you know this movie is going to be a real wacky ride. I revisited it again recently on TCM (I wouldn't have expected to find it there) while they were dedicating a night to the ZAZ teams films. I planned on only watching the opening scene, but before I knew it I was there for the long haul. The film isn't as famous as 'Airplane!' or the 'Naked Gun' films, but it's still plenty of fun. For folks who are only familiar with recent parody films that have caused the genre to be on life support, it's a fun treat to see what it once was when it was made by creative, intelligent, inventive and FUNNY filmmakers.

New Bond Pictures Revealed.....

2011-03-10T16:30:00.000-05:00

It's been over forty years now when Bond filmmakers were first faced with their biggest challenge - "Who would be the next James Bond?"

Coming after the reign of Sean Connery, who played the role in the last five films, finding a worthwhile candidate seemed like an impossible challenge. Still, the franchise had to go on and this problem had to be tackled. So the process began of trying to find the next 007.

As all Bond fans know the role eventually was handed to twenty-eight year old George Lazenby, a former Australian model, who would be the lead in 1969's 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', his one outing as 007.

But what about all the other actors who were considered and auditioned? Life magazine had documented some of the process and the actors who took a shot at becoming one of the most famous characters in films and they've finally opened up their vaults so we can see.

I find it somewhat odd that some of these photos haven't been seen in so long, considering how big a deal getting a new James Bond was at the time. I mean, nowadays this would be a huge deal and every entertainment show and magazine would be feverishly reporting on every minute detail of it and the whole process would be documented and shown to audiences. But I guess that's what makes these photos so special.

It's an interesting look at some of the possible candidates at the time and to think of what might have been.

CHECK OUT THE PHOTOS!

Charlie Sheen As 'The Wild Thing'! I Mean In A Movie

2011-03-02T17:31:00.000-05:00

Charlie Sheen is making headlines and seems to be on every talk and radio show there is. It’s the latest celeb meltdown craze that ALL the entertainment shows, magazines and mainstream media is feeding the hungry public and they're eagerly eating it up. Radio, television, telegraph, smoke signals, pony express, the story of Charlie Sheen’s latest clash with drugs, co-workers, porn stars, CBS and Thomas Jefferson, it's become the latest popular Hollywood scandal story.

Now I will say I’m not a fan of Sheen’s Two and Half Men show. I’ve never seen it and really was never planning to. So the likelihood of it ending doesn’t make me flinch. Sheen hasn’t been on my radar for a long time, but all this craziness and attention did make me think of one of my favorite projects he’s done that I always enjoyed. Major League (1989).

Over twenty years ago Major League was basically a grown up version of The Bad News Bears. The premise was simple: the new season beginning for the cursed Cleveland Indians, who for decades have been at the bottom of the league with no chances of being a success. Cue the greedy, cynical owner (Margaret Whitton) who purposely puts together the worst team possible so they’re guaranteed to lose and she can move the team to the more pleasant surroundings of Florida.

But things don’t go according to her plan when the team starts…..WINNING!!!!

Sheen, along with Tom Berenger, Corbin Bernsen, Wesley Snipes and Dennis Haysbert make up the misfit team with their tired coach trying his best with what he’s got (the late James Gammon). There are plenty of laughs at their total ineptitude, amusing sight gags and the characters are genuinely funny. With the help of some classic montages of training, the unlikely teammates start working together and start chalking up some wins. Indian Fever finally engulfs Cleveland and you’ll be right alongside the city cheering on the team.

Maybe Major League isn’t the funniest film ever or even the funniest baseball film ever, but everytime I stumble onto it I stay tuned right until the end. All the actors are very good in their parts and I’m a sucker for these kinds of underdog stories. And Bob Uecker has some classic lines! He’s hysterical as the Indians announcer Harry Doyle.

There were two sequels, Major League II (1994) and Major League: Back to the Minors (1998), neither is as funny or entertaining as the original. Supposedly, Sheen is readying for another step up to the plate returning as Ricky ‘Wild Thing’ Vaughn in a new Major League film. I’m not sure how much of a success it will be though. I think Sheen has got enough on his hands as it is. Plus, I doubt a new entry will be able to recapture all the components that made the first one such a funny film.

'Daybreakers' (2009)

2011-02-28T17:07:00.000-05:00

If you’re a vampire fan you might be getting tired of all the seemingly endless teen/lovey dovey stories that are the popular thing nowadays. Whatever happened to the hard core, graphic, scary stories that there used to be? Well, Daybreakers is a good place to find it.

From the setup of a future in a world where vampires outnumber humans, it begins an interesting story involving two species who are trying to survive. The humans obviously want to avoid being food and the vampires who require their human blood to live – so they can’t exactly just kill all the humans or else they’ll be really screwed.

It’s a pretty cool B-movie with some nice performances by Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe and Sam Neill and a fun story that takes some twists and turns. The transformed world that the vampires are now living in is an upside down universe where day is reserved for staying indoors and not getting your required blood fix can turn you into a real mess. There’s plenty of blood and gore for fans too. I was pleasantly surprised by it. After feeling inundated by all the vampire films and tv shows lately this was a unique treat. I won’t be surprised if this story continues, it looks like like an ideal setup to an ongoing series.

'Unknown White Male' (2005)

2011-02-22T18:39:00.000-05:00

Unknown White Male (2005)

Chronicling the experiences of Doug Bruce, who while one day awoke at Coney Island with total and complete amnesia, the film recounts his journey of finding out about his life he doesn't remember having. His mind is a blank slate and he explores with innocence and wonder every little facet of the world around him that he's forgotten.

It's an intriguing beginning to a story where we start to follow Doug and see him try to piece together his life, along with all the tiny things that we take for granted. There is some speculation the film is a hoax, just an elaborate put on. Whether you want to believe the validity of the claims is up to you and you can read all about that. Whether fake or not, the film does present such an interesting premise it does get you thinking. How would you react to tasting chocolate for the first time, of seeing snow? Would your closest, oldest friends still be your friends if you had met them today? What would happen if all of a sudden you had the reset button pushed on everything that you ever knew and what you experienced in the past? Would you still be the same person you are today or someone completely different?

A New Wonder Woman Is Cast.....

2011-02-19T15:14:00.000-05:00

Being one of DC Comics 'Big Three' and the most famous superheroine ever, hasn't ensured Wonder Woman's live-action exposure. And her absence is becoming increasingly more and more noticable.

But with recent news that a television series produced by David E. Kelly (Ally McBeal/Boston Legal) was in development to bring the Amazonian princess back to the tube perked up fans ears, they went even higher with the announcement of Adrianne Palicki has been cast as television's newest Wonder Woman. Palicki is said to have been the only actress called to read for the role. She's best known for her role as Tyra on Friday Night Lights. She'salso appeared on Supernatural, South Beach and Lone Star. Looking for any past superhero connections? Oddly enough, she appeared in Smallville and the failed Aquaman pilot from 2007. There's some interesting DC connections.

A new version of Wonder Woman has been kicking around for years. First, as a big-budget film by producer Joel Silver for the last decade that never picked up steam for whatever reasons. The most recent news about the Wonder Film was Joss Whedon, who was set to write and direct the film, eventually leaving the project after Warner Brothers apparently didn't agree with his take on the character. Since then Whedon signed up to direct the Avengers film and Wonder Woman has been left in never-ending 'development' limbo.

Now we get wind of a new television series. When I first heard the news it immediately seemed like a compromise. Since the film wasn't going anywhere, an alternative plan was hatched. The character is too valuable a commodity to not do anything with, so let's give her a TV show. Besides some animated adventures, Wonder Woman has been absent in television and film. The last we saw a real Wonder Woman productionwas in the 1975-79 series famously starring Lynda Carter. Her getting a new series is somewhat a surprise since fans have been following the rumors of a film for years. A television show does fall into the recent news of Wonder Woman being given an updated costume in the comics. It looks more digestible to see an actress wearing it and much easier to to adapt to a live action actress to kick ass in. Of course the comic character will go back to her original costume at some point. It's just a publicity device to get people talking about the character. Don't believe for a second DC would completely throw away the iconic character's costume no matter what anyone says. And if so, just sign over the rights to me if you guysreally don't plan on using it anymore. Yeah, let's see who fliches first....

So, now Palicki will be the newest incarnation of Diana Prince. This "reinvention" of the character will be a successful corporate executive in Los Angeles trying to balance being a modern woman with her superheroics. No word yet whether we'll see her in her classic costume deflecting bullets and wielding her magic lasso.I cynically forsee a cheesy action television show that strays so far away from the comic character, the show essentially becomes another version of La Femme Nikita/Alias/Bionic Woman series and will lose the uniqueness of the character andher mythology.

But I've been proved wrong before. Maybe if the show will be a success. Plus, I will admit it is a relief to hear that someone is actually moving on a project for the character and I will certainly be tuning in to see how it is.

How The Idea Of Soulmates Might Work.....

2011-02-13T13:59:00.000-05:00

Keeping with the mood of romance, love and heart-shaped candies that Valentine's Day represents I was watching this movie called Somewhere in Time. It was made in 1980 starring Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour. Basically it was about this modern day playwright (Chris) who sees this old portrait of this beautiful woman (Jane) from 1912. He goes back in time to that era where he meets her and they fall in love. It's a pretty nice movie that really makes you consider whether love is all about fate, destiny or just complete chance. Is it, as commonly referred to, 'meant to be'?

The idea of finding true love across ages of time is a fascinating idea, so the movie started me to think about the whole idea of soulmates. It's such a popular phrase used by people in the area of 'true love'. I hear it used all the time by romantic optimists, poets and on The Bachelor, but how exactly does it work? Well, I worked out a theory on that one!

Imagine God or whatever entity you want to believe in, is working at his desk. He's working on making people....us. So he starts off with, say for the sake or argument and to keep this simple, a gingerbread couple holding hands (just work with me on this). Each comes as a set, but he has to separate them before sending them out on their lives. So He breaks them apart, separates them and that's how they'll be experiencing life - as individuals.

Now He has two tubes numbers One and Two leading down to earth on each end of his desk. They're kind of like huge hourglasses. After every gingerbread couple becomes a gingerbread single it gets tossed into Number One Hourglass & the other into the Number Two Hourglass. Now there are plenty of other gingerbread singles in each one already, so there will be a bit of mixing of all the singles in each of the hourglasses. A lot of bumping into each other, some pushing and shoving. Sort of like riding the subway!

The matched original couple may not come out of each of their hourglass at the same exact time. There's no telling how far apart in time they'll each come out. One may be able to make a straight shot to the exit of their hourglass and the other may take a lot longer and get pushed to the back. It's a crap shoot!

The whole point is that only one gingerbread single will fit perfectly with another gingerbread single. You'll get a few that will kinda, somewhat fit together, but it won't be perfect. The only chance of being a perfect gingerbread couple again is finding your missing companion. You really have an uphill battle considering all the gingerbread singles you have to sift through.

If you go along with this theory, its quite possible that one gingerbread single could come out of its hourglass in 1850 and its match come out in 1950. Thats quite a large time gap. Unfortunately in that scenario that gingerbread couple would be pretty helpless to do anything about this time problem and I suppose they would just have to make the best out of the situation they were dealt. The Big Baker in the sky doesnt make it too easy for them huh?

Anyway, it was just a thought.

On The Hunt For 'Hollywood Treasure'.....

2011-02-09T18:02:00.000-05:00

I’ve been watching SyFy’s (why did they drop their ‘Sci Fi’ logo anyway? Were they getting tired of being known as the goto science fiction channel or something?) new collectible memorabilia show
'Hollywood Treasure' since it’s debut. If you haven’t heard about it, it recounts the hunting, discovering and appraising of showbiz and pop culture’s most collectible and valuable items by an auction house - Profiles in History, run by Joe Maddanlena.

Having a big auction looming over their heads, Joe and crew are on a constant search for the best film/television memorabilia they can get their hands on. Bruce Lee’s Kato hat from the Green Hornet show. The model bi-plane used in the original King Kong. The deadly tricycle from the Omen. A 1940’s Superman comic. A Willy Wonka golden ticket. Movie fans get a chance o see all that, plus much more!

The show has been categorized as one of those “reality shows”, with Joe and his team under the pressure to find items for the their next auction which is coming up quickly. Though in reality there was really only one auction during this season and all the final auctions on the episodes are indeed just one big one edited separately around the items featured on that particular episode. It’s a convenient way to create a time framework and anticipated end to each episode as the audience gets to learn about individual items and find out what it ultimately sold for.

As I’ve watched past episodes I will admit a feeling of disappointment that such valuable film items are not being preserved in a museum for fans to see, but are residing in rich collectors homes. In fact, that’s one aspect the show hasn’t really explored yet – who are these people? The amount of money that gets exchanged for some of these items, you start to wonder who would pay that much for it? Where do they keep it? Was the purchase simply an investment or based on affectionfor that particular film or television show? Hopefully the show if it returns will spend more time on these buyers and less on the same weekly routine of “the auction is coming, we need to find items!” portion.

Still it’s not a bad show. It’s one I’ve continued watching and have been regularly entertained by. Hardcore film fans might find some of the information a little too basic for them and would like a bit more detailed insight, but the show can’t distance the general TV audience from watching and have to keep the information somewhat accessible and straight forward. I would still recommend
film geeks to check it out. I’m not sure how long the show will continue on for (the way shows are nowadays they come and go before you set your DVR for them) but I’m continuing to watch as long as it airs. And at some point during each episode I’ll wish I had the money to spend on some of this really cool stuff!

Composer John Barry Dies At Age 77

2011-02-01T20:01:00.000-05:00

When one describes the sound of James Bond they usually mean John Barry. Barry the legendary composer who scored dozens of film died January 30th 2011.

Barry’s talents made a distinctive mark in films ranging from The Lion In Winter, Midnight Cowboy, Robin And Marian, The Black Hole, Body Heat, The Cotton Club, Out Of Africa and Dances With Wolves. He won five Academy Awards and four Grammys. His death is a real blow to cinema fans, however, he will probably be best remembered as giving the Bond film series its unique sound.

After working with Monty Norman on the James Bond Theme in Dr. No, Barry would become an integral part of the series scoring eleven of the Bond films. The films that bear his touch – From Russian With Love (1963), Goldfinger (1964), Thunderball (1965), You Only Live Twice (1967), On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969), Diamonds Are Forever (1971), The Man With The Golden Gun (1974), Moonraker (1979), Octopussy (1983), A View To A Kill (1985) and The Living Daylights (1987).

His rousing compositions elevated the series and set a standard for the films to follow. The music in a Bond films became an integral ingredient to the franchised that fans expected to hear. Large, exciting orchestrations would punctuate action scenes, romantic, swelling pieces for love making and loud, brassy sounds would make up the title sequences. I have often listened to his Bond compositions by themselves and not only do they work wonderfully in their respective films, but they are beautiful to
listen to on their own. Since 1987 when Barry was last part of a Bond film, the scores have never been as memorable as when he was at the helm and I had always hoped he would return.

Whether it’s fair or not, no matter who future composers are that work on the films, Barry will always be the one most closely associated with the Bond series. Even if the films continue for the next hundred years, when one reflects back on the great Bond music the first name they will always think of will be John Barry.

Quick Film Review: 'Indy Fans and the Quest For Fortune and Glory'

2011-01-21T19:55:00.000-05:00

A low-budget documentary that was riding the wave of excitement of Indiana Jones’ theatrical return that I had never heard of….until I spotted it in the bargain bin for one dollar. I thought “not a bad deal for a fun sounding documentary”. It’s about the affection fans have for the character of Indiana Jones it should be pretty good or at least worth a buck.

Uhhhh......

Unfortunately, this examination of the Indiana Jones phenomenon, doesn’t offer much insight into the character or the love he has generated from fans. Instead it’s more like a slapped together series of random interviews from fans who simply recite the same thing – which is “I love Indiana Jones!” That’s about it. For a look at one of the most exciting characters in cinema the film is extremely boring.

Filled with talking head interviews, man on the street opinions and the occasional interview with individuals who actually worked on the Indy films (too few) it’s a very dry and longwinded doc. People are repeatedly asked mundane questions, such are their favorite Indy film and do they remember the theme song.

The films themselves are barely ever mentioned; in fact almost half the film focuses on the Indy rides at Disney World. Sure they’re fine to mention, and the filmmaker director says himself that the amusement park stage show was his first introduction to the character and when his love for the series began. It’s kind of odd; way too much time is spent on fans reactions to the rides and the design of them. The fact the popularity of the films and character are the only reason these rides and stage shows came into existence in the first place are kind of skipped over.

Apparently there was no cooperation with Lucasfilm to use any footage from any of the Indy films, which makes the talking head interviews tiresome since there is nothing to cut away from them. It’s all pretty disappointing.

Unlike the fun documentary Trekkies, this offers very little insight into the Indy fans or why exactly Indy has endured and became one of the most popular fictional characters in cinema. The film sounded much more promising sitting in the bargain bin before watching it. If you’re an Indy fan yourself, you’re better off watching one of the DVD extras on the actual films. Skip this one.�

First Photo of Andrew Garfield As Our New Spidey!

2011-01-13T18:35:00.000-05:00

Web Heads are finally getting their first glimpse of 27-year-old Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker AKA Spider-Man in Sony’s new reboot of the series.

The whole reboot idea had some fans questioning the decision since its announcement. ‘Rebooting a series that started in 2001?’, ‘Why not let Sam Raimi and his cast return for a fourth continuation of the story they started?’, ‘Who the heck is this Andrew Garfield anyway?’.

This one photo is sure to ignite fans opinions and will give them an idea of how this little known actor will at least look in the role. Fans love dissecting and discussing this kind of stuff.

What are mine? I think Garfield looks pretty good in the costume. There are some changes that have been made to it since we last saw Tobey Maguire swinging around, but they’re certainly not very radical ones. It just wouldn’t be a good idea to mess around too much with the iconic costume. He also has a leaner build than Tobey, which I think, works better for the character.

The one detail I really like in the photo is what looks like a backpack hanging on Pete’s shoulder. That one addition just screams the idea that this is a kid. He looks pretty solemn in this photo too. It’s quite a contrast from the first photo we got to see of Maguire as Spidey back in 2001. That was a much more heroic pose who looked ready for some serious crime fighting. Garfield’s Spidey looks like he already has a lot on his mind and life isn’t as much fun since his spider bite.

If this shot is in the new movie I highly doubt we’ll be hearing ‘Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head’ playing on the soundtrack.