Thirtysomething Thoughts

Definitely Dead

2009-09-23T07:25:00.002-04:00

Having just finished Season 1 of True Blood, I'm beginning to move more and more into that fray and farther and farther away from the books, as a lot of people I've talked to are also doing. It's an odd case of the "movie" as it were, being better than the books because ironically the TV show is more descriptive than the books in the areas that matter.
Note to Charlaine Harris: I DON'T CARE WHAT SOOKIE IS WEARING OR HOW OFTEN SHE HAS OR FANTASIZES ABOUT SEX. And now that I've talked to other people, I also know that that is NOT just because I am a guy. The show just does a much better job filling in backstory that Harris should have covered if she wasn't so enamored with clothes and sex.
Now that I've berated her work, I will say that Definitely Dead is the best book thus far in the series, and I keep saying that more and more frequently as I'm reviewing these books, so perhaps it just took her some time to master her craft.
There are no new supernatural beings introduced her, but a whole world is hinted at, as Sookie is revealed to be descended from fairys, and Claudia, her fairy godmother, talks about the infinite classifications of fairies, into brownies, elves, pixies etc. While delving on the fairy groups might get as redundant as the weres at this point in time, it is a new fascinating door opened to a world beyond our own.
The best part of this book is the action though. It really starts from the get go and doesn't let go. There are like 5 or so insidious plots going on at any given time in this book, which is great, because they don't all wrap up at once, but wrap up in an exciting series of "endings" as the book draws to a close. It's also odd this is book 6 of 7 in the set I got as it seems to herald a new beginning for Sookie's life. There was a major split with Bill, Eric's fascination with her can be chalked up to her fairy blood (it's intoxicating to vampires), and she seems to be happy with her new weretiger (but living) boyfriend Quinn. It sets you up well for what's to come, and hopefully this pace of great writing can be kept up by Harris, lest True Blood just totally steal her ideas and repackage them as the "true" Sookie Stackhouse story.

Dead as a Doornail

2009-09-02T06:10:00.002-04:00

Moving onto the 5th book in the Sookie Stackhouse series, we get a "build up" book. Does everybody remember Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, where the movie was a total kick ass thrill ride, but it didn't move the story at all forward from the end of Goblet of Fire? Yeah, Dead as a Doornail is the same concept. Plotlines from previous books (actually quite a few of them) are being brought together to warm up for something big, instead of actually moving anything significant along.

So how does this book fare in the usual plusses and minuses I find in these books?

Sex: Sookie has sex with no one! Huzzah! I'm have totally resignated myself to the fact that these books cater to a primarily female audience, and are, more or less, romance novels. As such, I am actually beginning to enjoy the show True Blood more and more, as it doesn't have the same issues, and actually I think presents the story as a whole a lot a better.

Fantasy Creatures: No one new. Ever since Charlene Harris introduced shapeshifters (technically introduced in book 1, but outed in book 2), she's been stuck there more or less, just thinking of new animals for the shifters to turn into. Still a lot of werewolves in this book, although there's a heavy focus on the Hotshot Werepanthers community, and the introduction of Quinn, a weretiger.

Mystery: If you never believed me before, then you've got to believe me now. The mysteries in these books are more or less an afterthought. Harris' books have a simplistic formula: present mystery/danger, spend 90% of the book in trivial character interaction, quickly unravel mystery/danger, end book. This is also now the 5th book where we have the whole "Who's really the monster" motif, as for the 5th time (with a bit of complicity from a vampire), the "evildoer" is a human.... well, more or less.

I don't know if I've grown numb to these books or what, but this one was a quick read, and I have no strong feelings either way. With the Harry Potter "buildup" movie, I expressed some discontent to the fact that it didn't advance the plot significantly, but books work differently than movies, and I think this book actually served it's purpose to push me onto the next one, as I certainly couldn't just stop at this point.

Green Lantern: First Flight

2009-09-01T05:18:00.000-04:00

I've never been a big fan of DC comics characters. Most of them are so godlike in their powers (Superman, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter) that there is no tension, no drama, no question that at the end of the day the good guys will carry the day and all will be blase. Batman of course is exempt from that list, because he's just a really smart, athletic, rich guy, so he's okay. Green Lantern? Well, I'd probably include him on the "bad" list as he essentially manipulates reality, but I've always liked his costume, and sometimes that's enough to at least peak your interest in a character.

As such, when I heard about the new Green Lantern animated movie, which is supposed to peak our interest for the upcoming Green Lantern film starring Mr. Ryan Reynold s, I was intrigued. Although most recent DC animated films I've seen (except for Batman) have been pretty bad, I had high hopes for this one.

I was a midge disappointing. First and foremost, this is supposed to be Green Lantern's origin story, but they might as well have caused it the "Sinestro" story. Hal Jordan is such a 2-D character and the writers of this movie are in such a rush to get to the action that his origin is completely ludicrous. When he comes across the dying alien who bequeaths his ring to him, he doesn't even blink. Huh. Dying Alien? I see that stuff every day.

NO YOU DON'T!!!!! In fact the only shock and awe we experience through Jordan's eyes is the alien food they feed him which looks like someone puked on a plate. So, here we have a chance to humanize a fascinating situation, and surprise surprise, DC wastes it.

The second thing that made me laugh was the fact that Sinestro, AS A GOOD GUY, was named Sinestro. What not just name him Captain Evil? I mean seriously, I have no issue with Sinestro as a name, but who would not suspect a guy named Sinestro of eventually betraying the Green Lanterns? They really should have given him a "normal" name and then he could call himself Sinestro upon his rebirth unto evil. Kind of like the Keldor/Skeletor situation over in Masters of the Universe.

After that, the movie becomes a good action movie, although it's incredibly noticeable just how 2-D Jordan is, and how much this story is really about Sinestro. The epic final, inevitable battle between the two is an example of the DC "godlike" issues I talked about earlier, as Jordan actually pulls two moons out of their orbits in order to defeat Sinestro's power source, the Yellow Lantern. It's a fitting climax, but a very real reason why I prefer Marvel comics characters almost any day over DC.

I went ahead and bought this movie for $20 or whatever, and while I don't regret it, nor would I recommend anyone like myself on the fence do the same thing. Ask yourself a question, are you a DC animated movie fan? If not, then pass. If you answered yes, I would still rent this movie first before jumping into an immediate buy, it's simply not of the quality of another animated movie I purchased earlier this year like Hulk vs.

3 out of 5 stars.

Best in Show

2009-08-26T11:27:00.002-04:00

I was introduced to this movie (read: heard of) a few years back when my brother raved about it. He's a really big fan of Fred Willard, and I will give him that, as Fred Willard is very funny, and shines especially bright in this movie, which is saying a lot, as his part is rather small, and he's surrounded by a ton of comedians in this movie.

My brother and I however, despite the fact that Netflix says we have a 66% commonality rate, find that it's odd "middle" movies that make us mesh so high. My favorite genres are action and comedy, and he tends to go for the more artistic/classics. As such, he find movies like "Being John Malkovich" funny, and I find them unfunny pieces of crap. And I'm sure he feels the same for a favorite comedy of mine like Ace Ventura or something.... Translation: we never take each other's advice on movies seriously. To prove that point, here I am 9 years later finally taking my brother's advice to see this movie.

It's a mockumentary movie, similar to Spinal Tap about dog showers and their lives. Each of the characters humor comes more from the raging stereotypes they play: The closet lesbian, Beauty and the Geek, the flamboyantly gay guys, the redneck... not to say that any of these aren't funny, but nor does the formula seem to hold weight as the movie progresses. All these people have in common is their love for showdogs. This movie seeks to poke fun at people like this, and I don't know why I feel this way after this viewing, but the people that are laughing need to take a look at themselves.

This isn't a movie like Spinal Tap, where the characters are just ridiculous and are meant to be mocked. Yes these characters are meant to be laughed at, but as far as due to their love of dogs? I don't know. Is it a little weird and insane? Yes, but so isn't playing 20 hours a day on World of Warcraft or Twittering all the time on your cell phone. I have a sense of humor, I realize the oddity in sticking up for these characters that are meant to be mocked, I just think a "look at the freaks!" mentality which pervades this film just can't hold water, at least not in my opinion.

You will laugh when you see this movie. It's mostly subtle in keeping with the mockumentary motif, but Fred Willard is pretty over the top (in his great subtle way), and there are the GAP couple, Meg and Hamilton Swan who have a fairly funny cathartic trek through the movie with their dog.

Basically similar to Ghost in the Shell, I expected a lot more. While my brother's opinions aren't often followed, they do carry weight with my obviously, as I expected a cinematic masterpiece and instead got a passable comedy movie, which is good for a chuckle or two, but is quickly forgotten.

3 out of 5 stars.

Being Human

2009-08-21T11:03:00.002-04:00

The last, and final of my summer shows, is Being Human, a show on BBC.

Very cool concept... basically, what happens when a vampire, a werewolf, and a ghost all try to live together? Wackiness you say? Well, your wrong.

This show, while it has it's comedic moments, I think aspires more to be a drama. For the first few episodes it seemed to amble around to nowheresville, but now that some interesting relationships are being fleshed out (no pun intended) between the roommates and several outside characters it seems to be a little more interesting.

And now my problems with this show.....

Well, arguably the main character is John, the vampire (left). His supporting cast revolves around the vampires who made him way back in World War I, as John tries to, well, be human, and the other vampires would rather just fully embrace their darksides and kill, kill, kill. There's some back and forth tension there, and the most recent episode I watched, seems to have John given up on humanity after he had to turn a young boy into a vampire because of people's ignorance.
My beef with John is that he seems to follow NO vampire rules. What did the vampires say to Blade: "All of our strengths, none of our weaknesses?" John sleeps pretty much whenever he wants... doesn't really need to drink blood anymore (this is okay, it's neo-vampiric canon that older vampires need very little blood), but what really pisses me off is that sunlight is just bright to him. Awwww. Yeah, seriously... his reaction to the sun is your reaction to the sign on a bright day... you squint. Lame.

The second character is George, the Werewolf (middle). This character is pretty true to werewolf mythos, although he can "cage" himself on the full moon by locking himself in a room. Don't you think a wild beast would wanna get out no matter what?
George met a "friend" one episode named Tully, who claims to be a werewolf. He sure knows his stuff, but we never actually see him turn. Anyhoo, him and George eventually become close friends, despite the fact that Tully's a mooching douche, and eventually George sees the light, and Tully is gone. And buh-bye interesting character. This show is classic for this... only showing supporting characters for one episode, which I think is why it's taken so long for them to pique my interest.
George is now dating a girl named Nina, who is recurring, and recently revealed some pretty intense past physical abuse....we'll see if that goes anywhere, especially considering she has no idea George is a werewolf.

Finally, we have Annie, the ghost (right). When the show starts, she has no idea what happened that caused her death, she's just depressed because she's lost her one true love Owen, and no one can see her. While she pines for Owen, at least George and John can see her, so they all become friends.
Annie spends most of the episodes as a very minor character, especially because for a while it seems like she can't even leave the house. Under stress from Tully hitting on her, she finds she can, although she still doesn't do it very much. Her only starring episode in the beginning involved meeting another ghost at a club, Gilbert, who might as well be the ghost of Ian Curtis he reminds me so much of him. Anyhoo, Gilbert gives any a brief insight into the ghostly world and it's rules, which is very interesting being as this "monster" is the least explored of the three, especially as I'm concurrently reading the vampire and werewolf filled Southern Vampire Mysteries. Anyways, Gilbert also tells (and shows) Annie that each ghost is here to fulfill a purpose, and then they can be free to die. While Annie tragically thinks that her purpose is to "love Owen", a "beyond" induced flashback reveals that Owen actually killed her. While she hasn't acted on it yet, in the most recent episode, by finally splitting from Owen and destroying all their memories (in the form of photographs), Annie has gained corporeal form. Vengeance me thinks is nigh?

This shows alright... I don't like some of the liberties they've taken, especially with vampire rules, but it's a nice twist on your 20something drama, and if the supernatural is your thing, it's worth a peek.

Ghost in the Shell

2009-08-19T10:05:00.002-04:00

Ghost in the Shell is one of the Anime classics like Akira, that anyone with even a bit of geek cred has at least heard of. And just like Akira, all I could say about Ghost in the Shell was that I'd heard of it. Well, 14 years later now I can say I've seen it.... and my world is unaffected.

One branch of Manga that I've never liked is the very technological branch. This is the same reason why my favorite cartoon growing up was He-Man, and not Transformers or Voltron. As such, Ghost in the Shell was going to lose me rather quickly, being in that end of the spectrum.

Essentially, it's a quasi-luddite story, with a cyborg wondering what it is to be human. In this sort of dystopian future, either people have figured out how to hack the human brain (the titular ghost in the shell being the human soul or independent unique thought) or humans have gotten computers put in their brains... I was never really clear which it was. Anyhoo, besides that we have also created cybernetic technology, whether a person needs a replacement/enhancement here or there or the whole entity, it can be done.

The main character, Motoko Kusanagi, is a cyborg who's not really sure where her humanity begins or ends. She's pretty sure she still has a human brain, but also acts oddly for a cyborg, enjoying diving, and just generally questioning life. While on the case of a ghost-hacker known as the Puppet Master, Kusanagi meets, and opts to bond with him creating a whole new life form, which is part cyborg, part human, part information? That's more or less what I gathered.

This movie has some very interesting queries into the nature of life... not quite going for the "us versus them" of Terminator, but nor is the human/machine relation quite all sunshine and lollipops either. The action, when it happens, is pretty cool too, with people using Big Ol' Guns, which cause massive damage to machines, and even more massive damage to the poor hapless humans who get in their way. It seems however that the two just can't quite mix seamlessly.

While I never hoped for an interruption of one for the other (too much action, get introspective or vice versa), I almost felt like I was watching two different movies. Perhaps it was the confusion for a lot of it (just grasping the general plot can take some time) or something else, but this movie is not the "legendary" status I supposed it might have been. Then again, perhaps it never really stood a chance in my eyes to begin with.

3 out of 5 stars. It'll make you think, and the action's decent but at the end of the day, it's just another movie.

Dead to the World

2009-08-17T02:53:00.003-04:00

The 4th book in the Southern Vampire mysteries is starting to make me think my penis is a liability.
My common complaint with all the books up until this point has been the fact that they actually seem to be cleverly disguised romance novels. Club Dead and Dead Until Dark have pretty much followed the same formula mystery happens, supernatural beings are introduced, Sookie has a lot of sex with one characters, mystery is solved. Fantasy characters, pretty cool.... constant description of sex... not so much.
Let's face it, guys and girls tend to have a different medium for idealized sex. Guys it's porn, which is just hardcore sex, and girls it's a more romantic version... i.e. romance novels. Charlene Harris as a female author is obviously writing with the intention of having romance a prominent aspect in her novels... which as a guy bores me to tears.
So, I have to skim through that crap, or hope for novels like "Club Dead" where she actually refrains from having sex with someone for the entirety of the novel. The bright part that I've enjoyed about these novels is the fantasy characters, it's been interesting seeing them........... and THAT'S why this novel was so disappointing.

Charlene Harris is obviously all about the Vampires and the Werewolves/Shapeshifters, as this novel is dominated by them. The new fantasy addition is witches, which although they start the novel as a formidable foe fall apart suddenly... kind of like this book. Basically, a witch, cleverly named Hallow, wants to take over the vampire's economic empire in Shreveport, and attracted to Eric, wants him to be her lover (again, the feminine influence). Eric saying no, she erases his memory as a way to deal with him... he escapes although amnesiac, and is rescued by Sookie (who has lots of sex with him... blergh) and the vampires and the weres team up with some Wiccans to take on the witches.

Okay so let's break this down:
1) MORE constant sex this time with Eric. Hell, female readers of this book are starting to go all Twilight on these books, divvying up into Team Bill and Team Eric. Bad.
2) New fantastic creatures in this book are witches... who are shapeshifters and drink vampire blood, so they're not really adding much new to the table, and their spells pretty much suck... a "keep away" spell? A cloud so people can't see and breathe..... when fighting vampires? Amnesia? C'mon, hurl some fire or something.....
3) The other new character is a Fairy. She doesn't look like what you'd think.... she looks more like a supermodel, but little else is said about her besides that vampires LOVE fairy blood. This character seems almost thrown in as an afterthought.
4) Same deal with the end fight. An utter bloodbath, which definitely appeals to me as a guy, but again a lame ending for these witches who seem to never have posed any real threat at all.
5) There is a side story regarding Sookie's brother Jason getting kidnapped and bitten by a werepanther for revenge for stealing his woman.... but again, almost an afterthought.

NOW, there are two ways to interpret this: These books are getting worse, or these books are getting more series oriented, i.e. all the "afterthoughts" are actually just building towards future books in the series. Personally I fell if she'd just stop wasting time with all this relationship crap, which, let's face it, takes up most of the book, she'd have time to explore some of these things in ONE book... of course how would she sell more books?

I guess my real issue is that I'm probably reading the wrong type of book, I should be reading action books, but while I'm reading these books, I feel that Harris needs to be doing a better job keeping me gripped for one book before she tries to sell me on the next one.

Warehouse 13

2009-08-14T10:57:00.002-04:00

One of my other summer shows, which seems to be quickly gaining a cult following is Warehouse 13. It's been often compared to the X-Files, Fringe, and Eureka. Never seen the latter two (never interested me), but I was a quasi-X-Files fan back in the day... it's like that show, but at the same time it isn't. If I say Warehouse 13 is comedic, sci-fi fans are going to cringe, thinking the show is full of mockery of sci-fi, but this isn't so. Whereas Scully and Mulder were pretty serious, Pete and Myka are a little more jovial. There is no skeptic vs. believer motif here, it's just two agents, one serious (Myka) one a bit more joking (Pete) who solve odd crimes.

X-Files was a great show, and it was a drama. They tended to deal with heavy handed motifs and the show had a very dark, very serious nature most of the time. Warehouse 13 is a drama, but it's very straightforward, and each episodes ends more or less on a happy ending. Okay, enough of the comparisons....

Warehouse 13 is a massive warehouse in South Dakota where the United States government covertly collects and stores all the mystic/magical/supernatural/alien artifacts in the world until (or if in some cases) they can be used for the betterment of mankind/the United States government. Pete and Myka are kind of hornswoggled into working for this organization, and while the latest episode hinted and Myka's growing distress with the job, they have more or less learned to love it/live with it.

I think what draws people to the show is it's limitless possibilities. This warehouse is MASSIVE and there could be any number of things in it that the writers could make an episode around. Thus far we've seen Lucrezia Borgia channeled through a young woman (via her comb), a recording of a song which makes people blissfully unaware of the world as long as it's playing (all the better to rob banks with), James Braid's inhibition releasing chair, Rheticus' compass, Native American magical elements which make the user extremely powerful, and then most recently, the Spine of the Saracen which, as one of the characters puts it is "ancient PCP". Good stuff.

I was drawn to this show by it's concept. Like I said, the possibilities are endless, as the artifacts I've listed above are just the main artifact that drives that episodes story line. There are plenty of other artifacts either mentioned in passing or shown jokingly or not so jokingly. What also drives me to this show is the history. I loves me some history, and while they don't really get into any history, by constantly drawing on history, they're being historical without being horribly inaccurate which makes historians like myself cringe... so it's fun with history, and I can enjoy it.

Honestly, I think I could recommend this show to almost anyone.. the only people who out and out would not like it are people who legitimately hate sci-fi, but then why would you watch a show on SyFy anyways? This show is not going to blow you away, it's not like the best show I've ever seen or anything, but it's fun, and it keeps me coming back week after week. Check it out.

Happy TV watchin'!

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

2009-08-13T10:51:00.003-04:00

I always for some reason thought that Westerns were just older action movies... basically action movies pre-1980 or so. I only have a small recollection of westerns I've seen in my life including Unforgiven, which was probably the first. I remember liking that movie as a 13 year old kid, but not so much upon a recent re-watch.
I've also seen "classic" Western, like Hang 'Em High, and thought that movie totally sucked ass.
Finally, I've seen modern Western like 3:10 to Yuma, and I don't know.... meh?

So basically I had concluded that Westerns were
a) Man dramas... for dudes that like drama, but can't admit it.
b) Not my cup of tea

Hence it was with great uncertainty that I tuned into probably one of the greatest known Westerns of all (cause after all, the greatest piece of crap is still a piece of crap, no?)... but I was happy to be proven wrong.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is a phenomenal movie on so many parts. Firstly, and most importantly for me, it IS an action filled Western. There are slow moments, but none of them are unnecessary, they all build toward the plot. Not to mention some of those "slow" moments are actually "tense" moments, during staredowns and such as each guy waits for the other to pull the trigger.
Secondly, while a bit skewed, it is a serviceable history movie. The far Western front of the Civil War (just like the Far Northern front, or the ship battles off the coast of England) are rarely covered by standard textbooks, so it's interesting to see part of it shown on film. I've always known that many cowboys were Civil War veterans looking for a new life, but it's interesting to see the cowboys while the Civil War is raging all around them.
Finally, it's just a great story. 3 guys on the lookout for buried Confederate gold and all that entails. Tuco (The Ugly) is the star of this movie, despite appearances to the contrary. Yeah, I know Clint Eastwood is on the cover, but just breakdown the screen time and dialogue, and Tuco dominates this film. He is the comedic relief of sorts, which is interesting in a Western, but it works! His lines are generally funny, and he tends to lighten the mood a bit when he's on screen.
Angel Eyes (The Bad), is an odd choice. In his intro, he's totally a heartless killer, exposing his mercenary veins to the core, he kills the guy he was hired to kill even though the guy gave him twice the contract fee.... oh yeah, and he killed his son on the way out just for good measure. Anyhoo, Angel Eyes then takes that contract fee and interprets it as a contract to kill the original guy who made the contract, so he collects both bounties. Stone cold man. HOWEVER from this point out, while he does some brutal things, he's really no worse than Tuco or Blondie, and actually becomes a very minor, almost trivial character in this film.
Blondie (The Good) is the protagonist.... sort of. Like I said before, Tuco is really the star. Blondie is good in the sense that he's a bit more I dunno, stereotypically heroic in a Western? I mean, Eastwood's "The Man with No Name" not only set the standard for Western heroes, but for bad asses in general. However, morals wise... Blondie isn't really any better than Tuco, he of course fells the "evil" Angel Eyes taking up the mantle of good in the end, but almost kills Tuco in the process.

This movie is LONG, clocking in at 3 hours, but, as with most three hour movies, it just flies right by. The other thing you'll quickly notice about this movie is how iconic it is. The theme song for this movie has become in popular culture the theme song for ALL Western movies, and standoffs in general:

The other song in this movie (which has now been stuck in my head) that you might recognize, especially if you are a Metallica fan, is the "Ecstasy of the Gold". Metallica, who must be big fans of this movie as well, play this whole scene here on electric guitars of course and make it metal. I love me some Metallica, don't get me wrong, but there is something magical about this scene in it's original form:

This is towards the end of the movie, when Tuco finally finds Sad Hill Cemetary, which is where the gold that drives all three men is located. This is just one of those magical movie moments where the music and the cinematography pairs up perfectly. Music is important to all movies, but it's often a subtle thing we don't notice... or a theme, like the Imperial March or the Halloween theme song. In this scene, the title and mood of the song perfectly matches Eli Wallach's acting to make some movie magic that's pretty rare when you think about it.

Finally, this movie's contribution to pop culture is in it's title. So many people use it to describe Good, Bad and Worse situations... people probably like yours truly who had never seen the movie before now.

This movie is phenomenal. Besides some odd characterizations that I noted above, and a kind of silly scene where Blondie and Tuco are very poorly "sneaking" explosives by Union troops, this movie is pretty much perfect, and I would highly recommend it to anyone.

5 out of 5 stars.

Star Trek: Season 1

2009-08-11T00:19:00.031-04:00

Just got finished with the first Season of Star Trek, and I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised about this series that I have never seen before. I was too young to catch it's original airings, and was sucked more into the Star Wars camp (now realizing you don't have to take a side) so I never saw this show.

I saw some of the highlights of this show, like the Tribbles episode or Kirk's fight with the Gorn, and thought, "Wow, what a cheeseball show". I did however, get into the Next Generation a bit, really enjoyed Deep Space Nine, and watched a bit of Voyager (sorry Enterprise), so to say my life was devoid of Star Trek would be a falsity.

Having recently watched the first 4 movies (I, II, IV), I decided simultaneously to go back to where it all began and check out the original series. My impressions were pretty much immediate pleasure at a show, that despite a low budget, took sci-fi seriously. It's hard to describe that, but given some of the campy effects, I thought the whole show would be tongue in cheek not allowing the sci-fi fan to get a serious show, just a show that pretty much mocked him. Not so at all.

The only thing I noticed about this show, especially as the show went on was the fact that Roddenberry might as well have done a show about time travel, because most planets the Enterprise traveled too were just different eras in Earth history. Star Trek canon has explained away why most species in the Star Trek universe are humanoid (common ancestor), but just straight up human albeit a different era? It was a bit distracting. As I break down each episode I'm going to offer my opinion on whether that episode would be better suited for Star Trek or Time Trek.

The Man Trap: The show starts out on the right foot. Now, I'm not going to go nuts on the order produced versus the order aired, but there are some slight continuity issues in the early going due to this. For instance, this was the first Star Trek episode ever to air, but the 6th to be produced. For the most part, the original series totally goes like this.
Anyhoo, the Man Trap tells the story of a M-113 Salt Vampire attacking the crew until finally killed. It can disguise itself as a human and totally act the part, so it was tough for "Bones" to have to "kill" the woman he loved, even though in reality she was long dead.

Star Trek or Time Trek? Star Trek. The first episode stars things out right with a mysterious alien. Good show.

Charlie X: The Enterprise takes on a young boy with amazing telekinetic powers. The problem? He's a developing teenager, and to have such power in the hands of a deadly teenager can be deadly.
Another great episode. This episode has it's cheesy 60's mores start to peek through the surface like Uhura singing an entire song on a lute-like instrument. Boooring. Shut up hippies. Luckily this only happens one more time in all 29 episodes. However, dealing with dangerous psychic powers is pretty cool, especially when the crew of the Enterprise is powerless to stop him, and their only saving grace is the arrival of the species who taught him to wield his powers, the Thasians... one of several godlike powerful forces in the Star Trek universe.

Star Trek or Time Trek? Star Trek. Again another home run, as we introduce more alien species who test the limits of the Enterprises' power and knowledge.

Where no man has gone before: Here's another example of the out of order. This was the second episode produced, so it predated the previous two episodes as far as production, but the third aired. Star Trek (at least the original series) can be a bunch of self contained episodes, so it's not like there is a necessary continuity flaw, but you will see cast changes and different production values when they jump around like this than can make it kind of wonky.
This episode has the Enterprise travel through a storm or belt or some other kind of disturbance that gives one of Kirk's best friends God like psionic powers (yeah, we did just do this). This time Kirk's gotta beat him solo, man vs. God.

Star Trek or Time Trek? Star Trek. This was the 2nd pilot they shot, so it's not like they already ran out of ideas, or even intended to show this episode right after Charlie X, but it is what it is. It was still not too bad.

The Naked Time: The Enterprise beams down to a planet and are accidentally infected with a "inhibition-stripping contagion"..... so they get drunk?
This episode I would put in the "Pass" category. It's basically each member of the crew's chance to "cut loose" and act all wacky. It's got an Irish guy who takes over Engineering and sings the same damn Irish brogue again and again, and Sulu becomes a swashbuckler, Spock loses control of his emotions.... blah blah blah.

Star Trek or Time Trek? I would say Time Trek. This contagion makes a guy with Irish ancestry think he's the king of Ireland?! What?! This show takes place in 2300, Ireland hadn't had a king in over 700 years! Sulu a swashbuckler of old?! Again, 500 years! That's like saying if my inhibitions were stripped away, I would act like a Medieval Knight... that has NOTHING to do with my time period, and nor should I have any "blood memory" of it this many years later. In addition to all this, the Enterprise accidentally solves their problem by going backwards in time 3 days and avoiding the planet all together. Convenient.

Apparently when you're evil you're also whiny...

The Enemy Within: A transporter malfunction makes an "evil" duplicate of Captain Kirk. This was done to better effect in future Star Trek episodes (of all the series) with the parallel universe versions of people. I guess you can give this episode credit for starting it all, but I'm going to give it a pass.

Star Trek or Time Trek? Star Trek, just not very creative Star Trek.

Now, that's my kind of alien! Giggidy Giggidy Goo!

Mudd's Women: The Enterprise comes across a man named Mudd who is dealing in surprisingly beautiful mail order brides.
This episode is a morality tale of sorts, as the girls are extra beautiful thanks to a drug known as the Venus Drug. The actresses playing the girls are already quite beautiful, so the corny transition to them as old crones when the drugs effects wear off are cheesy because it's basically just the same girls with no make-up.... their still attractive. Anyhoo, by the end it's realized that love is more important than beauty... yada, yada, yada. Mid-level episode.

Star Trek or Time Trek? Star Trek. This show will basically take any chance they can to show off the gorgeous actresses they got to play supporting roles... get the menfolk interested. This is one of those episodes where that formula was taken to the nth power.

Lurch plus scantily clad android hottie=Good television.

What are Little Girls Made of?: The Enterprise goes looking for a long missing scientist, and finds him on a planet entirely populated by androids.
Pretty cool stuff... and the beginning of another theme in Star Trek episodes. If they're not doing time travel, they're looking at democratic ideals. They travel to a lot of planets where people have "solved" war, famine, pestilence etc., but at the cost of freewill. This planet is no exception as the Dr. Roger Korby has replaced all life on this planet, including himself, with androids. Androids can't feel love however, and when one of them, Andrea, desires desperately to experience that emotion, she accidentally kills herself and Korby.
This episode is also notable for the appearance of Ruk, a massive android played by Ted Cassidy who would also play Lurch in the Addams Family. Good episode.

Star Trek or Time Trek? Star Trek, in the "Dystopian" thread of episodes.

Miri: The Enterprise receives a distress call from a planet that is an exact copy of Earth where a botched plan for the denizens of this planet to live forever has suspended them all in a state of youth to die a horrible death upon reaching puberty.
Okay...... ready for this pile? Firstly, this episode HEAVILY influenced the "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" movie which is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Same plot, kids with no parents, talking about the "before time" and basically a bunch of punk savages that you just want to beat to death. Secondly....

Star Trek or Time Trek? TIME TREK!!!! A planet that's an exact copy of Earth?! And when they beam down to the surface, it looks like 1960's Earth?! What the hell?! The only sci-fi element to this episode was the fact that these "kids" were actually hundreds of years old, but trapped in the body of children. Okay, if you looked 10, but were actually several hundred years old.... chances are you wouldn't act like a 10 year old. This episode sucks it hard.

You love the plane'arium.....

Dagger of the Mind: This is a good episode about a hypnotic suggestion device that makes people who view it obey the commander (Dr. Tristan Adams). What makes this episode hard to take seriously though is the fact that it was parodied in the infamous South Park episode "Roger Ebert should lay off the fatty foods", which of course I saw first, so it was tough to not chuckle my way through this one. Mid-level episode.

Star Trek or Time Trek? Star Trek.

The Corbomite Maneuver: The Enterprise is captured by a massive ship which threatens to destroy the Enterprise if not for Kirk's thinking.
The only disappointing thing about this episode is that the cool alien they made for it is a puppet... behind which hides a young Clint Howard alien (shudder). Why they felt the need to do that I don't know. Other than that a good episode.

Star Trek or Time Trek? We get back here to what I like about this series, exploring new worlds, and different races.

The Menagerie Parts I and II: This episode is astoundingly clever. Basically the Star Trek production staff found a way to sneak their unaired pilot into an episode now that the show was moderately successful. So, these episodes basically tell the story not of Captain Kirk, but of Captain Pike and of his run-in with the psionically powerful Talosians. In the original episode, the Talosians had destroyed their planet with nuclear war, and needed to capture species to repopulate the planet for them.... because they're not capable of it themselves? Anyways, they captured a girl, Vina, who had crash landed on their planet and brought her back to health as she was near death. When Pike arrived, they captured him, hoping they would breed, but humans "don't like captivity", so Pike fought and fought until he finally escaped. It was then revealed that Vina was horribly disfigured but she looked young and beautiful to Pike because of the Talosians powerful mind-altering powers.
Flash Forward to 2267 (the previous stuff happening in 2254) when Spock "kidnaps" a now deformed Pike, victim of a starship accident, and takes him to the planet. At his court-martial, Spock shows the ruling council the transmission of the previous adventures (way to cleverly use old footage!). Spock is taking Pike to the planet, because now that he's basically a deformed vegetable, he would like to expereince the same happiness as Vina, and at the end we see him "returned" to his youthful body ready to spend the rest of his life in the mind-paradise of the Talosians.

Star Trek or Time Trek? Star Trek, and probably their finest moment. This episode won the Hugo Award in 1967, and while I think unfairly not included in many "Best of" Lists due to the fact they just recycled old footage, it's footage noone had ever seen before this show, and I think brilliantly inserted in here. Top notch episode.

The Conscience of the King: An actor in a traveling troupe may be bloodthirsty dictator Kodos the Executioner.
Remember how I earlier talked about many Star Trek episodes seemingly serving as showcases of the beautiful women they casted? This episode looks to serve as a "Look how well I can act", as all of the actors (of course) and William Shatner seek to one-up each other. Sub-par episode. Interesting premise, but they drew out to an hour what could've been a 30 minute episode.

Star Trek or Time Trek: This one walks the line. While it deals with a future dictator disgusing himself as an actor to escape punishment, history is full of fleeing war criminals disgusing themselves to avoid prosecution. To add to the Time Trek accusation, these actors (due in part to the title of this episode from Hamlet) are still performing Shakespeare! Not to decry the work of the immortal bard, but 600 years later and after experiencing a universes worht of writing, actors still desire to do Shakespeare? Okay....

Balance of Terror: The Enterprise's first contact with the Romulans, which for the unitiated, is what Nero was in the new Star Trek.

Star Trek or Time Trek: Okay, let's get this out of the way: I don't mean to concept of Time Trek to be a derogatory one. Yes, some of the worst episodes were essentially about time travel, but I think the concept to be a cool one nonetheless. That being said, this episode itself walks the line mightily. The Romulans were meant to be essentially the Roman Empire in space, right down to the Romulans' home planets of Romulus and Remus.

Later incarnations of the Star Trek universe made these guys out to be a self-entity... namely, not just a clone of the Romans as they were in this first episode, right down to their leaders being called Praetors. I enjoy the Romulans, I enjoy seeing them in future episodes of Star Trek, hell, I even enjoy this episode of Star Trek, but if this was a show about time travel, not too much would be different about this episode if it was Kirk vs. some Roman soldiers.

This isn't just any old dude... it's the caretaker of the Shore Leave planet! Anyone care? Anyone?

Shore Leave: The Enterprise takes shore leave on a planet where anything they think becomes reality, for better and for worse. It turns out that it's meant to be a respite planet, but the "primitive" humans just don't know how to use their imaginations to relax and instead keep putting themselves in danger.

Star Trek or Time Trek? Time Trek hardcore. Among the deadly images the Enterprise crew conjures up is a Knight, a Samurai, and a WWI bi-plane. In fact, there is nothing exotic conjured up by their imaginations, despite the fact that these people have traveled the galaxy. Weak showing folks. Weak.

Taureans smash!!!!

The Galileo Seven: A exploration pod, the Galileo, accidentally crashlands on the planet Taurus II where they are attacked by the stone age Taurean giants and with Spock in charge, they must survive somehow.

Star Trek or Time Trek? While not the greatest episode in my book, this is back to the Star Trek formula I love, meeting new beings on strange worlds. This episode serves primarily as a Spock-centric episode in order to see what command under Spock would be like, and to let him grow a bit as a character.

Oh Trelane, for a godlike being how you whine so.....

The Squire of Gothos: The Enterprise is captured by a powerful alien named Trelane who is fascinated by his new "toys". Basically this episode is a complete knockoff of Charlie X, except for the fact that the adult looking Trelane is actually a child, and at the end, the parents (another godlike species) end up saving Kirk by taking Trelane away for punishment.

Star Trek or Time Trek? Again, we walk the line. Trelane is an interesting character, and another way too formidable foe for the enterprise, but of course, Trelane is obesessed with 18th and 19th century Earth. He dresses like Napoleon, and employs all the mannerisms common in the Victorian era. So, the Star Trek part of it has him with godlike reality controlling powers, and the Time Trek part of it is the form that he takes. This constant interweaving can become annoying.

Arena: Probably one of the most famous Star Trek episodes of all, the Enterprise pursues a Gorn spaceship into the solar system populated by the godlike beings (yeah, there's a lot of these), the Metrons. Pacifist beings (as many of the godlike beings are), the Metrons demand that Kirk and the Gorn Captain settle their differences one on one with the loser being destroyed completely. The twist is that the Metrons deploring violence would actually destroy the winner, assuming he killed his foe, which Kirk refused to do, so everyone left happy.
This episode is infamous for those who deplore Star Trek's cheesy effects, as the Gorn captain and Kirk's fight is HORRIBLY choreographed, and it's obvious that the guy in the suit can barely see. The describe it away as the Gorn being slower than humans, but c'mon.....

Star Trek or Time Trek? Star Trek for the most part. Cool meeting the Gorn, kinda sick of the godlike beings, so I'm meh on the Metrons, but the fight, the Arena if you will, was really quite lame. The fisticuffs was slow and poor, and then the "twist" on this planet was the scattering of minerals about to make..... gunpowder! OH MY GOD.... REALLY?! We've advanced to lasers, and Kirk makes a cannon in about 5 minutes from some "formulas he remembered"?! Much better suited for a Time Trek show people....

Stop making these shitty episodes or so help me mister.....

Tomorrow is Yesterday: The Enterprise accidentally travels back to 1969 Earth and must escape while not disrupting history.

Star Trek or Time Trek?: Read the title, read the description. 'Nuff said. Pass on this episode.

Look, it's Ben Finney who blames the Captain for his lack of zzzzzzzz.....

Court Martial: Kirk is court martialed for unnecessarily causing the death of one of his Luietenants, who was really just jealous of Kirk and was faking his death to get Kirk court martialed. Yawn.

Star Trek or Time Trek? Star Trek, just really boring uninspired Star Trek.

I am Landru. Well, I'm the holographic projection of the long dead Landru who's now a computer... wait, what?!

The Return of the Archons: Another Dystopian Star Trek episode. The Enterprise comes across a planet ruled with an iron fist by Landru, a machine built by it's namesake to elimainate all war, crime and disease, but in the meantime created an isolated planet of essential zombies. Realizing that this was not free will, Kirk destroyed the Landru machine by explaining to it how even though it wanted to protect it's people it was destroying them by keeping them as automatons. The paradox destroyed the machine.

Star Trek or Time Trek?: Star Trek.... these dystopian episodes for the most part, while kind of a "huh" episode, aren't very good. Roddenberry obviously had very strong democratic ideals, which permeate all the Star Treks, but these are not terribly creative, at least not in the original series. The only Time Trek part of this episode was that the whole planet was dressed in 18th century apperal.

Khan!!!!!!

Space Seed: Considering the vehemence I spewed towards Wrath of Khan, I surprisingly really liked this episode, which was the beginning of Khan's story. The Enterprise comes across a ship of "augments", superhumans who were created and then conquered the world in the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s. They were eventually defeated, but 100 of them escaped into space, and lo and behold, here they are.
This is an interesting episode, as Ricardo Montalban just steals the show and does a faboulus job as the tyrant Khan, who tries to take over the Enterprise so that he and his "supermen" can find some other planet to rule. They are defeated by Kirk, and "marooned" on a planet, which seems to please everyone. Star Trek II reveals however that Ceti Alpha V's neighbor, Ceti Alpha VI exploded 6 months after the supermen arrived, throwing Ceti Alpha V out of orbit and turning it into a barren wasteland driving Khan mad for revenge against Kirk. I guess this explanation makes the movie a bit better.

Star Trek or Time Trek?: Star Trek all the way. While this deals with a bit of time "travel" it's in the alternate timeline of the Star Trek universe where the 1990's were dominated by the Eugenics Wars, and alternate timelines are always cool. Good episode.

Well, it's good to see this lengthy war hasn't affected your love for pastels and awesome hats.

A Taste of Armageddon: Another dystopian episode, but a great one. The Enterprise lands on a seemingly peaceful planet which claims they have been at war with their neighboring planet for 500 years. It turns out the planets do all their wars via computer simulations (think Battleship) and then each side would report to the other side the casulties sustained, and those people would willingly report to disintegration chambers. The logic here was that both societies would be maintained, because there would be no war damage.
Kirk of course realizes the fallacy in this line of thought is that these people are too used to war... it holds no horrors anymore, and thus it can continue indefinitely. I couldn't help but think of Robert E. Lee's famous quote here: "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it". Kirk destroys the computers, forcing the planets into real war, which they both quickly resolve when they recall what real war is. One of the best episodes in the season.

Star Trek or Time Trek?: Star Trek all the way.

Suck bliss!

This Side of Paradise: ANOTHER dystopian episode, which was going to be a let down after the previous one no matter how good it was.
The Enterprise comes to a colony planet that was being bombarded in Berthold Rays which kill all human/animal life. No one knew this when the colony was founded, so the Enterprise goes not expecting to find any survivors, but finds all the survivors (except their animals) in perfect health. The reason? Alien spores which thrive in Berthold Rays and give humans who they infect perfect health and perfect contentment.
This is actually one of the few contagions in this series that isn't somehow "evil", it just makes a society stagnant, which a democratic, idealistic man like Kirk can't have, so he cures the people by making them angry (strong emotions counteract the spores), and they all leave the planet. Medium good episode.

Star Trek or Time Trek?: It's Star Trek, but these dystopian/contagian episodes are not as good as some of the other ones.

The Devil in the Dark: The Enterprise arrives at the mining planet Janus VI where the miners are being attacked by a monster. That monster turns out to be a Horta, a sentient silicon based life form which only was attacking the miners because they were accidentally destroying her eggs.
Okay, so this was a great episode when suddenly Kirk and Spock start communicating with the Horta, and it writes out "No Kill I" with it's acid in English to communicate back. At that point I was ready to hurl something through my TV, until they revealed in the episode that the Horta were an intellegent species, and I read on Memory Alpha, which collects Star Trek "canon" that the Horta actually join Starfleet later on.... so okay, then it's okay.

Star Trek or Time Trek?: This should be top notch Star Trek. It's much better now that I know this wasn't just one horrible idea in one episodes and that future people actually ran with the Horta.... it's just that that scarred me for a little bit, so let's say B+ kinda grade.

Errand of Mercy: Enter the Klingons. Unlike the Romulans who were total Roman knockoffs, the Klingons were a distinct species from apperance one. They were kind of designed after Mongols, but maintain enough originality, that they are enjoyable.
Anyhoo, Kirk and Spock are trapped on the planet Organia when they can't rouse the Organians to resist the Klingon invasion. Both sides (Federation and Klingon) think the Organians are sheep and while Kirk and Kor are warring against each other, the Organians have had enough of their violence, and reveal their (wait for it) godlike powers by simutanously disarming all Federation and Klingons in the universe thus not allowing them to have their war. Wowza. So each side goes their seperate way to meet again later...

Star Trek or Time Trek?: This is the episode where this obsession with time travel actually dawned on me, as Organia appears to be Medieval Europe. Knowing now that it's all the Organian doing to create a common point of reference between themselves and their visitors I guess it's okay, but shouldn't it have been a mix of Earth, Vulcan, and Klingon history?

Best. Beard. Ever.

The Alternative Factor: Okay, while not the worst episode in season 1, this episode is crazy confusing and just plain weird. The Enterprise encounters a strange rift in the universe, and a crazy guy named Lazarus who is hunting a destroyer of worlds across space and time. It turns out that there was a tear inbetween the matter and anti-matter universes, and when Lazarus met other Lazarus, he went nutso and tried to kill him. The problem being is that if matter and anti-matter touch it can destroy reality. Anti-Matter Lazarus convinces Kirk to help him trap Matter Lazarus inbetween the universes and then seal off the gate so they can battle for all eternity.

Basically that plot is a big what the hell, and the visual effects in this episode are flashing lights, negative footage, double-exposures, and just all these other effects that are a epilptic nightmare and just plain aggravating to those of us who don't suffer that disease. Pass.

Star Trek or Time Trek?: Star Trek, just really f'ing weird Star Trek.

The City on the Edge of Forever: Let's just skip right to my argument....

Star Trek or Time Trek?: McCoy accidentally injects himself with too much cordrazine and goes crazy, beaming down to a planet which houses the Guardian of Forever, a living time machine. McCoy in his drug addled state jumps through the portal and affects history enough that the Enterprise no longer exists, leaving the crew stranded. Kirk and Spock travel after McCoy finding out that he prevents a woman from dying who would influence FDR to not enter World War II, thus allowing the Nazis to win the war and conquer the world and presumably not care about space exploration? Anyhoo, even though he falls in love with her, Kirk allows this woman to die, and history is righted.

Ah- HAH! This episode is pretty much universally considered to be the BEST Star Trek episode ever. It won a Hugo Award in 1968, it is lauded by TV Guide, it won a Writer's Guild of America award, even William Shatner claims this to be one of his favorite episodes. But what is the premise? PEOPLE WHO TRAVEL THROUGH TIME TO SET THINGS RIGHT.... aka Time Trek! I like this episode, but it's not Star Trek! It's a episode about time travellers, and a think a vision of what Roddenberry could have, and maybe should have done instead.

Operation---Annihilate!: The Enterprise finds a world taken over by neural parasites which take over people's bodies and force them to buld spacecraft for them so they can keep spreading to other planets and galaxies. Eevntually their killed with a massive dose of UV rays.

Star Trek or Time Trek?: Season 1 ends not with a bang or a whimper, but with a thud. This episode is classic Star Trek, but more infections? Even though these things are more animate than the other infectious creatures thus far, it's still the same old stuff. Yay aliens, boo infections.

Overall, I enjoyed this season despite some queries about whether Roddenberry missed his calling in another sci-fi genre, i.e. Dr. Who. Nevertheless, at the very least this show sets up a strong platform for the Star Trek genre to grow from, as it is entertaining, and it is enjoyable. If I didn't care for it, I wouldn't have been reading the Memory Alpha entries on each and every character, planet and race in between each episode, so it definitely brought out my geek side.

Some day, just like we can now make our own "best of" albums with select mp3s, we will be able to make our own "Best of" for shows. As is, I think this season earns about a 3.5 or so out of 5, but there is some chaff still to be culled before it can be called great.

Merlin

2009-08-07T11:37:00.002-04:00

Kinda late on this post, as this show's been on for a month now, but I just wanted to express my actual satisfaction with a summer show. Summer shows tend to be utter filler, only used by myself to break the monotony of a Tivo full of Simpsons episodes, but Merlin I'm rather enjoying.

It started out slow, and looked a bit too much like that gawdy piece of film abortion, "A Knight's Tale". Okay, great teenage Merlin characters living in a PC Camelot where all races intermingle just fine, and the only intolerance (at least on Uther's part) is magic.

The show quickly picked up however, and by the second episode, with the evil Prince Valiant (interesting choice), the "name dropping" began, and that's what makes this show interesting to someone like myself who knows vaguely of the legends but am inspired to learn more about from the show.

Nimueh for example, becomes the major villanness in this show, even though she oddly is supposed to be the Lady in the Lake who gives Arthur the legendary Excalibur sword. Well, thanks to a recent episode, Excalibur has been forged and is currently located at the bottom of a lake, so maybe that will still come to pass.

Although he quickly left the show (probable to return), there was a whole episode devoted to the coming of Lancelot. There is an episode where Merlin and Arthur rescue a young Druid boy who will ominously grow up to be the traitor Mordred. And of course the aforementioned Excalibur episode.

Yes, Merlin's "magic" seems to be little more than simple telepathy (well, at least his innate ability), and the show can be kinda corny, but it's a fun watch. I watch it pretty much immediately after it's recording and it's easily the show I look forward too the most every week in this summer. Hell, this Sunday there's not a showing of it, and I don't know what to do with myself!

It's not going to win any Emmys, and if your not a fan of shows like Hercules or Xena, you will hate it, but if your looking for some enjoyable TV, with a convenient "last show before the work week begins" time of Sunday night, this show is definitely worth checking out.

Musical Musings: Alternative Pop/Rock

2009-08-06T14:50:00.002-04:00

Didn't have much to say on any one particular band this time around, so I figured I'd share some thoughts on one of the genres contained in my iPhone's library, and one of my Pandora stations.

This group is a small group containing Counting Crows (first album was pretty decent), Days of the New (Before Travis Meeks got egotistical), Garbage (overall decent band), and Seven Mary Three (apparently they only wrote one good song.... Cumbersome).

Counting Crows Pandora went to the old standby: "Mr. Jones". I was kind of sick of that song back in the day, but it's not so bad to listen too nowadays. The song I have on my iPhone is "Rain King" off that same album, August and Everything After, and it's good stuff. Not likely to add anymore by these guys to my collection however.

Days of the New I just Shazamed a song I totally forgot about: "Weapon and The Wound", the title track off that album. Good driving song.... I think they played that when I saw these guys in concert back in the day.

Garbage Pandora tried to sell me on "Bad Boyfriend"..... this is the side of Garbage I don't really like.... Shirley Manson as purring sex kitten. Yes, "#1 Crush" is kind of that, but there's a bleak, dark edge to it, it's not a simple metal/pop schlock track.

Seven Mary Three, I can't even remember the other two songs Pandora showed me, but they blew. Apparently Seven Mary Three became "Jesus" crappy pretty early on. I thought the lead singer was some sort of pagan weirdo, but apparently not. Blergh.

Here's some treasures I found today that will be added to my library in the near future:

"Drift and Die" by Puddle of Mudd... I think this was these guys' last single before dropping off the face of the Earth. It's too bad, this was a great first album.

"Pardon Me" by Incubus... these guys walk that razor thin edge just like Collective Soul of being too soft to the point of wussiness, but this was a good song... also that "Drive Myself" song.

"Stinkfist" by Tool....

10 bucks says I STILL can't get these guys on iTunes. Come on Apple! Gimme the Beatles and Tool already!

And a find I'm pretty psyched about, a cover of "Careless Whisper" by George Michael, covered by Seether. Very cool. I LOVE 80's covers, so I was psyched to find this.

Until next time, happy listening!

2001: A Space Odyssey

2009-08-05T12:27:00.002-04:00

Not really sure why, but I saw these movies out of order, watching the sequel to this classic before I watched the original. What I got by doing that was the "Life after Death" effect, or totally thinking this series sucked ass by watching the wrong one first.

Needless to say, I came into 2001 with a lot of trepidation. The fact that this movie is presented in "parts", where the viewer has to draw the connection was the first thing that sort of warned me off. The second thing was the minimalist dialogue in the movie, but it actually helps push the movie forward. However, in movies like that.... more "arty" movies, you have to strain to "get it" or the movie becomes increasingly frustrating and increasingly bad. Allow me to present one possible interpretation of this movie: Evolution.

The movie begins with the apemen doing their apemen thing, but getting pushed around a bit by nature. Losing their watering hole to a neighboring larger ape tribe, and one of the crew getting eaten by a cheetah. Enter the monolith: With the monolith, one of the apes figures out how to kill, or how to unleash the carnivore half of an omnivorous animal for those of use who'd rather not read a ton into what some peaceniks would like to see.

Using this newfound ability, the apes become partly carnivorous, eating the tapirs who had sort of co-habitated with them. They also decided to take back the watering hole, and when one of the apes tried to contest that, well they beat him to death with bones. Alright. I see no political/social connotation necessary here: it's simply the link between ape and man, the use of tools.

Part 2 is there as a bridge of millions of years. This is the part that seems the most pointless as a group of scientists discover the monolith on the moon now (in the year 1999?). I think this serves as a bridge. Man has learned to use tools, much more than to dominate the planet and each other, now man can explore into space and Kubrick shows us all these innovations in some sequences designed to awe. There isn't a point except to advance evolution and the story.

Part 3 is there as almost an anti-Terminator message. Yes, there comes a point where machines are crazy powerful, but mankind will overcome the HALs of the world and continue to evolve because whatever put the monolith there wants us too. It almost reminds me of the Celestials from the Marvel Universe. In fact, the monolith by part 4 has moved from Earth, to the moon, and is now orbiting Jupiter, because Dave is to be the first of the next stage of evolution: the Starchildren.

Part 4 is the "trippy" part. I actually found it very cool, and something that I can see why some would hate, but my interpretation here is that it's a rapid bridge.... it's evolution personified. We have part 2 of this movie to show us the looooong gap between the Dawn of Man and 1999, but in a matter of minutes, Dave is transformed from a man to a starchild, watching himself grow old, die and be reborn in the time it takes me to post this blog. When you look at the trippy lights as they begin, they're all straight lines, so it's almost like the alien sentience is posting the information in binary code and beaming it right to Dave's brain. A lot for one dude to handle, as evidenced by Dave's horrified expressions.

And that my friends is that. Like the light show, there are a lot of slow moments. Repairing machinery, using machinery etc. which will turn some people off.... there is a pacing issue, but I think what Kubrick was going for was awe. This stuff is still pretty impressive in 2009, so it must've blown minds in 1968. It'll probably all be a joke in 3001, but for now it's pretty cool, and in 1968 it was an experience you could breath in and just enjoy.

I at first worried that this movie was a bit heavy on the science and a bit light on the fiction, but there are interpretations (such as the one I just posited) that would beg to differ. Yeah, there's no alien races ala Star Wars or Star Trek, but this movie will really make you think and it does stand as a great contribution to the sci-fi genre.

4 out of 5 stars.

Club Dead

2009-08-02T05:18:00.003-04:00

Despite some wariness after reading the first two books, when I start something, I'm usually hellbound to finish it, so I continued onward to book 3 of the Sookie Stackhouse series; "Club Dead".

This book starts out giving me everything I had to hope for, Sookie and Bill's relationship is on the rocks, and suddenly he dissappears without a word. In fact, Bill is absent for the vast majority of this book. As such, I don't have to suffer through the constant sex happening between Sookie and Bill. I don't know if it's just a general difficulty enjoying a book with a female protagonist or what, but there's a lot of "girly crap" in here that just keeps me flipping pages looking for anything else.

Due to their "break-up", which is for sure by the end of the book, this book has become less of a romance novel than the first two which is a welcome change. Sookie still obsesses over things I could care less about like hair, nails, and dresses, but at the same time, the romance from the mystery/romance equation that made up the first two books has been replaced by action, which is really great. Mystery does make for a page turning experience despite the slower parts, but I absolutely flew through the last few chapters of this book as the action was very riveting.

Another plus about Harris' books is that she keeps giving us more and more supernatural creatures. The first book was all about vampires obviously. The second book had a maenad, interesting choice being as most of us have never even heard of that, and the third book, while mostly focusing on werewolves and other shapeshifters, also has a Goblin. His name is Hob, so mayhaps, he's a hobgoblin. Anyways, he has an interesting and unique power I've never heard of of burning flesh with a touch. Indeed.

I still think I'd be hard pressed to get any of my guy friends to read this book, although I have been watching the TV show recently, and I'm thinking the book might be better.... so maybe I could. However, of the first three books, this book is showing more promise for the series to come, and it hopefully keeps up like this trend. Follow the Harry Potter motif of getting more "adult" as you go on, except in this case, focus more on the action and the supernatural to entice my reading appettite.

Internet as addiction

2009-08-01T08:00:00.005-04:00

Once upon a time, a long, long time ago circa 1997, the Internet was not the integral piece of life it is today. We amused ourselves with other still prevalent forms of social media such as television, movies and video games. Of course the Internet has revolutionized all three of those entities, but their basic form remains unchanged.

Even in 1997, I frequented the computers at my school's library, where "chatting" was all the rage at the time... hell, my friend met his first wife in a chat room we used to frequent. It was a time consuming activity, but I had to travel to the library for it, so it wasn't as time consuming as it could have been. I had a personal computer at that time, but it was such an ancient piece of crap that it couldn't handle the Internet.

My brother was always a bit of a tech nerd, he was the first person to introduce our household to the DVD player, and although my parents had always had Macintosh computers in the house (ALWAYS), my brother bought the first laptop (and actually still the only one my family owns), and the first desktop PC (the monitor of which I still use... yeah, it's pretty lame). My parents not being that tech savvy never really splurged for the Internet, so those computers were more used for gaming and word composition.

When we both moved out of the house (I'm jumping around a bit on the timeline here.. in 1997 I was a freshman in college), my brother got a new computer (can't recall the year) and I inherited his old computer. I don't have very strong memories of it, but I do remember it died in 2003, at which point I bought the Alienware computer I still use.

I was never horribly addicted to the Internet, but I did have bouts of internetitis, where I would just stare lazily at the computer screen all hours of the night for no particular reason. The only point where I didn't get my daily fix of Internet was when I was at the beginning of a new move. There's always that lag between cancelling your old Internet service and receiving a new one, a brief, magical time when you'd actually converse with roommates, and play (gasp) board games.

Of course this lag all changed a few years ago (2007 or 8), when I got my iPhone. Yeah, the Edge network sucks, and there are still sites that I'd rather visit on a PC than on my iPhone, but I was never truly without the Internet anymore. Well, a recent development has upped that ante even further:

We all know that one of the recent announcements Apple unveiled tethering for the iPhone, basically the ability to "share" your 3G or Edge Internet connection with your home computer. When that announcement hit I thought the concept was cool, but something I would never be using.... the Edge network is better than nothing, but tantamount to the terrible old days of dial-up, and I couldn't see a reason why I would ever want to do that.

Enter yesterday: I came home to that most hated of sights, my Tivo wireless adapter flashing because it had lost it's signal. I went to my Tivo network settings to figure out what the hell happened, and the network I use (provided by my landlord) was gone. Great. Luckily, I live in a populated enough area where I can leech off someone elses, just to get my Tivo programming. The surrounding networks that aren't or are poorly password protected, all have really bad signals, so I'd only want to use them for very rudimentary things.

No big deal, I'll just watch a movie and go to bed was the plan for yesterday. Well, I woke up last night, caught up on some of my Tivo programming, but then was done, and bored. I have an Xbox 360, I love the fact that I can instantly stream so many movies from Netflix, and yet I can't get on Xbox live! I don't know what happened, as my landlord has not been home, but now my electronic devices can "see" her network, but not connect to the Internet, making me think there's an issue with her modem.

Anyhoo, I'm starting to squirm with boredom at this point in time. I need to watch me some movies dammit. So I start surfing the nets on my iPhone, looking for some sort of solution to my wifi problem when I stumble on the "tethering" solution. Well, the service isn't available yet, and I'm way too much of a sally to jailbreak my phone, but then I stumbled across this website that would allow you to tether your phone without jailbreaking it.... Well, I pondered the morality, and allowed some of the internet "gimme, gimme, gimme" crowd to sway my conscience, and I downloaded this patch for my iPhone. Oh right, where I live now has the 3G network, so everything is much much faster.

Now it's as simple as connect USB to PC, and voila, I have internet. Awesome. But... I wanted to watch movies, not surf the net. Well, after perusing a few more websites and YouTube videos, it seemed that powering my Xbox was a quite simple maneuver as well. My wireless adapter was a useless piece of plastic until my landlord gets home, so I busted out the trusty Ethernet cord, and connected that to my PC. I then shared my newly created "Apple" network with my Xbox, and again voila, I'm watching movies with little lag, as if nothing was different. Awesome.

This forever changes my relationship with the Internet, as I am now it's total whore. There is essentially nowhere, and no situation on this planet where I can't be connected to the Internet for a least a short time. I've never been a fan of earthy, crunchy, hiking/camping crap, so nor do I even have the desire to escape it's grasp. Internet, I surrender myself to your tender mercies.

Dr. Strangelove or How I learned how to stop worrying and love the bomb

2009-07-19T06:01:00.004-04:00

Having recently finished my Master's Degree in Military History, one of the eras we looked at was post World War II military "strategic" thought, if you can call it that. Honest to goodness academics at this time were honestly trying to figure out how to use nuclear weapons tactically, i.e. strategic strikes and the lot. As nuclear weapons got more powerful and the option for them to be stratergically used was shelved (nowadays we are back to the point where this is arguably possible), stategicians (and again I use the term loosely) began to calculate acceptable numbers of casulties in the 10s of millions in order to "win" a nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union. Mutually Assured Destruction, aptly titled MAD was sort of the apex of that school of "thought", admitting to people with a shred of common sense that once the bombs start flying, we are all screwed.

Into this mindset Stanley Kubrick brings "Dr. Strangelove", the story of an ardent patriot named Jack D. Ripper who thrusts his country in nuclear war by attempting to launch bombing runs before anyone has a chance to stop him and thus forcing the United States' hand into annihilating the USSR. The film also focuses on the crew of the bombing run and the going-ons in the War Room of the United States.

Now mind you, this is a comedy, which is none too evident from anything I've just said. I suppose Kubrick's mindset here was to show essentially the futility of even taking this seriously, as if our leaders are serious about the nuclear option, might as well just laugh. The movie in all it's setup comes across more as a drama of sorts, only throwing in infantile name humor like Jack D. Ripper, President Merkin Muffley (pussy), and Col. "Bat" Guano. Other jokes just didn't really resonate like "Gentlemen, there is no fighting in the war room!" Really?

Towards the end of the movie, I began to see this movie as a precursor to movies like "The Naked Gun" however, when the jokes started flying faster and faster. The encounter between Guano and Mandrake where Guano agrees to blow open a Coke machine, so Mandrake will have enough change to call the President but if this doesn't work Mandrake "will have to answer to the people at Coca-Cola" or the end where nuclear war begins, and the Americans start strategizing about how to stay alive in mineshafts, and how they need to act fast less there be a "mineshaft gap" with the Russians.

Those are two of the hits, but there are a lot of misses. The titular character, Dr. Strangelove, is an ex-Nazi who struggles to not do the Nazi salute (what?!). I guess it was seen as funny for George C. Scott to be so animated and wacky. The point one sees here is as the movie draws to it's climax, it seems like it's suddenly racing from drama to comedy, and rapid-firing to get in as many laughs as possible before the conclusion, which will give you a few hits, but a lot of misses.

Basically, one can see this as a precursor to a lot of comedy films, and for it's a time a brilliantly good characterization of an age of madness, but 45 years later, when the Soviets are gone and the biggest nuclear tensions in the world involve North Korea, India and Pakistan or even terrorists, this message isn't so funny anymore. The world may have seemed bleak in 1964, but we've progressed since then and towards a less holocausty kind of world.

I can see why this movie garnered all the kudos it did in 1964, but it just can't stand up to time's difficult test. 3 out of 5.

Psycho

2009-07-19T02:29:00.006-04:00

Continuing in my series of movies I have should have seen 100 years ago but failed to, I have recently seen the cinematic classic "Psycho".

My only connection with this movie before finally seeing it now was in a Spanish course once where they summarized the plot en espanol for our learning pleasure. That and of course the famous shower scene and music that permeates pop culture whether you've seen this movie or not.

This movie is incredibly well done, permeating the movie, at least the first two parts with an incredible, palpable sense of guilt that can only be brought on with great acting, cinematography, and music all combining to form the perfect mood. Marion Crane's incredible nervousness, voices in her head furthering her guilty conscience and even the fear with which she drives, cringing from the bright lights of the other cars, and struggling to see in the rainstorm all wash the viewer in her guilt having absconded with money that did not belong to her.

This is what made the shower scene such a impact on American culture: Psycho has been called the first in the slasher genre. I can see it as an inspiration, but the slasher genre didn't begin until the 80's, and was also imbued with a morality of sorts. Have sex=die. Take drugs=die. Be a fun loving teenager=die. Psycho doesn't play by those rules. Yes, Crane was guilty of theft, but she had an epiphany talking with Bates and was going to come clean, so when she's suddenly murdered in the shower, a typical symbol of "coming clean", it's quite a shock. When you combine the fact that this movie does show her boobs (when she grabs the shower curtain their as clear as day), and shows a toilet being flushed (which I thought jokingly when I first saw it, but sure enough, that was risque in 1960) means Hitchcock was creating a suspense/thriller that WAS more graphic and more raw, and definitely serves as an inspiration to the slasher genre that would appear a few decades later.

Act 2, we get to see Norman Bates under the spotlight for a little while, as determined Private investigator Arbogast grills him in the Bates Motel and catches him in a lie time and time again. Of course Bates has the last laugh, but again the guilty motif continues strongly, and great acting between Martin Balsam and Anthony Perkins (whose facial expressions alone are AWESOME in this movie) really sells the viewer on this feeling.

Act 3 becomes the sort of cliche wrap up to a film. No doubt, finding out that Mrs. Bates is long dead and that Norman Bates is truly the titular Psycho is a nice twist, but you know Hitchcock is treading new ground when the psychiatrist basically spoon feeds the audience the entire plot at the end of the movie. To a modern viewer, seeing Bates in his mother's clothing and her long dead, we would immediately assume she's either a) a ghost/zombie or b) this guy is nutso and thinks she's still alive. Of course, we assume that probably BECAUSE of this movie, so the first time it happens, maybe the explanation was necessary... just seems long winded nowadays. Of course, mother talking at the end on how she's going to be just fine, combined with again, Perkins' fabulous facial expressions, present an eerie conclusion to a great movie.

You have to give this movie a lot of props for it's contributions to the horror genre. Sometimes when people talk about movies or music as "highly influential" that means they also might suck, but you have to give them credit. Psycho is not that case, and I think people of all generations can find something to really enjoy in this movie.

4.5 out of 5 stars.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

2009-07-18T01:41:00.006-04:00

Before I watch most any movie now, I bop on over to it's Wikipedia page to get some background on the movie, fun facts, etc. It's almost like pre-watching the DVD commentary before seeing the movie.

The Star Trek movies have lengthy, lengthy Wikipedia articles, obviously written by a film geek/Trekkie, as they get intensely into production values, shooting etc. Star Trek IV's entry wasn't that long, so I read the whole thing, and immediately became wary when I saw that this was going to be a "humorus film". Star Trek?! Humorous?! Aw crap.

Actually, it didn't work out too badly. The beginning of the movie puts the Earth in mortal danger as an alien probe that is trying to communicate with a certain extinct creature is unwittingly causing massive, fatal damage to not only every ship it passes, but even the Earth itself. Although fugitives, thanks to their actions in Star Trek III, the Enterprise crew can't stand by as the Earth gets annihilated, so they journey back in time to bring the aforementioned extinct crature to the future to call of this probe.

Enter 80's wackiness! They land in the then contemporary world of 1986, and seeing the normally straight-laced Enterprise crew react with the "primitive" 80's does have quite a few laugh out loud moments. The part where this movie falls victim to it's subject (behold the continued power of that decade), is when it becomes an 80's movie in several parts.

1) A Dr. Gillian Taylor encounters Kirk and Spock and kind of helps them on their mission, after one of her co-workers "betrays" her by shipping off the aforementioned species (just watch the movie... I'm really getting sick of this non-spoiler) before she has a chance to say goodbye. She then runs out to her truck in tears replete with 80's drama music. Rrright.

2) In another part Chekov is mortally injured (by 20th century standards) and Bones, Kirk and Taylor all go to the hospital to save him with 23rd century medicine. Well, he was also mortally injured while engaging in what we would call today "terrorist behavior", so he's under tight lock and key from the local police... so to get him out of the hospital, enter the wacky chase scene replete with wacky chase music! Come on this is Star Trek! All the funny stuff was subtle not wacky!

However, only those two parts are really corny. The twist in this movie, while not as cool as the first one is still very cool, and there's actually a very well done tense moment where there is nothing on screen except the creature safely returned to the 23rd century (well, I ruined that so I might as well tell you.... it's a humpback whale) is communicating with the probe. For about 1 minute of screen time, it's just the two communicating until the probe finally withdraws and the Earth is saved. Huzzah!

I've really grown more pleased and fond of these Star Trek movies as I've watched them. The series is rather lengthy, and there is a list of other Netflix movies that I've still got to get to, but I have enjoyed my time with the first four movies more or less. I think if I were to rank them in order of favorite, it would go 4,1,3,2. Yeah, Khan sucks.

So overall this movie is sort of the crowning acheivement of my Star Trek viewing and while not worth owning, is worthy of a high end:

3 out of 5 stars.

1968 Tunnel Rats

2009-07-12T03:23:00.005-04:00

Tunnel Rats is a film by infamous director Uwe Boll, infamous for making bad movies of course. The only movie I've ever seen of Boll's was Postal, and I thought that movie a horribly patched together piece of crap. Yeah, yeah, I get it... a lot of directors can hide behind "You just don't understand my vision"... this isn't a vision, this is a piece of crap.

Tunnel Rats on the other hand was not nearly as bad. Maybe because Boll's kryptonite is making movies that are based on video games, and Tunnel Rats is not. The interesting thing about Tunnel Rats is that there was no script, all the lines were ad-libbed. How did this play out? Somewhat like you'd expect.

This movie was made in 2008, so all of these actors have seen Apocalypse Now and Platoon and were essentially spending the first part of the film trying to make their character noticeable by giving them a touching backstory so that the audience would empathize with them whether they lived or died. The problem is, whereas Apocalypse Now had 2 major characters, and Platoon had maybe 3, Tunnel Rats is trying to cram in 10+. By the end of the movie there are two survivors, but I basically had no idea which ones were dying as they were dying because we can't get to know these characters in 10 minutes, especially if we're supposed to empathize with so many.

Boll is obviously trying to get right to the action, and there is action aplenty. The Tunnel Rats scenes are essentially straight out of a horror movie, as only one person in the tunnels dies of bullet wounds... they all die horrific deaths via VietCong traps. The above ground scenes go from nothing to a massive VietCong attack where everyone dies up close and personal ala Saving Private Ryan. Given Boll's reputation and resume, one can't help but be suspicious whether these shots are a "horror of war" montage or a "kick ass blood and gore fest". I suppose depending on your point of view it can work either way.

On the Vietcong side, we follow 3 soldiers who, like the Americans, get precious little backstory, and hence not a lot of sympathy. At the end, an American and a Vietcong woman die together in the tunnels due to their lack of communication, which can be seen as a anti-war message. It works well as that, but as far as a sad ending to these poor characters, again, not really sure who was who for most of the movie, and even when I was, not given a hell of a lot of character development to base my empathy on.

All in all, this movie is a good action war movie, and can double as a horror film of sorts. In a sense it's old school film making, because your going to get a better, more empathic story from Apocalypse Now, Platoon or Saving Private Ryan. Tunnel Rats is out of the "John Wayne" school of war where it's basically just a bunch of guys (and gals) kicking the crap out of each other.

3 out of 5 stars.

Terminator/Terminator 2

2009-07-05T04:57:00.006-04:00

I just watched these two movies back to back, so I might as well muse on the direction of the Terminator series through it's two greatest entries.

The Terminator, like Alien, introduced us to a excellent sci-fi idea, which also becomes part action movie, and part horror movie. Terminator, unlike Alien, never really had any slow parts, and only suffered due to some dated visuals.

Ah 1991, when 8-bit was king.

Terminator 2 again mirrors the Alien series, Aliens, by changing up the genre a bit. Terminator already had action elements in it, so it wasn't quite the same with Alien. Whereas Alien was horror, and Aliens was action, Terminator was sci-fi/horror/action and Terminator 2 was sci-fi/comedy/action.

We all know "I'll be back" from the first movie, which was spoken with every bit of seriousness. However, we also all know "Hasta La Vista Baby" from the second one, which was part of the Terminator's new 'tude. So.... comedy? Does that destroy the movie? In a sense. There are parts, like at the end when the T-1000 is dead that Arnold spews lines like "I need a vacation" seemingly dropping out of character for a moment, but these moments are sparse enough that the great action drowns out the noise.

Underneath all this there is a message of hope for the human race, words not often uttered from Sarah Connor's mouth, so mighty praise indeed, which serves as the driving underlying message of this movie. The T-800 basically becomes the closest thing to a father figure that John Connor ever has, so he is raised partially by humans and partially by machines, which is what makes him such a formidable foe to Skynet in the future.

Speaking of which, a major beef I had with this movie that I never noticed before. Did you know John Connor is 10 in this movie? 10! Come on, that's like 4th grade. They should have had him at least be 13. That also makes Sarah Connor 29 in this movie, and only 19 in the original Terminator.... again, come on. She was 24 when she did the role, and that's about the age I think her character should be. Makes a lot more sense than a 19 year old running around doing this stuff. Edward Furlong was 14 when he did T2, so again they should have made it his age. The other reason this hurts stretching into the future is that John Connor meets his dad Kyle at the age of 45. So, in Terminator Salvation, you expect me to believe Christian Bale is a 45 year old man? Again, 35, more believable. So simple people.

Terminator: 4 out of 5 stars.

Terminator 2: 5 out of 5 stars. Simply one of the best movies ever made, period.

S. Darko

2009-07-04T15:15:00.005-04:00

Alright, a sequel to Donnie Darko was not going to be good for anyone. Donnie Darko fans probably thought that the original was a masterpiece and that it should not be sullied by a sequel. Non-fans, like myself thought that the original sucked, and unless if the sequel drastically changed the pattern of the first than it would also suck.

Yeah, so I was disappointed. S. Darko, an abbreviation for Samantha Darko, Donnie's little sister in the first movie, sort of picks up where D. Darko left off, with Samantha, who is also able to travel through time having to prevent a world ending catastrophe. Again, just like the original, you can tell pretty early in the movie who's got to die that didn't. This time however, it's a bit more confusing, as the character that needs to die, Iraq Jack, looks a lot like Donnie, so the viewer is left wondering if it's just Samantha seeing things.

Well, this time Iraq Jack's sacrifice doesn't lead to a happy ending for everyone. Someone in the small Southwestern town that Samantha is in has been kidnapping children and abandoning them in a mine to die. Well with Jack's death, those kids are still in that mine and the sicko who did it is never found, so the kids still die horrible deaths. No instead, the happy ending here is that Samantha goes home to Virginia to try to stop running from her pain, while children die and the meteorite that kills Iraq Jack still passes off it's mutating cancer to some poor soul in this small town. Wow, fill me with joy.

S. Darko looks like it's done by an artist. Let's take all the pretty effects from the original, throw in some slow mo to fast motion shots of the sky and the water, have the same confusing, horrible story and call it a film. In other words, this movie meets all of our worst expectations. For Donnie Darko fans it's a cheap knockoff, and for those of us who hated the original, this movie actually tends to be more confusing and with a much less satisfying ending, which I never would have believed possible.

1 out of 5 stars. Utter crap.

Dead Until Dark

2009-07-02T14:09:00.005-04:00

The new "hot" show on HBO? Well, there's actually a bunch of them, but the one that piqued my fancy was "True Blood" which now has season 1 out on DVD. Zombies are a bit played out at this point, but vampires more or less are still cool, although they are deviating more and more into essentially romance figures, something that has always been part of their lore, but more recently with Anne Rice, and Twilight have become more female oriented.

Dead Until Dark is no exception. The story can appeal to anyone: a world where vampires are real, and synthetic blood allows them to live a public life. Also in this world, other supernatural creatures exists, like werewolves, shapeshifters, telepaths and maenads. In fact, our heroine, Sookie Stackhouse is a telepath herself.

In some bookstores, you'll find Charlene Harris' work under science fiction, but in some, it's more appropriately filed under mystery, and that's the backdrop for these books: crime committed, characters shown, mystery unraveled, killer revealed. Interestingly enough, in a world full of once thought imaginary creatures, more often than not the heinous crimes are committed to and by ordinary humans.

They're all good stories, but my major beef is that the estrogen seeps through these stories quite often. Sookie and her vampire boyfriend Bill are constantly having sex, no sorry, "making love". Seriously, like every chapter. Sci-Fi is okay, mystery can be entertaining, but I don't want to read romance books! I'm hoping that this is not par for the course when it's a female writer, as, like I said, they seem to delve on the romantic aspects of the vampire lore.

Overall, this is a good book. I've got to imagine that the screen adaptation is better because at points this book becomes essentially pornographic with Sookie and Bill and their constant lovemaking. HBO, while it would show this, would not want to delve on it to the point the book seems to. For all of you guys out there that would rather take a pass on movies like Twilight, I'm not sure that this book is really different enough from that vampire/romance genre to please you and you might be better off skipping it. People who enjoy that genre will like this book.

Ghostbusters

2009-06-19T10:25:00.005-04:00

I've just stopped feeling old when my childhood movies have begun celebrating milestone release dates. After all this blog is titled Thirtysomething thoughts, so I have to make peace with the fact that my childhood movies are at least 20 years old now.

The reason for that diatribe is that Ghostbusters is celbrating it's 25th anniversary release and is doing so with a Blu-Ray release which hypes the video game and the upcoming Ghostbusters 3. It's currently available on Netflix for an instant watch, so I had another go at the movie before deciding whether it's worth adding to my collection.

Overall, yes. Ghostbusters immediately strikes me as an homage to nerds, another reason why today's geek culture probably loves it so much. All of the characters are parapsychologists whose brilliance allows them to Ghostbust for a living, as New York on the eve of the return of the ancient god Gozer is infested with spooks.

Here's what I liked about the movie: While not laugh out loud funny constantly, Bill Murray is in top snarky form and definitely has a few great lines. Some critics feel that without another comic to play off of, the lines are wasted, but I think that's actually a common issue in Bill Murray movies, and it's arguably a bit less so here.

The visual effects sometime take a hit for being dated, but I thought they were pretty decent. The only lousy part was when the dog jumped at Rick Moranis during his party and was clearly (poorly) computer animated.

Here's some areas for improvement:

Show more ghosts! In the original montage as the Ghostbusters rise to fame, we see the library ghost and Slimer... that's it! Later we see the winged ghost in the subway, the undead taxi driver, Slimer again, and the Stay Puft Marshmallow man. For a movie with overbudgeted special effects they sure didn't use them to their full capacity in my opinion.
God I hate those 80's feel good moments. In the pre-final fight against Gozer when all of New York shows up to cheer the Ghostbusters including cops and priests? Blergh. Uber-corny. And the crap continues afterwards. Unnecessary scenes.

Overall though, the bad are minor piffling things, although the proposed ideas for the original Ghostbusters and the ideas for Ghostbusters 3 are VERY cool, and make me think that Akroyd should be making sci-fi movies, and not worry about the comedic aspect so much.

This movie lives up to the fond memories you have of it. It's not as funny or as pretty as it could be, but it's a great watch and worth owning. 5 out of 5 stars.

inFamous

2009-06-18T10:10:00.002-04:00

Putting Wolverine on hold for a while. Good game, I'm enjoying it, I just figure I should justify the $500+ I spent (stupidly) on my PS3 way back when and you know, buy and play a game for it.

That game? inFamous. I saw the TV commercials for this and was kinda meh about it. I then had one of my Twitter buddies, SonicBob, twit (tweet, whatever) about it a lot and became somewhat intrigued by that, so I finally broke down and bought it. It's.... alright.

I'm not really a fan of sandbox games, I'm more of the RPG genre, where a brilliant mind is more important than quick reflexes. inFamous requires a lot of the latter. When I started the game I was playing on medium and I was dying during the freaking tutorial. The background is pretty but confusing at times. Once I figured that little mess out, it was somewhat smooth sailing from there, although I almost lost the first "follow your buddy mission" because there was so much other stuff going on, and when I had to fight my first horde of enemies, they were kicking my ass. Yeah, you have electrical powers, but they have shotguns, and their not stupid. They were a little bit stupider when I turned the difficulty down to "easy", but I foresee a lot of frustration with this game coming up.

The game is beautiful and well crafted however. Your super heroic (or villainous) character is extremely agile, and on the first mission you will scale a tall structure and balance effortlessly on narrow steel beams much to my fear. The game automatically balances for you which is cool because that's one less thing you have to worry about, but the graphics are so intense, you'll worry anyways. The cut scenes which switch to comic book style art to tell the story are also very cool too, and break up the missions pretty well.

Right now I would only give this game a mediocre recommendation, but I am just beginning, so hopefully this game gets better as I go. More to come!

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

2009-06-17T10:50:00.005-04:00

So, Star Trek comes and goes, and the movie going public and the critics don't like it. Too slow, too boring. Let's bring on a new creative team, pull a villain from the original series, and try this again. The result? The Wrath of Khan, one of the classic movies that even if you haven't seen it, you've seen it. So many famous quotes and scenes that as a person who's watching this movie for the first time 27 years later, I feel like I've seen it, especially the last 20 minutes or so.

Do I like it? Not so much. Wrath of Khan is still everything I don't like about the Star Trek series... talking, talking, talking. Although there are some sparse action scenes here, most of the movie is ships fighting each other maneuvering for position.... the same reason I don't like naval movies. BORING. I guess on the one hand, the villain is a person versus a computer, but at the same time, I don't get what's so great about Khan.

Khan presents the 1990's male of the Star Trek universe as a testosterone driven, Moby Dick quoting, relentless psychopath. Apparently all that enhanced strength greatly clouds his enhanced intellect, as he's not a very menacing villain at all.... basically presented here as a mindless barbarian, who is no match for the 23rd century uber-male, Captain Kirk. Perhaps this would have been better if the two MEN had actually fought instead of jockeying for position in their endless ship battles. This is why Star Wars totally kicks Star Trek's ass. Yes, there are ship to ship battles, but there's also battles planet side, not only by Jedi vs. Sith, but also "normal" people with their lasers. Why Star Trek never got this, I don't know, but they sure as hell suffer for it in my book.

2 out of 5 stars.

Dead Like Me: Life After Death

2009-06-12T10:51:00.007-04:00

I'm still not changing my rating.

Alright, well I guess I learned my lesson the hard way. If your not a fan of a show, i.e. never saw it, don't bother to watch any follow-up or related movies, as they won't do anything except irritate and confuse you.

A finale of sorts for the show "Dead Like Me", "Life After Death" shows the crew of Grim Reapers who are given precious little introduction (the inside joke begins) have a new boss thrust upon them, as Mandy Patinkin probably wanted nothing to do with this movie. So, instead they get Desmond from Lost, who's an arrogant douche who seems to want to cause chaos in the world. I suspected at one point he may be Satan or something, as this show has a slight religious bent, but apparently he's just a douche, and douche's can be killed with chainsaws.... good to know.

Anyhoo, his plan to create chaos is to try to stop these Reapers from doing their jobs. Mason, the former thief, learns that money doesn't buy happiness. Daisy, the actress, learns she's not a very good actress? Roxy the cop learns it's not worth saving everyone and sometimes the universe does have a plan (she saves a guy who then goes on to accidentally kill a busload of people... d'oh), and our hero, George(ia), gets to say goodbye to her sister?

No, those question marks are not accidents. Maybe if I had watched this series from start to end, I might have better insight into the lessons that they are trying to teach these characters and the larger audience about the grand scheme of things, but except for Roxy's lesson, none of this made sense to me. Nor did it seem they were trying very hard. George's empathic moment with her sister is when a football player who "loved" her but wouldn't acknowledge her existence in front of his cool friends dies, and George comforts her. Yeah.... powerful stuff here.

From what I've read of reviews on-line, even fans of the show are kinda blergh on this movie. Rabid fans are happy to see their favorite characters back, but people who can step back from their zealotry a bit are disappointed. So maybe, maybe if your a super-fan of the show you'll like this movie, but if you've never seen the show, do yourself a favor and steer clear.

2 out of 5 stars.

Taken

2009-06-10T11:56:00.005-04:00

Bad ass man.

Anyone who saw the preview for this movie knew it was going to be a kick ass action movie. Pretty simple plot, ex-soldier's daughter gets kidnapped, he tells the bad guys let her go or he'll kill all of them, they say "Good Luck", he lives up to his promise.

The only complaints I heard about this movie going into it was that Liam Neeson was way too old to be playing an action hero. Well, Neeson's 57, Kiefer Sutherland (Jack Bauer) is 42, Sylvester Stallone who was AWESOME in the new Rambo is 62... so these guys prove your never too old to kick some serious ass. Yeah, Neeson is going to be doing crazy jump kick flips like Jet Li or Jean Claude Van Damme in his prime, but Taken is a French thriller/action movie, and for any of you who have perused European action movies, they tend to be a lot subtler than American action movies.... more the Professional (with a 60 year old Jean Reno) versus the Terminator (61 year old Ahnuld).

That's always been my personal problem with European action movies, they're either too strange, like La Femme Nikita, or they're all about car chases. While Taken has a few required car chase scenes, it also has a lot of sweet gunplay for us Americans who love us our guns.

Taken is basically a surge of adrenaline, as the movie starts out with a slight backstory, but then just charges ahead fullbore, as Bryan Mills (Neeson) relentlessly tears Paris apart in search for his abducted daughter in the 96 hours given to him by an ex-special Ops buddy who said after which time finding her would be impossible. Due to the fact that you have a distinguished actor like Neeson and a serious subject like abduction and the sex trade, I think a lot of dramatic movie goers will be drawn to this movie. For that ilk, I say you might want to walk away. Taken is not a drama. It doesn't have enough time to build any kind of anything except the single-mindedness of Mills' mission. Action movie fans will not be disappointed however. When directors "dress up" action movies (cut the cheesy dialogue etc.), they always look good and they can be a pleasure, not just a guilty pleasure.

Taken is a little bit dark with the subject matter and some of the horrors of the sex trade they show, so it's not a feel-good action movie I could watch again and again, hence I'm glad I rented it, but wouldn't add it to my collection.

3 out of 5 stars.

2010: The Year We Make Contact

2009-06-06T01:55:00.007-04:00

God this baby creeps me out.

I've never seen 2001, and looking at a lot of reviews for this movie, that's my problem. 2010, the sequel to 2001, summarizes the events of 2001 at the beginning of the movie and then launches right into it, getting the Soviets and the Americans together to try to figure out what the Monolith is and what the heck happened to HAL.

This movie is a visual feast, with these 1984 visual effects looking as awesome today as they did in 1984, which is saying a lot, considering I just vented on the cheesiness of the TRON-era visual effects that were usually happening about this time.

This movie suffers greatly in two areas:

1) The anachronisms are so hard to watch 25 years later. Little things like Pan-Am folding, or the Astros not playing in the Astrodome anymore are slight passing you probably won't even notice. The major plotline of a pending war between America and the Soviets.... in 2010 is just so laughable. Obviously Arthur Clarke/Peter Hyams did not know the USSR would crumble in 1991, but the fact that it's in your face the entire movie is odd. They did make up a decent alternative future should the Soviets have continued though.

2) It's confusing at the end. I had no idea what was going on for the last 20 or so minutes of the movie. I just read the Wikipedia article, which clears it up a bit, but is there a message here? Is this an anti-war movie? Is it coincidental that the planet the warriors are to leave alone is Europa (Europe)? If I "got it" then alright, there's a garbled message there. If I missed it... assuming there is an it, then what the hell was that?!

All in all this movie is in the nerdy sci-fi vein that I just discussed in my Star Trek review. If you like your sci-fi heavy on the Sci, then you'll probably dig this movie, as at times it almost feels like a documentary. Personally, I enjoyed the graphics a lot, and that end message that I think I've decoded is interesting, but beyond that.....

2 out of 5 stars.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

2009-06-03T10:59:00.007-04:00

Well, I've seen the new Star Trek without very much knowledge of the Star Trek mythos, so let's get some of that mythos in me and take a look see at the original motion picture.

This movie possesses all the flaws that originally turned me off of the Star Trek series, besides coming out the year I was born.... focus on the scientific over the action, over-acting (Shatner!!!), and some lousy special effects. In 1979, I'm sure a lot of this stuff was mind blowing, but to the modern eye, it's incredibly reminiscent of the cheesiness of Tron.

What this movie does have going for it is the plot twist. All the galaxy quakes before the invincible power that is V'Ger, as it makes it's way on an unstoppable course towards Earth. The Enterprise is the last hope to find a way to stop this force, and the original crew after a long absence (10 years after the show was canceled) reunites to stop V'Ger. When V'Ger turns out to be (SPOILER ALERTS!)the Voyager Probe which traveled through a black hole to a planet populated by machines who sent it back in a souped up version to relay it's information it collected to Earth, that's such a great twist. This show could sometime be seen as kinda nerdy, but when the nerdiness also makes you go hmm.... that makes for a great twist.

I can see why sci-fi nerds like this show, although I would consider myself in the Star Wars camp.

3 out of 5 stars.

Musical Musings: Garbage

2009-05-27T09:13:00.006-04:00

I believe I was introduced to Garbage when I went to college in Boston. I went to Northeastern University, and the campus is located in such an area (or at least my dorm was) that I couldn't get the "hard rock" station I had grown up loving in Western Massachusetts, WAAF. Instead, I had to listen to the slightly more alternative WBCN.

Garbage is perfect for that station, especially given the description I just gave. They're not quite heavy metal/hard rock, and their not quite pop/dance, they're a band that straddles the line. Garbage hit it really big with the Big Daddy soundtrack "When I Grow Up" which is a poppy jingle, and "Only Happy when it Rains", which even soft rock stations will play, and yet their also the people behind "#1 Crush" the dark song about stalking obsession and hard rock songs like "I think I'm Paranoid".

When I listen to this group on Pandora, they suggest ranging groups from the Cranberries to Nine Inch Nails showing Garbage's spread. Mostly based in hard rock, but testing the boundaries into other genres, Garbage is a band I quite enjoy.

Not to mention Shirley Manson is quite hot and a good actress, playing a T-1001 very well in the unfortunately canceled Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Fido

2009-05-26T09:55:00.007-04:00

Sometimes I think the whole zombie lust has gone a little too far.....

"Fido" is the story of an alternate timeline for Earth where sometime in the 1920's (roughly congruent to our WWI probably), radioactive space dust made the dead rise, ala George Romero, and touched off the zombie wars, as humanity struggled for it's existence. Luckily, a brilliant scientist discovered shooting zombies in the brain kills them (der), and after further experimentation, found that zombies could actually be tamed and eventually used as pets and servants.

Our story starts in 1950's Earth where a family takes on a zombie named "Fido" who quickly wins everyone's hearts.... awww. However, he is still a zombie, and a temporary snafu with his control collar sets off a chain of events that almost brings down the peaceful community of Willard.

This movie is another quasi-interesting twist on the whole typical zombie fare, the only problem is it's boring. This is supposed to be a comedy, and although you'll emit a small chuckle or two when the mom asks the zombie Fido "What's a matter boy? Is Timmy in trouble" ala Lassie, that's about it for entertaining. It just seems like it takes a long time to say nothing in this movie.

Fido is a "good" zombie who fiercely protects little Timmy and his mother even with his control collar off, so the bad guy of sorts is Mr. Bottoms the new security chief for Zomcon who protects the world post-zombie apocalypse, and trains and controls the servant zombies. Okay, that's sweet that little Timmy loves Fido and Fido seems to love him back, but how is Mr. Bottoms really a bad guy when he takes Fido away after at least 10+ people lose their lives after his little collar mishap? He even tells Timmy that he could have banished Timmy's entire family to the "Wild Zone" where untamed zombies roam free. When Timmy goes to rescue Fido from the factory, and Bottoms throws him in the "Wild Zone" he seems like kind of a dick, but Timmy keeps egging him on.

I guess there's a black humor to that whole scenario, but that style of humor just must not be my cup of tea.

2 out of 5 stars.

Dire Straits

2009-05-22T09:43:00.005-04:00

I've been listening to Pandora again recently, and have been using "Dire Straits" as a search term, because I love that 80's classic "Money for Nothing" and "Sultans of Swing". Using Pandora, I also found "Heavy Fuel" which I found a very cool song.

I don't know that I'd add any more Dire Straits songs to my iPhone, but I think they're a pretty cool funky band. Wikipedia defines Dire Straits as a toned down kind of band, a more mellow answer to the punk rock and stadium rock of the 70's. Kind of funny, because "Money for Nothing" is a totally 80's song commenting on the lifestyle of bands, but if you think about it, it's definitely a mellow, jam kind of song as most of Dire Strait's songs are.

Good stuff.

Wolverine Origins: Uncaged Edition

2009-05-18T12:41:00.005-04:00

I recently picked up this game, primarily because my hero Deadpool has a brief role in it (just like the movie), and am so far actually quite pleased with the game itself.

This game, the Uncaged Edition, is astoundingly bloody, as Wolverine just massacres his way through nameless grunts, and the game will tend to go from a far lens almost dungeon crawler angle to a closer-up shot of Wolverine doing various horrible things to these hapless soldiers i.e. hacking off limbs, disemboweling, etc. Sweet.

The game play reminds me a lot of God of War, and the close up beat downs are obviously styled similar to that game as well. Another facet Wolverine shares with Kratos is the interactive scenery... not so much the destructible environment, but also the way scenery interacts with the story. For instance, in one part, Wolverine is on a rope bridge and on one side some machete wielders cut the bridge so it collapses part way down the mountain. Now instead of walking across a bridge, you are climbing up a broken bridge, hacking off enemies who are vainly trying to kill you while holding on for dear life. Very cool.

This game, like almost all modern games has tons of secrets and unlockables, and being a straight hack and slash, they probably not that hard to find without the guide. The guide however is somewhat useful for completists, although it could be better written as I've already missed a couple secrets in the 1st level, and am not allowed to backtrack, meaning I have to start the damn level over which really irritates me. Attention developers: This is why I quit games forever! Make levels backtrackable when your offering completist strategies!

Beyond that, so far so good for this game. I'll keep ya'll updated!

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-05-17T04:31:00.005-04:00

Well, what all the reviewers have been saying is true.... they could have shortened the title of this movie by simply calling it "Forrest Gump 2". The problem however, is that Button does not have the emotional pull or interest that Gump had by a longshot.

I think we all know the gist of this story; Button is born old and as he "ages" he actually grows younger. This movie's shining moments are reflections on life coming from a person who's going backwards as he watches the rest of us go forward. One of his final speeches to his daughter about "Building a life you can be proud of, and if your not, just start over at anytime and anyplace... there is not time limit... it's never too late or too early". That kind of speech is very inspiring especially to me.

Beyond the occasional deep thought moment however, Button is lacking two things that made Gump a great movie:

1) The sense of the character in history. Button could have done so much more because of his long life. Whereas we saw Gump and his impact on history in the 50's-70's, Button's life experience with WWI, the Depression, and WWII are literally summed up in about 10 minutes of film each. They each serve to get the viewer to feel bad for those who suffer and die in each era, but in a film where death is constant, I was numb to these things immediately and instead wanted to see Button in different historical eras. These things are passed over so quickly that it almost doesn't matter what time period they are in, the director instead chooses to focus heavily on Button's small little world during any of those time periods, and I think that's a loss.

2) Characters you can care about. Forrest Gump had Jenny flitting in and out of his life, so that her death at the end had a monumental impact on the audience. We also had his mother, Bubba, Lt. Dan etc. who all were strong characters that the viewer cared about their fates. Here we have Daisy, Queenie and Captain Mike (see I told you it was a ripoff!), but like I said before, with so much death surrounding this film, these characters and their deaths aren't all that sad, and just seem to be another passing footnote in the story. The acting was fine, I just think there was almost a selfishness of centering the movie so heavily around Benjamin, that the other characters are almost coincidental.

All in all however, it can't be truly called a ripoff, as this is based on a story by F. Scott Fitzgerald from 1921, well before Forrest Gump. However, as far as the films go, they ARE astoundingly similar, and for the type of emotional drama that each is seeking to capture, Forrest Gump is your better bet.

3 out of 5 stars.

Star Trek

2009-05-10T04:29:00.005-04:00

SPOILER ALERT!

Star Trek as a series never really caught my long term interest. The original was before my time and way too cheesy. The Next Generation I probably watched here and there but still find that one dated and boring. Deep Space Nine I watched fairly regularly, but it was still pretty slow. Voyager, not really; Enterprise, absolutely not. As such, I was really hesitant about a Star Trek movie, as most the previous movies have pretty much been longer versions of the show.

However, when I saw some of the previews and heard J.J Abrams talk about how he was never a Star Trek fan himself, I saw some potential here. Perhaps the Star Trek universe could be more like the Star Wars universe, i.e. exciting instead of just intelligent.

Well, I was pleasantly surprised as the new Star Trek film delivers on all of it's promises. It's a great action movie with space battles, Mano a Mano battles... the works that any good action sci-fi movie (read: Star Wars) should have. At the same time, the Star Trek film is able to keep it's intelligence which is what has always set this series apart from other sci-fi ones; it feels more real. There are alien species, but their all humanoid (the movie embellishes on this a bit) so we focus less on the "fi" and more on the "sci". Thirdly, the Star Trek movie gives nods to all the fans of the original Star Trek series. Like I said, I don't think I've ever watched a single episode of the original Star Trek, but some of the nods were cool nonetheless as I must know about them from pop culture.

I'm not qualified to speak as an uber-fan here, so I don't know if they messed anything up which might offend hard core Trekkies, but as a general sci-fi fan and as a newcomer of sorts to the Trek universe, I was quite entertained.

4 out of 5 stars.

Dead and Breakfast

2009-05-05T09:51:00.005-04:00

With a title that cheesy, you know this movie's gotta be good.

Dead and Breakfast is a horror comedy in the veins of "Dead Alive", where gory=funny. Basically the story of a group of kids who stops at a small town (never stop at small towns) and messes with a box that contains an evil spirit than can turn you into quasi-zombies (they're still quite cognizant... no "brains is good food" zombies here) and the ensuing wackiness.

From the intro it seems like it's going to be an actual honest to god horror movie as the beginning shows all these comic books style drawings of some horribly bloodied heads and decapitations etc. In reality, these are scenes from a movie where they used almost 35 gallons of fake blood, so you quickly realize it's going to be humorous, both figuratively and literally.

My main beef with this movie is it shows it's "indie" stylings sometimes really bad with some choppy scene to scene transitions which are just not necessary. The director obviously was having a lot of fun with the wise ass comments and gorefest, but there's no reason you can't make a funny movie and a good one at the same time.

Overall this movie is a decently funny romp through another zombie apocalypse. It's been done better in movies like "Shaun of the Dead", but Dead and Breakfast is definitely appealing for the people who like a combination of zombie movies and almost "Hostel" like gore.

Final Score: C.

Lightning Bug

2009-05-03T07:33:00.005-04:00

Lightning Bug is advertised as a "horror" film, but it's not a horror film in the typical sense of the word.

This movie is loosely based on the life story of Robert Hall, who's a special effects artists best known for his work on Buffy the Vampire Slayer.... a horror/comedy/action show. The other sort of unconventional horror of this show is the abusive stepfather of Hall, Earl Knight who is just a monster, straight out of the veins of Robert DeNiro in "This Boy's Life".

This movie serves as a conventional "gotta break out of a small town" story that is so common with most artistic types, but this small Alabama town (never named) is particularly conservative, with some stereotypical southerners (one of his buddies brags about having sex with his cousin), and some uber-conservatives who want to shut Hall's (here called Green Graves) haunted house down because they feel it's not fun and games, but actual devil worship.

All of this makes for a good story, and I think the fact that it's based on a true story adds more excitement to it as any biopic does. His story is pretty harsh, and one can't help but wonder how much is true, especially since he basically admits to being an accessory to murder at the end, but it's still entertaining and worth a look-see.

Overall: C+.

Cry-Baby

2009-05-03T02:22:00.005-04:00

I think this is one of those movies where you "get it" or you don't. I "get it" in the sense that it's John Waters spoofing (more or less) 50's movies, but I don't get it in the sense that it's not consistently funny or entertaining.

Basically a Romeo & Juliet story about a "square" Allison who falls for greaser gang leader Cry-Baby, and the ensuing "gang" war of squares vs. greasers. Your supposed to obviously feel the empathy for the greasers as Cry-Baby is the titular characters, but the squares aren't really set up as villainous until the very end of the movie, their just a bunch of guys who happen to not be leather clad hell raisers, or as Allison's grandmother suggests in the beginning of the movie, people of better breeding. Okay fine, maybe there's some inferred arrogance there, but Waters doesn't make Cry-Baby's family anything to be empathic towards. His father was a serial bomber, and his mother (unfairly) was killed with him. His grandmother is wicked white trash, as is most of his gang, and although they provide most of the comedic moments of the film, all their actions made me hate them more as the film went on. Not that I ever sided with the squares, but nor did I find it reprehensible should they win.

Combine this lack of feeling with the characters with a plot that skips around all over the place and just moronic shifts in character and lurching jumps to make the plot go forward as the film draws to it's conclusion, and this is a movie that I think most people would be better off avoiding. It has it's moments of laughter, but some of it's comedy comes from lame-o jokes and shoddy directing/writing.

2 out of 5 stars. Only suitable for those who enjoy the concept of "trash cinema".

A Scanner Darkly

2009-05-02T23:07:00.005-04:00

This movie kinda came and went in the theaters in 2006, and it's not that surprising, as it's another delve into the sci-fi surreal by that incredibly confusing author Philip K. Dick. You all may know his most famous work translated into film as "Blade Runner", which was a huge confusing disappointment for me.

A Scanner Darkly is one of those movies that you finally get at the end, but as the movie runs along, you're wondering what the hell is going on. Basically in the future, there is this horribly addictive drug called Substance D, and the police department (I'm not sure they ever said what town they were in) sacrifices one of their own to bring down the producer of this drug. However, you have no idea that this is the plot, or for that matter that there IS a plot until the last 10 minutes of the movie. Up until that part, it seems to be a movie about a bunch of guys talking about... well, stuff.

The animation style is what sets this movie apart. Anyone who's seen a Charles Schwab commercial has seen this style that the Schwab guys obviously loved about this movie. With this animation style they can seamlessly go from the humans to some of the illusions that some of the substance D users suffer from amazingly and convincingly. This is most definitely where this movie shines.

This movie is better than Blade Runner for me because it explains itself at the end. While Dick obviously liked to leave some element of surrealism to all his work, it's clear enough here shall we say that a person with some intelligence can figure out the point of the movie and the clever ending.

Final Score: C+.

Anaconda

2009-05-02T19:46:00.005-04:00

I'm not sure what everyone (critics) hates about this film so much. My guess is the stars chosen to play in this movie namely Jennifer Lopez and Ice Cube. Lopez had earned her acting chops by this point with "Selena" and Ice Cube would earn his kudos a bit later with his more family friendly fare.

Beyond that, you have a 50's creature feature set in the 90's, with all the pluses and minuses that go with that. I had no particular problem with the acting, although John Voight's accent did get annoying at times. The Amazon was a perfect place to set this movie, because as the characters are constantly hinting at, and as many of us know, Piranhas, Catfish, Wasps etc. all live in those murky waters and every time the characters go into the water you freak out a little bit, knowing that's something you absolutely would not want to be doing yourself.

Basically, this movie is no better or worse than a movie like "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" or even "Jaws" for that matter. Personally I prefer my horror movie antagonists to be humanoid, like Jason, but this movie, for what it is, ain't half bad.

Final Score: C+.

American Scary

2009-05-02T00:10:00.004-04:00

This documentary tells the story of "horror hosts", the local people who would introduce and perform little skits during the showing of movies in TV's infancy. Probably the most well known is Elvira, although this documentary makes passing mention of The Cryptkeeper from "Tales from the Crypt" and considers "Mystery Science Theater 3000" to be in that same vein.

This documentary is interesting, but the director got incredibly sloppy with his editing work for most of the film. The film starts suggesting all of the famous hosts we're going to be told about, but takes a good 10-15 minutes "introducing" the concept of horror hosts. There's nothing wrong with an introduction obviously, but the sloppy editing starts here, as the interviews tend to trail off into nothingness leaving the viewer confused about where we're heading.

The horror hosts then begin to go very well starting with Vampira, and Roland moving on through Svengoolie and the rest. When the movie gets to the "normal" guys like "Chillie Billy" and "Big Chuck and Little Jon", I began to wonder why these people were even called horror hosts, especially as all the interviewed began to bemoan the fate of television. Yes, there is no locality to television anymore, it is mostly corporate stations, but the concept of people hosting a movie is still around.... yes, the productions are more slick, but except for their low budgets and cheesy jokes the "normal" guys are no different than modern hosts.

This is where this movie really falters too. One of the horror hostesses said she went off the air in 1990, so we're talking 19 years ago now. Considering someone was a lets say 13 year old kid in 1990 (more or less their key demographic as they all attest to), that person was born in the late 70's. Therefore, anyone under lets say 35 will have no idea what this is all about and therefore not feel like their missing anything that all these horror hosts are bemoaning. I'm 30, and I don't remember any of these people... mostly because they only played to local markets, but also because I think the peak of this genre was in the 70's.

The message then is lost on many people simply by virtue of their birth date, but for even those who do remember this, the director's lack of conscious editing will really dull the impact of this movie. The lengthy discussion of Ghouliardi from Clevelend, OH and all of the great horror hosts from Ohio will begin to lose interest from anyone not from Ohio as it drags on endlessly. Neil Gaiman's babbling on at the end about nothing in particular is also just a bad way to end the movie, as it doesn't really drive any of the director's points (if he had any) home to the audience.

Overall this movie has an interesting section of American pop culture played out before our eyes, but I think they overestimate their own importance, and this documentary only gives them exposure, it doesn't really help their case.

Nevertheless, final score: B-.

Ali G in da House

2009-05-01T22:03:00.004-04:00

Sacha Baron Cohen catapulted into super stardom on "this side of the pond" with Borat. Before Borat however was Ali G, a London white boy who dreams of being a gangsta.

Ali G began life as the titular character in Cohen's "Da Ali G Show" where he would interview actual heads of state and the like (I only remember Newt Gingrich doing it) in character. An early Stephen Colbert of sorts, except with a gangsta wannabe persona instead of a right wing wannabe. This show was mainly known in Britain via HBO and was never really in the states. Well, someone must have noticed, because they gave him a movie, indicating someone thought this was a viable property.

Which brings us to the important point, is it? This movie is funny, so as a comedy it does it's job. Is it a betrayal of the original show? Well, as far as the concept, no. However, this movie sort of devolves into a "Malibu's Most Wanted" at the end with a happy cheesy ending.

Overall it's worth a look see, although I suspect that the show was funnier, as making real people uncomfortable with fake interviews tends to be way more hilarious that pre-scripted stuff.

Final Score: B-.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine review

2009-05-01T19:24:00.002-04:00

SPOILER ALERTS!

Being a big Deadpool fan, I went to see his big screen debut today in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". Now, as we all know there was a significant amount of "pre-plot" leaked to the masses before this movie came out, including the butchering of Deadpool's origins, namely that he becomes Weapon XI.... which never happened. He also never had sword claws, teleportation powers (or at least without the use of technology) and laser vision. The movie will explain the reason he got all these, but it's not true to the comic book.

That being said, nothing is true to the comic book here. Mutants and their stories which can be drawn out over years and decades by artists and writers in the medium of comics are a bit complex, and need to be simplified in order to translate on screen. Wolverine's origin story wasn't bad, but the liberties taken with time as far as Cyclops, Professor X, Gambit etc. can be a bit disheartening to a comic book geek like myself.

Now that being said.... this movie is a phenomenal action movie. The intro of Wolverine and Sabertooth fighting in the Civil War, WWI, WWII and then Vietnam was so cool, and set the viewer up for a massive thrill ride that was coming up. The story in fact may have intentionally been simplified a bit in order to provide for all the riveting fight/stunt/action scenes which dominate this movie. I think the only one I thought was kinda dumb was the last time Wolverine and Gambit fight each other.... walking up the building with sticks?! Your Gambit, not Spider-Man.

Anyways, I think I would normally give this movie a 4 out of 5 stars for being a great action movie. I am a little bit disheartened the the short shrift given Deadpool, but rumors of the "secret ending" involving Deadpool kept me going. Well, it turns out that there are multiple secret endings (although it seems like just 2)... one of which (the one I saw) really sucks. The Deadpool ending was pretty cool, and sets up for the reported solo movie which hopefully is pretty awesome and redeems some of the flaws set up here.

A normal viewer will really like this movie, and for you, I would say an easily 4 out of 5 stars for those mostly fans of the action genre. For me, a very high 3 out of 5 stars.

Thoughts on Thirty

2009-04-30T15:42:00.002-04:00

Just turned 30 today....

I've always felt that age ain't nothin but a number to paraphrase Aaliyah, but I've given a lot of thought to this momentous occasion.

I'm thinking because it's the first decade your really conscious of. At 10... who cares. At 20, your more concerned with turning 21. At 30, it feels like it's time to enter a new phase in my life... more of a consolidation phase if you will.

We make our way in the world during our 20's. At 30, it feels like it's more time to settle down and consolidate my career, relationships etc.

Just some thoughts.