LANDRU141

Battle Royale

2008-10-06T12:17:00.001-07:00

Not in the mood for movies, and in fact, Saturday was kind of a bummer for me until I got my Netflix discs. At the recommendation of a coworker, I watched “Battle Royale” and I was significantly impressed by this modern day version of “Lord of the Flies.” Now, we can’t see every movie that comes out or we will never do anything else with our lives … and it’s true that a lot of great things fly under the radar or we just ignore it (the summer of the great Star Wars floppogy I missed “Batman Begins” because I was just too annoyed to go back to a movie theater for six months.)

Battle Royale is the story of Japan, after an economic collapse, loses control of the youth of the country. In order to regain it, classes are taken to an island, fixed with exploding collars around their necks, and told that in 3 days only one will survive … or they will all die. Sure, there is a lot of gratuitous violence, but not the “Saw” movie kind. In fact, I couldn’t think of a scene in the film that seemed over the top.

From the beginning to the end of the film we seem to know what is going to happen, and yet the ending is confusing (if not made more so by the added “dreams” of specific characters as a coda.) But, what I can say is that I wasn’t bored.

The Dark Knight - WHY SO SERIOUS?

2008-09-30T07:16:00.000-07:00

Really, there is no way to review this movie as “best comic book movie ever” because it really stepped right out of the comic book realm. I’ve seen this many times now and … well, let’s just say “Batman Begins” left me speechless, “the Dark Knight” leaves me feeling deeply humiliated for all other writers and directors who aren’t named Nolan. Really, come on … this is what Batman has always been about. No super powers, only psychosis which, sadly, breeds psychosis.

The Joker (played far too well for Heath Ledgers ultimate health) is a manifestation of the Dark Knight’s own philosophy. The Joker appears in Batman’s wake and, as he himself says, he is an agent of chaos. He doesn’t care about crime or a plan; he just wants to do insane things. He is honest in that respect and, in a way, at least to the criminal class of Gotham city; he’s just as bad as the Batman.

This movie is still so deeply disturbing that I find it rather hard to describe my feelings, apart from the mere fact that I haven’t walked out of a movie theater feeling like I’d really seen something truly amazing in YEARS. This is not just the best super hero movie ever … it might be one of the best movies ever made.

This is not a review; this is merely a statement of fact.

Noise, Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk

2008-09-27T08:28:00.000-07:00

Return of the media monster blog

OK, I’m no critic. Those who can’t create, criticize. But, I do create, but I do have opinions. I’m going to once again attempt to keep up with pop culture in my own obscurest way.

Noise - Tim Robbins stars as a guy living in New York city fighting noise pollution (car alarms particularly annoy him) and he becomes a vigilante called the Rectifier. What I really liked about this quirky movie was the resolution. It isn’t exactly fun all the way through -- his life turns to garbage, Robbins is stoic if not almost dead through the entire thing, and there is a lot of questionably strange activity going on with the younger female stars -- but the ending is worth the watching.

Iron Man - Yes, this is months old but it really was one of the great summer movies. Marvel comics is now making their own films and this one, which really shouldn’t have been very good at all, became my (OK, second) MUST SEE movie the minute I heard Robert Downy Jr. would be playing Tony Stark. As everyone in the critic world has said, Downy Jr. is pretty much Tony Stark in real life … at least the party playboy part. Instantly, you don’t really need much back story. You know this guy and you see his transformation from arms manufacturer to super hero and you feel the change. Jeff Bridges, daringly shaving that incredible head of hair, is an interesting villain adding yet another layer of acting grit to this very good mixture of story structure. Admittedly, the final robot battle was the same old stuff we’ve seen in all Marvel films. Flashy, chaotic, almost impossible to follow, but it doesn’t matter. The tag ending with Sam Jackson turning up as Nick Fury to put together the Avengers team is like that little piece of ice cream on a wonderful cake.

The Incredible Hulk - Personally, I’m one of the few people that will admit to two things that are not popular opinions. 1. I actually liked Ang Lee’s Hulk and 2. I don’t think Ed Norton is that great an actor. He certainly doesn’t have much going on as Banner. Oh, and I never even liked the Hulk, anyway, so I was already in a big corner when I watched this film. Unlike Iron Man, Norton just comes off as an unsympathetic, disaffected prick as Banner and that’s sad. Bixby, in the TV series, was what held that show together. His acting and the feeling of his plight carried the show. Norton seems like some wise ass running from a bunch of cartoon characters. The Hulk’s appearance in this version is actually less affective than Lee’s Hulk, so that’s not so great, either. The only thing that I loved was the end … when Downy Jr. turns up to say “we’re putting a team together.” Again, all leading to an Avengers movie.

Life on Mars ... ABC

2008-05-14T06:20:00.000-07:00

Just looking at this picture makes my stomach turn.

One of the worst things we do in this country is take a show that doesn't need a remake (ie, cause its like ... not American ... and stuff ... derp) ... and remake it. I know a lot of you think the American version of "The Office" is a great show (and a lot of you are wrong) ... but really, why do we need to remake shows that are already made? What is it about this culture that makes us believe that we are soooo different than the UK? The accents? And, frankly, how does anyone propose to make a series that only lasted 16 episodes over 2 years ... run for 24 episodes a year?

This really is going to be terrible. The real shame is that this has delayed a US release of the British series on DVD.

Lost – “The Shape of Things to Come”

2008-04-28T14:28:00.000-07:00

10/10 – WTF !?!?!?

Seriously, this show is just insane now and hasn’t yet jumped the shark. After a month off, we get right back into the story without much delay. I won’t even try to catch up with that plot. “Lost” has truly proven that American television can do anything if it chooses.

Right from the opening, we are constantly provoked and prodded with both answers to old questions and even more bizarre new puzzles. We learn why Sayid is working for Ben in the future, but now Ben appears to be quite a bit more powerful than we had previously been lead to believe.

Last years “flash forward” trick is now standard in the show and one of the most bizarre “WTF” moments I’ve ever experienced was seeing Ben wake up in the desert (as if he teleported there … no footprints in the sand, etc.) The attack on the compound and the smoke monster sequences are quite amazing in everyway possible.

Frankly, though we do get a few more episodes, it will be hard not having this show to look forward to for the long period between seasons.

Doctor Who – “The Sontaran Stratagem”

2008-04-28T14:12:00.001-07:00

4/10 – where’s his sonic lipstick?

Depressingly, the series is still looking cheap and the return of the classic Sontarans was not handled at all well. Helen Rayner, who last year turned in a weak script bloated with massive effects, seems to have turned in a decent idea only to be terribly let down by a low-budget. So far, the sets look like a warehouse and … a school … and a little room somewhere with cheap “old series” looking buttons. I’m a fan of the old series, but here’s the thing … you can’t have a wizbang plot AND a low budget.

A young genius called Luke Rattigan is working with the Sontarans by using their technology to devise a device called Atmos, which makes a car carbon-free and functions as a Sat Nav. However, 52 deaths across the world occur simultaneously when Atmos takes control of several cars. The Doctor receives a call from UNIT employee and former companion Martha Jones, who is now engaged to Tom Milligan. The Time Lord and Donna head to Earth and meet Colonel Mace, who is spearheading a raid on an Atmos factory.

Immediatley, boy genius is always a bad start. Just really … seriously … Adric … we hate the boy genius thing. Then there is UNIT, which should be a welcome reunion, but in truth UNIT now has nothing to do with the past and was really just pushed up as an idea to a.) keep Martha in the picture until she (probably) joins Torchwood in the 3rd series or b.) just some soldiers for the Sontarans to kill …. Probably both.

So far no real care has been taken with these mid-season 2-parters. The Cybermen were poorly handled and the Daleks were shoved into a King Kong homage. The Sontarans appear to be in a Kroft special or “The Sarah Jane Adventures.”

I’m reading various reviews and I seem to be in the minority. There were some fun moments, but the gravity of the situation (excuse the pun) didn't really sink in ... I hope part 2 will be better and someone is saving this cash for a big ending.

Blake's 7 is Coming Back

2008-04-24T10:19:00.001-07:00

April 24, 2008

Blake's 7 set to wobble its way back to television screens

Adam Sherwin, Media Correspondent
Science fiction fans can celebrate the revival of a famous cult hit after plans to revive the BBC series Blake’s 7 were announced.

The space-set saga, which ran from 1978 to 1981, was praised for its dark storylines and gained an international following. After years of lobbying by fans, the success of Doctor Who and complex sci-fi series such as Battlestar Galactica has prompted a remake.

The new Blake’s 7 will fly on Sky One after the satellite broadcaster asked the rightsholders of Terry Nation’s creation to develop a fresh series.

The BBC show followed the exploits of Roj Blake as he led a band of reluctant rebels against the totalitarian Federation, which ruled the galaxy.

Launched in the wake of Star Wars’ success, Blake’s 7 challenged viewer expectations with its cynical characters, who were eventually massacred in a shoot-out.

Blake 7 Productions will now have the technology to create the epic space battles which were constrained by the BBC’s budgetary demands in the late 70s.

Producers have mapped out a six-part series reviving Blake, his self-serving lieutenant Avon, Servalan, the ruthless Supreme Commander, and the show’s other fondly-remembered characters.

Although the UK audience will be limited to Sky subscribers, the series will be sold to international broadcasters - the original was shown in 40 territories. The Blake’s 7 brand also has significant potential for programme downloads and DVD sales.

Elaine Pyke, Sky One commissioning editor, told Broadcast: “At a time when science fiction shows often discard good storytellng for overblown visual effects and following the lead of Doctor Who and Battlestar Galactica, the time is ripe for a revival of a show that represents the best traditions of the genre.”

Sky is seeking a show to replace Galactica, praised as a complex allegory about US foreign policy intervention, but which has begun its final series.

The BBC will challenge the revival with a new sci-fi show that echoes Blake’s 7. Outcasts follows the race to find an alternative home to Earth in the Universe. In return for their liberty, a group of social misfits and criminals become the pioneers of a large new settlement on a near planet.

In Blake’s 7, Blake is a political dissident who escapes deportation to a remote planet by forming a gang of reluctant rebels, who include a smuggler and a thief.

Russell T Davies’s popular reinvention of Doctor Who convinced broadcasters that sci-fi was no longer the province of geeks. Life On Mars, with its time-travel scenario, continued the trend.

Doctor Who - “Planet of the Ood”

2008-04-23T12:12:00.000-07:00

4/10 – OK, seriously, when is the series actually going to start …

There is something desperately wrong with the 4th season of Doctor Who. Some might blame Catherine Tate as Donna, others the writer Russell T. Davies, but I’m not so sure. I think they’ve stretched themselves too thin. For one thing, the new season has lacked a lot of the slick luster previous series have had and look a bit more like the children’s “Sarah Jane Adventures.” Quite frankly, maybe two spin-offs is slightly too distracting from the original? Who cares about Torchwood’s great ratings? They are miniscule by comparison to Doctor Who … even in America!

Then there is the story telling. The seasons have a predictability to them that has now gotten a bit annoying. Episode 2 always has to be an historical, while the future shows always revolve around something we’ve previously seen. The only chances the season takes are towards its gallop to the half-assed story-arc ending.

Planet of the Ood. Well, where to begin? Oh, why not the Ood themselves? They aren’t anything interesting, apart from a good creature design. But, that doesn’t matter since we’ve seen enough farting aliens – oh please, one more f’ing Slitheen story, preferably on New Earth -- in the last few years to make us grateful for anything else. The story, while on its very obvious surface, is a simple metaphor for slavery, basically goes no place and ends no place. It felt nice, but bored me.

And, next week we get the mid-season old monster 2-parter with the Sontarans … and I dearly hope they haven’t ruined them the same way they did with the Cybermen (my official favorite classic monster) … But, if they can do it, they will find a way. Perhaps farting Sontarans … all in unison, since they are a clone race.

Basically, where once I was hopeful, now my enthusiasm is sinking fast …

Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead

2008-04-22T07:27:00.000-07:00

4/10 – Trust me, he knows …

Two brothers (Ethan Hawke and Philip Seymour Hoffman) are both in some financial trouble and decide to knock over their own parent’s jewelry store, but chaos ensues when the robbery goes wrong and their mother is killed. Much hailed in critical circles, I’m going against the grain here and saying that “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” is really quite poor. The now cliché “Pulp Fiction” style of jump-cut narrative is not innovative or new anymore and could only be seen as clever by the incredibly stupid. Let’s face it, once you’ve seen a trick, seeing it again and again isn’t as good.

Also, though it’s nice to see Ethan Hawke return, Philip Seymour Hoffman is one of the most overrated actors in the business. He does some character roles really well, but most of the time the fat obnoxious guy he plays isn’t very satisfactory. Albert Finney, another of the overrated genre and Marisa (I’m not too old to be naked) Tomei, complete an otherwise disinterested cast in this pathetic family melodrama. In fact, that is the very point of what drove me nuts about this film: the characters are all completely disconnected from each other … even when they are not supposed to be. Its as if the actors all got in some fight and decided not to look at each other throughout filming.

Basically, rent it if you have to.

P2

2008-04-22T06:50:00.000-07:00

1/10 – move along, nothing to see here ….

Rarely do I see a film that I can honestly, without any sense of reluctance, say has no redeeming value what-so-ever. P2, the latest in the psycho-kidnapper genre is probably the dumbest film I’ve seen in a long, long time. Its essential crime against cinema doesn’t lay in the fact that it is somehow repulsive, just endlessly dull and repetitive.

OK, so you know if you are watching a horror film, you are going to get the usual “Saw” type terror scenes with the main characters in distress, etc., with some clever object lesson or point. P2 does not deliver anything essential or new.

It is, quite simply, the story of a woman working late at the office and being kidnapped and held hostage (rather elaborately) by the night-duty security guard on Christmas Eve. That’s it. She kills him and escapes in the end.

Breach

2008-04-14T19:52:00.000-07:00

Chris Cooper plays infamous spy Robert Hanssen, an agent convicted of spying for the Soviet Union (and, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia) for 15 years. His arrest in 2001 sent a shockwave through the intelligence community. The film is subtle and accurately portrays his uncovering by an upstart FBI operative working cover. The full extent of his damage is still unknown.

For the spy fan, this is as good as it gets and as realistic as it gets. Cooper is almost too charismatic for the role of Hanssen, but if the movie were toned down any more it would be asleep. As it is, it simmers to a boil that resenates long after the credits role and makes you want to watch it again. Simply great.

Valentino

2008-04-14T19:51:00.000-07:00

1977 - Ken Russell freely admitted that this movie was a mistake, but there is always something worth seeing in a Ken Russell film. In this case, we get the usual garish colorful splash of melodrama applied to the myth of silent film star Rudolph Valentino. Truth be told, there isn’t much I do know about Valentino, but that’s the point of a myth.

Valentino’s life takes center stage and, though probably as much fiction as fact, it is an interesting little life. Russell milks every moment (and myth) for what its worth throwing in a few good key names of the time for good measure. Massive splashes of color are the director’s trademark and he doesn’t let up. Felicity Kendall delivers a fine supporting role as the woman who discovering the Latin lover.

If you want facts about the star, read a book. Like Oliver Stone’s “The Doors” there isn’t much strict fact, but you do get the feeling that the reality is less important than the myth. What little fact exists (like the infamous powder puff incident) are presented in heavy time compression.

Five Days

2008-04-14T13:42:00.000-07:00

Sadly, this should be a gripping important drama about the abduction of a woman, but for the fact that we’ve seen it so many times in crime dramas that the impact is just too muted by the medium itself. The problem is primarily that it seems lost in genre-trading. Is it a mystery? A family tragedy?

This might have been vaguely effective if it were a TV movie, but five episodes drags us along with characters and situations that seem … well, drawn out for the sake of filling up time. The question is, ultimately, at the end of the show, do we actually care? Though well filmed, conceived, and acted, I found myself drifting off during the numerous family digressions during the 3rd and 4th episodes. By episode 5, it was difficult to understand what the point of the show was in the first place.

Obviously a BBC prestige drama, HBO got in their hands into the mix.

TCM Archives - Forbidden Hollywood Collection, Vol. 2

2008-04-13T14:55:00.000-07:00

The Divorcee / A Free Soul / Night Nurse

There’s a lot your grandparents never told you about the old days.

I’m currently watching through the excellent collection of pre-code Hollywood films -- the films made before the Hays office and the Catholic League of Decency stepped in to tamper down the sex and violence in films. If watching an old film makes you think that no one did anything slightly indecent before the 1960s, you should try watching this collection … and rethink the greatest generation.

“The Divorcee” and “A Free Soul” are two classic examples of the prevailing sexuality of the post stock market crash era. People wanted to see the rich and the libidinous and that’s just what Norma Shearer delivers in these two semi-morality tales. “The Divorcee” is clearly the best of them. Based on the 1929 Ursula Parrott novel "Ex-wife", Norma Shearer discovers that her husband has had an affair with another woman. Though he insists its “no big deal” it clearly is and she decides to “even their account.” Exposing the double standards of men and women, the husband clearly can’t take having been cheated on. Women are not supposed to do these things (even though its no big deal for a man.) Ultimately, the wife has many torrid affairs and returns to her husband and all is well.

“A Free Soul” sees Shearer gets involved with her drunken lawyer father’s gangster client (Clark Gable) and ultimately ends up costing the family and herself more than she could have ever imagined. There is a happy ending, but it seems so downbeat that you don’t even notice it.

“Night Nurse” is a Joan Crawford tale that twists and turns around her attempts to be nurse … and a good one at that. She soon discovers that she is to care for two children who are being killed slowly by a greedy shoffer (Clark Gable again) with designs on marrying the drunken wife and collect their trust fund. It turns out that an early friend in the underworld she made saves the day by … calling some guys and taking him for a ride. Essentially, he has him murdered. It is this kind of story that makes you wonder what people are thinking about when they make movies now.

Included are some good commentaries by movie history buffs (who sometimes make you laugh and sometimes make you wonder what audience they are talking to) and an excellent documentary of the entire process leading to the enforcement of the code in 1934.

I haven’t watched “Three on a Match” and “Female” so I expect to review those in future blogs.

Logan’s Run - Reissue

2008-04-13T14:26:00.000-07:00

Anyone who knows “Logan’s Run” (and if you are of a certain age, you definitely do) you don’t need a recap of the plot. But here is one just for the sake of completeness:

Sometime in the 23rd century...
the survivors of war, overpopulation and pollution
are living in a great domed city, sealed away from the
forgotten world outside. Here, in an ecologically balanced world,
mankind lives only for pleasure,
freed by the servo-mechanisms which provide everything.
There's just one catch:
Life must end at thirty unless reborn in the fiery ritual of Carousel.

Everyone in the dome has a lifeclock in their hands and at the age of 30 they die (though they all think they are being reborn.) Logan is a Sandman who hunts and kills those who try to run. When he discovers an Anhk the computer sends him on a new mission. By removing his remaining years, he is to go under cover as a runner himself. The only problem is now he is really running.

There is a lot of semi-nude scenes and the first appearance of Farrah Fawcett.

The original DVD was issued as a barebones early release and many fans were looking forward to a restoration. Unfortunately, very little if anything was improved. The print looks the same and the anamorphic quality doesn’t actually seem enhance much of the spectacle that was the cream of the sci-fi crop prior to the release of Star Wars the next year.

In short, this is more of a double dip than anything. Even the original artwork was better than the reissue.

Cloverfield

2008-04-13T14:08:00.000-07:00

Well, what can you say? Over-hyped? Yes, big time. This movie is accurately described as a combination of “Godzilla” and “The Blair With Project” … and all that is true. It has some of elements of “28 Days Later” in it as well, but that’s to be expected. But, if you accept that what you are going to see is not the greatest movie ever and a rather great contribution to the B-movie monster genre, then you are going to enjoy it. How could you not? Nothing is explained, everything is seen through a camcorder, and you only have the limited point of view of characters and their limited motivations. It is in fact more like real life than the huge 1997 “Godzilla” remake or the various remakes of “King Kong.”

Despite its POV style of filmmaking (not for those that get a bit dizzy when the camera giggles), this is a movie that does not cheat on the special effects. There are many and with the camcorder device to tell the story, we get a different view of the same old story of New York getting beaten to crap by a giant monster. What else do you want? Happy ending? Well, no, sorry.

Brought to you by the same company that makes "Lost" it isn't exactly a topper to the greatest American television series ever made, but at least it doesn't wuss out.

Angel-A

2008-04-13T13:59:00.001-07:00

Luc Besson (“The Fifth Element” and “The Professional”) brings us an unusual twist on the angel stories of “Wings of Desire” and, especially, “It’s a Wonderful Life” with this French language black and white comedy with a heart.

Drowning in debt, without a Euro to his name and refused the benefits of the US green card he won in a lottery, André (Jamel Debbouze) decides the best thing for all concerned is to chuck himself into the Seine. Just as he is about to end it all on the Pont Alexandre III, however, he is interrupted by a beautiful blonde (Rie Rasmussen) who leaps in first. When he pulls her to safety, she offers to help him out of his current malaise.

Angela, of course, is no ordinary stunner, though it takes time for the skeptical André to realize she has latched onto him for a reason. The twist is that she needs him just as much as he needs her, if only to feel the emotional connections that divinity has denied her.

What we get is a movie that at first seems stylistic and emotionally distant (as most French films do) but draws us in with the heart of the film. It defies expectations and, if you don’t mind foreign language films, is just one of the most recommended films I have seen in years.

Battlestar Galactica

2008-04-13T13:38:00.000-07:00

“He That Believeth in Me” and “Six of One”

Any fan of the newly reinvented BSG knows that each season is different and we also know that this, season four, is to be the final conclusion to the story. We know that all but one of the final five cylons were revealed in somewhat silly finale of last season with one left to be revealed. Baltar escapes conviction in his genocide trial, only to go into hiding with a group of fanatical followers who believe he is some kind of prophet. Oh, and Starbuck turns up claiming she’s found Earth.

Again, we are in a new and strange area with season four. Baltar does appear (at least in outwardly) to be some kind of healer and is now a believer in the one true god, but that doesn’t mean he averse to sleeping with his beautiful female followers. Starbuck is believed to be a cylon and claims that the continued jumping away from the nebula is taking the feeling away from her to find Earth again. Her ship is in pristine condition and thinks she’s only been away six hours (when in fact, she’s been believed dead for two months.)

By the time we get to episode two, the cylon raiders are refusing to attack the fleet and there is a division in the ranks of the seven cylon models whether or not to lobotomize them. In the end, Caprica Six decides to take matters into her own hands and turns the centurions to their cause and, it appears boxes the lines of a few of the models.

Like all seasons of BSG, there is a lot of moral ambiguity surrounding our characters and situations. Furthermore, there is the constant shifting of allegory (last season saw allusions to Iraq and “The Great Escape” with some rather unsettling twists.) Baltar as a Jesus figure is probably going to be one of the series’ most enduring contradictions. What will the remaining season bring is, frankly, anyone’s guess. However, I deeply suspect that the revelation of the final cylon will not be as truly interesting as what happens in the overall scheme of the plot.

Doctor Who - The Fires of Pompeii

2008-04-13T13:17:00.000-07:00

8/10 - Up Pompeii (Yeah, I know)

Well, there’s nothing like a good old history story is there? “Its Pompeii … and its volcano day” is the line we’ve been waiting for since Captain Jack said it in 2005. It was almost inevitable. The Doctor and Donna arrive in what they think is ancient Rome and the usual "This is wonderful" scene ensues.

But, as usual, there is something not altogether right going on. As we long-time fans have come to expect, these historical adventures always have some alien influence (unlike the Hartnell days) and in Pompeii the Doctor finds that the soothsayers know a lot more than they should. (What is on Donna’s back?)

The aliens that landed centuries ago are reconstituting themselves into an invasion force … one that puts the Doctor in a very difficult position. There are a lot of great special effects and a good solid story that puts the morality of Doctor Who back into position. Donna comes across, again, as the voice of reason for the Doctor, but also understands the impossible choices he must make.

But, I have to add, that something about this story didn’t sit right with me. I can’t quite put my finger on it, so perhaps I should let it be for now. Some stories take time, while others (like “The Shakespeare Code”) seem wonderful on first viewing and become tiresome after multiple viewings.

Doctor Who - Partners in Crime

2008-04-13T13:10:00.000-07:00

Its been a while since I last reported in, so I’ll have to make up for some lost time. But, in that, I can only start from today.

7/10 - Growing up Baby Fat

The return of Donna Noble from “The Runaway Bride” might have a lot of viewers vexed at our yelling comedian Catherine Tate bitching her way through an entire season, but this first episode shows a new (and yet old) dynamic entering into the new Doctor Who. However, Donna is a changed (somewhat) woman from when we last saw her and she’s looking for the Doctor. It is rather funny, then, that they spend half of the episode just missing each other. When they do meet, it might be the funniest moment in the history of the new series.

It is a light comedy about an alien breeding farm masquerading as a diet pill manufacturer. The Adipose are breeding a new generation out of the fat from human bodies. That all sounds pretty grim, but the “monsters” are so cute that this becomes very silly most of the time. In fact, it is a bit more like the children’s show “The Sarah Jane Adventures” (specifically the pilot “Invasion of the Bane”) than proper Doctor Who. It is only at the end that a good punch in the stomach of the coming season’s dark path.

Donna, in a classic comedy bit at the end, makes it very clear that, unlike Rose and Martha, she is not love with the Doctor and … at last … Doctor Who returns to total reset.

2007 – The Year in Film

2008-01-14T14:54:00.001-08:00

Unlike last time, I’ll just stick to what I saw or have seen.

Jan

Smokin’ Aces (4/10)

Well, this was an acceptable waste of two hours. The new caper flick with all the Guy Ritchie cliché freeze frames and the endless countdown of character’s who’s fates become intertwined. I think my favorite part was when Ben Afflect died … but, hey, that’s just me. Oh, and “a straight-to-DVD prequel has been announced” according to wikipedia, so … there’s something.

Feb

Hannibal Rising (4/10) – This was, for all intents and purposes, the same movie as “Batman Begins” … except that Batman was fighting crime and not a psychotic cannible. It gave you some idea of how a person like Lector could have developed and sometimes even made you like him all the more. Much like the TV show “Dexter,” it portrays the killer as hero. I liked the film, though it was immediately forgetable. It further suffers from being the 4th (or 5th depending on how pedandic you are) in the Lector series of films.

Ghost Rider (3/10) – Nicolas Cage … Earth to Nicolas Cage … Where are you? Why are you making these big budget turds that seem to endlessly revolve around Los Vegas? Are you stuck in some Elvis time warp? Do you owe money to the mob?

This is a film about an Evil Kenvil type stunt man who becomes a flaming skull with a whip. I would say more, but there really isn’t more to say …

The Number 23 (3/10) – Well, certainly not the worst film of the year. Jim Carrey is very hard to take this seriously and the entire premise tends to hang on one of those trendy “White Noise” ideas (evil numerology), but it was worth a rent. I didn’t hate it and I definitely saw worse movies this year.

March

Black Snake Moan (7/10)

Well, everybody online was freaking out about this and from the poster you can clearly see why. Despite its obvious homage to blacksploitation of the 1970s and still touching interratial nerves everywhere, this film is actually about self-respect and one stranger helping another. It was, in short, much better than anyone expected … including me.

Zodiac (10/10)

Having just spent the weekend with the Director’s Cut DVD and seeing this movie for about the 5th time, I’m going out on a limb to say this is easily the greatest crime/thriller and historical film ever made. With the staggering attention to detail, the unsolved Zodiac killer story unfolds in front of us without all the hoopla of the usual psycho killer qu'est-ce que c'est bloodfest. In fact, all the killings take place within the first 40 minutes of the the almost 3 hour film. As they say in the commentaries, its best to use real facts because, like it or not, truth is stranger than fiction … and you’ll never hear Donovan the same way again.

300 (5/10) – It is hard to describe how I feel about this movie. Gay comes to mind. Cartoonishly gay. (Sarah Silverman famously said “Its called 300 because that’s how gay it was on a scale of 1 to 10”). It wasn’t until South Park parodied it did I realize how truly bizarre it was to lavish so much money and attention to, for all intents and purposes, a true reconstruction of a comic book (not actual history). It is a visual effects film. The plot, the characters, the truth, the legend … all backseat to some CGI Frank Miller masterbation. Worth seeing.

Shooter (6/10) – I don’t remember this ever being in the theaters, but rented it. Not a bad, if somewhat clichéd film.

Blades of Glory (2/10) – I did remember laughing once in this film, although I can’t for the life of me remember why. Will Ferrell is continuing his streak of great ideas not carried out to their logical conclusion and simply going for the obvious kick in the balls humor that we can all see coming for miles away. There isn’t anything clever here, even in the lowest of low-brow comedy senses. Its just pure not funny.

April

Grindhouse – I can’t rate Grindhouse because I didn’t see the true double feature. I’ve seen the two films, but without all the fake trailers they don’t seem as interesting or credible. The truth is their release as individual films on dvd is probably one of the dumbest moves ever made by a studio. I love Kurt Russell and his performance as Stuntman Mike in “Death Proof” might be my acting pick of the year.

The Hoax (8/10) – If you know anything about Howard Hughes or have seen Orsen Welles’ “F for Fake” then you probably knew this story a bit. Clifford Irving faked an autobiogaphry about recluse Howard Hughes in the 1970s and was famously exposed as a fraud. Richard Gere is actually one of my least favorite actors ever, but he delivers the goods as Irving here, I have to admit.

Disturbia (3/10) – Surprisingly watchable for such a cliché ridden flick.

Fracture (5/10) – Get’s the award for “Film that was most likely developed for Michael Douglas” of the year. Basically, rich old guy kills cheating wife … and almost gets away with it.

Next (3/10) – Again, what is going on with Nic Cage? This psuedo Phillip K Dick style “I can see two minutes into the future” (actually it says it is based on his short story “The Golden Man” and it shows … in a “Paycheck” way, not in a “Blade Runner” way) movie really makes no sense whatsoever … and will only lead you to hate other movies remotely like it.

May

Spider-man 3 – (5/10)

Way too much going on at this point in the spiderman universe and I really don’t care. I never quite caught spidermania and think the second one was the best, but this 3rd one seems to merely pull out all the tricks from one and two. Nothing new here, move along.

28 Weeks Later – (7/10) A very entertaining one time flick. I’ll probably watch this in five years and think, “Hey, I don’t remember any of this” and that’s why it is pretty good. I’m not much for horror flicks, but doomsday scenerios are always fun, especially the end of the world kind. Add to that Robert Carlyle and you have a pretty good reason to watch. This is the sequal to “28 Days Later” not “28 Days” … if you make that mistake, you will be disapointed.

Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End – (6/10)

Well, it is a big story, but gone are those little character moments from the first film replaced by a bloated fantasy story shot so from the hip that the writers literally made it up as they went along.

Or you could believe this insane quote from director Gore Verbinski, "I felt it important that the third film was the end of an era — like in a postmodern western where the railroad comes and the gunfighter is extinct. It seemed that we had an opportunity to take a look at a world where the legitimate has become corrupt and there is no place for honest thieves in that society, so you have darker issues and a little melancholy. The myths are dying. That seemed a great theme with which to complete the trilogy."

Depp is great, but Bloom is, to use one reviewers description “Human Nyquil.”

June

Knocked Up (2/10) – Sorry folks, but I really hated this film. Not funny in any way whatsoever. Pathetic, in fact. From the makers of 40 Year Old Virgin … but it’s clearly missing something …. Oh, I know … the guy who was funny.

Ocean’s Thirteen (7/10) – Oddly enough, considering how much I resist these star-studded nightmares, I enjoyed this movie a lot. It could be the addition of Pacino who’s always great at the stunned lunatic role he’s been playing to perfection for years. It worked, don’t ask me why.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (6/10)

Apart from being a huge apology for the disasterous first FF film and the epic miscasting of … the entire cast, the addition of the Silver Surfer does give an additional edge to the FF that was missing before, but it is still flagging. In fact, how did this sequal get a greenlight in the first place?

June

Evan Almighty (4/10) – Yeah, one good joke in it (the Login’s and Massina gag that no one will get) the rest is just a really expensive bible comedy and an even lamer sequal.

Sicko (8/10) – Although I don’t like Michael Moore’s in your face style, he is right about this and watching this rather restrained film will make you open your eyes about the coorporate stranglehold on our medical system (as well as our entire way of life.) Sure, this doesn’t pack quite the news wallop that Ferenheit 9-11 did (something the Drudge’s and Limbaugh’s of the world rejoiced in), but then again, Bush was reelected after that film … so maybe something that seeps in slowly is really the way to go, eh?

July

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (6/10)

Oh, magical wondermental Harry Potter, I do declare Hogwarts is a magical place. I even saw the 3-d ending and found it somewhat a dreary trudge. The magic has worn off. So sorry.

Cashback (8/10) – I loved this film. Sentimental teen comedy about a young man who finds he can’t sleep and can even stop time after a breakup. Starring a lot of people in the British film and TV.

Sunshine (9/10)

A second candidate for movie of the year, though it falls short in several areas. The main problem is you really need to see this film on a huge motion picture screen to get the full vibe. It has all the regalness of 2001, but does fall short of the plot mark. Its scientific short-hand (or bits cut from the film) have annoyed fans of serious sci-fi and the movie is pretty predictable from a plot basis … but it is worth seeing someone do science fiction for real.

Rescue Dawn (7/10) – Glad to see Werner Herzog doing real films again (that Lock Ness thing was so lame) and he’s got a real actor in the form of Christian Bale. A fighter pilot shot down in the early days of the Vietnam, is taken prisoner, forced to eat magots, escapes, watches his buddy get chopped up … hard to say it was enjoyable, but it was good.

The Simpsons Movie (7/10) – I suppose the main problem with the Simpsons movie is that about 23 minutes into it you can’t help but think “Man, when is this episode going to end?” Unlike the South Park movie, the Simpsons simply waited far too long to get around to their cinematic debut. In fact, I can’t remember much about it … a glass dome and Homer on a motorcycle … that’s about it. I laughed, I cried, I paused it frequently …

August

The Bourne Ultimatum (9/10) – Another kick ass Jason Bourne movie, though a little … blue. Its all about color grading, I guess. What works in this Bourne film is that it fills in the little gaps of logic from the second film instead of attempting to just continually string along the concept linearly. Yes, there is the annoying amnesia gimmick and the sad attempt to force a romance into the storyline with the Julia Styles running character, but all in all, this is just another good action spy flick. No one kicks ass with a book like Bourne.

Ball of Fury (3/10) – Barely funny, but funny enough. Basically, if you put James Hong in a film it will be funny …

September

3:10 to Yuma (7/10) – Well, it wasn’t great. It wasn’t terrible either. My main concern with the film is that … frankly, I don’t know why anyone is doing anything. The motivations are all over the board. Wha … why? Who? Good to see the wester crop back up, but since the western is essentially an American artform, it also would have been nice if the two stars were also American. Just a thought.

Shoot ‘Em Up (2/10) – A very tedious film that has very few redeeming characteristics. We’ve seen it all before …

Eastern Promises (6/10) – Frankly, this type of movie really makes me uncomfortable. First, yes, it is good, but it is kind of obscure … Russian mofia and teen slave trading … Not your first choice for a fun night at the flicks. Viggo is … well, always going to be Aragorn from Lord of the Rings, no matter how hard he tries … and he’s trying pretty hard in this one.

Resident Evil: Exctinction (5/10) – for the this genre jumping series, the final “Mad Max” chapter is much better than the “Kirk Fights the Gorn” middle chapter.

October

Michael Clayton (7/10) – An excellent political legal thriller that will confuse the easily confused. The first part of the film is disjointed, but any viewer will know that you’ll get your explanations by the end. While I did like this a lot, it left me with a bit of a hollow feeling … like it didn’t mean much. And, maybe it doesn’t. Movies about lawyers … there has to be a better way to live.

Elizabeth: the Golden Age (6/10) – A sequel to Elizabeth, Cate Blanchett once again does a powerhouse turn as the Virgin Queen … sadly, as it is history, much of the history has been botched in order to create a better “movie” story … while failing to do just that. Let’s face it, why make an historical film if you don’t want to tell the real story?

Control (7/10) – Joy Division singer Ian Curtis is memorialized (again) in this grainy b/w flick that probably captures the feeling of Manchester in the late 70s. The main problem with the film is simple – there is not going to be a good ending. However, still a good movie.

Saw 4 (6/10) – Yes, I will watch the Saw movies. I like the idea behind them. Horror movies don’t scare or shock me. Even the fake violence is getting to the point where I’m more interested in how they faked it than actually getting me to gross out. Still, I didn’t see this in the theater.

November

No Country for Old Men (10/10) – while not my favorite of the year, certainly the odds on favorite for the oscar. The Coen Bros. once again defy expectations and linear story telling to give the audience a meditation on psychosis and violence. Like “Zodiac,” this movie is about modern evil. While Zodiac was probably the birth of the modern killer and modern terror, this film is the ultimate extension of that senseless brutality. Ironically, the most modern movie about modern violence is set in very isolated parts of Texas as if evil has finally extended its finger deep into the world we know today. In the end, this might be a bigger film than “Fargo” in the Coen’s lexicon.

I’m Not There (8/10)

Frankly, this movie is really hard to describe. I just know I love it. It is a biography of the “mythological” Bob Dylan in which he is played by no less than six different actors … and actresses. Cate Blanchett is pretty mystifying as the late 60s incarnation, the electric prophet, the Judas of folk. There is nothing weirder than watching Cate do Dylan doing “Ballad of the Thin Man.” But, even with that, I still have to say Richard Gere (what’s going on this year with him) as the mythological retired gunfighter version of Dylan that bookends the piece really took me to a strange place. Is or was Dylan ever really There?

December

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (7/10) – Normally I’d pass on a musical, even one as weird as this, but the combo of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp made that impossible. Admittedly there were bits that I found annoying, but it was just twisted enough to keep me entertained.

The Bucket List (6/10) – Pretty much what you would expect, which isn’t to say it is a bad film … merely a by-the-numbers film about a couple of guys who are going to die trying to do everything they always wanted to do.

Jonathan Creek star Davies bites tramp's ear

2007-12-12T07:28:00.000-08:00

Personally, I was upset by the death of Verity Lambert and I do like Alan Davies quite a bit ... however, how drunk do you have to be for this to happen ???

By Richard Edwards
Last Updated: 2:41am GMT 12/12/2007

He is known as a genial comedian who in his many television appearances is often teased for being a vegetarian.

Alan Davies starred alongside Caroline Quentin in the BBC series Jonathan Creek
But when Alan Davies was confronted with an allegedly "aggressive" homeless person after a night out in London, his mild-mannered persona was lost in a moment of Mike Tyson-like madness.

CCTV footage emerged has emerged showing Davies biting the ear of a man in an attack outside a nightclub, sinking his teeth into him for up to 13 seconds and drawing blood before two women and a man pulled him away.

The victim claimed that he was set upon after he called the actor by the name of his most famous character, Jonathan Creek.

Mr McElfatrick, 40, a former shop worker who is trying to get a hostel place, told how the 2am attack happened last week outside the Groucho Club in London's West End.

He said: "His face darkened and he almost spat the words, 'My name's Alan. You know my name - Alan. What's my name? It's Alan'.

"Then he suddenly went for my left ear. It was incredibly painful. I shrieked and my eyes were watering. He hung on and drew blood."

After admitting to a "tussle", Davies, 41, said: "I'm really not normally an aggressive guy, honest."

He added: "I guess this isn't going to look good, is it? The last thing I want is another negative story about 'that obnoxious Jonathan Creek star'. What's this going to say?"

advertisementTold that the tabloid headlines would read something like 'Jonathan Creek bites tramp's ear' he said: "Oh God. I don't mean to laugh but that's funny isn't it? Oh God, what a nightmare."

Davies, 41, a panellist on the BBC's QI show, said he was emotional after giving the eulogy at the funeral of his friend, Jonathan Creek producer Verity Lambert.

"I was very upset and emotional," he told the Daily Mirror. "I had a lot to drink over many hours. Far too much really and a lot more than normal but it was an upsetting day."

Davies claimed the homeless man became aggressive after approaching him, and had abused him with obscenities.

The curly-haired actor said he did not realise the man was homeless and he texted his friend the next morning to find out what happened.

On Davies' official website, two people responded and their opinion was divided.

A woman who identified herself as Heleen addressed a message to "Alan". It said: "Don't worry about it, it happens to the best of them, and the people that matter to you won't take notice... Love, a Belgian fan."

However, Tara Oliver in France was less forgiving. She wrote: "Don't be so sure that no-one will take notice of it. I think it is absolutely despicable. There are no excuses. If grief made us all violent we'd live in anarchy.

"How can this man of obvious good fortune, be so nasty to someone who has nothing.

"Do something to try to make up for your behaviour Mr Davies, something that resonates, open your eyes up to the world outside of luvvydom, away from privilege and good fortune and do something positive."

Mr Davies' agent said he had nothing more to add.

Robyn Hitchcock - I Wanna Go Backwards

2007-11-19T09:55:00.000-08:00

10/10 -

For the newbie and the die hard

I Wanna Go Backwards encompasses expanded editions of three of Hitchcock's best-loved albums, Black Snake Diamond Role, I Often Dream of Trains and Eye, along with While Thatcher Mauled Britain Part 1 & 2, a newly compiled two-disc collection of b-sides, outtakes and home demo recordings, many of them previously unreleased. All of the individual albums feature bonus tracks and enhanced liner notes, including Hitchcock's personal reminiscences on Black Snake Diamond Role and While Thatcher Mauled Britain, an extract from a novel in progress on I Often Dream of Trains, and several pieces of original poetry on Eye, along with previously unpublished photos and Hitchcock cartoons.

Robyn Hitchcock is one of rock's most prolific and long-standing artists ... and you've probably never heard of him.

Without recounting his long and prolifc career, Robyn is once again releasing some of his classic (and my favorite) albums into the market place from his new home on Yep Roc Records. I Wanna Go Backwards boasts a stunning array of extras and bonuses, but really does repeat many tracks from "Invisible" and the Rycko bonus discs. There are a few genuine extras and the remastering is very good.

If you've always been curious as to what all the fuss was about, however, this is where to start. Containing my very favorite albums from what was once the flowering underground scene of the 1980's (crushed by Nirvana and the alternative rock format.)

How to describe Robyn's music? From the late 70s, Robyn's previous band the Soft Boys were not well liked amongst their three chords punk contemporaries. They were loud enough and angry enough, but also melodic, complicated, and funny. In 1980, the Soft Boys broke up and Robyn worked on his first solo album. From the Yep Roc press release:

Black Snake Diamond Role continued the Soft Boys' legacy of warped jangle-pop, while introducing the moody, introspective side that Hitchcock would further explore in the years to come. The album introduced such enduring Hitchcock compositions as "The Man Who Invented Himself," "Brenda's Iron Sledge" and "Acid Bird," which are joined on the new edition by eight bonus tracks, most of them outtakes from the original album sessions.

I Often Dream of Trains, originally released in 1984, was a notable departure from Hitchcock's prior work, presenting his kaleidoscopic lyrical imagery and haunting melodic sensibility in spare, mostly acoustic settings that emphasize the material's intimate focus. The album balances the haunting introspection of such ballads as "Cathedral" and "Trams of Old London" with the barbed humor of "Sometimes I Wish I Was A Pretty Girl" and "Uncorrected Personality Traits." The new edition of I Often Dream of Trains augments the album's original 18 tracks with six bonus numbers.

1990's Eye was something of a sequel to I Often Dream of Trains, with Hitchcock returning to stripped-down solo approach as a low-key respite from the major-label rock albums that he was recording at the time. "I got to record Eye at a time when a lot of people were on my case," explains Hitchcock. "It had nobody else on it and no Alternative Chart expectations. It was luxury, a wide open meadow to kvetch in." Eye remains a fan favorite, thanks to such memorable tunes as "Glass Hotel," "Clean Steve" and "Queen Elvis." The expanded edition adds four bonus tracks to the original album's 17.

He's the Fella, the man who invented himself ...

Stanley Kubrick - Warner Home Video Directors Series

2007-11-12T13:32:00.000-08:00

10/10 for style plus several million for good thinking …

Finally, at long last, anamorphic letter-boxed versions of some of the greatest films ever made. Kubrick is such an easy director to say, “Yeah, he’s a genius” and sound like you know something. But, as we all know, he really was a genius and left us some of the best films ever made.

The problem is these films are all so deep and open to interpretation that I cannot in all objectivity review them adequately. I’ll just give you my thoughts this time around.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) – What is astonishing about this film (and really, what isn’t) to me this last time round was the massive scale of the story. The obelisk (or teaching device) for the primitives in the opening dawn of time sequence is shadowing the human race to the point of contact. In this viewing, I felt that Dave had to pass the test of defeating the machine Hal in order to evolve into the next stage (the starchild.) Bowman in that sense is playing a character who is the most evolved human on the planet.

Of course, every time I watch this film I think different things. The pity now is that the first space shots tend to a look a little 2-d and the styles seem a bit stuck in the mid-60s, while the later Jupiter sequences look as if they could have been shot yesterday. The models have more depth and the fact that everything in the Discovery looks brand new.

A Clockwork Orange (1971) – As Malcolm McDowell himself says, there are some roles that an actor was born to play (that is Alex.) He is perfection itself in this role.

Of course, everyone knows this is a pretty controversial film. It is difficult to watch, but funny at the same time. I noticed this about 20 years ago the first time I saw it. I wondered why these scenes of horrible rape and violence seemed so funny … and that was the first time I realized that film could manipulate your feelings subconsciously. If Alex wasn’t doing “Singing in the Rain” while commiting what has to be one of the most horrendous acts ever depicted on screen, you would never watch it. Then, in the later half of the film, when justice is being served, in a reversal, Kubrick uses music make us feel bad for Alex. Alex the rapist, murderer, and theif.

This is a film more about what film can do to you then it is about the subject of teen violence. This must have been its intent because when Clockwork copycat style violence started erupting in England, Kubrick pulled the film from release. Clearly he'd created a monster.

The Shining (1980) – "Here's Johnny!"

Jack! Very few times in the history of Kubrick’s films do his lead actors seem to overtake his virtuosity. Jack Nicholson really goes way over the top in this and creates his most amazing movie role (which is saying a lot.) I don’t like horror movies. They don’t scare me; they don’t do anything to me. But, there are a few exceptions – mainly this and Psycho. Sort of the same idea – madness. Jack tears this movie to shreds just like that bathroom door.

Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, and Scatman Crothers (oh, Scatman!) are brilliant as well, but ... frankly, it is close to impossible to take your eyes off Nicholson.

Full Metal Jacket (1987) – I will admit that Full Metal Jacket did very little for me back when it was first out. I saw it because it was a Kubrick film, but I was in the middle of the “Platoon” Vs. “Apocalypse Now” argument (me coming down firmly on AN as the better film) and having yet another Vietnam movie come out just didn’t sit well with me. Add to that the obvious fact that it was shot in England and no where near the tropics, and you have a tough one to get through.

Upon this second viewing, I was pretty stunned by how good it actually was. The two “episode” feeling you get between the Paris Island basic training sequence and the subsequent “all hell is breaking loose” Vietnam was pretty shocking. Not being in the military, I was surprised at how loose these guys were after basic. You would have thought they’d be wound really tight. But, war is hell, I guess.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999) – I hate to dismiss this out of hand, but I do really feel this is a terrible film. Probably because Cruise and Kidman seem to dominate the thing so totally, that I find it hard to see the hand of Kubrick in it at all. Add to that the completely ludicrous middle section (the gothic sex orgy), excessive though not sexy nudity, and the murkiness of the character’s actions and you get something mildly uninteresting. I did give it my full attention this time through, but still felt it was far and away Kubrick’s worst film.

This is an excellent box set. Everything looks incredible and, for the fan, the bonus features are well worth the extra time.

Time-Crash

2007-11-12T12:35:00.000-08:00

Just a couple of pics from Friday's "Time-Crash" ... and this does look pretty funny. Just look at Peter Davison's face!

No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace.

2007-11-05T14:55:00.000-08:00

"No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace."
"No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace."
"No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace."
"No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace."

OK, first of all ... this is the dumbest slogan ever. And, these people are supposed to be writers!

I'm not sure how I feel (or not feel) about the writer's strike. Hollywood is a club (you have to a member of the unions to work, but work to be a member ...) that I really hate it. The industry is run by giant corporations instead of artistically minded individuals.

Anyway, the complete article from the NY Times is below:

HERE

November 5, 2007
Screenwriters Picket as Strike Begins
By DAVID CARR and MICHAEL CIEPLY
Hollywood writers moved to the picket lines this morning, as last-minute negotiations between the writers’ unions and producers failed to avert a strike over payments from producers for so-called new media, among other issues.

About 75 members of Writers Guild East set up a picket at Rockefeller Center, just above the fabled ice rink. Picketers chanted: “No money? No downloads. No downloads? No peace.”

Many of the writers said that they expected to be out of work for a while. The tourists and office workers who walked by rarely stopped at the curious sight of writers holding signs that read, “On Strike.” For a time, the pickets chants were drowned out by the roar of the crowd that was assembled for the “Today” show across 49th Street.

All of the trappings of a union protest were there — signs, chanting workers, an inflatable rat, and a discarded bag of wrappers and cups from Dunkin Donuts. The rat was borrowed from Local 79, an AFL-CIO laborers’ union, and commuted in from Queens.

But instead of hard hats and work boots, the people on the pickets had arty glasses and fancy scarves.

“A lot of the public probably feels like we are brats,” said Sarah Durken, a writer for children’s programs. “We are not hospital workers and firefighters, we know that — the world is going to keep turning. But I think everyone understands that the issue of corporate greed versus the needs of workers and their families.”

More than 12,000 movie and television writers represented by the Writers Guild of America West and the Writers Guild of America East walked out today, after three months of acrimonious negotiations proved fruitless. It is the first industrywide strike by writers since 1988; that strike lasted five months and cost the entertainment industry an estimated $500 million.

The sides have been at odds over, among other things, writers’ demands for a large increase in pay for movies and television shows released on DVD, and for a bigger share of the revenue from such work delivered over the Internet.

A federal mediator, who joined the talks last week, asked the sides to continue talking in a Sunday session, but neither a deal nor an agreement to keep talking was reached.

Writers in Los Angeles have also begun picketing more than a dozen studios and production sites in four-hour shifts, one beginning at 9 a.m. Pacific time, the other at 1 p.m.

Back in Manhattan, Charlotte, a small but surprisingly loud dog, barked in unison with the picketers’ chants.

“She’s mad because they didn’t have a shirt in her size,” said J. R. Havlan, a writer for “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” “She’s really angry that there has not been an agreement, but she is having a little trouble understanding the issues.”

She’s not the only one. No one, including the people at the bargaining table, is precisely sure what is being argued about, because many of the digital forms of entertainment at issue are in their nascent state.

“I can barely switch on a computer, but we all know what is at stake here, said Amy Sherman-Palladino, a writer who is working on a “Jezebel James,” her new Fox series with Parker Posey, and was the co-creator of “Gilmore Girls.” “We are taking a stand for the next 20 years, and what we do now is going to define the new business model going forward.”

Just then, the chant switched to “No money, no funny,” a reminder that many of the people on the picket line on New York make their living writing for the various talk/comedy shows.

Ms. Sherman-Palladino continued, “I was telling my husband” — Daniel Pallidino, her writing partner on the new Fox show and on “Gilmore Girls,” and a fellow picketer — “that we need some new and better chants, but he reminded me: ‘No writing. None.’ ”

Jonathan Bines, a writer for the “The Jimmy Kimmel Show,” felt that the producer’s unwillingness to compensate for digital use of their work defied logic.

“I’m surprised we are out here.” Mr. Bines said. “I thought the producers would come in with some ridiculously low-ball offer on a percentage of new media and that we’d take it and it would be over. But they have offered us nothing.”

On Sunday, the union dropped a demand for increased compensation for DVD sales, with the expectation that it would create some movement around the digital issue, but no counteroffer was forthcoming, and the strike commenced at 12:01 a.m. today.

At either end of the picket line in Manhattan, newly underemployed writers handed out leaflets that said: “We are the Writer’s Guild. We write your favorite sitcoms, dramas, late night shows, soap operas, movies and more. We work hard to bring you our best in entertainment.”

As with anyone who is trying to handout leaflets to New Yorkers in full stride, it was very slow going. Tourists look down from a passing Gray Line tour bus wondering what all the fuss was about.

“Don’t worry, we won’t hurt you,” said Andrew Smith, who writes for “The View.” “It’s hard for the public to understand. Writers going on strike sounds like shepherds staging a walkout or something. The general public has no understanding of the issues that we are facing, but we are here because the producers will take as much as they can unless writers stand up for themselves.”

The Two Doctors .... again

2007-10-23T07:20:00.000-07:00

Peter Davison and David Tennant will star in a Children in Need special Doctor Who!

From the BBC " ... Fifth Doctor Peter Davison, who played the part in the classic series from 1981 until 1984, will reprise his role alongside current Doctor David Tennant in the forthcoming Children in Need scene. The mini episode, entitled "Time Crash", was written by award-winning Doctor Who writer Steven Mofatt, and will be transmitted as part of the Children in Need fundraising evening on Friday 16 November 2007.

"It is an honour for me to be able to make the connection between the Fifth Doctor and the Tenth Doctor," noted Peter Davison. "However, now is not the time for sound-bites. I can feel the hand of history on my shoulder, even if I can't do the buttons up!"

Of course, that's not altogether fair, as David Tennant is thinner than all of his female costars, let alone his male ones. And, Peter still holds the "record" for youngest Doctor (he was 29 when he took the part) and Tennant's portrayal undoubtably owes a lot to this incarnation. Well, as a bonofide Doctor Who geek, this is kind of one of those moments when you have to question your sanity. Sure, it's for charity, so there are going to be some forgiving feelings about it.

The question is ... how will it be treated? Will it be a joke or a semi-real episode?

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

2007-10-15T11:20:00.000-07:00

6/10 – Nice Video, Shame about the Truth ...

Well, what can I say that you haven’t already read somewhere? The movie isn’t historically accurate at all and that is sad because the real history is far more interesting. I know many people think it doesn’t matter, but then again, many people think most of Braveheart is true. That’s the problem; no one bothers to find out history in any other way. If the movie is out (and it’s new) that’s enough. People don’t go and look it up and films should at least give some idea of what really happened. Especially if you have the mighty acting powers of Cate Blanchett playing the title role.

Come on!

No Robert Dudley … instead, the film absurdly replacing his “love of her life” status with Walter Raleigh? That’s just ridiculous. Raleigh was not in the battle against the Spanish Armada, nor did the English burn many of the ships (the weather got them in the end) … I mean, they didn’t even get the Tilbury speech right, leaving out her most famous line of rhetoric (of possibly the first great speech in modern English)

"I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a King, and of a King of England too! And I think it foul scorn that Spain or Parma or any prince of Europe should dare invade the borders of my realm".

For all that, it is well realized and filmed beautifully.

So, I’m one of those annoying people who think that history is actually more important than a good story. In this case, there truly is no excuse for it as the history of Elizabeth I has been such good source material for many, many adaptations. In the last two years we’ve seen two different (and far superior) television adaptations. The BBC’s “The Virgin Queen” is best one I’ve seen and seems pretty historically accurate, while the Helen Mirren version is merely OK. She may have gotten Elizabeth II right, but nowhere close on the original.

I’ve read Antonia Frasier’s biography and I will tell you, for those that are interested … it is very readable, interesting, and frankly relevant even now and to Americans, as well. America is an extension of English history, just as England is of ours. It’s important to know where we come from.

Random Notes at the Beginning of a Season …

2007-10-10T11:39:00.000-07:00

Heroes – Season Two

Aintitcool.com has a headline that reads “Can Sylar save Heroes?”

The answer is, it seems, no.

The first three episodes of season 2 seem resolutely determined to undo all the damage that the ending of season one did – namely kill off a lot of characters and change the entire direction of the program. Unlike the truly twisted twists of “Lost,” “Heroes” doesn’t feel designed to be that kind of animal and now we are finding out just how a heavy story arc can damage a new season of a television program. So, all the characters we thought were dead in the big epic battle are not … and then we have some new characters that seem very, well, uninteresting to say the least.

If it sounds like I’m being harsh, well, I’m not. The new era of television is much improved over the crass awfulness of the 1990’s. I can honestly say I don’t remember a time when TV seemed so good. The shows I watch now are an odd assortment and come from all sorts of places:

- “Heroes”
- “House”
- “Boston Legal”
- “The IT Crowd” (just ended)
- “Sarah Jane’s Adventures”
- “Doctor Who”
- “QI”
- “Dexter”
- “Weeds”
- “24”
- “Lost”

That’s actually quite a bit for right now and are in no particular order. Compare that to the 1990s when I was actively avoiding shows because I found them particularly crass and aggravating. Even the end of the 80s saw even my favorite shows (“Doctor Who” and “Star Trek”) bastardized and cheapened to extremes. In fact, with the death of the Next and Previous Generations of the original Star Trek, it seems that some cool breeze is blowing back into the world of entertainment.

So, that is my ramble. I didn’t give away any “spoilers” as such.

The IT Crowd – Season Two

2007-10-01T08:01:00.000-07:00

Well, let’s face it … it was a disappointment. Not only did season two NOT do anything that writer Graham Linehan claim it was going to do in the commentary tracks (plural) of season one, but it utterly failed to deliver even on the most basic expectations of its own premise. It was … oh, I don’t know … almost like Graham was too pre-occupied making some other show in another country like America to be bothered with writing something worthwhile. (Yes, that’s a joke. Development of the US It Crowd is well underway and will, no doubt, remove any qualities from the original series worth seeing.)

But, still it wasn’t as bad as say … the American version of the Office. The beauty or should I say simplicity of “the IT Crowd” is the surrealistic tone of the show and sometimes that still shines through quite well in season two. It seems, as with Black Books, Linehan has trouble sticking to the reality of his premises and that is his virtue. Sometimes it is his weakness, but mostly a virtue. Let’s face it, how many geek/IT jokes can you squeeze out before it gets tired or worse, hateful?

So, instead of reprising the set-up of the IT department as social outcasts, the first episode finds them all off on Jen’s date with a man who may or may not be gay. He knows people in a musical … called “Gay” … and by the end of the episode sees Roy in a wheelchair being hauled off to Manchester with gay cripples, Moss working as a bartender in the theater, and Jen’s potential date admitting he’s gay and saying, “I thought it would work … since you look like a man!”

The other stellar episode is “the Dinner Party” where Jen has to invite the IT department gang (including the goth Richmond) to replace three men for her couples dinner party. Each is paired up – Richmond is paired off successfully with a rather socially awkward woman who makes comments on how socially awkward things are, Roy with a super model who’s been in an horrific car crash, and most strangly, Moss with an alocholic lush who is so convincing as a divorcee that Moss thinks he needs to divorce her (despite the fact that he isn’t married.) Richmond has a tremendously funny spider-man moment and Jen’s new boyfriends turns out to be named – Peter File – with rather hilarious consequences.

But, in the end, the series of six ended and it seemed like it wasn’t really over. Worse, there isn’t any assurance that there will be a series 3. Like Coupling before it, there is a suspension of activity surrounding the program due to the possible success of an American(ized) version … which is just simply not going to go in the same direction. In fact, the entire premise will no doubt ground the show back to “let’s make fun of geeks” and leave the surrealness on the floor. Richmond certainly won’t be in it. And, even though Richard Ayoade has been brought over to play Moss, this too totally reeks of the dreadful “Red Dwarf” pilots attempted in the U.S. … I predict an instant death, mostly because even the few sentence description on the NBC site doesn’t seem to understand the point of the program

http://www.nbc.com/Fall_Preview/The_IT_Crowd/cast_credits.shtml

And, this is sad, because we’ll have to wait for Graham Linehan to come to his senses again and write a series three of the “good” version …

if....

2007-09-28T06:53:00.000-07:00

Criterion brings us another classic here with Lindsey Anderson’s “if ….”. Starring Malcolm McDowell as Mick Travis (in his first major role) the film is set in the God Awful world of the British boy’s school. Here is, I must say, first hand why I would not wish to have grown up in England. Appearantly Anderson’s depiction of this world is so complete and realistic, that the public and even the actors and crew found some of it almost primordially terrifying. This world of “authority” and “class structure” is so thoroughly despicable and demonstrably bad, even the horrific ending seems somehow justifiable.

Mick Travis arrives at school after his summer break and, with his friends, set about being the school trouble makers. The film is broken into episodic sequences with titles (very similar to what Monty Python would later do in “The Meaning of Life”) and then further broken down into realms of hyper reality and surreal unreality. The film switches between color and black and white (because they ran out of money … though some on the dvd that it was because it was too difficult to light the school in time) to great affect. It is, as with so many things of the late 60s, informed coincidence. Once Anderson knew he would have to film in black and white, it is incorporated into the narrative to give us distance during the more dream-like sequences, while the color comes back to provide us with reality.

The film is best remembered for two sequences. The first is the beatings that Mick and his cohorts received (as object lessons because of their attitudes.) Mick is the only one who is actually shown being beaten and, as the leader, he is given more than his friends. This is a pivotal moment when the viewer knows … something will have to happen. And, it does. During another punishment cleaning out the storage areas, Mick and his friends discover all the live amunition that the school uses for military training … and they decide to go up to the roof and shoot everyone, including the head master. It is a startling ending even now, but at the time it rang everyone’s bell – positively or negatively. Before the film even reached the theaters, the Paris riots exploded in 1968 making the masacre far more realistic than it was initially thought to be.

As usual, Criterion are really putting in some good work and you can bet any dvd that lists a bonus feature called “Graham Crowden Interview” is going to be very high on my list. The main bonus feature is an interview show (with Kirsty-Dead Ringers Loves you baby-Wark) with many of the principle crew and some location interview footage with Malcolm McDowell (who says it made his career.) The film itself looks good, considering how it was made. The sound is a bit chaotic and uneven. I found myself turning the volume up and down a few times during the piece.

Frankly, this is a very 60s film in a lot of respects, but unlike things like “Blow Up” or “Alfie,” it doesn’t necessarily seem so rooted in its time. In fact, the school system depicted is so backward that you could be forgiven for thinking it takes place just after World War I. And for that timeless quality, “if….” Remains very powerful.

Sarah Jane Adventures - Revenge of the Slitheen

2007-09-25T21:12:00.001-07:00

Well ... er, it's Slitheen and Sarah Jane. Equals farting school headmaster. I mean the math is simple enough. What I truly don't understand is why this is actually better than the blatantly over-hyped (and more expensive) Torchwood. It's stupid, childish, and all those other words you can think to describe it. In fact, it makes K-9 and Company look like I-fucking-Claudius!

It is EXACTLY everything you expect. We knew the title, and even if you didn't, that's the first thing you see, so no surprises. Sarah's surrounded by children ... so school is kind of an obvious start ... A strange remake or mish-mash of School Reunion and WWIII ... with cheaper costumes and a lower budget. And, yet ... even though I'm very tired from a long day of stuff (a 12 hour one, almost) I still watched it all the way through. Honestly ... whatever it is that fuels the new Doctor Who with energy is present in the show (again, the way it is not in Torchwood.)

And, perhaps that is the reason ... the ultimate reason why Doctor Who really works ... when you compare the two spin-offs: the family and child oriented program fairs better than the unbridled sci-fi-fuck-fest. It's not really nostalgia that brings the audiences to Sarah Jane (it's a children's show full-on.) So, clearly the mixture of adult-to-children themes favors the child in us all.

Lesson to Mr. Davies.

Yes, definitely not Doctor Who. But ... not Torchwood.

Peter Askew T-Shirts

2007-09-24T09:55:00.000-07:00

The Peter Askew T-shirt is ready for your enjoyment. Promote the book, be a walking billboard ... for me.

http://www.cafepress.com/Landru

If you have read the book, please visit Amazon.com and leave a review. I would like to myself, but that isn't really fair is it?

Random Task

2007-09-18T08:14:00.000-07:00

Well, the weekend was a bit lame. I watched the first few James Bond films and they are fun. I will admit that I have mixed feelings about the franchise. Even the first few films, while great, are a sometimes too outrageous to believe. Not just the outrageousness of the plots and gadgets, but the sexism. I realize that these films were meant to be viewed as “adult” but they seem as adult as cartoon women in comic books. It’s a special brand of male chauvinism that comes from adolescent fantasy.

Admittedly, I will watch Bond movies when I just don’t want to do anything at all and can’t bother to think. There is a reassurance in them for children of the 70s. Those ABC Sunday night movie events are a part of the landscape of my childhood. I remember sneaking out to the hall and watching the premier of “You Only Live Twice” in the early 70s (being past my bedtime) and loving the whole gyrocopter sequence. Or later actually sitting through the whole of “Goldfinger” and being certain that it was the greatest film ever made. It really isn’t, but it is good. I still can’t sit through “Diamonds are Forever.” I have no idea why. Sean is back, but the film just seems so at odds with the James Bond culture.

Doctor No – 8
From Russia With Love – 9
Goldfinger – 10
Thunderball – 6
You Only Live Twice – 7
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service – 5
Diamonds are Forever – 4

“How Do You Want Me” – watched this short-lived late 90s series starring Dylan Moran. Wow, just so dreadful and hard to sit through. It just wasn’t funny and the sort of dry, dead humor that centers around the main character going through pure Hell. It was produced with such on odd sensibility. They clearly didn’t know what to do with Dylan Moran (who is, in my opinion, one those unique comedy voices that come along every generation), the sound track (and ghostly harmonica and toneless dreadful theme tune), and just a general malaise about the whole piece. Even though it was only 6 episodes, it felt like struggle to watch.

“The IT Crowd” – after that I rewatched the episodes of season 2 thus far and I have to say … it’s still really great. Sure, it’s a sitcom and is very silly sometimes, but there is something really likable about all the characters (especially Moss and Richmond.) I laughed and laughed. I then rewatched the season one dvd and laughed and laughed. Frankly, the real sad part of this show is knowing that there will be an American version (like the Office) that will completely erode the original.

But, this cheered me up a lot on Sunday and I was feeling a bit more normal.

James Bond “Casino Royale” and “Live and Let Die”

2007-09-12T12:35:00.000-07:00

I’ve been reading the original Ian Fleming James Bond novels in the original book order. Far less preposterous then the film version, but no less misogynist and racist, the books do give the reader a better glimpse of a hero that has, arguably, gone on to cast a massive shadow in both post-war literature and film. In fact, other than the Beatles, James Bond is Great Britain’s greatest export. Even watching the films is worthy of writing about, but let’s take a step even further back in time to look at Ian Fleming’s books.

Beginning in 1953 with “Casino Royale” (exasperatingly the last film in the series to date … but there is tons about that story on the internet) Royale does an early mystery genre (was spy thriller even a genre in ’53?) does best: sets up the characters, plots, and motivations. With James Bond in book form we are not given a character we have come to know from the films (no matter which actor plays him.) He is described as brutal and harsh, takes great pleasure in little details because he never knows when he might die, has a scar down the side of his face. There is very little of the debonair bon vivon, but more of a man of the edge of death.

If you’ve seen the film, then you know that the plot essentially revolves around Bond trying to outplay an international agent (in the book working for the Russians) to ruin and discredit him. The central action of the novel is in the casino and hotel, with the rather cruel torture happening just outside of the vascinity. The end seems a bit quick, but oddly leads us on to the next story (even though, at the time, Fleming had not thought to write one.)

“Live and Let Die”

1954 saw the character return and this one is kind of a powder keg if you don’t read it with the right eyes. The racism of the 1950s is really right up front as Bond journeys through the black underworld of Harlem, down to St. Petersburg, then on to Jamaica. Most of the film version is radically different than the book, but there are still a great many similarities. Bond never seems to be quite as racist as the book’s author (the, pardon me ... “nigger” descriptions are rather constant and there is even a chapter called “Nigger Heaven.”) But, I say Bond isn’t racist because he never seems to use the term and is in fact very much in awe of Mr. Big.

Mr. Big is running a rather sophisticated operation of removing buried treasure from Jamaica, getting it through customs in St. Petersburg, FL, and up into Harlem. Bond arrives in New York and is instantly embroiled in Mr. Big’s massive black spy network throughout Harlem. This is where Mr. Big puts the first squeeze on Bond, breaking his finger (Bond kills three of his guys in return.) Mr. Big’s power is largely created through his supposed voodoo connections and the superstitions of others. His affect is so powerful that even Bond gets a little freaked out (especially after his CIA pal Felix Leiter is disfigured in Florida.)

Since I used to live in the Tampa Bay area, I found the descriptions of the area remarkably similar to those I’d known in the 70’s and 80’s.

I’m currently reading “Moonraker” and it is far less ridiculous than the eventual film …

Peter Askew hits Amazon

2007-09-06T09:16:00.001-07:00

Well, here is the weirdest site I've seen in a while. Peter Askew on Amazon.com.

Buy it HERE

I know its a self-published book and I literally paid to get it on Amazon, but it still feels like its out there. I don't know how to promote it, but its there ...

Heroes – Season One

2007-09-05T07:18:00.001-07:00

Heroes – Season One

OK, first of all I don’t have HD yet and probably will be one of the last to do so. It’s just a question of waiting until the technology is right. (Hey, at least I have an ipod.) Point is I cannot review the HD version of “Heroes” which apparently has some different bonus features. But, then again … I didn’t really watch the bonus features. Lately I’ve come to think a lot of bonus features are kind of lame. Actually, I hate several things about DVDs … the first one is menus … hate menus … the second is non-anamorphic behind the scenes featurettes that last about 4 minutes and talk about nothing … the third thing is … well, let’s face it, we already know where going to buy this crap again.

So, really let’s talk content. The series “Heroes” turned out to be quite a crazy, albeit intermittent ride this last year. I think it off the air more than it was actually on the air, but in the Tivo age that means you can catch up during baseball playoffs or whatever. Re-watching the series in its entirety I was afraid that it wouldn’t hold up as an overall story. Its patchwork attitude seemed to be a bit too much “make it up as you go” but I was impressed that, overall, the series does hold up well. Sure, there are a few massive plot problems that don’t make sense (like what the “company” actually does, did do, who runs it, and why?) and there are many times during the series when a big cliffhanger is set-up only to be put off for a week while we wonder around endlessly with Nicky and Mica or Claire. But, again, it’s all part of a larger picture. When viewed as a whole, the season seems to work. It makes a kind of sense.

Again, as usual, I’ll skip a lot of the plot. You can look that up anywhere. My favorite moments of the series where generally the Hiro and Ando segments – especially “Five Years Gone” and “Landslide.” If someone had said to me ten years ago that there would two major characters on a primetime network show speaking almost exclusively in Japanese, I’d have said they were crazy.

George Takai as Hiro’s father (showing up in the same episode Christopher Eccleston pops up in) was a laugh out loud, “oh, look at his license plate” moment (the plate was the Enterprise registration.) Christopher Eccleston’s appearance seems to elicit the same fan gene response (he says “fantastic” and the word regenerate is used and an episode is called “Run!”) However, both characters become their own after the “geek” homage moment seems to pass. Takai especially redeems himself in “Landslide” during Hiro’s Kensei masters session.

In fact, there isn’t a single character that doesn’t undergo some sort of change. What is a question, however, is how the next season will even … work. It appears some of the cast are dead and the mystery is certainly out of the bag … Can Heroes survive a second season?

Strange Days

2007-08-29T09:36:00.000-07:00

Currently reading “Break on Through: The Life and Death of Jim Morrison” by James Riordan and Jerry Prochnicky.

Yet another biography of Jim Morrison. I know, I know. I read “No One Here Gets Out Alive,” I’ve read Desnmore’s book, and I’ve read the not too great “Jim Morrison: Life, Death, Legend” by Stephen Davis. I even have, but haven’t fully read, Manzarek’s rather biased book. So, why bother digging into the very old story of the Lizard King again? What’s new? He’s still dead.

Well, I guess that depends on where you stand with old Jimbo. Frankly, the Doors are a band you either love or hate. Seems to be no middle ground with them. It all comes down to Jim. And, the authors – after a very long and frankly fictional account of Jim’s trial by fire on the rooftop after UCLA film school (or his “dance with the spirits”) – admit that he was a dual personality and split opinions right down the middle. The minute the Doors hit the scene that was the case. Those that hate the band tend to do so on very superficial grounds (Jim’s looks, the dated organ sound, the pretentious poetry.) The fact is they aren’t that bad. Those that love the band tend to go with flights of outrageous fancy (electric shamanism, possessed by ghosts of dead Indians.) The fact is … they weren’t that great (cause its absurd.)

Finding the middle ground and the true facts about the Doors and Jim Morrison is difficult if not impossible based on the lies and mythos applied to them by these various factions. But, one thing is totally clear – 40 years after appearing on the music scene The Doors are still one of the biggest American rock bands of all time. The music, if you like it, is so strange and dramatic that it often seems hard to believe that the band weren’t created by a super-manager. In fact, they luck factor and reliance on “vibe” or whatever is so prevelant within the groups formation and their sound that it isn’t any wonder why fans often ascribe supernatural qualities to the Doors and, in particular, Jim Morrison … who, it must be said, is the absolute perfect frontman for any band.

Riordan and Prochnicky seem to be doing a good job of balancing the yin and yang of the Morrison myth and fact. I read a good chunk of this last night while listening to the newest archive concert recording “Live in Boston.”

Recorded in 1970 during the many recorded gigs for the “Absolutely Live” album (which means, though it was Absolutely Live … it wasn’t absolutely the same show) many bits clearly are taken from the two shows presented here. It is also very clear why this has been held back in favor of many of the other archival shows … the technical quality varies. It seems to vary during the first disc … clearly getting better. What is also true is that these shows were really good doors gigs. Fresh from his Miami bust and ban … then a decent success with “Morrison Hotel” the band seem to be looking for a new way to do things. While I think some of these later gigs do not stand up to something like the Hollywood Bowl show, the Amsterdam TV show, or “The Doors are Open” Roundhouse gigs in ’68 … it is only because the mood and attitude of the band are different. No longer playing with dramatic tension of image and audience, the band at this stage was redefining its own image and getting back to a grounding with the audience.

Obviously, if you hate the Doors, then the essential live tracks “When the Music’s Over” and “Light My Fire” will drive you mad, but as a fan these tracks almost always seem to work (even if I am a bit sick of “Light My Fire” I still know when that first snare snap will hit.) Well worth a listen.

I went to the same junior college Morrison went to: St. Petersburg Junior College and hung around those old stone buildings and the library where he must have been (they certainly weren’t very modern when I was there.) He was there in early 60s and I was there in the early 90s. In fact, I was there when the movie came out. And even though I’ve been to other schools, no school has left such a indelible image upon me. It was probably because I was dying to get the hell out of there and away. My life was on hold, much the way Morrison’s was during his time there 30 years before.

And, much like those dead Indians dying beside the road, I think Morrison’s soul leaped into my childish eggshell mind.

Well, maybe only a little. ;)

"The Bourne Ultimatum" and "The Simpsons Movie"

2007-08-22T11:04:00.000-07:00

Catch up ... a few more today. Some brief thoughts on them (in no particular order).

The Bourne Ultimatum (8/10)

Matt Daman is back as Jason Bourne in the 3rd installment of the thriller series. CIA trained assassin whose lost his memory but not his touch, Bourne is still struggling with inner demons and an even deeper mystery about his origins. Like all the Bourne movies, the plot is fairly high octane without being too moronic or preposterous. It has some slick action and usually at lease one “gotcha” moment. In many ways, this film is superior to “The Bourne Supremacy” as it fills in much of the time gap at the end of that previous film and doesn’t saddle us a lot of the emotional baggage Marie’s death did in the 2nd film.

The Simpsons Movie (6/10)

The problem I have with the Simpsons as a feature is quite simple … after 23 minutes you can’t help but think “Hey, when is this episode going to end.” Still, there plenty of good gags … as only big money and Harvard graduates can deliver …

INLAND EMPIRE

2007-08-21T12:49:00.001-07:00

OK, I admit it; I never really liked David Lynch or his films. There was a brief period of time when I liked or tried to like “Wild at Heart” because it at least had a sense of humor, but even that has worn very thin over the years. For his die hard fans, I’m sorry, but his latest is easily the most obnoxious, pretentious, unintelligible thing I’ve ever forced myself to sit through. There is really no excuse for this exercise in confusion.

What is this film about?

OK, er ... Laura Dern is an actress who gets a part in a cursed movie … and then all hell breaks loose. There are sequences of a Polish prostitute, a sitcom staring very stoic man-sized bunny rabbits, and Dern drifting between many parts (or what appear to be other parts) in a nonstop confusion of cheap stunts and general freakiness.

To say this is overrated isn’t fair because no one seems to know about it, but the reviews seem generally to support Lynch in his bid to be as insane as he can without having to give us any allegory or story to invite us into his twisted mind. Worse still is the use of rather cheap digital cameras to get the film. Are we saving money or losing our ability to get it, one asks. Dern is here, then she is there … she’s a hooker, she’s a movie star, she’s housewife to a Russian circus star …

Lynch’s only explanation of the film is … in the form of a quote from the Upanishad: "We are like the spider. We weave our life and then move along in it. We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream. This is true for the entire universe."

Sadly, even a spider has to live in linear time and only has one life.

Escape from ... not doing anything

2007-08-20T08:35:00.000-07:00

Updates

Well, I haven’t been keeping up with this blog the way I should. I sort of realized that I am not the best person to write about media. I guess I’ve known it for years, knowing that it takes a special person to write record and movie reviews. The one that my friend Julie let me write for the Soft Boys reunion album “Nextdoorland” is pretty pretentious and a little fanboy-ish. I realize this now. I am the creator and therefore not qualified to critique as well as I’d like.

Be that as it may, I shall proceed here. Why? Well, it is a good place to keep up with the “media” or art that I perceive in my daily life. I know that any time I’m asked to give influences or say what inspired something else, there is a moment when my mind tries to draw all the points of influence together … recent and long-remembered … and vainly attempt to put together some sort of star map that would explain things.

… so, let’s try and get back on track.

“Escape from New York”

There has been a lot written about this little classic. Produced independently, starring Kurt Russell in his post-child star attempt to change his image, with “Halloween” and “The Fog” director John Carpenter also wishing to shed his horror film director image – “Escape” succeeds in giving us the first real post-apocalyptic vision in film. This is a point that could be argued, but even “Mad Max” didn’t make such a dramatic impression.

Plot - In the year 1997 Manhattan is turned into a maximum security prison (remember that … ah, those were the days.) The President’s plane is hijacked and he is forced to eject himself in an escape pod into the city. At the same time, Snake Plissken (Russell) has been captured during a bank heist. Former special services pilot and assassin, Plissken is recruited to fly a glider into NY, land on the World Trade Center, and find the president. For insurance, he’s injected with tiny explosives that will detonate if he’s not back in time.

It is, quite frankly, a movie that has aged very well. Both in terms of its dystopia, but also its naiveté. Sure, the world would get worse in the future, but as we’ve seen since 9-11 … it will be worse.

Kurt Russell’s performance is very cool and controlled, relying on tense action and reaction in his body to provide the necessary motivation for his character. His essential coolness is often undercut by the beatings, shovings, and general manipulation he is put through … that when he does “bite back” you know he means it. The only real character scene Snake gets is his introduction with Lee Van Cleef. When told that the President’s plane has crashed, he replies: “President of what?”

“Escape from L.A.”

A very much maligned movie. In fact, when I first saw it I was a little disappointed. Then the second time I saw it, years later, I felt even worse. This time, again another few years later, I love it. I get it. Finally. Perhaps it takes almost a decade to see the same dark humor of the previous film in the context of “modern day”? At the times it seemed very Hollywood and over produced. Kurt Russell didn’t seem as hard edged and every minute there was some star turn. The plot had the virtue or veracity to be exactly the same … so, why make it?

Well, first of all, the original film had as many star turns as this movie does. In fact, almost everyone in it is a star, so there is no real reason to use the “Hollywood” excuse for either film. Where LA differs is that it is no longer a satiric jab at the Nixonian era view of the Presidency, but the post-Reagan era of the Hollywood-Moral Majority President. Both offer excessive madness, but in profoundly different ways. This time the President’s own daughter is to be sacrificed as part of the job.

Kurt Russell, looking back on it, doesn’t look nearly as stylized as I recall him looking. He looks a bit older, but actually watching the two films back to back, I found that his performance as Snake was exactly the same. His ruthlessness is simple and immediate. He doesn’t have time to waste being clever and therefore, immediately proceeds to the action. In fact, rarely do movies get so visceral so fast. Both Escape films offer us a “hero” who doesn’t have time for James Bond niceties or cleverness. He’s just going to kill you before he gets killed.

Final thoughts – they are talking about a remake of the first film … I really hope they don’t do that. Let’s see one last Russell Snake film …

Slusho and beyond

2007-07-26T11:57:00.000-07:00

Slusho

So good you can't drink just six ...

First off, let’s get right to this Slusho 1-18-08 thing … I don’t think it’s Godzilla. In fact the theory I like best is the one most discredited at the moment … that it was all a massive promo for “Lost.” That would be just the best idea ever. But, no, it seems unlikely at this stage.

Anyway, the apple trailer is up and it’s definitely a great trailer. HERE

Just some quick notes here –

1. No, I haven’t read the newest Harry Potter book

2. No, I haven’t seen the newest Harry Potter movie.

3. I haven’t seen Pirates or Spiderman 3

4. The only new music I’ve gotten is by old guys – Robert Fripp’s “Churchscapes” finally arrived. It is exactly what I expected, mainly because he's been releasing this material through his website during the tour.

I also got the most recent Church acoustic album of their older songs “El Momento Siguiente.” This pretty good and features a rather interesting "reading" of "Reptile." Despite Kilbey's amazing ability to shoot himself in the foot, I still like the Church.

So, what’s going on?

I'm currently in total Firesign Theatre mode and reading a rather ok biography about them. This started because of my annual listen to the greatest comedy album "Don't Crush that Dwarf, Pass Me the Pliers" ... still marveling at how much is crammed into that mere 40 minutes.

Well, I’m totally into Stephan Moffatt’s “Jeckyll” series and will definitely be buying the DVD. Part 6 is on this Saturday on the BBC. There are so many bad versions of “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” (modern retellings or classic adaptations) that it is truly wonderful to see it being taken seriously.

Double-Dipped

Well, despite my best intentions, I’ve been dipped. A couple of times recently. I allowed myself to be double dipped on the Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone classics “A Fistful of Dollars”, “For a Few Dollars More” and “The Good the Bad and the Ugly.” “Fistful” is still a classic introduction to Clint Eastwood (and him to us in many ways) and is rather interesting remake of Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo (1961).

Sadly, though the films themselves are presented in excellent anamorphic glory, the extras aren’t distributed very well. Sadly once again suffering is the best of the three – the glorious “For a Few Dollars More.” It is the only film that has a moral backbone or a firm narrative. All are great, but this is pure genius. Lee Van Cleef has never been better used and Clint really seems have stepped into his own career before it had really happened.

“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” is massive gorge of violence, gigantic set-pieces, and odd characters. It is just too big and long for me (it takes 30 minutes just to introduce the main characters), though it is still a really entertaining film. Eli Wallach is so good as Tuco (the Ugly) that you sort of forget that he isn’t the star of the film.

Also, I got the box for Bob Dylan’s “Don’t Look Back (1965 Tour Deluxe Edition).” While it is a great film, the re-release seems really for the bottom of the barrel crowd. The film has been re-mastered and looks as good as this grainy b/w choppy documentary can (i.e., very impressive both technically and for Pennebaker’s ability to get the shot) but it really isn’t a vast improvement over the previous release. The silly book of the film and the flip book of the infamous “Subterranean Homesick Blues” film are really pointless. So, we are left with the bonus disc of outtakes and these are interesting as they point to even more depth in the “character” we call Bob. There is a wonderful moment when he lets the two girls from Liverpool (the ones he appears to be making fun of during the regular feature) into the show for free. He clearly remembers talking to them earlier, as well. Rather a different side of the enigma we see bouncing from pure iconoclast to jealous paranoid in the feature. All in all, Bob Dylan was an iconoclast and that’s what the film really brings out. If you can find it for a good price, I recommend the upgrade.

Voyage of the Damned pic

2007-07-11T16:30:00.000-07:00

Kylie Minogue and David Tennant ... on the Titanic. Well, I'm already excited.

LANDRU

2007-07-11T11:19:00.001-07:00

MISTER MEDIA ME>BLOG

2007-07-10T13:30:00.001-07:00

If I were being very faithful with this blog and you my dear readers I’d try to keep up to date with my media immersion, but frankly … I just can’t seem to convince myself that it matters.

So what if I’m listening to the 3 CD Sergeant Pepper’s bootleg? Does it matter that I watched Tom Baker’s first season of Doctor who over the weekend? Or that I’ve been watching the brilliant Ian Richardson in the House of Cards series? Is it a crime to have down-time?

The truth is I am constantly immersed in media, as we all are if we’re honest, but I’m also participating in it … which makes writing a blog objectively reviewing things a bit distracting. Currently, I have a lot of songs and Spacefinger music written, a new Spacefinger “set” available on the podcast, and am trying to get some back catalogue on lulu.com in case one or two of you want to buy this stuff.

Not too long ago I self-published a novel (not too disguised to the right of this blog.) Of course, this was really just me being too lazy to go through the double-whore process of selling myself to a publisher. Believe me, unless you are well connected, that’s just harder than writing the novel in the first place. So, I went the self-publishing route. Vanity Press … yes, I know.

So, someone a few weeks back asks if I had copies to sell (not online.) Well, this is Print on Demand … I don’t have a few hundred sitting around. I have to buy them, too. So, I got a couple of copies … and no one is interested. They are just sitting here …. Even with signs up and everything … bastards.

And, then there is the short-story I just sent off to a science fiction magazine.

So, I’m a busy guy. I have a job, too, which is rather too dull to write a blog about. So, I’m a bit depressed. Just turned off the Beatles from the ipod monster. Not even the fabs can save me today.

“It’s only a Northern Song.”

ps ... this thing really isn't into using the Title box lately ...

Doctor Who “The Sound of Drums” and “Last of the Time Lords”

2007-07-09T11:22:00.000-07:00

“Drums” – 10/10
“Last of the Time Lords” – 7/10

Rant and Review - Well, it feels wrong to review both here in one go, but I got lazy again. There was this thing that gets in the way (work, life, whatever) and there I go … forgetting to review stuff on a blog that no one is reading, anyway.

So, “The Sound of Drums” kicked the gears up a few notches from the spectacular “Utopia” but then lost its rhythm (and reason and rhyme) in “Last of the Time Lords.” This is the first season finale that doesn’t feel embarrassing in terms of the overly soapy emotional stuff … but still utterly failed to deliver the goods in terms of plot and story telling. And, shame on that for ending an otherwise nearly perfect season. But, it calls into question something else: do the emotional fireworks cover up really bad endings in the previous two seasons? It is obvious that Russell T. Davies does depend a lot on emotion and a lot less on logic. To be fair, this is the first 3-part story the new series has done (roughly equivalent to the old fashioned 6-parters in the “classic series” days) and it should be judged on overall story merit … but, somehow I cannot quite do it.

1. Because “Utopia” was directed by Graeme Harper (who directed for the classic series as well) and
2. Because Derek Jacobi was in it and not John Simm
3. Because it is so stylistically different than the last two parts

We left “Utopia” with Doctor, Martha, and Capt. Jack stranded while the newly regenerated Master (Simm) has stolen the Doctor’s TARDIS. We resume the story with the 3 getting away pretty quickly (and really, who wanted to see that bit go on more) to find that the newly elected prime minister Harold Saxon is in fact the Master … who taunts the Doctor with a speech parodying the now disgraced Harriet Jones “What this country really needs … right now … is a Doctor.” Ping. A nice big smile and the credits roll in pretty heavy.

What follows is a tour de force for Simm’s Master as he rounds up Martha’s family and plays cat and mouse with the Doctor. First, he blows up Martha's flat and then reports the three as terrorists.

It is really the best set-up episode in history, giving us not only two really great actors going for guts and glory, but also a lot of CGI Time Lord flashbacks (for the fans)

... some weird new aliens he calls “the Toclafane” (a Time Lord myth), and the ultimate spaceship in the sky. The Master has been setting this up all along for 18 months. After he announces the first alien contact with the Toclafane, he is met by an enraged, though thoroughly stuck up President Arthur Winters (played by Colin Stinton of A Very Peculiar Practice fame.) Of course, this is a British drama, so there are lots of pokes at Americans. “Shall I make the tea? Or isn’t that American enough? I could make grits? What are grits, anyway?” and then … has the aliens kill the President on world-wide television. It is, to say the least, outrageously funny.

By the end of the story, (the Master's quite insane "Here come the drums!" Voodoo Child moment is perhaps unforgetable as a climax) the Doctor is made very old and forced to watch the Earth being invaded by 6 billion spheres …

By the time “Last of the Time Lords” begins … Doctor Who has taken a big leap of faith by projecting the story one year into the future. Martha is wandering the world and … well … the Master has made the Doctor even older … Martha’s family are his servants … he appears to be in some drug stupor … and then the plot gets silly.

1. The Tinkerbelle moment … Yes, the Doctor saves the world by having everyone say his name at the same time (with the added benefit of the Master’s Archangel Satellite network.) This is of course not only absurd, but simply impossible to manage, let alone plan (which is what he claims to have done.)

2. The reset … the Earth goes back in time to just before the spheres appear. This is sadly the worst thing in the original Superman movie … it certainly doesn’t get better when redone in Doctor Who …

3. And, after all that, the Master inexplicably decides to die and the Doctor cries. It seems utterly absurd. (Although, there is a shot of a woman picking up his ring after his Jedi style pyre.)

4. And Martha leaves … Why? We like Martha.

5. Donna from the Runaway Bride is coming back? Why? We didn’t like Donna.

6. Jack is ... the Face of Boe ... What????

7. Kylie is on the Titanic ... which crashes into the TARDIS at the end of the episode.

In the end, my response is that someone slipped the entire production team some heavy hallucinogens at the same time … and they’ve all gone simultaneously insane. It can be the only explanation.

And so now we wait for next Christmas and ... watch thousands of people die in a story called "the Voyage of the Damned" ... I think I'm on pretty sturdy ground with my hallucination theory.

Vote Saxon

2007-06-22T08:52:00.001-07:00

Get the word out and Vote Saxon ...

Doctor Who “Utopia”

2007-06-18T08:31:00.000-07:00

1000/10 … holy cow … two Masters for the price of one …

OK, so I missed a few weeks … and they were good weeks, but I can’t go back. Looking back now as we teeter on the edge of the massive trilogy that ends this season is pointless. We are fully launched and I can’t go back to something like “Blink” (which was another Doctor-Lite story … meaning they didn’t have time to get David and Freema for most of the episode and made up another story around nothing … though it was better than “Love and Monsters” from last season.) I can sort of look back at “The Family of Blood” the conclusion of “Human Nature” … but there isn’t much to add apart from more of the same. The story was great.

But, this is “Utopia.” Yes, say it like you mean it, because in more ways than one this was a Doctor Who fan’s Utopia! Forget that Spiderman vs Superman ending of last season with the Cybermen and Daleks (the war that never should be seen) … this is the reinvention of the Master. Arguably 3rd (certainly chronologically) of the Doctor’s enemies, The Master is also a Time Lord. But, how? The time war? Yes, yes … I’m sure we’ll get to skirting around those issues in the future. Or is it the past? You see how that works? But most importantly to the series itself, a humanoid not a robot, which allows for the possibility of a real sense of uncertainty. Even though The Master is a cliché mustache (or goatee) twirling villain, if pitched right by the right actor, there can be real menace in knowing that the Doctor’s “tricks” could be out-matched.

Basically, if you heard anything about Utopia, you heard something that is a spoiler. Though it was kept a fairly unconfirmed secret for quite awhile … the cat is out of the bag after Saturday. Captain Jack is back from his purgatory in the dreadful Torchwood and is very much a good spike of adrenaline with his “yes sirs” and coat holding thing. Whatever, he’s good fun and has a great entrance.

And then there is The Professor or Professor Yana played by Sir Derek Jacobi.

Well, there is a reason they gave this guy a knighthood. He plays the befuddled Professor with such incredible skill and talent that you feel, what with the high production values, that this might be a major motion picture you are looking at instead of the legendary “cheap sets” Doctor Who.

What we discover … in quick succession is that he has a watch like the Doctor’s from “Human Nature” and that he doesn’t really recognize what it is or means. He was discovered with it as a naked child on the edge of the Silver Devastation (which is where the Face of Boe is from.) This all connects up as the Professor opens the watch and becomes The Master. The turn from befuddled friendly genius to sad old man to pure evil is just astonishing acting for 44 minutes. Everything from the previous episodes comes into play (the watch from the chameleon arch explains why the Doctor couldn’t sense another Time Lord and even his name, Yana, is an anagram for “You Are Not Alone”.) During the Master’s transformation (or “ascendance to his majesty”) the Doctor realizes who he is … even though he isn’t in the same room.

The Master is shot by his assistant as he enters (and steals) the Doctor’s TARDIS … and regenerates into John Simms (“Life on Mars”).

Simms has a moment of insane glory at the end, yelling to his old foe the Doctor from inside his stolen TARDIS, “Why don’t we have a nice chat where I tell you all my plans so you can work out a way to stop me. I think not!” (Very Austin Powers, but still … to the point.)

This is the first of a 3-part ending to the series. Next week we see the Master’s assume his new identity as the oft mentioned Harold Saxon, the new Prime Minister … in all his insane glory.

HOT FUZZ

2007-06-12T12:29:00.000-07:00

8/10 – “I’m a slasher … of prices!”

Yes, this is a good film. Don’t read what the critics say because they never get comedy as a medium of its own. Simon Pegg and chronic co-conspirator Edgar Wright (see “Spaced” and “Shaun of the Dead”) have created yet another pyrotechnical display of average Joe style comedy that only they can do … well. It is a new take on the buddy movie, without actually doing much to damage the genre. Like Shaun, they clearly love the genre they are using and clearly would never wish to damage it. What they do instead, again like Shaun, is provide a cast of characters and situations around which insanity is allowed to fly.

Simon Pegg (see also Doctor Who and Black Books) plays Nicholas Angel, an extremely dedicated and over-achieving police officer in London's Metropolitan Police Service. He is so good that he makes everyone else on the service look bad. As a result his superiors send him to a place where his talents won’t be quite so embarrassing: the sleepy and seemingly crime-free village of Sandford, where there hasn't been a recorded murder for twenty years.

Once there, he is partnered with well-meaning but overeager and naive police constable Danny Butterman (Edgar Wright,) the son of local police chief Inspector Frank Butterman. Angel, tries to adjust to the quiet and uneventful pace of the village with only the minorist sort of minor crimes (such as an escaped swan.)

Suddenly, all Hell breaks loose with a series of “accidents” that are obviously crimes. Angel is met with constant rebuke from the “yocals” and, ultimately discovers that the entire village is responsible. And, as with the zombies, Pegg is once again surrounded by loads of people who want to kill him.

What Hot Fuzz does so well is to take the road less traveled. At some point, when we discover that the entire village is involved and even his new friend Danny, Angel’s life is spared by Danny and taken to the edge of town. What ensues is action mayhem when Angel decides he must return to the village to see that justice is done. Armed with almost every weapon conceivable, he rides into Sandford on horseback … ready for battle.

This was just a great, not too heavy movie for the end of the week. Quite honestly I laughed more than I thought I would and, hell, it even has a great soundtrack.

“Yarp.”

Hi, It’s Been a Long Time …

2007-06-11T07:40:00.000-07:00

So, I’ve been busy. In fact, I will continue to be busy, so I’ll try and get this down in some form and post it all in one mighty lump. My spare time has been boxed and limited due to exhaustion from work and a new medication my body is adapting to (don’t worry, I’m not dying.) My viewing habits are largely dictated by the fact that I’m too lazy make up and then change my mind.

I promise I’ll catch up on my new Doctor Who series reviews soon …

So, first up

Deadwood – Season Three

I still can’t decide if I love this show or hate it. What I do know is that it makes me watch it, whatever the feeling I am having. HBO’s complicated DVD menus sure do aggravate me, but the presentation is always high quality. Deadwood season three is easily the best of the three (so far, anyway) with the Bullock and Swearengen becoming allies in the town’s war against George Hearst. In fact, the third season is easily the best season as it sees the characters come to terms with who in what they are, but not in any sentimental or cliché TV show way.

What everyone knows and talks about when they mention Deadwood is the amount of swearing. Yes, in fact, episode 1 of season 1 was like listening to someone swear who didn’t know how to do it … ie, very odd and off-putting. But, what isn’t mentioned, though is immediately apparent if you haven’t watched the show in a while, is that convoluted language (vacillating from the eloquent, well-read classical style to gutter talk) that makes for quite a strange and highly stylized show. When Al comments “and Leviathan smiles” the audience is expected to understand and know what a Leviathan is and the literary reference (in this case, Hobbes’ very famous philosophic masterpiece). Not the average show about violence and swearing.

Doctor Who “The New Beginnings” Box set
The Keeper of Traken, Logopolis, and Castrovalva

Once upon a time, this was the “new” Doctor Who. Reinvented in 1980 under the leadership John Nathan-Turner, it is hard to believe the this looked really fresh and new, but it did. To be totally fair to this DVD set, you must remember that this was the “new” era of video effects, music videos were literally just beginning, and the synthesizer hadn’t yet become an innocuous invention and was appreciated as a new sound. The video effects look very dated now, but back then Duran Duran hadn’t even gotten off the ground (the New Romantics wave had barely started.)

This trilogy of stories features probably the most jaw-dropping TV moment of my entire life – the regeneration of Tom Baker into Peter Davison. Tom Baker had been the only Doctor for many Americans since the show first began to pop up on PBS stations and, although I did know something about the past Doctors by the time I saw Logopolis, I was not prepared to actually deal with seeing the series go on without the character I loved.

In the US we don’t perceive the series as being scary or family oriented or even mass market. It was mainly for more mature/geeky kids and was on Saturday nights and therefore will always be seen as a niche or cult program by outsiders (or the “not we”.) Add to that the essential “cheapness” of having the program shot on videotape in an era when only game shows and soaps were on video, science fiction in the post Star Wars environment shunned it as a whole. In short, being a Doctor Who fan in the US has always had some “shame” attached to it. Even now, as I write this, the show is all but invisible on people’s radars in the US because … well, it’s on the sci-fi channel, which carries such a stigma that some refuse to watch it. In fact, a few stragglers found it on BBC America and even though I said “the 2nd series is coming on Sci-Fi channel …” they will obviously wait until it shows up on what they consider “respectable” channels.

Much of the charm of the series – back when it caught the cult TV public’s eye on a bored Saturday night -- was generated by the personality of the lead actor playing the part of the Doctor and Tom Baker’s seven year reign in the role made him unquestionably "the" Doctor for many people. When, at the end of “Logopolis” he fell (rather feebly) from the Pharos radio telescope and regenerated into Peter Davison (the Vet from “All Creatures Great and Small”!!!) many casual viewers just dropped it altogether.

Watching it then was just bizarre. Oh sure, on soaps they occasionally have actors replacing another in the same role (with a disturbing disembodied voice-over saying “the part of so-and-so will now be played by …”) but to actually have a story device to change out the lead actor in the series and allow them to be different is just revolutionary. It can also be quite startling to a 12 year old (or whatever I was back then.) At one moment you are watching a character’s death and then (fortunately “Castrovalva” was broadcast back-to-back with “Logopolis”) you have to get used to entirely different person as the same character. And, it wasn’t the same at all.

Now, over 25 years later, it’s kind of embarrassing to watch these studio-bound melodramas because, although nothing emerged unscathed from the 80s, Doctor Who was then being managed by a man who especially was conscious of trends and fads. Add to that the introduction of THREE companions (none of which could act) and you have a series of comedic tragedies. But, on the plus side both Tom Baker and (yes I do like him) Peter Davison are great in this changing of the guard, as it were. Fans of the new series will find it mostly cheap, while fans of the old series might also find the new direction to be a little too casual (question marks on the lapels, a stick of celery … wha …?) But, for a generation, this really was a startling moment … something new and inventive and weird. I suppose that’s why were are still watching … hoping for that moment again.

It was forty years ago today ...

2007-06-01T15:41:00.000-07:00

Why is The Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" still the most important album ever made? Sure, it fairly reeks of pot smoke and teeth-clenching LSD drops. It is the hallmark and to some extent the nadir of the hippie culture that ultimately failed completely to change anything. Hell, it isn't even the best Beatles' album, so what's the big deal?

Well, first, it changed rock music from pop to art. By pushing their profoundly dense and stupendous talents, skills, and imaginations, The Beatles decided to push the studio as far as it could go. They basically invented most every single recording technique that musicians and listeners take totally for granted. Sure, they weren't the first to do many things in this little arsenal of technical wizardry. As far back as the late 50s musicians were double tracking vocals, etc. But, the Beatles used the considerably wonderful studio at EMI as an instrument itself, creating something that could only be created on stage ... many years after it was recorded in the studio. (Paul will frequently recreate these sounds with "Wix," the keyboard wiz, on stage ... but that exists mainly as recordings).

It isn't the greatest concept album ever, either. It's actually not a concept album in almost everyway. As John said, "It worked because we said it worked." And, really that is how it should be remembered: The Beatles at the height of their popularity and power and creativity.

Track for track, this record doesn't really give you the impression of what it all means, apart from the twisted brilliance of "A Day in a Life" ... which still stands as one of the most amazing pieces of music of all time. From opening listesslessness, to Ringo's incredible drumming (Phil Collins said, "How do you fill a song like 'A Day in a Life'?"), to the mind blowing 4-layers (recorded 4 times on tape) of an orchestra just playing a rising cacophony of insanity.

The music is not only good, but actually sophisticated, even for the Beatles. No band today ... and I stand by this ... could have done what the Beatles did in 1964, i.e., stand on stage and sing in 3-part harmony with little amplifiers and no effects ... flash-forward 3 years and these proficient players and prolific song-writers wanted to make something more than a mere pop phenomenon. In fact, it's almost a pity that the hippie movement came to pass, because it ties the music to something which is fundamentally idiotic.

The many many times I've listened to this album has only given me more inspiration. I have read The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Story of the Abbey Road Years 1962-1970 by Mark Lewisohn so many times that it has become my bible.

It recounts in tiny detail each thing put on tape and how, at times, The Beatles themselves made the technicians "invent" things to do what they had in their heads. For me, it was the roadmap for learning how to record music.

But, even if you don't care about when Paul dubbed a bass line on such and such track, or when the technicians had to link up several 4-track machines to get more sound out of the primitive equipment, all the listener needs to do ... is listen. Pick out Paul's bassline and you will realize that no one ever played bass like that. Pick out the harmonies and realize that this is more than just pop music. Listen to the imaginative, almost child-like lyrics and you will hear that this is much more than an ode to childhood or a hippie mantra. This is art.

And, like Bach or Beethoven, will live on for hundreds of years.

What Else is There?

2007-05-31T09:24:00.000-07:00

The Weekend Roundup, I suppose. I honestly don’t have time to recount all the films and TV shows and music and books that I’m exposed to in a single weekend to put into a blog. I try to hit the high points, but even that is a little brief. This past weekend was Memorial Day 3-day weekend AND it rained, I had plenty of spare time. Let’s see if I can hit everything just this once (I mean, it is already Thursday.)

In no particular order …

The Third Man

I bought this because, even though Criterion is massively double-dipping these days, a two disc set of one of the greatest films ever made is still worth it. Besides, I didn’t buy it the first time around. What I found with TTM is that the more you see it, the more you love it and the more you find little strange bits to captivate your imagination. I think I’ve rented the previous version 3 times on Netflix and before that had seen it on TCM and even further back, had seen it in film school (that brief semester I tried to get into the UCF film program … ah, I could have been one of the “Blair Witch” kids … but, alas, it was not meant to be.)

The first thing anyone talks about when they mention TTM is Orson Welles as the supposedly dead Harry Lime. For years Orson put around the rumor that he had co-wrote and pretty much co-directed this film, which seems credible in that it is visually as striking as Citizen Kane and contains many of the Mercury theatre’s classic “stepping on” dialogue techniques … but, the film was entirely written by Graham Greene, directed by Carol Reed. However, Orson did contribute one adlib during the shoot:

"In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed — they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance.

In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

After spending almost an entire hour waiting for Harry Lime/Orson Welles, he slips in and steals the show. It is what he did best. The bonus features are numerous, including a 90 minutes documentary called “Shadowing the Third Man” as well as a nice period “Omnibus” special on the author Graham Greene (who mysteriously refused to be filmed while the interview was conducted on the Orient Express.)

TTM might be a Criterion double-dip, but it is worth it.

El Topo – Catching up on my Alejandro Jodorowsky box set and this one was supposed to be the masterpiece.

El Topo (The Mole) first popped up in 1970 and is an “allegorical western.” However, it really is just a total mind-fuck. Jodorowsky was famously called John Lennon’s favorite filmmaker and, since “El Topo” is an Abco film, we can assume it has been entangled in all kinds of post-Beatles red tape most of this time. However, it does claim to have invented the midnight movie …

I am a fan of Santa Sangre (a much later Jodorowsky film) so I knew, more or less, what to expect. His bizarre obsession with circus freaks, religious figures, and inexplicable narrative structures all come to the front in El Topo. It isn’t for the faint of heart ... and, frankly, doesn't really make sense, either.

Danger Man – Caught up on a few episodes of Danger Man during the rainy mornings. Quite nice to watch such a well-done show in black and white during a morning rain storm. There is something very comforting about it.

X-Men (trilogy) – Yes, man cannot live on bread alone. As I’ve said before, I strive to maintain a balanced diet and a little sugar goes a long way. Watching all 3 X-Men movies I was struck exactly the same way I was a year ago when X-Men 3 came out … this is more like episodic TV than individual films and no single one is better than the others. In fact, they are stronger as a whole than individually. X-Men 3 is a much better film than the critics allowed for largely because these aren’t really serious films in the first place.

Venus – Well, frankly I couldn’t get through this at all. Dreadful and creepy. I felt very sorry for Peter O'Toole who clearly thought this would win him an Oscar.

I spent an awful lot of time on Saturday and Sunday either reading or watching documentaries. A 2-part special on the possible finding of Nefrititti’s tomb from 2003 (I think) and a 4 part series on The Inquisition. Both were not very well done and, frankly, I was bored.

I have also been reading the first collection of Hunter S. Thompson letters.

Peter Askew - Essay or Explanation?

2007-05-30T18:02:00.000-07:00

Almost 2 years ago the first draft of Peter Askew emerged from the status of short story to short novel. I then wrote up an essay to try and put down on paper what it was I was attempting to do with this strange story of the physics professor who falls through Time. What I emerged with was somewhat off-putting to some of my friends when they discovered that the ideas beneath this little tale were actually both scientifically, psychologically, philosophically, and ultimately, if you take the idea to its logical conclusion, religiously heretical (although, only if you are deeply traditional and believe in the out-moded concept that God is the old guy in the chair in heaven.)

And so I took to spending the next two years reworking the book around the central character instead of the concept, while never changing the concept at all. It's been a long road.

Even as I considered publishing this book myself (and thus suffering the potential abuse of people I actually know) the essay lingered as a possible intro to the book. I really struggled over this. Was it too much? Would it set the right tone? Would it put people off? Should I put people off? After all, my first book (Fear the Company - 1995) was altogether ruined by listening to people who didn't really read much fiction beyond what they picked up in the supermarket. That would be my fault for being young and uncertain.

At the last moment I decided to drop it altogether as just too challenging for an intro and pointless as an afterward. If you read the book, you will either totally get it or totally not get it. If you have already spent the money and don't know what you are getting yourself into, well ... that's capitalism for you.

I publish it here and now to answer that question people seem to want to ask, specifically as one person put it, "What is the ... point of the book?"

I do honestly hope you will like the book. It is a human story.

Michael Fuller
May 30, 2007

Peter Askew
Essay or Explanation?

By Michael D. Fuller

The main premise of Peter Askew was to poke holes in the common assumptions of Time Travel. Time isn’t some line that can be jumped in and out of at random. That is an assumption - an abstraction as Henri Bergson put it. Bergson said the conception of Time was based upon the human mind’s limited ability to perceive, but the logos‘ will to conform rigidity to structures that exist in nature. He also endeavored to prove that we can only perceive things spatially. This limitation is proven again and again in other areas of the abstract. For example, a sound, which has no substantial physical presence apart from the “invisible“ waves which produce its vibrations, creates a spatial world when these vibrations bounce off other objects. Tonal vibrations can be music or noise. This is mere aesthetics. But, nonetheless, we abstract these vibrations spatially in our minds. This is a very convenient, though accurate way to control and describe something which, in itself, has no other substance other than our personal experience. We all might agree that a piece of music is beautiful, but it cannot be known a priori without collecting data from many experiences.

As with music, Time exists only in our immediate ability to perceive duration. For example, we know how long a minute is by a watch or how long a day is by the rotation of the Earth, and so on. But, science defines it far beyond this perception-phenomenon. Because we are limited creatures with a small stretch of Time allotted to us, it has a fundamentally phenomenal nature consistent only with the perceiver. So, if as one person you cannot know what another person can perceive “in itself” then how can one individual - or even a collective - understand the entire nature of Time other than as a collective abstraction?

This is not particularly popular in the scientific world. Nor is Bergson a particularly credible source in the philosophic community. But, being the writer of this novel and a student of such things, I have found very little to refute Bergson. So, in effect, I went about trying to prove him by example.

But, as I wrote this novel Peter Askew, I set as my task to become involved with the central character. To write a dull, dry treatise on the nature of Time would not have been “good writing.” Indeed, it might have been as boring as this explanation. No, I needed the human element, the individual perceiver, to tell us the tale. Peter Askew (with the nice - and, yes, deliberate - parallel word-play on his last name) was meant to represent a rigid person, defined by rigid scientific explanations of the world. But, his world is at a moment of flux. A decision that must be made about his life, but his turgid view of the world won’t allow for the possibility of “possibility” itself. He is in love but doesn’t quite know how to embrace this love without losing something that defines him, as he goes about defining the world.

To say that Peter Askew is not a “likable” character might be accurate at first. He is meant to be something of a troubled person. The fact that we find him in a moment when his world should be complete, yet he is on the verge of destroying it is the Duex Es Machina that science fiction loves. The novel is science fiction, but only this sense. The device or conceit of thrusting him into his own “problem” of a temporal anomaly is not merely meant to criticize this conception of scientific dogma, but also it is an indictment of the psychological implications of such scientific certainty. In short, if science is telling us something that it cannot fundamentally know as a “strong” truth (according to A.J. Ayer’s analysis of knowledge in Language, Truth, and Logic), what does that do to our psychological make-up? It is this precise dilemma that our main character finds himself. How can he love another who does not fundamentally understand him? As a scientist, his delusions stem from an unrealistic romanticized version of love at odds - seemingly locked in battle - with this unresolved psychological paradox inherent in scientific dogma. He believes this dogma and seems willing to sacrifice even his own happiness and well-being to preserve this “truth.”

The next interesting decision which I made was there from the story’s conception. It was to introduce the logical absurdity inherent in Time Travel itself into this mix. Our main character falls through a wormhole and travels back in time to the previous evening. The first, and most obvious problem in Time Travel stories is the one that is always glossed over. In the story, I give the example of a person traveling back in time to kill Hitler before his rise to power. But, if Hitler was killed at that time, then he would not have risen to power and, therefore, obviously, the person traveling back in time to do the killing in the first instance would never know who Hitler was and most especially would not have cause to kill him. This is the very definition of a temporal anomaly. It is the very thrust of the absurdity of Time Travel itself. I use the word “absurdity” with deliberateness, for all Time Travel are absurd. Laughable. Impossible.

My novel is, at its heart, absurd. Peter Askew sees himself from the previous evening doing everything he did a mere half-day before in the second instance. The view-point of the temporal anomaly is absurd and so I accentuate this by having the time traveler refer to himself as Peter 1. Of course, he is really Peter 0 and it calls into question the point: Who is the “real” Peter Askew if he exists in the same place twice? Another Dues Ex Machina occurs when the duplicated Peter Askew attempts to confront his previous self. This is impossible, as we have demonstrated with the Hitler example. In the story, the other Peter cannot see or feel him. However, everyone else can.

I take this liberty because I’m trying to prove a point and to exaggerate the absurdity. And, to add fuel to the fire, I introduce several thousand “previous” duplicates of Peter Askew existing in the same time period. Peter 1, as he thinks he is, is actually peter 20 plus thousand, as he soon discovers when he meets the “first” duplicate version of himself: an old man, well past the age of fifty.

This conceit (a term which is perhaps more valid here than usual) is the point. The old man gives Peter 1 a word; a unique word said at a critical moment. Up until that point, Peter 1 has been doing exactly the same things in his second time stream as all his other duplicates. The word “individuates” him from his other duplicates. At this moment, though they are all the same person, they are completely divergent personality types.

To go into these variations of personality types is irrelevant to this writing. However, the confusion of writing a novel based around many, many versions of the same character is in itself absurd, because our language hasn’t the ability to adjust personal pronouns in this way. They are often given descriptive terms such as “old man” “middle-aged man” “young man” to distinguish each from the other, though they are in proper nominative terms the same. What a nightmare!

The question of the “true” Peter Askew is constantly put forth, but ultimately we find that the “purpose” of the whole thing was not to find the “true” Peter Askew, but the “right” Peter Askew. The right man, not the true man. It is somewhat deliberately put forth in humanistic, even quasi-religious terms, as that is the only metaphysical sense in which such dilemmas are ever discussed. There is a scientific/narrative explanation, if somewhat implausible, but even Peter 1, as he continues to refer to himself, does not fully understand how the resolution will work out until “fait” steps in and the solution is applied. Ultimately, the psychological evolution of his character is the central concept. Scientific determinism is rendered meaningless by human determinism.

None of this invalidates anything scientific, philosophic, psychological, or even religious. It merely “is.” The fragility of the human being portrayed in the crossfire of all these concepts in one absurdist fantasy. But, for a point, I assure you.

As of this date, its unknown if anyone will read this book, much less this essay. I am writing this really to make sure that the ideas I have in my head match the work. Not all of these ideas, if any, will be apparent to the reader. It is, after all, a novel. However, I am also an adherent of another of Bergson’s propositions: humor, however oblique, is a form of social corrective. And, nothing needs more social correcting than science right now.

Michael D. Fuller
September 25, 2005

Doctor Who – “Human Nature”

2007-05-29T14:49:00.000-07:00

10/10 – Brilliant!

Plot – The story is told partly in flashback to scenes in which the TARDIS is being pursued, under attack using some kind of energy beam weapon. The Doctor tells Martha that those who are pursuing him could trace him across the universe, and he must undergo a transformation to turn him into a human.

His plan is to transform into a human via the “chameleon-arch” leaving his Time Lord configuration is stored in a pocket watch and Martha is charged with guarding it.

As a human, John Smith, is a school teacher in a private school in England in 1913. Smith is unaware of his previous life as a Time Lord, and his character is quiet, a little timid and introspective. He has dreams of being a in the future (“in the year of our Lord 2007”) and sometimes sketches them in a notebook. Martha is his maid.

His pursuers, who refer to themselves as the Family, show up on Earth in an invisible spaceship and take over the body of a school prefect who stumbles upon their ship while digging up a hidden cache of beer. They have scarecrow creatures as their henchmen, who round up more victims to use as vessels.

Smith is cajoled by the school nurse, Joan Redfern, to attend a dance.

Martha is distraught as she realizes that he has fallen in love with a human other than her. The Doctor left recorded instructions telling her what to do in any nearly eventuality. One of these was "Don't let me abandon you". But his instructions did not foresee that he might fall in love.

Meanwhile, one of Smith's pupils, Timothy Latimer, who has previously demonstrated extrasensory perception in an encounter with other students, finds and takes the pocket watch, having heard the Doctor's thoughts despite the perception filter the Doctor had placed on it. When he briefly opens the watch, the Family sense that the Time Lord they are hunting is located somewhere within the school.

The climax comes at a dance where the Family locate Smith, one of them having overheard Martha trying to convince Smith he is the Doctor. Martha is unable to restore him to his Time Lord configuration because she cannot find the pocket watch.

Meanwhile, the pursuers crash the dance and take Martha and Joan hostage, demanding that he "change back" into a Time Lord and asking him to choose which they will kill: "Maid or matron, your friend or your lover. Your choice," as the episode ends with a horrified Smith unable to choose.

Rant – There really isn’t much to rant about here. The story is by Paul Cornell and is based on his Virgin new adventures novel in the late 80s-early 90s. The novel is long out of print, but the clique (again, this small band that seems to dominate the show from the cancellation to the present day) have kept its memory alive. I never read any of the New Adventures (because I hated Sylvester McCoy) but even I’ve heard of it.

THEN

NOW

Paul Cornell wrote the 2005 season’s big tear jerker, “Father’s Day.” And while I have come to some terms with it, my initial reaction was “that’s it … doctor who’s has been taken over by Eastenders!” Paul Cornell wrote some of the new Robin Hood series and, despite claims that he’s “turning down big TV shows” he will be working on season two of “Primeval” … so, he’s a liar ... though I wouldn't be ashamed to be working on high-profile shows.

So, there was much negative baggage.

In fact, so much so that when I was alone in a hall with Paul Cornell at the 2006 Gallifrey I didn’t even speak to him. I just couldn’t think of a polite way to say “Hi … er … your novelization of “Scream of the Shalka” was … better than the script you wrote …” that was something I could only think of later …

I just looked away sheepishly and it his “I’m a Geek God” look will haunt me forever. I mean, he’s not exactly got anything else over me …

Review – BUT …

This story reminds me of classic Doctor Who in terms of writing and pacing, with all the benefits of modern CGI special effects. But, in 1913, there really isn’t much need for special effects, apart from an invisible spaceship and a few laser blasts.

There are plenty of nostalgic nods to the past, including John Smith’s journal where a page of shows drawings of previous Doctors. (Clearly visible are the Seventh, Eighth and First incarnations; the hairlines of the Sixth and Fifth Doctors are also just visible.)

The Doctor saves a baby from a falling piano by throwing a cricket ball triggering a long chain of events.

Smith tells Joan that his parents Sidney (Newman) and Verity (Lambert) who were essentially the parents of the program itself back in 1963.

The Doctor falls in love ...

Well, this is exactly the sort of story where this could make sense, because the Doctor literally becomes a human (one heart, the whole bit.) Normally my fan “gene” keeps me from wanting overt and soapy emotional story, but this seemed effortlessly done … both completely believable in the overall Doctor Who story … and as a character piece in the fictional world of 1913.

The sense of “absence of the Doctor” that everyone in the production team has been talking about since this story was first discussed is readily apparent and very effective. Because the Doctor is literally not himself, the plot carries some precarious sense of overall danger that usually isn’t present. The cliffhanger may not be the most brilliant, but it certainly feels the most effective I’ve seen in a long time.

Since this is a 2-part story, it is a little hard to award such high marks, but “Human Nature” really did do quite a good job.

The Fountain

2007-05-25T11:03:00.000-07:00

7/10 - Trippy love story about God, a Tree, and ... stuff.

Well, this was certainly odd. A 10/10 in the mind-fuck category, if the ratings board had one. "Rated MF for a total mind-fuck." The director of “Requiem for a Dream” decided to delve into the “first man/Adam and Eve” mythology from both the Mayan and biblical traditions.

The plot is very hard to describe, just as the movie is confusing and deliberately obscure.

Here’s wikipedia’s plot summary

“The Fountain is a 2006 science fiction/fantasy film directed by Darren Aronofsky that follows three interwoven narratives that take place in the age of conquistadors, the modern-day period, and the far future. The film stars Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz, whose characters' romance exists in all three time periods. The Fountain explores the themes of love and mortality, drawing influences from Mayan mythology. The film is framed with visual language by using transition scenes, light, and shapes.”

Which I guess is a decent description. The movie itself has seen it’s fair share of production problems, not really being able to get off the ground since 2002. And, frankly, after watching it, it’s not too hard to tell why. It is WEIRD.

First, we see Hugh Jackman as the Conquistador having a prayer in a very “Dracula” kind of set-up. Rachel Weisz (as the Queen, we later discover) is seen in flashback. Then, he and two men are ambushed on the way to the Mayan temple where he is killed by a flaming sward.

Cut-to: Jackman in space, head shaved, in a Buddhist prayer sitting position … floating over a tree in a bubble in space.

Cut-to: modern day (though at first Jackman’s head is still shaved, then not) as a doctor researching cures for, what turns out to be his wife's cancer ...

As you can read … it’s not an easy movie to summarize and my fingers are telling me to stop. All I can say is that it is both visually excellent and emotionally satisfying if – and only if – you give it half a chance.

If you like your movies spelled out for you, then this one is not for you.

Lost - Through the Looking Glass

2007-05-24T14:41:00.000-07:00

Into, up and over, and, of course, Through the Looking Glass

As usual, this is totally filled with spoilers, so … you’re warned.

Well … I actually watched the “Lost” 2-part season finale last night on terrestrial television (I usually prefer to grab it off the net from an HD capture … widescreen, you know.) Anyway, it was pretty messed up, apart from the unbelievable amount of commercial interruptions … which I’ll have to talk about as well … But, first, there's this ....

... before the program there was the superfluous and stupid “the Answers” special, which is just silly. The producers and writers, who clearly don’t know what the hell is happening any more than anyone else, just recapping the shows three years. I especially love the part when these two Hollywood dorks, sitting in their chairs, say something like ‘and then Charlie says, “hey, guys, where are we?” in the pilot.’ And then they show the clip of the scene and it is only Charlie saying “hey, guys, where are we?” I’m sorry, but that’s just stupid TV. In fact, this is the first of the recap specials I’ve ever watched for a series (Battlestar Galactica and Heroes has had them, too) and I have to admit they are made solely for the dumbest viewers.

Anyway, the 2-parter was pretty interesting. There is the usual flashback thing driving the undercurrent of the program, but it’s a Jack with a long beard who is drinking and addicted to Oxycontin.

Meanwhile, back on the island, lot’s of stuff is coming to a head. Suffice it to say there is the first major victory on the part of the passengers of flight 815 … but, what is going on with Jack’s flashback? And, then … Kate shows up and we know that it’s not a flashback … it’s the future. They are off the island and have some “golden pass” to fly anywhere. Jack flies around hoping to crash again, saying they never should have left the island.

Woah … What the hell does that mean? If they left the island, then all the stuff with Jack was a flash-forward. When he was on the plane and given a newspaper, he freaked out and was going to kill himself. Then, later, he goes to the funeral and he’s the only person who turns up. Who was it in the newspaper and the coffin? Not his ex-wife, who is pregnant and very much alive.

But, Charlie looks like he might have died. Can’t see him getting out of that, but then again … who knows. After getting to the Looking glass station, the eye patch guy shows up. Desmond shows up and kills him. But, he isn't dead ... and he's got a granade.

They find out that the boat off the coast was not sent by Desmond's girlfriend. Charlie has a breif contact with Penny before seeing eye patch guy with the granade and locks the chamber to save Desmond. So, who is the woman from the helecopter?

Lost is still the weirdest show on TV. You may think it’s all a bit of a gimmick (and it is) but I’d take chaos over repetition any day.

Anyway, a 2-hour program that probably lasts 33 minutes. Every other commercial was for some gigantic truck! I sort of couldn’t believe what I was watching. MASSIVE vehicles in the middle of a gas crisis. What the fuck is that about? I’m not kidding, people are pretty pushed to the limits here and this is the 3rd straight summer for record busting prices. Almost everyone is taking this very seriously. My favorite commercial was for some 4x4 monster called “The Patriot” … What? It’s patriotic to buy a monster vehicle that probably gets like 9 miles to the gallon? David Cross was right: we are a nation of 6 year olds. “The Terrorists hate our Freedom ...”

OK, so you might have noticed a distinct lack of Spider-mania here on the old website. Well, I haven’t seen the film. I’m utterly disinterested, frankly. Something about Spiderman (these movies, anyway) just doesn’t do it for me. I can’t explain can’t explain it. They aren’t bad and they do capture the essence of the comic, but I can’t seem to care about Toby McGuire. He’s just too … weird. Pirates opens this weekend, as well, but school gets out today and it will be mobbed … I’ll let you, faithful readers, know what I see or don’t see.

I’ll try and jot some notes on the season endings of “24” and “Heroes” from the other night. Both were great, but left me feeling a bit flat.

Peter Askew ... Finally

2007-05-21T12:52:00.000-07:00

My first book is now available on lulu.com.

http://www.lulu.com/content/792664

Doctor Who – “42”

2007-05-21T08:35:00.000-07:00

9/10 – The edge of my seat … literally.

Plot - After a week off mid-season, Doctor Who came back with a very strong “real time” episode in which the Doctor and Martha find themselves on a spaceship 42 minutes away from crashing into a sun.

To make matters worse (and that really is what Doctor Who does best) they are immediately cut off from the TARDIS, find that someone has sabotaged the engines, and a security lock-down closes the (28 or 29) doors that lead to the auxiliary control area.

Oh, and one of the crew, the captain’s husband Korwin seems to be infected by the sun itself and begins picking the crew off one by one. His eyes blaze with light and vaporize the crew into smudges on the walls saying “burn with me.”

The Sun is alive and in pain (?) because the crew have been using fusion scoops to extract the energy for fuel (illegal in the 42nd century, apparently.) Martha and this guy Riley eventually get cornered in an airlock and are jettisoned into space toward the sun. the Doctor must risk everything just to save her.

Rant – Well, this was quite good. I can’t even complain that the plot was almost identical to the Tom Baker story “Planet of Evil” or that the sets were all the same/similar to last years “Impossible Planet/Satan Pit.” It could have been worse -- for example, they could have reversed it … and used the plot from “Impossible …” and the costumes from the 1975 “Planet of Evil” ...

THEN ...

NOW ...

Also, there was the ever so cheesy title “42” which cannot help but remind fans of “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” and the real time aspect which is “24” (an inversion of the numbers.) These seem to be the sticking points for most of the fans, but frankly they are surface issues. The story really had a gripping pace and the Doctor admitting he was scared was pretty well shocking.

Review – The frantic pacing of this story gave the viewer little time to think about what might or might not be wrong about the story. There is a small, but vocal group of fans out there who immediately bashed it as terrible, but they were soon overwhelmed by the “norms” (or the “not we”) fans and viewers who pretty much thought it was great. As a TV viewer I thought the pacing and characterization was solid and as a fan, I thought it was quite traditional Doctor Who with a bit of extra juice. The special effects – and this is always a shocking statement for Doctor Who – were on par with the program thus far (i.e., excellent). And, there was no actual villain … even more interesting.

In fact, in the group of episodes we can call “modern” Doctor Who, this one lingers on very few of the “personal” moments that, frankly, seem shoehorned into the program to appeal to female viewers. This is all about 42 minutes until the ship crashes into the sun. How could there be room for anything else? This is the first time I can ever remember sitting on the actual edge of my seat for a few minutes. When I realized this, I sort of couldn’t believe it. “That cliché actually means something?” I thought.

Doctor Who “The Lazarus Experiment”

2007-05-10T14:59:00.000-07:00

8/10 - Strong rebound ...

The Plot - The TARDIS materializes in Martha's flat. The Doctor tells her that they had agreed - one trip and home. It is about twelve hours after they left. Martha's phone rings, but she does not pick it up; it is her mother, Francine, saying that her sister Tish is on the news. Martha turns the television on and, alongside Tish, an elderly man, Professor Richard Lazarus, announces that tonight he "will change what it means to be human." The Doctor says goodbye to Martha and, oblivious to her upset, steps into the TARDIS. It dematerializes, but quickly rematerializes.

“Hang On,” the Doctor says as he pokes his head back out. "Did he say he was going to change what it meant to be human?"

Lazarus invents a machine that makes you young. He’s a creepy old/young guy played by Mark Gatiss (who is actually really good in this) and then he turns into some kind of giant crab (some genetic strand we rejected in our evolution.)

The Rant – Well, this was sure a bright spot after last week’s really depressingly bad Dalek story. There really isn’t much to complain about here, apart from the monster. Bad CGI and a poorly conceived idea – basically a massive rip-off of John Carpenter’s “The Thing.” The other main issue is the way the story works … the “fake ending” up to the church bell tower … I mean, this stuff was cliché in “Die Hard.” It could have gone some place better.

The Review – This was surprising because it was so good after something so lame. There is always a dread of these middle season shows where things get stretched out. And, add to that Gatiss (another in the clique) playing something as stale as a man who invents a machine to get younger … well, not terribly thrilling. But, ironically, Gatiss was very good (especially as the creepy older version … Him hitting on Tish was disturbing) and even his mini-monologue in the church had a good classic Who acting appeal. The story pays obvious homage to “The Quatermass Experiment” (which was remounted a few years ago with Gatiss and David Tennant.)

The return to Earth means the return to the “domestic” aspects of Doctor Who. I do not really care about the companions mother, father, brother, cousin, in general … that’s sort of the point of the show. But, it looks like in this season the mother is going to play a pivotal role. We do find out a bit more about the mysterious Mister Saxon. Lazarus’ research is basically funded by Saxon (hmm, I wonder why?) And, his goons slip some nasty words into Martha’s mother’s ear about the Doctor …

And next week … nothing … Eurovision song contest … But, we did get a very nice trailer for the rest of the series ...

Al Franken: God Spoke

2007-05-08T07:55:00.000-07:00

I put this in my Netflix queue and was deeply horrified that I forgot to remove it. When it arrived, I almost didn't watch it.

This film documents the "moment" Al Franken turned from comic writer to political activist. Al Franken is most famous for going on SNL in the late 70s and saying his name over and over. To many people the name “Al Franken” was a punch-line. It was an ironic and bold act for the writer. Basically proving all the things we’ve been told about media brainwashing by (ironically) doing it to a public at large. His career has been downhill ever since.

Until now. Actually, it’s probably more true to say he’s just famous again for getting other people to say his name. Bill O’Reilly and Anne Coulter to name but two. When Franken came out with his book “Lying Liars …” Bill O’Reilly went nuts, both in public and, it seems, in private, forcing the Fox network to sue Al Franken. This was his finest moment. He called O’Reilly on his shit in a public forum that O’Reilly couldn’t control (you know, that’s how those shows work – the format is controlled by the host. O’Reilly can just yell at someone until he decides to cut their time. That’s how he appears “smart” when he’s just a bully. On other shows, famously Letterman this past year, he looks like an intolerant bully.) But, Al decided to step away from the safety net of “comedian” and become serious about politics. That’s what this “film” is about … the invention of Air America, the liberal radio answer to Rush Limbaugh.

Problems:

I’ve always said that political humor is the second lowest form of humor (the lowest being “kicked in the balls” type humor.) Politics are transitory and, for the most part, disconnected from the human experience. In the last 10 years the dissection of “news audiences” has polarized political types into “conservatives” and “liberals” … and never the ‘tween shall meet. The problem with this is that most people actually are in between. Very few are hard left or right, despite the media proselytizing on both sides.

For example, I am politically liberal and personally conservative. Unlike “Liberal Conservatives,” I refer to myself as a “Conservative Liberal” … if at all. I’m closer to a Libertarian in that, if you really get to the truth about most issues you find they cannot be solved with anything but an appeal some “meta” issue. Since, the only faith I have is a faith in science and fact, anything that doesn’t adhere must be deemed “meta.” For example: abortion is a meta-ethical issue. The only answer is an answer drawn from belief and faith, not fact. My answer therefore comes to a logical response (I don’t know, so I can’t tell you you can’t) and a personal one (I’ve known people who’ve had them and they were really messed up.) In short, any meta-ethical issue cannot be legislated. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans represent this agenda, so I am neither.

But, if you believe people like my brother or Bill O’Reilly, I’m just avoiding the issue.

And, now the far left have decided to answer. And, just as the sad truth must have met Dennis Miller that his very clever act needed severe dumbing down for his new-found faith in the Republican party, Franken found that his new audience didn’t really want to wade seriously into the hate methods of O’Reilly and Coulter. The Daily Show does a good job of taking them down many more pegs then their hate speech ever built.

This film really could have been worse, but fortunately it does most of the story telling by letting Bill O'Reilly be the villain. When it does drag it is usually the moment when you can’t go where Al is going. I can not cry because John Kerry didn’t win the election. I feel bad that Bush won (because he’s an idiot), but John Kerry wasn’t much better. To see Al go from cynic to believer and not know how is a bit Faustian. O’Reilly really does get his last laugh by playing the devil.

Fletch (the Jane Doe Edition)

2007-05-07T11:48:00.000-07:00

“Don’t talk to me like that, assface. I don’t work for you yet.”

“What do you do?”
“I’m a shepherd.”

“Can I get you anything?”
“Yes, I’ll have a bloody Mary, a steak sandwich and a … steak sandwich.”

“Can I get you anything?”
“Yes, can you get me a copy of the Beatles’ White album? Oh, and bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia while your out there.”

Well, here it is, a special edition of Chevy Chase’s best (or only good) movie. There are two ways to review this: the movie and the DVD. Let’s go with the latter first.

The DVD

Well, the movie both look and sound fine. It’s a bit grainy and could have used a slight color correction, but otherwise, it is exactly what you would expect. The bonus features are annoying at best and absurd at worst. What is most obviously missing is an interview with Chevy Chase and no one knows why. It likely has to do with the fact that a new Fletch movie (“Fletch Won”) is in production and Chevy was flatly denied consideration. No one has been cast in the lead thus far.

So, without any real significant bonus features, the best thing about the DVD is the movie itself with decent quality anamorphic transfer and 5.1 sound.

The Movie

Irwin "Fletch" Fletch is a journalist who writes under the name Jane Doe. While investigating a boom of drug dealing on the beach, Fletch is approached by a rich man, Alan Stanwyck.

“If you reject the proposition, you keep the thousand - and your mouth shut.”
“Does this proposition entail my dressing up as Little Bo Peep?”

Stanwyck claims to have bone cancer and, in order to spare himself pain but allow his family to collect an expensive life insurance policy on him (invalid if he kills himself) he found what he assumes to be an aimless drifter. This is a mistake.

“Will you murder me?”
“Sure”

The drugs on the beach and Stanwyck become intertwined in Fletch’s investigations … and hilarity ensues …

My Review

There is a strange misconception that “Fletch” was a cult film instead of a pretty decent success. It was strong enough to get a sequel made (though why they chose to diverge from the novel’s I do not know.) And perhaps it is the sequel bogs the memory down, but the original is very classy, very funny, very solid. Based on the first in a series of novels by Gregory Mcdonald, the film has a very solid backbone of a well-toned plot. Add to that the presence of Chevy Chase whose sarcastic one-liners and affront to authority seem tailor made for the character.

A comment made by one of the cast (the alamony attourney) nailed it: “Fletch/Chevy says exactly what you wished you’d have said in a given situation.” And that is it and that is the perfect description. While most of the time Chevy Chase’s smart ass thing is annoying, you feel in “Fletch” that has some purpose because he’s trying to find out something pretty important.

The fact that I still want to be Fletch – my wisecracking is still just as vicious – and that I have read most of the novels means that this is clearly a film that I hold in high esteem. It is probably in the top 10 movies of all time and tied with “Ghostbusters” and “Raiders of the Lost Arc” for best movies of 80s.

The week that was … Roundup

2007-05-07T10:43:00.000-07:00

I think we are into a sweeps period because it certainly seemed like television got a bit better. Obviously, I can’t be everywhere or all things to all people. In fact, I don’t watch a lot of prime time shows (and most of the time I catch up “later” on dvd.)

24
Let’s see, last week’s “24” was good, but not quite into the sweeps month, so I’m sure they were holding back.

“As the clock ticks closer to the final hours of Day Six, Jack Bauer copes with the consequences of taking matters into his own hands while Audrey endures what appears to be a post-traumatic reaction to being held captive. Emotions escalate as CTU responds to a setback and the Administration receives an alarming message from Russian President Suvarov.” (TVrage.com) Also, the president’s squeeze is a feed for a Russian spy.

As I said, it was good … not great. As I said before, this show is largely one massive blast at credulity the moment they asked us to believe Jack Bauer could get across Los Angeles in less than 5 minutes. And, it is getting pretty well dumped on by the media and the public.

Heroes

“Five Years Gone” – This was easily the best episode of the season. Hiro and Ando are five years into the future where the bomb has gone off and New York is destroyed. He immediately meets his future self and then the cop Parkman bursts in and takes him prisoner. Nathan is president and Mohinder has been working with him since the bombs went off.

An awful lot happens and frankly it isn’t fair to spoil it. But, it is definitely the best episode of the season. Not only does it contain a hell of a lot of material and very little padding, but it also leaves a lot of possibilities open for future episodes.

Frankly, I’m surprised this show has been a hit at all, beating “24” most nights. The only problem with it is that it tends to take a month off at a time, throwing the viewer off track a bit. I suppose this is the problem with having huge special effects budgets and more imaginative storylines.

House
While the plot might not have been memorable, this episode rang with witty dialogue:

"He has acute scrotum."
"Adorable, at least. Ah, come on, how was not going to go for that joke?"

Lost“The Brig” – Well, we finally get a good Locke episode, with the added bonus of giving Sawyer something to do. Locke comes back from the others (after a really crytic opening) and tells him that he has infiltrated the Others' camp and has taken Ben hostage, and needs Sawyer to kill him. Sawyer questions why Locke would come to him, and Locke explains that, thanks to the files the Others have on all of the Flight 815 survivors, he knows that Sawyer killed a man in Sydney. Locke turns and leaves, and Sawyer reluctantly follows.

In fact, it turns out that Locke’s father (the same man who took his kidney and threw him out a window) was the man who Sawyer has been hunting all these years. How’d he get to the island? Well, of course, we don’t really know that do we. We assume he’s been kidnapped by the “Others.”

And now the theory has been somewhat addressed and teasingly floated out there … “Are they all dead? Is this purgatory or hell?”

Well, probably not either.

Lost has been renewed to 2012, but the number of episodes per year has been cut down to 16 and will run in one chunk. How this will effect the overall quality of the show (Better or Worse?)

Jericho

I’ve been catching up on this show. End of the world. Nuclear war and … yet, a lot of people survived quite well. Well enough to have the usual host of rather banal every day problem. I sort of wish that CBS wasn’t behind it, because it has to be very family oriented. In fact this is a combination of “Survivors” (BBC) and “The Waltons.”

I suppose the problem that continually keeps coming up is the reluctance for the show to deal with real problems. Months and months go by and the issue of the complete breakdown of society is almost never really dealt with (unlike “Survivors” where the question “Would you know how to make something if you had to?” is asked almost immediately.) The mom and pop, down-home, leaving my wife, having a baby, the old values are still the best values stuff drags the story down.

And, is it any wonder that in the Pilot the only black people we see is Mr. Hawkins … the man who turns out to me “not what he seems” ???

The Wednesday whine

2007-05-02T08:13:00.000-07:00

A friend recommended I watch the BBC crime show “Wire in the Blood” and, after the first season, I can honestly say … it’s ok.

Not wonderful, but I have rented season 2. The thing about crime shows is that they are almost always in some way derivative of Sherlock Holmes. The central character is always some eccentric genius with some anti-social character traits (Monk, Colombo, etc.) In fact, though I’ve always thought of writing a mystery novel, this seems to be the problem with the genre … what’s the mystery? There seems to be only two ways to tell a mystery story

1. Character-centric – Sherlock type character and his quirks solve traditional mystery.
2. The mysteries themselves are convoluted to deliberately confuse audience (which is really NOT a mystery … but hey …).

Wire in the Blood starts with type one and ends up with type 2.

Monk was at least more successful at maintaining type one (they did think up one hell of a character trait) but lost it when Sharona left. I lost interest. Sadly, however, as it was a really good show.

Other than that I have been busy this week. I did watch Bill Bailey’s “Cosmic Jam” finally the other day. This is in the earlier Bill Bailey, playing up his long-hair hippie image, telling more jokes about drugs than I think even he felt comfortable with. Classically trained musician and now having been in a few really great shows (“Black Books”), his image has come back down to earth a bit more.

I started watching "Part Troll", which is newer and LOT funnier, but I got a bit tired.

I recently saw the newest Steven Wright special (it’s been like 20 years since the last one I saw, when I saw him live in ’87) … and I was reminded how, like a lot of comedians who first start out, they usually have an image they present. Especially if they are weird. Steven Wright is very much the same comic he was 20 years ago (“My nephew has HDADD; High Definition Attention Deficit Disorder. He can barely concentrate, but when he does, he’s very clear.”) but the show was a little short and padded out with a very long dull film at the end.

Anyway, I am saving a lot of stuff for the weekend.

Tonight Kristin Hersh (Throwing Muses chief muse) is playing in Austin and I'm really annoyed that I can't go. It would mean taking part of the afternoon and part of tomorrow off and that just wouldn't fly. Sorry, Kristin. Couldn’t stop in Houston?

The Weekend Roundup

2007-04-30T11:45:00.000-07:00

Well, I caught up with Doctor Who reviews and I have to admit I’m still really bummed out on the whole Dalek crater. Man that story was lame. I can’t explain why. I watched the Confidential and although all the production team were ebullient as usual (the words “brilliant” and “marvelous” flow effortless from Russell T Davies mouth) I just didn’t like it. In fact, even though “Love and Monsters” last year must easily rate as the worst story ever, I could still overlook it because it didn’t really matter. But, this a two-part Dalek story and it will probably figure into the conclusion of this season. So, seriously bummed out.

Felt so bad that I ended up watching the PBS “America at a Crossroads” specials that I hadn’t gotten around to from the week(s) before.

An excellent, if very depressing look at terrorism and the rise of fundamentalist Islam in the world. Sometimes it was extremely interesting (the history of the rise of Bin Laden, etc.), sometimes very depressing (the soldiers in Iraq), sometimes a little dull or on the fringe (the transvestite competition in Indonesia???) Mostly it is kind of scary that the world is so on the edge right now and sad because Islam, at one time, was the most advanced religion on the planet, saving works from the pre-Christian period like the Greek philosophers from the burnings.

I also finally got to see “Gunpowder, Treason and Plot,” a two-part BBC production from a couple of years ago. Not the greatest thing in the world. The first part is a fairly straight attempt to dramatize the events of Mary Queen of Scotts, although it lacks any real interest in the choice of actors (particularly Clemence Poesy as Mary Queen of Scots). The second part is about James I and the actual “Gunpowder Plot” mentioned in the title. In a strange decision the cast begin talking to camera and Robert Carlyle clearly thinks he’s playing Richard III. Add in Tim McInnerny (“Blackadder”) and Richard Coyle (Jeff from “Coupling”) and things seem a little more off-kilter. However, overall it was still a good performance.

I caught up with “Lost” – A mostly flashback episode that usually makes me hate the fact that I like the show. It’s so stuffed with padding that sometimes it’s not a show at all. This was a Jin and Sun centric episode and we find out, hey, Jin is the father of the child, but the child and Sun will die. So, it’s a sort of bad news or bad news type thing. Also, she’s the reason Jin went to work for her father as a thug in the first place. Not terribly interesting.

And, a woman fell out of the sky with a picture of Desmond and his girlfriend. But, having fallen out of a helicopter, we didn’t get much chance to chat. She speaks Spanish and Italian, except when she said “Desmond.” Then, the eye-patch guy comes out of the forest and, after Jin kicks his ass, he helps out. We did find out that they found the plane and no one is looking for them … whatever that means.

Mostly the weekend was just resting. I’m still a little sick from last week, though now it has gone to my stomach. Wonderful.

Evolution of the Daleks - the aftermath

2007-04-30T11:16:00.000-07:00

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I do hate it. It was really poorly conceived. I won't say that this is entirely Helen Raynor's fault, since she was pretty much given her brief with all the elements. From what I can tell in Confidential the major contribution she brought to it was Hooverville (which was the best part of it, really.) But, it's "marvelous" and "brilliant" and "fabulous" ... never trust anyone who says this stuff all the time.

What really gets me about this show, apart from what I've already written, is simple - the premise that the Doctor is the last of the Time Lords after this Time War with the Daleks ... ostensibly to get rid of Gallifrey and give mystery to the main character once again ... but, what we have is this constant referencing of the above over and over ... not to mention the Doctor's name, etc. The mystery isn't there. In fact, it's less mysterious than it's ever been in the show's history.

In series One (whatever) in 2005, the Dalek story arc was central to entire season and even the 9th Doctor's personna. His entire existence was geared toward his final battle, his emotional growth, etc. The Daleks were restored to being scary.
Last season they were trotted out as a "trick" at the end of the series. This year, they've become exactly what they started out as before the reinvention ... silly. I would have prefered just a simple Dalek story without all the "final solution, last of the daleks" stuff. Let alone the entirely stupid Dalek-human discovering his "feelings." Man, that was stupid in the 1966 Star Trek episode "What Little Girls are Made of" ...

Sorry fans, the show was doing so well, but if Dalek Caan turns up in the finale at all ... please pull the plug.

Doctor Who “Daleks In Manhattan” and “Evolutions of the Daleks”

2007-04-28T18:02:00.000-07:00

5/10 - I didn’t hate it …

Plot - The Doctor and Martha arrive at the Statue of Liberty. There is no real reason given as to why Martha is still with the Doctor (in the last episode, he said "one more" ... and at the end explains about the Time War with the Daleks.)

Seeing the uncompleted Empire State Building, the Doctor estimates the date, while Martha finds a newspaper dated November 1st 1930. The Doctor notes the headline 'Hooverville Mystery Deepens' and reads about people going missing. He then takes Martha to Central Park where a Hooverville is located.

At the top of the Empire State Building, Mr Diagoras orders a foreman to speed up construction on the mast. When the foreman refuses, Mr Diagoras summons one of his 'Masters' to deal with him. Dalek Caan and two Pig Men emerge from the lift, and Mr Diagoras tells them that the foreman is disobeying his orders. Dalek Caan has the foreman taken away for 'the final experiment'. He then orders Mr Diagoras to recruit more 'bodies' for the final experiment.

Savage pig creatures hide in the sewers, and at the bottom of the Empire State Building, some of the Doctor's greatest and oldest enemies, the Cult of Skaro, are at work, preparing their most horrific plan yet...

Rant - Oh well, I guess the last Dalek will be popping up in the end … again. I’m really sick of the Daleks. Sorry new fans, but they’ve been around so long. They don’t need to be in every season. I think that’s the lesson the old series learned after the 3rd year. Perhaps this time around they’ll learn it, too. Still, better them than farting aliens.

My Review - In short, this is a feeble story. It’s a King King homage with very little substance or originality. Unlike “Dalek,” the big return two years ago, now it’s gone on long enough. The production team have boxed themselves in with Time War and the “last of the Daleks.” No one bothers to explain that, in a show about Time Travel, how do you go back and forth through time and yet these two events remain a constant. (?)

I think, much like the return of the Cybermen last year, there had better be a big payoff for this story to hold water. On its own, its rubbish.

Doctor Who - The Wrath of Caan

Doctor Who “Gridlock”

2007-04-28T13:02:00.000-07:00

10/10 - I loved this one …

The Doctor offers Martha one trip into the future, to visit another planet. She asks if he can take her to his home planet, and speculates as to its beauty. He describes Gallifrey's Citadel, mountains, orange sky and other features as if they still existed, but claims he does not want to go home. He lies ...

Instead, he takes her to the year five billion and fifty three, into a dark alleyway where it is raining, and introduces her to New New York in New Earth. The Doctor repeats some things he told Rose the last time he was there. Martha becomes slightly upset when she realises she is being taken to the same place the Doctor took Rose, and mutters the word "rebound".

The Doctor and Martha are in a run-down street. Three pharmacists open their market stands and try to sell the Doctor and Martha patches that dispense "moods", particularly Happy Happy.

Suddenly, a young couple armed with guns grab Martha and haul her away, subduing her with a patch inducing Sleep. The Doctor chases them but they escape in their car. The Doctor asks the pharmacists for directions to the Motorway; they comply, but warn him that he may never see Martha again.

The Doctor must brave the ordeal of the mysterious Motorway in order to discover the terrible secrets at the heart of the city. What monsters lurk below the surface, hidden in the smog?

And remember, "There are no such thing as Macra!"

Rant - This one was really a dividing line in audiences. Some didn’t get it, thought it too slow, didn’t see the need for bringing back the Macra if they weren’t going to be used much. I disagree. Though the New Earth stuff is just getting on my nerves, I can see the groundwork being laid for getting young viewers into the idea of continuity. The Macra themselves are just a nice throwback for the fans.

The metaphors for modern life are just everywhere - The congestion, pollution, even the “mood” patches are oddly similar to nicotine patches used today. It won’t be long before it takes us a 23-years just to get across town.

My Review - This is a set-up episode for the rest of the series. The Face of Boe’s final words to the “lonely god” is to the Doctor, of course, and those words are “You are not alone.” Clearly a Time Lord(s) has survived and we will find out just what all this Saxon stuff really means by the time we finish the series.

Oh, and thank God the Face of Boe is dead. Thank freakin’ God!!!

Doctor Who "The Shakespeare Code"

2007-04-28T12:46:00.000-07:00

Doctor Who “The Shakespeare Code”

9/10

Plot - After our quick introduction to Martha and her dysfunctional family (sigh, why????) The Doctor takes Martha on her first trip in the TARDIS. Arriving in Elizabethan England, they go to the Globe Theater and see a performance of “Love’s Labour’s Lost” and meet William Shakespeare who is writing his play, Love's Labour's Won (a lost play listed in many codecs, but never found, it is a sequal to “Love’s Labour’s Lost”.) Of course, the promise of seeing the lost play, and especially finding out why it was lost, intrigues him. So, he sighs and agrees they need to stick around. Classic Doctor Who trouble detecting ...

Shaky is a bit of a rake, the “rock star” of the Elizabethan era, but the Doctor sees genius in him and he does have a lot on the average superstitious people who throw their own shit out of the window. After a brief awkward scene of the Doctor and Martha sharing a bed (in which the Doctor is completely oblivious to Martha’s flirtations) we quickly, again very quickly in the new Doctor Who, find that evil, witch-like Carrionites plot to end the world by placing a code in the new play's closing dialogue.

And, as the tag line said a million times, Shakespeare will have to give the performance of his life in order to save the Earth.

My Rant - Well, it is the same old plot almost verbatim as season 1’s (or season 27 as it should be known) Dickens oriented “The Unquiet Dead” and to some extent, “Tooth and Claw” from last year. Famous writer and his mysterious, uncompleted work (or unfound) work involved in an alien invasion from some sort of prison, etc. Weave in as many references to the author as possible and have that author important to solving the problem itself.

That being said, there isn’t much that can be complained about here apart from that. Everyone is on their very best game here and the production team were even allowed to film in the actual Globe theater (which is a first, btw.) You have the 3 witches and Shakespeare stealing lines (and even the Sycorax) from the Doctor right and left.

My Review - This is a good, if somewhat light second episode. Last year’s “Tooth and Claw” was almost note for note perfect Doctor Who, including the creepy middle bit where there is a bit of calm before the storm. This story isn’t quite as good as that, but is better than “The Unquiet Dead” for maximizing the use of Shakespeare as a character.

A few nice special effects shots are used to create the full realization of Elizabethan England ... and the Queen hershelf appears at the end, though she is clearly not happy to see the Doctor.

Iron Man

2007-04-27T12:03:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure about Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, but at least it's a safer bet than Ben Afflect to play Daredevil. Now, it has been ages since I have read comic books and still find them kind of hard to deal with.

I also am very indifferent to comic book movies (don't care at all about Spiderman and The Fantastic Four just pissed me off!) But, reading this article, I might have to believe this could be good.

Article

LOS ANGELES — Robert Downey Jr. is hardly the obvious choice to play an iconic crime fighter.

After all, this is the guy who became a poster boy for Hollywood excess, serving a year in prison on drug and alcohol-related charges and checking in and out of rehab like it was the Four Seasons.

But it is exactly that past, says director Jon Favreau (Elf), that makes Downey the only choice to play playboy millionaire and recovering alcoholic Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, the comic-book superhero who hits multiplexes next year.

"We didn't want to just go with a safe choice," Favreau says from the set of the film, due in theaters May 2, 2008. "The best and worst moments of Robert's life have been in the public eye. He had to find an inner balance to overcome obstacles that went far beyond his career. That's Tony Stark. Robert brings a depth that goes beyond a comic-book character who is having trouble in high school, or can't get the girl. Plus, he's simply one of the best actors around."

For his part, Downey is trying to become an iron man. At 42, he lifts weights five days a week and practices martial arts to get in shape to play the hard-bodied Stark, an arms manufacturer who uses his ultimate weapon, a jet-powered, missile-launching suit of armor, to fight evil.

Doctor Who "Smith and Jones" review

2007-04-27T11:07:00.000-07:00

Doctor Who “Smith and Jones” – 8/10

Plot - We start, for the first time in the new incarnation of Doctor Who, without the zoom in on the planet Earth first used in “Rose.” Euro-urban cliché hip-hop fades up as Martha talks to her many messed relatives on her cellphone. (Clearly we need the music to telegraph the fact that she is black to us. Oh no, whatever shall we do. Personally, since I regard Mickey as a companion, she isn’t the first black companion, which is the buzz word in the press.) Freema is great as Martha and the first episodes set-up has a great bookend piece of eccentricity right up front when the Doctor appears in front of her and for no reason takes off his tie and says, “Like So …” and walks off again. For Martha, this is the way things are going to be for a while.

She is a medical student and, while doing her rounds, comes across the Doctor again. He says he doesn’t remember her and their encounter. He then does a great piece of non-linear rambling about Ben Franklin and holding the kite, getting electrocuted, etc. Moments later (literally in terms of modern Doctor Who story telling) the entire hospital is enveloped in a very localized rainstorm … and the rain appears to be going up. Suddenly, the hospital is on the moon, they are invaded by rhino-like Jadoon (a race of galactic police) and fight a plasmavore in the disguise of an old lady.

My Rant - To be totally fair, this is the biggest hurdle the new series has had to face so far. The entire cast has now been replaced, and more importantly, Rose has been replaced. When the new series debuted with Eccleston’s damaged Doctor and Rose as more or less the main character, there was concern in some circles, not just about Davies’ “agenda,” but that the show was already tied to a short life-line. The soapy elements of the series (The LOVE STORY!!! Rose’s family, etc.) also seemed overdone. At the end of that series, we saw the regeneration of Eccleston into Tennant and a return to a somewhat more traditional Doctor. The love story remained and it took an awful lot of twisting and turning to come up with a season 2 closer “Doomsday” that could satisfy the “newer” fan expectation as well as return the show to its roots. It did. Last Christmas’ “The Runaway Bride” annoyed a lot of people, not least of all for Catherine Tate’s rather obnoxious character, but it did at least go straight for the traditional DW story telling without too much emotional baggage in the way.

Series Three does seem to want to throw us back into a Captain Kirk type pattern of serial monogamy, but in this case it seems that Martha likes the Doctor and he’s … well, 900 years old and not interested. This is, of course, as it should be. I’ve never followed that “modern” storytelling demands a love story (I mean, really, that stuff killed the Marx Bros. career 70 years ago. Modern???) It doesn’t mean that it isn’t good in other shows, but not in this one. This one is about something grander, bigger than life … and, frankly, intellectual. The Doctor in love is just not interesting anymore than Frankenstein doing a dance routine … in short; it is camp, spoof, silly, etc.

Review – With so much to do in 44 minutes, Smith and Jones is quite a good story. Good monsters (love the old lady with the straw) and a good new character. We are clearly back into some old territory for the long-term fans, while all the new ones should be able to come along for the ride. Martha’s crush on the Doctor seems more at a teasing stage and her family seem to be cut and pasted in over Rose’s, but we still have a long way to go before the big Saxon ending …

turn, turn, turn ...

2007-04-26T13:57:00.000-07:00

Seasons are beginning and ending for a lot of my favorite shows ... or in some cases, shows I merely watch. And, since we are in April, the driest month for movie releases in the calendar, we should touch base with these shows just a bit. Later I will go into it a bit more. So, this blog will be all about my own boredom and sharing it with you …

"24" - Well, season six has officially gone off the map. When did "24" jump the shark? Well, immediately, really. So, I guess it's unfair of me to say this season has lost its way. We've caught up to hour 19 and the President has slipped into his second coma, the suitcase nukes were found and both the Muslim and Russian terrorists have been caught or killed. Jack suddenly gets a phone call from the mysteriously cliché sounding Chinese man who has Audrey (who isn't dead) and Jack must trade the Russian circuit board in exchange for Audrey and must escape from the clutches of Ricky Schroder ...

Ricky freakin' Schroder !!!

Yes, if you thought Samwise in last season was a leap, this year the shark jumping is in a space shuttle ... Unfortunately, I'm hooked. There are only 5 "hours" left and the show seems to have pushed all the limits possible ... the only reason to watch it is to see where it can possibly go. But, on the positive side, at least it's going to be on for the full season without months of interruptions.

"Lost" – I hear that a lot of people are turned off of “Lost” this year. I, on the other hand, feel that the show’s determination to keep moving toward something different in television with each season has been worthwhile. This year we see much more about “the Others” and we find out a lot more about the island.

The "Others" - or "101 Reasons not to go High School Reunions"

I am, however, a bit sick of the flashbacks. I know the flashbacks are there to pad out the story, but really, do we need some of them? In fact, I’m kind of sick of Kate and Sawyer. They aren’t interesting anymore. Who cares? The others appear to have quite an operation going. They can kidnap people from around the world using an elaborate network of people who can kill your boss in front of you … but no one can get pregnant. Huh … ?

"Ahhhh!!! My eyes!!!" - No wonder they can't get off the island.